Watch These 86 Minutes To Rewire Your Brain (ft. Miranda Kerr)

This is the most consequential conversation on planet Earth. Nice to meet you. Welcome. I'm glad you made it. How you doing? Nice to see you. Welcome. Hey, I'm Brian. I'm glad you guys said yes. Tonight we're going to talk about what don't die is. We'll take you through a journey that I'm not going to tell you about. But by the end of the night, you'll understand why we do this and you'll understand the importance of the roles you want to play in this conversation.

At the end of the day, there is no point in living if your quality of life is not there.

I can't fathom what it will be like to be living a couple hundred years from now.

Brian will still be here.

Yeah, yeah.

Brian, don't die feels a little negative. Instead, what about let's live feels a little more uplifting.

There is no political drama or economic situation or social or moral, ethical. Nothing is more important than this conversation. Okay, you guys, the way this conversation is going to work, it's a series of five thought experiments. Okay, so I'm going to pose a question to you and then you guys are going to answer the thought experiments. Only two rules here. One is that everybody talks. And then number two is that try to keep your comments pretty short, you know, like 20 seconds, 30 seconds. You will hear each other's thoughts and you'll be able to then modify your own perspectives. Here is the first thought experiment for you. If you had access to an algorithm that could give you the best physical and mental and spiritual health of your life, but exchange for the access. You did what the algorithm said. You went to bed when it said, you ate what it said and you exercised in the way that it prescribed. Would you say yes or no to this? And again, there's no correct answer. This is entirely your choice. Would you say yes or no?

I would say yes. I'd go all in. Because I do that. I've been doing that for different things that I've tried with health.

I think yes is good. Just knowing that if you're in a constant experimental phase that it either works or it doesn't. And then you take the best from that and kind of move on.

Yeah. So yes and yes. Because you think you're already doing this is like what you're trying to do already.

Yes.

Anthony, this is aligns with your idea of the world, that natural self improvement. So it makes sense.

Yeah. And it's an experimental evolution of it.

Yeah.

I'd be worried if it Wasn't an experiment, because then it seems like it's dogmatic instead of like it's just being placed. And I just do it blindly. You know, I think if there is that level of curiosity and experimentation within it, I think I'd be more willing to. To do it, but to allow data to drive my decisions.

Yeah. So you're convinced, based upon Anthony's argument. Let me clarify. You don't know what the algorithm does, so you don't know what's going to happen in your life. And you also don't know a lot of the details of, like, will you have access to the data? All you know is you have to follow the algorithm. Yeah. You say this is the best physical, mental, and spiritual health of my life, but outside of that, you don't know any of the details on. On what actually happens in your life.

Quick question. Are you allowed to try this algorithm and then stop it?

No. It's either in or out.

Oh, okay. Well, that might change things.

Yeah, See, based on that, I would say no.

Okay, you say no. All right.

And the reason why is because I think my passion in life, it's like surfing, mountain biking, skiing, seeing, being with friends, community. And if that was the sacrifice, if I couldn't engage in a lot of those things because I had to follow this protocol, I'm willing to sacrifice a little bit of lifespan because there's a certain way that I'm dedicated to living my life, and I want to live that way while trying to be the healthiest I can be, but not the sacrifice of not having the life that I desire to have.

Yeah. Okay. So you, you have a model of the world, of how you want to live and the trade offs you want to make. And this algorithm creates a potential compromise or threatens your ability to do that. It creates unknowns for you.

My freedom.

Yeah, your freedom. Okay.

I would say no, because I don't want to be watched over by machines of loving grace. I kind of believe in the mysticism of my own life and the mathematical mysticism that who I meet at when is who I'm supposed to meet at those times. And I feel like the algorithm wouldn't have that, like, esoteric knowledge.

So you're worried that the algorithm is not comprehensive enough to include the variables of reality, that you understand the world, and that would create a deficit or lived experience.

When I first said yes, I was like, okay, well, that's good because I'm going to have an experiment, but then I can opt out when I want to.

Right.

If it's not working for me.

Right, but it's not. We have to opt in forever.

No opting in forever.

Signing up for this is a forever thing.

They're opting in forever. Feels so free behind the final.

It's too late, ladies. You love the difference.

But if there's spirit, if I'm gonna be the spirit, I'm gonna be the most spiritually happy. Maybe I find out that surfing isn't what brings my heart pure joy, but it leads me into something else that I never knew about.

This is why I wanna be able to start and stop it.

So with that new knowledge, Miranda, you're thinking it's not a clean. Yes, it's maybe more complicated, A little more complicated.

Because I'd love to be able to have a little fun every now and then.

Leave some room for some spontaneity. And just that balance, you touched on it and bread as well, is just that kind of balancing the health span and lifespan. Yes. Like live kind of a perfect life wherever. But also enjoying that along the way too, is finding that moderation and that balance.

Because maybe there's more moments of joy that come from like things that might not be part of the program.

I had this immediate visceral reaction which was no. And I think it's. I have an issue with authority that has served me well and not well over the course of my life. So just the thought of something telling me what to do, I just, I don't think I could ever opt into that. And I think, yeah, when I kind of double clicked into that, I think there's part, like, I think the high highs and the low lows are a part of the human existence. And maybe my algorithm would do that for me already. But there's this sense of like, I don't know, just like free will and just choice of like, I want to make my own bad decisions that I think ties to my happiness, that it would just be. It would be hard for me to.

Let go of and enjoying that range of, you know, having those lows like you said of, you know, let's say that on the life is on a scale of 1 to 10. And you experience these ones and twos also, you know, when you experience these eights and nines, those eights and nines are that much better. And you also feel those ones and twos that much more. But if you only live range bound in, let's say a 4 to 6, then it might not be as enjoyable or meaningful or purposeful.

There's also a lot of learning in the mistakes that I've made and a lot of my growth, personal growth, but also even in the art form that I'm involved in, happen in mistakes. I don't know if I want to live a perfect life. I want to be super healthy though, by the way. I just don't know if I want to live a perfect life.

I'm like a big rule follower. So I love to have the rules. And then I'm like, okay, but then maybe I'll have a night off tonight. But maybe knowing who I am, I would really enjoy it and be like, oh, then I'm really super happy doing that, following those rules.

The thing you know from this is you say yes to the algorithm. If you say yes, you say, you guys, this is the best I have ever felt mentally and spiritually and physically. Never felt better.

And emotional.

Yes. Yeah. That's the only thing you know outside of that. You don't know. Are you surfing? Are you doing serendipity? You don't know anything about what you will or won't do.

You don't know if you'll be separated from your family.

You don't know.

See, I can't do that.

For that all to happen, I'd have to be separated from my in laws for sure.

Yeah.

Serendipity, yeah, fine. True peace.

There's a formula, the distance away from physical.

So maybe I would say yes.

With a possibility based upon these observations. What do you say? Are you a yes or are you a no?

I'm a no.

I'm a no.

Yeah. I would still hold at a no. Yeah. Miranda wants the yes.

I know. I really.

I know.

And for the sake of being oppositional, I say yes. Like, yeah, I want to be the happiest person on planet Earth with spiritual enlightenment. With an algorithm that figures it out for me.

Sure.

I think I also have this confidence that I'll just be able to do it better than the algorithm, which I know is against the rules, but I think that ties back to my issue with authority. So I'm just, I'm sensing my own.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's hard to accept that.

Given that conflict, how do you resolve it in your mind to make a yes or no conclusion?

I think I still, I choose myself over the unknown. And so I still. I'm still a no, even though you're telling me it should be a yes.

No, dude.

Or even though that's ultimately what we're all trying to do. So that's. I think the achieve that is, I think the crux of so much of human existence.

Is there no middle ground here?

Anthony, did you say while you're laughing?

I'm still a yes.

We have two yeses. And Thomas, would you say yes or no?

I'd say yes. I like to think of a parallel. Like, we have Google Maps, and so most of us, if you want to get to a destination, we wouldn't pull out a map and figure it out. We would just put in the coordinates and we would let the map do it. So in a way, our lives are already run by algorithms.

I love using Google Maps.

Yeah, exactly. We wouldn't. Imagine using a physical map.

Even when I know where I'm going, I still put it in.

Even though you know where you're going.

Yes.

Also, you know, there might be an accident that you're unaware of. Like, we were coming back from Malibu, and there's a big accident after surfing. You're like, oh, I should have probably. Even though I knew how to get home, I probably should have typed it into Google.

Algorithms are amazing. Yeah, amazing. Data's amazing. Yeah.

And so I think that I would. I know that algorithms are better than me, and so I know I'd rather give. If I'm promised the best physical, mental, and spiritual health of my life, then I would unquestionably say yes, because I know that algorithms can do it better than me.

Especially if the algorithm is based upon all your metrics. So if it's like pulling your aura scores, if it's pulling your inside tracker and your blood, and there's no way a human could triangulate all those data points and make their own, it's like, you can, but it would take you years with a lot of experts, whereas the algorithm could do this for you in a second. And I think that's what's interesting.

Yep.

I'm 90% there.

Coming around.

Now.

I just see it as a bad movie, though.

I see us all saying yes, and.

Then we see what happens with algorithms.

So three S's. We have four nos and one 90%.

90%. Can I just.

You want to round up?

Well, what if my family says yes, too? If my family says yes, then I'll say yes.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Then we'll all be doing it together. That'll be fun. Okay. That's my choice.

Okay.

Okay. I'm in if they're in.

Three yeses, four nos and one depends.

Yeah.

Okay. Okay. All right. Thought experiment number two is imagine that whatever form of intelligence that exists in the 25th century just watched a video of this conversation. Okay. That's a few hundred years into the future and they're listening to your opinions and they're assessing your characteristics of intelligence and your morals and your ethics and your values, how you understand the world, how you frame reality, what observations do they make, what do they say about you and your responses?

She's a family orientated lady. Who loves health. That's what I get.

And it's a technology. It's not like a conscious being that's observing.

Yeah, just so just make your best guess. Like if we say if we just imagine society is progressing right now at a pretty fast pace of change. At a pace of change that is mostly unfathomable to our current mind. It's like looking back at the 1600s to now and how much change has happened then. Even though it's a lot, it's probably on the order of substantially more. And so it's beyond our ability to comprehend who they are, what they're like. But just imagine they have some kind of distant vantage point where they're. Yeah, just like where we would observe a caveman and we would make observations about their way of being and how they, you know, when they didn't have modern technology or even language. So what do you think they would just say generally, what are the observations? They'd say like how. What are we as a species right now in this moment?

I think it's pretty scary if you think about the rate of advancement in the 25th century at how like for example, where AI will be. I think it would look back and it would really think us. It'd be really cute. Like our. How naive we are right now because everything will be so optimized that the fact that we're even predicting the uncertainty. I think it would be interesting in a world a couple hundred years from now how much more advanced it would be.

That was my immediate reaction as well is I can't fathom what it will be like to be living a couple hundred years from now. I just think. And then my second reaction was I.

Brian will still be here.

Yeah, yeah, Brian. But I think, yeah, I think we'll look back on this conversation with some parallel to looking back on a pre Internet time. It's not possible to fathom what we as a species, an augmented species are capable of. But I think that's. I don't know, I reflected that maybe that's a limitation of my own mind to not be able to fully accept that right now. But yeah, hard to comprehend is where my head went.

I think I have to agree with you. In terms of the limiting factor. Like, I feel like us as a species in general, we limit ourselves and what we think is possible and then say it can't be. But we are our own limiting factors. And I feel like we're gonna look back and be like, how did we think that this. That we couldn't achieve this? It's because we said we couldn't, you know, and, yeah, I think they're going to giggle at how limiting we are, that we didn't trust an algorithm to give us our ability to do whatever we need to do, like Google Maps. Why didn't they realize they could do it with their own bodies? Right. But no, we said we want our autonomy and our freedom, but we can have freedom and autonomy within that too.

Yeah.

They might be envious of us just because everything is. They might be like, wow, they lived such a simple life. And at. We live in such a fascinating time of like, we're pioneering an inventive time right now that we can. Are discovering so many new things at once that in 400 years, everything might be so precise and efficient that there's kind of not much room left to discover new things. And so I feel like we do live in a very incredible time right now that we can. We're always kind of playing with different things, like you said, like, how can we live forever? Like, the fact that that's not even a thing yet in 400 years. Everyone's like, yeah, of course. Like, we all live forever. It's not no big deal. But, you know, it's. Yeah, it's interesting for sure.

Yeah. Well, I mean, it just, you know, makes me think of something I'm working on right now is more like simplifying more than I think. There's just so much data coming at us, and I'm kind of a weird human being supposed to be inputting this much and just kind of. And make maybe if just sometimes I think in a day it's just three good decisions in a day can really help drive a lot of interesting things instead of trying to do 500 things. So I sometimes feel it's like, gosh, there's. Now there's going to be such evolvement coming up. But at the same point, I know I'm really working on also trying to really simplify and kind of like slow it down and not look at too much. Maybe very specific, but, you know, my interests. But not getting too clouded with too much data.

I find it almost impossible to make any predictions. It seems like humans are historically bad at Making predictions. We're typically blinded by our modern day cultural and social norms. So trying to extrapolate even a couple decades from now seems very difficult. So 500 years seems like something that no one is intelligent enough to say.

Okay, so that concludes thought experiment number two. And so if we retrace our steps and where we've been, the first question is meant to be provocative and it's meant to create uncertainty. So you're given a binary choice. Do you say yes or do you say no? And you have highly imperfect information. You don't know. And so it creates a space of unknowing, right? So you immediately imagine, can I still feel happy or sad or depressed? Can I still make my art? Can I still surf? Can I still do highs and lows? Do I still have the autonomy to do this and that? And if you notice, in most of your thought patterns in that unknowing space, you filled the gap with assumptions. So the information was not present in the question, but you filled it in to say I wouldn't because the following reasons, and what you also did is you went into your mind and so you had to deal with this complicated question. You went to your mind, you're like, hey, mind, how do I understand reality? Some of you said, well, autonomy, like autonomy is my, is my model of reality. Like, that's how I understand my existence. And if I don't have autonomy, I'm not quite sure why I exist. But autonomy is just simply a social, cultural construct, right? There's many different ways to understand reality. Some of you went to I want to have an optimized life or I want to create art. But the point is you as a human, you've developed understanding models of reality and you just chose one. You could have chose many. You chose one and said, here's my model of reality and here's how I'm going to solve this complicated question. And you gave your rationale for it. Question number two sits in stark contrast to that because it reminds us that we look back at previous generations and we're oftentimes pretty harsh in our judgment. We think they're pretty primitive with their decision making. We think that they're pretty antiquated. We can't understand why they didn't understand certain things. And if you go back further in time, it gets even more and more right where. And so by going to the 25th century, it's such a big jump in time that it almost makes us look like cavemen, right? If you look at, just make a reasonable estimation of how things will progress. We're so far away from that that they would look at us, all of our practices, and probably just say like, oh, that's, that's kind of cute. Homo sapiens are doing that now. It could be different, but it gives enough of a contrast where we become more humble in our opinions of ourselves and we say like, maybe I'm not as confident as I was in my opinion. So the first two thought experiments I meant to contrast are knowing and are not knowing. And how. We as humans, our superpower is in knowing. We learn things and we make decisive actions. But sometimes that knowing can walk us into a situation where, where not not knowing is actually the more correct answer. But we're blinded to not knowing. Okay, that's number two. That's a first phase. All right, next phase. So when I look out, when I zoom out on planet Earth and I try to quiet everything going on, just all the daily Russell and bustle of drama and politics and family and personal stuff, zoom out on planet Earth and say, what is really happening on this planet in this part of the galaxy? I think there's really only one thing happening and it's the we're giving birth to super intelligence. Nothing is going to be more consequential than the development of this new form of intelligence that will eventually, possibly exceed us in all things. Now, in this situation, it is a complicated matter because when you give birth to super intelligence, of course every human and every group of humans wants to use it for their objectives. Some people want to use it for war. Some people want to use it for gaining social media followers. Some people want to use it for making money. Some want to use it for ideological movements. But everybody has different objectives on what they want to do. And it creates some degree of risk. There's concern that AI may go off the rails and be bad. There's concern that certain countries would get it and do bad things. There's concerns people may even get it and then get access to more dangerous weapons. There's all kinds of concerns. What happens when you have this really new powerful thing in the world? And right now we're trying to sort out like how do countries behave with each other? Do we regulate it at a state level? Do you open source it? Do you build closed source? How do you. Do you limit users abilities? Like we have all these questions emerging. What do you do as a species when you're giving birth to superintelligence? Let me pose this question to you. Imagine we are together as a group. We are mapping out a Practical plan on what we do as a species. Okay. As you avert a superintelligence. Now, this is not ought statements like we ought to. Our statements need to be. We're going to do. So that means we're going to call our friends. We're going to call friends of friends. We're going to put together a plan. What do we do to make sure that, I guess to increase our probability that we survive this moment and thrive.

What do we do as. As a group? I just want to make sure. Or as a planet. Are you talking like big picture? Are you talking about us in this room?

Yeah. As a species or as a species? Yeah. So we're going to formulate a plan of what we go out in the world and do together.

So it's been no plans made yet, just to be clear, Is that what you're saying?

Yeah. So we currently.

There's no plan.

Yeah. Like it's kind of this emergent thing in the world where it's happening real time and it's happening under the umbrella of democracy in the US it's happening a different way in China, it's happening a different way in Israel. There's open source models and there's closed source models. So it's just like emergent system that people are just doing throughout the world through the various economic, political, social, moral, ethical systems of our time and place. So what do we do?

What do we do? What do we do with all these emergent AI technologies? I think you have to set like a rule book, a playbook of what AI is allowed to do. And if it's doesn't adhere to that, it has to be thwarted, meaning keeping.

Making sure it's not destructive.

Yeah. So if it becomes violent, like, I mean, everyone talks about it, but if the basic answer is AI is like, how do you become the richest man in the world, you kill everybody else? Then it's like you have to have a playbook of saying AI can't cause human death or harm.

Right.

I think also it can't be weaponized in any way by any individual or country to dominate resources or come up with technologies that can then also enslave other people or dominate other people. So I think it has to be a rulebook and there has to be an actual way to turn off this super intelligence. It could be an EMP pulse around the whole planet, whatever it is, but there has to be like a, like a, like a backup, I think. But other than that, it's going to happen no matter what. So there is no Stopping it. So it's just about creating not just etiquette, but awareness and then a playbook.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's what I think.

Okay, thank you.

It feels like. I mean, the ideal thing to do would be to regulate. I know China was being able to, like, watermark images to say that this was created with AI, But, I mean, at this point, it's already. I think the cat's out of the bag. It's already out there. It's already evolved. We have to hope that we have the right people in the right places to help navigate what's going to happen, because it's certainly going to. What we're not expecting is what's going to happen.

I just talked to an AI guy recently who works for Nativia.

Is that the Nvidia?

Yeah, Nvidia.

And what he was telling me is, like, how AI works is just.

It's.

It learns just like us, right?

Like, it.

The way that a child learns is the way that AI learns. And it just learns faster because you can process things faster. And it's just like it is. If you look at evolution, it seems to appear to be like, the next species, right? And like, we so desperately want to control things as humanity, right? Especially so that it doesn't harm us. But at the same time, evolution has to go through its process, and harm is sometimes the way that things happen. So, I mean, it's not that I'm voting for harm, but I also am voting for, like, allowing it to learn also, because I feel like if we give it its ability and its freedom that we all want ourselves to learn, then it hopefully will bring the best results.

It feels dangerous to have hope as a strategy, though. You have hope as a strategy and you have hope as a strategy. That feels kind of tenuous not to criticize your.

Yeah, you can criticize it. I mean, I'm just throwing out thoughts right now, but, like, I mean, what else is there? I mean. Cause if we put a playbook that's gonna be destroyed in two seconds anyway, it is its own being and thing. And it's almost like we kind of have to, like. I mean, and I love AI. I think AI is one of the most exciting things. And also it's scary as fuck, you know, all at the same time, but.

It still needs, like, electricity, it needs chips, it needs, like, silicon, you know, it needs hardware that for it to run. It's not an actual organic being. Right. So we're still in control of its.

To a certain extent, yeah.

Its existence.

Well, I think it Kind of, you know, to me I just really hope that there will be dramatic changes around the world. So you know, although our United States system's flawed, I do think we still at the underlying have the kind of the best democratic society in the world. So I think it's that much more important for us to become a leader in this and kind of there's obviously other regimes and things out that don't really deal with North Korea. We want with their value systems to kind of be. Have a lot more control over the world order or things to that effect. And that's just kind of want to make sure the right leadership and that we stay at the forefront to just really, you know, protect ourselves and I think broadly, you know, can help protect a lot of other societies things as well as well if it kind of gets to that. But I think we got to, you know, we got to keep a strong leadership position as this progresses.

I just feel like it's a little too late, isn't it to put any parameters around it because it's already infiltrated our lives. So it's hard to have that conversation because it's ready.

Yeah, we've passed that point.

Yeah, to a certain extent. Like you were saying, obviously we could pull the power but we're all using power every day.

Too.

Yeah, it's just impossible to imagine where we'll be in the future. And so therefore it's hard to come up with a strategy now. I think personally I've tried to take a very optimistic stance and I think that that helps me and my little continue on a day to day basis. But yeah, I think anytime you talk about regulation, I think doing that on a global level is just very challenging and if it's in one and it has really unintended consequences too I think in terms of innovation or having too much power to a particular model. So I think every, I think every argument that we are capable of making has its downsides. That again looking back on this conversation I think it would. Yeah, we just, we have no idea how to fathom it.

Yeah, I still go back to what you said Mike is you put a playbook in hand to at least set some guidelines and some bumpers. But I think it is kind of were too far along to try to guide in a certain way or completely shut it down or anything. I would say open source is.

How.

It'S going to play out and there is going to be some harm along the way. But overall I think that humanity is net good. But yeah, some people may get harmed along the way. But overall, yeah, you could put some protocols in place and some regulation not to cause harm to humans, but I think we're already. AI is inevitable.

We're no longer in charge.

And if we're all wiped out, we don't have to worry about it anyway.

That's true.

We're all gonna be gone.

That's true. That's true.

No, we're not.

Except Brian, of course, under the sea.

He's got a bunker in Mordor, New.

Zealand, a Mariana's trench.

The great thing is, is that there's so much efficiency if you do use it for good. AI can be super efficient and a fun, creative tool too.

I find that spending time thinking about this while I'm trying to be optimistic, but it actually is quite scary to think about exactly where we are today. And I know many people spend their time, careers and lives and current day to day thinking about just this. I think I'm focused on a different set of problems that AI is actually amazing for on a day to day basis. And I think deeply thinking about this question from a species and evolution perspective is.

Yeah.

Hard.

Yeah. Okay, so if we pattern match this to where we were in the first two questions in the thought experiments we did, this question pattern matched number one. It's a question that has a lot of uncertainty. It's unbounded in its uncertainties. And so you each did the same thing you did before, which is you searched your mind and you said, how do I understand reality? And you identify one of those models and you applied it to the question whether it was democracy or whether it's like humanity in general, humanity is good, or whether it's like we think leaders are important or we think. You basically chose a model. If you notice that nobody here said we don't know. So this is again where that hides in plain sight, where these questions come up. And we're up against the limitations of our own knowledge. So the question is, do we know what to do and revisit that assumption if we look at a few moments in time. Let's imagine we're in the 1870s and there's a new idea proposed that it's actually microscopic objects called bacteria that are the source of infection. That's a wild idea. Things beyond the resolution of the eye are the source of infection. Now, even if you're early to say, I think this is actually a good idea, I think it's actually a legitimate idea. I think these bacteria are real, I think they do cause infection. And it does make sense that if a Doctor is washing their hands in between surgeries, then it increases patient outcomes and survival. Now, in that moment, if you say, okay, what is the best protocol for hygiene for the world? If the bacteria exist now, what. What does that mean? Now, of course, that's an entire science that's developed, right, that pertains not just to hygiene but to all other aspects of society. Now, the same concept is true now in that moment, you wouldn't have known. And over time, systems build as knowledge builds. We learn like this and that, we improve the system here and there. But it's a process where now we have a pretty good idea, like where these things, how do they work? So if we're giving birth to AI, we just now understand its nascent abilities. They can do this and that. And we try to model out the ability. The first thing that would be important to acknowledge is we are up against a wall of uncertainty. We don't know how it's going to evolve. We don't know what it's going to do. We don't know what it's going to do on certain time frames. We don't know if we turn it off. We don't know if it's going to. We have no idea what's going to happen. We're up against the wall of fog. Now, in this moment, this pressure tests our ability to know and not know. When you go in knowing, it blinds you that you may not know. I want to propose something that in this moment, in this most important moment in the history of the human race, we actually don't know what to do. And that no existing form of human thought actually solves a problem that. No. For example, take democracy as a form of governance. Can we say democracy solved this? I don't think it solved it. Not all the world is democratic. There's other forms of political systems. If we say, okay, capitalism, you certainly going to solve this. Probably unlikely. We say, okay, Christianity, step in and help us out. Islam, pull up. You know, like, take any social, moral, ideological, religious construct and apply it. Like, does it actually solve the question? I don't think anything does. So it could be the case as a species, we are giving birth to a new form of intelligence that is foreign and alien and that no existing form of human thought is its equal in giving birth. So we have an opening of what could that be? So I'd like to propose to you that that opening is don't die. That don't die is the philosophical, economic, political, moral, ethical and social framework that actually is equal to this moment. And it's really simple. It basically says, don't die is the most played game by every human on this planet. Every second of every day, it is our 0th order priority. Every few seconds, we're taking in air, right? The majority, a substantial portion of our body, is ensuring we don't die. Whether it's killing cancer cells or whether it's getting enough air, whether we're trying to navigate obstacles, but we're trying to not die constantly. Now, once you're not dead, you can do amazing things like create art and go surfing and create new skincare products. Like, you can do amazing things in the world, but you have to not be dead to do those things. And with that, it's the only thing, the singular thing, the human race agrees upon. There's nothing that this human race agrees to, agrees with each other on, except for that single concept, which is we don't want to die right now. Now, if you say, do you want to die in five years? We fracture into many different ways. Some people want to be alive in five years, some people don't. Some people will spin up their certain philosophies, but there's a very small number of people who actually want to die right now. So if you build upon that concept, say, great, we've got a starting point, there's actually something we do agree upon that spans all political systems, all economic systems, all social morals, ethical frameworks. And then if you say, okay, what would this look like? Roughly, as a draft, it's don't die individually, don't kill each other. Which is what you were saying, don't kill the planet. And align AI with the objective function of don't die. That when you're giving birth to a form of intelligence that mirrors the abilities of God like entities which we've imagined throughout the history of the human race that has these, these expansive abilities, existence becomes the highest virtue. Not making money, not achieving status, not achieving power. Existence. That's what it would want just to remain alive. And so that's a starting point for as a species, if we are sober enough to recognize this moment, how consequential this moment is, and we're practical enough to say, we kind of need to put some thought into this. We can either say, all right, world, you have your systems of democracy and capitalism, socialism, and you'll sort it out, your religions, or we can say, I don't know about that path, There may be another path. So I'll stop there. What do you guys think about this as an initial hypothesis?

I mean, don't die is a way of saying how we're going to approach AI specifically in, like, that context. It feels like we should be putting a lot of our energy into figuring out how to make AI help us not die and have AI be instrumental in medicine. You know, like, if it can do all your panels and look at all your markers and be able to diagnose something with a lot of accuracy where a doctor might have a bias or whatever, that feels like a very good use of AI. It's just, you know, I think. I don't know. I don't know how else to answer other than that. Yeah, just. We put our energy into that.

Yeah.

I mean, not only to just don't die is to how to live optimally. Because what's, you know, living if you're just, you know, in a little bubble or whatever it is. So if by chance, us as humans, if you have an experience and you end up dying, at least you know that you put these certain systems in place to live the most optimally with that time, that you have to spend it more with your family or with close friends or have interesting conversations like we're having now. So I would just add on that from just that little, you know, perspective.

The one challenge with that is there's perhaps been more murder committed over how to live optimally than any other question in existence.

How.

Yeah.

You mean, like through religious wars and stuff? Or you mean.

I mean, what are people. What are people disagreeing upon fundamentally? Resources, ideas. Right. Vengeance. It's basically. It's humans disagreeing on what existence is about and what their goal should be. And so don't die is. So this is the question when you're in a luxurious state of I have life, I have health. You can choose to spend your time any way you want. And people all over the world do that every day. You can be religious, you can be political, you can be economic. You can do all your decisions, but you basically have billions of competing decisions on what to do. Now, when humans have conflict of what to do, we typically resort to violence and try to sort that don't die is a contemplation to say we're actually in this incredible state of urgency as a species. It's not quite clear that things are okay right now in the world. We have several potential existential threats. You may say, not a big deal. We've survived nuclear weapons for 60 years. We got this. You could also take the other side and be, like, kind of scary that we have our fingers on these nuke buttons and Many the climate's changing, so you might say, honestly, fine, I don't know, it could be a little dicey. So we have our hands full with some potential risks that we may underestimated. And so if you remember In March of 2020, when Covid hit, do you remember how ferocious the world's response was? Everybody's plans got canceled, everyone's business meetings, everyone's personal endeavors. You couldn't get surgery for a cancer. Everything shift.

You couldn't leave the country.

You couldn't leave the country. You couldn't even leave home.

Your home.

Yeah. And so that's how bad humans don't want to die. Right. And so in context. But we forget about this. We forget how badly we don't want to die. And so the question for this is, as a species, is the move for us to say, what's the best life for all of us? Or is the move to say this moment's kind of serious, potentially the most serious in our entire history and kind of determining the future of intelligent existence in this part of the galaxy? Do we need some kind of original thought in this moment that we're coming back down to say, all right, we legit have one thing on our to do list, which is don't die. Now, once you secure don't die, you can do all the wonderful things with existence you want to do, but this is the contemplation is where we at. And right now, we are very much in the state of affairs of choose your best life. That's what status quo is. And so it presses on that question.

Don'T die feels a little negative. Instead, what about let's live feels a little more uplifting.

Without causing harm to.

Someone else, without the fear. Like, let's live because we are enjoying the moment and people that we're with. Instead of don't die because it feels a little restrictive.

Yeah. The challenge with let's Live. Let's Live is you can't measure it. Yeah.

It's more subjective. Like how to live optimally as compared to binary. Either you're alive or you're not.

And don't die. Exactly. So. Exactly. Either your heart's beating and your brain is active and you have conscious thought, or you don't. Now, you take this all the way down to physics. Right. You're now in the second law of thermodynamics of looking at entropy. So Don't Die is not just a cute narrative about how humans string words together for something fun. It is dealing with fundamental physics and the mathematics of Life.

But don't all systems tend to fall to entropy at some point?

Exactly.

So you're saying use AI to figure out how to thwart entropy.

Exactly. I'm saying like when, when you basically when you're giving birth to God, Godlike abilities, that godlike ability would like look at the universe and say I'm calculating the total energy in the universe that could give rise to life. Like that I could use for my objectives to be life. And then you simply just want. What you want there is to avoid existence from ending. But you want to assess like what resources you have to work with. And yes, like over a certain duration of time, the universe runs out of energy and it's all just dark and quiet. But we have a long time before that happens. So until then, so it makes sense as a species where when death is inevitable, when you're going to die, it's like you yolo your way to your decision making. You're going to say, well, if I'm going to die anyways, I might as well live my best life or have the right this, or feel these kind of emotions. But when you're at this critical stage of evolution, it's invitation that all of our existing ideas about reality are no longer true. All of our preferences, all of our norms, all of our imaginations, all of the social, cultural things we've learned about existence, they're antiquated. They would be laughable from the 25th century perspective. They'd say they were so fixated in that moment, they couldn't see, see this new emergent thing, and that's the imitation. And so the reason why I take it to physics and math is important is because it's a language that AI can speak. AI is fundamentally math. It's fundamentally matrix multiplication. It's fundamentally a language that it can exist in. So you're bridging the world of human narrative with mathematics and physics. And it kind of brings all things together in some kind of comprehensive framework that intelligence can cooperate upon.

So do you define not dying as this physical form, this heart, these lungs, blah blah, blah, blah, or is don't die? And this is where it can get tricky. Also AI figuring out how to upload your consciousness into a system where you don't actually need a body, but then it still views you as alive because your consciousness is still computating. There's still thought processes within an environment that's just not your body. So it's like, are you saying don't die is in your exact form right now? You know? Yeah, or is it esoteric and it's in this consciousness form that's in silicon or crystal or. You know what I mean?

Yeah, yeah. No one knows. So it'd be like in germ theory. Be like, okay, so if this is the basic principle, what do we do with it? Would we ever swallow it? Or we want. Do we want to kill all of it? Or can I have a good or bad.

Yeah, like, what if you feel that your soul's eternal? So it doesn't necessarily matter if I die today or tomorrow. However, while I'm here, I want to live the most fulfilled time in the healthiest form that I'm here.

So the beauty about don't die is that most ideologies in the world are no, but they say we are correct and you are wrong. And you need to adhere to my lifestyle or my political system or my economic system or my religious framework. Don't die says, great. Like, if you believe your soul is eternal and you believe there's an afterlife, wonderful. Still, you don't want to die right now. So that's how the world has. The world's.

Well, I want to be as healthy as I can until the moment that I die.

Yeah. So every, like, very few religious people who believe in an afterlife actually want to die right now. You know, like, humanity has solved this idea that it's like, even though we don't have evidence for an afterlife, we don't know if it exists or not. But humans have constructed many stories of like, there's this kind of heaven and that kind of thing. And so humans believe that that's great. And you can believe that. Excuse me, that. And don't die at the same time. They're not in conflict. So this is why it's so productive, is that don't die is minimizing risk of violence and war. You're trying to get a system that says, let's devise a way where the fewest vectors for death and violence can happen. Now, this is still, like, even if you say yes and don't die immediately, you have all kinds of ethical. Like, you have complications. If you have $1 for Don't Die, who gets a $1? So you immediately have problems, like, right off the bat. So it's not that it's just like this utopia of problem solving, but it's directionally, it's correct.

But if we're continually giving birth, then how are we going to. The human population support everyone not dying.

Yeah. And resources don't die doesn't solve all outstanding questions. It Just simply says it's just a.

Good question to have.

Yeah. In this moment. So the first thought experiment was basically to say, like we as a species, we know a lot of things and sometimes we take our knowing a bit too far. The second thought experiment says not knowing is actually an incredibly powerful form of intelligence. In fact, wisdom right now in 2024 may be those who realize that not knowing is the highest degree of intelligence that a human can occupy. It's no longer knowing. Because knowing basically people limit to you.

Right.

They who apply their models. Now, given that we can't model the world out, people who robustly know and predict are actually demonstrating their ignorance or think they know. They think they know.

They might not know, but they think they know and then they're limiting their thoughts.

So this is the biggest shift of human intelligence is we've always imagined the highest intellect is knowing. That's who we respect and we defer to. This is one of a unique time where not knowing quickly moves into the more powerful position where by acknowledging that, you open your mind up to say there may be different ways to model reality than what I'm accustomed to. And so don't die is basically that to say the intelligence is to know that literally I want one thing right now is to not die.

Do you think algorithms will have the potential to understand loving as opposed to just don't die being like a, you know, an equation, like, how do I just not, you know. But is there an actual, like place for.

For the heart?

Yeah, for the concept of love within these algorithmic. And not like a mimicked version of love, but like a feeling.

The data I like on this is that every time a human has made a prediction that AI can't do something, AI does that thing just consistently. And so I look at that and I think it's reasonable to imagine it will do all things.

So, Brian, just to like sum up what you're saying is if we had our whole one question or one quest that we're all looking at is do not die, we would unite as humanity and as AI is kind of what you're hypothesizing.

Exactly. So practically what this means and why we did the Bio Age testing tonight is so over the past four years, I asked that question is the craziest question in existence right now. Are we the first generation to not die? And then if you say, what does that look like? I've tried to become the most don't die person in human history. What does that look like? So if you say on a Daily basis, every one of us dies a little bit, we age, and then there are things that accelerate the aging process. If I breathe polluted air, I die a little faster. If I eat junk food, I die a little faster. If I eat fried food, I die. If I sleep poorly, I die a little faster. So we try to isolate and say, what are all the things that increase the rate of death and the progression of disease. We tried to stop all those things or minimize those things. Then we said, what are all the ways I've already died being a 43 year old person? And how do you reverse the aging damage? Now in doing this, we've achieved the best health markers of anybody on planet Earth in four years time. To show that you can go through a systematic process of measuring dye. And so you came in, you saw the air quality, we have water quality, we did bio age tests. You had your foods tested. Foods. So you're seeing this at play. And so it makes sense that when people look at me right now, they say, that guy's really weird. He really should spend more time doing blank and blank. What they're doing is they're applying their current 2024 model of reality, and I'm different than that reality. But they don't realize that. What I'm trying to demonstrate is a new model of existence that doesn't exist yet, where you would do anything just to secure existence. Because the play space, if we can get past this moment of not destroying ourselves, if we can get past this moment to stabilize AI to some degree, whatever that means, the play space for us may be a million times bigger than what it is right now. If you, like, zoom out and you say, okay, there's two basic ideas on why is there not intelligent existence in this part of the. Why can't we detect intelligent existence? So the Dark forest theory says that when a civilization becomes sufficiently intelligent, it immediately hides itself. It doesn't want to be threatened by other civilizations that are intelligent. The other argument is the Great Filter argument, which is when civilizations reach a certain point of technological advancement, they kill themselves. They can't punch through. And so whether those are like two general approximations on how to think about it, whether they, whether there are civilizations that are punched through and now they just hide themselves, or whether all civil, whether there's been other civilizations like us, they get to a certain point. And we know this, like from our experiences, our willingness to destroy ourselves and each other and the planet, right? We have these tendencies. And so we can see a scenario.

Where we, oh, just have a French fry.

Exactly.

What's that gonna hurt?

We blow it.

I'm gonna live in the moment.

So could we, like on a galactic scale, Is it possible that we are potentially one of the first intelligent civilizations ever that has the opportunity to punch through and then when others reach this stage, they don't identify that their existing systems, which were built when they were much more primitive, didn't map to when they became on the verge of giving birth to superintelligence of whatever form that is. And that this could be the defining moment for us as a species. We actually get this right and punch through and make this transition.

Do you think all species, let's say hypothetically, from any other planet, will always follow this destiny path of creating superintelligence? Do you think it's like in the evolutionary playbook that that's the, it's like a butterfly thing like we're creating, you know what I mean? Or do you think we're unique in that?

Yes, there's, there's many really interesting theories on whether all these systems are identical. There's really great arguments. So I, I don't know. But there's interesting arguments that these systems are universal. They play throughout the galaxy that were made of the same matter. I don't know, but it's a really fun thought experiment.

Yeah, it's interesting.

I think it's interesting. It's a super interesting thought process and I think I've always found it super interesting to look at the startup ecosystem and realize the very limited number of people, of entrepreneurs that choose to spend their time on death. It's just, it's a very small subset of people that want to wake up every day and think about human existence. And so as you were talking, I think this movement around longevity and it being something positive is such a different spin and way of extending existence is a really interesting way of looking at things, but actually doing the work around that, having a handful of highly motivated individuals to combine with this kind of superhuman ability, I think it places society as at a really interesting position both from, I mean, from the intersection of so many things, but also just from, I think a big part of human existence is not wanting to grapple with this question on a day to day basis. So it's interesting.

Yeah, Brian, I would love to get your perspective on this. So let's say really that's like, at what point is a human, a human? If a woman was carrying a child. And I mean, I don't want to get too controversial here, but I may want, if a woman was Carrying a child and her life was in jeopardy.

Right.

And she could either, you know, let's say she wanted to sacrifice her life in order for her child to live or if her life was in jeopardy. And that would mean that that would be the end of the child's life. I mean, I don't want anybody to feel like they have to answer that question, but that's just in terms of life and death, in terms of sacrificing your life for another or taking the life of another in order for you to live on.

As a mother, I would definitely want my children to live. I would be like, I'd be like, take me.

Yeah.

Because our biological, like it is not to die, but our also biological purpose, why we're on planet Earth is to reproduce.

Next generation to live on.

Yes. Like there's no question.

And being a mom.

Yeah.

You just like, of course make sure that your offspring does not die.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm like, take me, don't take them.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So one way you can think about this is like when the US was 13 colonies and they said the British monarch is doing an okay job. We think we can do a better job. We think by voting in our own representatives and having our own tax code and making decisions, we're going to be better than the monarch. And so they adopted a new framework of governance, democracy. Now, in that moment, they didn't have all the questions answered. They didn't know how they're going to solve federal rights and state rights, how they're going to solve who gets to vote. And when they had slavery to solve, there was all these complicated questions to solve. It wasn't that they just said, we know what to do. They just said, we're going to directionally point there. We're going to become a system of this democratic rule. It's now taken us over 200 plus years. We're still fighting what is a democratic society. The same is true with don't die. There's relevant don't die ethics. And this is one like if a mother is, if her life is in danger, many people wouldn't express the opinion that Miranda said, which is great. That's a new ethical framework working within don't die. So it's not necessarily critical that we solve those because those are basically unsolvable problems as it relates to a person's decision making. But it's trying to point in a direction to say, yes, we have a lot of complexity on our hands. Totally agree. Also, like, what we're doing now may not be adequate. And we do want to point ourselves with this new system of being, and we get working on that. So just as a species, it's like practically like you can imagine. Don't die. Very easily implemented into society. So, like this conversation, you can see it took us about an hour to arrive here, where you're just barely open to this new idea, but you're still swirling with all your thoughts. Right. It's very complicated and you're mapping old, old ideas onto new ideas, and it creates all this internal tension. So let me give you some practical ways where it could just easily flow into society. So I, based upon what I've been doing with don't die, we're measuring all my biomarkers, we're quantifying that. Now you can bridge that to something tangible. Like smoking a cigarette costs someone 11 minutes of life on average. There's variance according to the person's genetics. Like some people can smoke all their life and not die. It's like there's variance. But generally speaking, 11 minutes of life to someone smoke a cigarette. Now take that same principle and say, let's score a school lunch of a child in America. Okay, so let's say they. And you're a schoolteacher, so they're eating pizza and chocolate milk in a plastic lined container. Exactly. So we can assign, we can do some approximations on what is a dye score. So the child eats that. We are feeding our kids dye. Now, you can change.

That's why in the system of the schools, this is where this should start.

Exactly. So that is so practical. We understand. It's one thing where if you say, hey, so and so, like, smoking is not good for you, they'll say, off, I like to smoke and I'm living my best life. I'm gonna live how I want to. If you say, we're feeding our kids, die, nobody. It's very hard to really encourage that. So that's something that's very practical. You can also say a politician can try to earn office by saying, my district has the best health markers because the changes we've made to air quality and water quality and community health services and our availability of clean foods and tested foods. So they can campaign on the idea of life. It doesn't have to be don't die. The only reason why I go back to don't die is it just needs to be mathematically correct. It needs to be based upon physics. Otherwise it's too fragile of an idea. Yes, but otherwise the world doesn't need to understand the philosophy they don't need to go through the thought experiment of knowing and not knowing. They don't need to assess whether systems are good or bad. They just want to look and feel and be their best. They can adhere to the don't die philosophy by doing what they do today. And so this is really an attempt to say changing society, societal systems. This is not asking individuals to be superhuman in their discipline. This is to say, as a species, we lock in to build that. You could basically take what I've done with my body. We measure the biological age of all my organs. We apply the scientific evidence. We look at data. You do the same thing with planet Earth. Now, you measure Earth with a billion data points. You say, what is actually a biosphere that supports humans on the planet? It's an emergent science, right? Like, what is an appropriate coral reef environment? What is the appropriate marine environment? What kind of toxins are okay in our food supply chain? How much pollution should be in the air? You can quantify some things, and as you get out further and further, there's less certainty. But you can basically approach Earth as a scientific experiment where we say, we are going to make Earth a sustainable, safe place for us. Because the problem right now is that we treat planet Earth the same way we treat our bodies. That relationship is identical.

So do you think we start with food and then get people caring about their own bodies first, and then it starts to go big picture into the planet? Like, what do you think's the easiest? I mean, easy is the wrong word, but just like, most appropriate. Like, yeah, thing to go at.

Children are what really are the future, obviously. Right. Like, they're the ones that are paving the way. So starting with children learning that way because they're not educated. That's why they're not doing better if they're not educated. Like, I talk to my kids all the time.

So then you're saying about the food choices, Amy.

Yeah, education, I would say, because when you're educated and you know better, then you do better. But if you're uneducated, you're just living blindly and you don't even realize the damage you're doing. You're like, ooh, this cupcake tastes delicious.

And just to go on, everything that you're saying is, like, if we learn how to get kids to use data to drive their own decisions, they get to make those decisions for themselves. But we also have to have systems in place for that data to even be evaluated.

Like, when Miranda's buying food for her family, she's not Going to be able to see the third party lab results of every single thing. So Miranda needs to have confidence that she's gonna buy food from a system that is producing the fewest number of contaminants possible.

Ironically, I've actually tested a lot of the food that we have.

So you've seen the same thing I have, which is just like, it's like.

A lot of lead, cadmium, there's mercury, like in food that you think is healthy and organic that people are buying in these health food stores.

Exactly right.

They're not what they say they are.

That is so accurate.

And a lot of the time even these companies don't realize, I mean, I.

Just came back from India and India is better off solving its air quality than it is curing all cancer. They would extend lives more. And the interesting thing was nobody wears a mask, nobody has air purifiers. People go out and run and exercise. They have no other choice, but they've completely normalized. And so when we were going around, I carried an air purifier with me. It was a big system. I carried it with me every time.

The little one. I think you can wear a little one, right?

Yeah. But we need to clean the entire room. So I would like show up to our meetings with this gigantic airplane. And then we had all these monitors and. But it was then I come back to the US So it's not just India. I come back to the U.S. the U.S. 42% of adults are obese. So we have a similar air pollution problem with obesity. And so we're 13th worst in the world. And so we're just blind to these realities. And so to your question, they're not educated.

Like people don't know. Like if I'm. They don't know the specifics. If I'm going to eat this, it will, you know, prevent me from living this amount. I mean, some of that data is coming out, but it's not mainstream and it's not something that children are learning about.

Also, like, India has like two stroke engines everywhere. No catalytic converters in their cars. Like, the air quality is so bad because of how many people are driving vehicles that essentially pollute. Like I saw it in Thailand, it's all scooters.

So the invitation here is that we're inviting the entire world to build, don't die at the same time, Build it for kids, build it for food, build it for air, build it for clothing, build it for emergency systems, build it for AI, build it for antibiotics. Take any and all fields of Existence, psychology, sociology, ideology. Like, take any area of life and infuse it with a new structural change of don't die.

We're living at the optimal. Right.

Yeah, you just rewrite society. So it has to be this. Don't die is not a centralized organization with, you know, a leader that says, do this and do that. It is saying science species. Yeah, yeah. This is. Everybody has to do this and be this. We have to build new systems. We have to have new political systems, new economic systems. And so in the same way that capitalism works, because it's one number. It's how much money do you have? And so whether you like it or not, everybody plays capitalism every single day. You can't avoid playing capitalism. Don't die is the exact same way. It's one number, and everybody plays don't die whether they like it or not. And so it's very friendly to numbers and systems and quantification. It gives humans a game to play. It's a status game. It's a power game. It's a infinite rabbit hole of fun, like playing don't die. A lot of people think playing don't die is not fun. It's actually really fun. You're trying to rebuild society in new imaginative ways. And so that's what this conversation tonight is about is like if we just retrace our steps, we're trying to zoom out on existence and have the clearest possible minds.

So it's don't die, no matter what, under any circumstance.

Well, it's. So there's nuances, right. So, like, whether a mother's life is threatened, that's a nuanced ethical situation. But, like, it's the gist of the direction. And then we build new ethical and social frameworks.

So let's say that freak accident and you're a vegetable and your son has to make the call.

Yeah.

Do you say, hey, I am no longer productive in society? I am, you know, completely wiped out, Whatever. Pull the plug.

Yeah.

He's going into debt because of medical costs.

Yeah.

I mean, what do you do under that scenario?

Yeah. So these are new ethics. Yeah. It's a complicated question. There's no right or wrong.

That's not living optimally, is it?

I would say.

I would have no problem saying I'm done.

No, I mean, I was making.

Yeah, yeah. So this is like a. There's endless ethical contemplations. There's the trolley problem. Right. Of, like, what does the algorithm do? And so it really is not that we know what to do. It's just that the direction is identified when we really think about it. The thing we all care about the very most is not dying in this very moment. Then once you're not dead, you of course can make decisions on how you spend. You're not dead, but that's really what we agree upon. And so hopefully this conversation was at least opened the door to your thought process. I think this is the most consequential conversation on planet Earth. Nothing is of greater importance. There is no political drama or economic situation or social and moral ethical framework, or there's no cultural war. Nothing is more important than this conversation. And you can say either the status quo is working for us and we're going to bet on that, or we can say there's an opening for a new thought process. As far as I'm aware, there's no current framework of the species on what we do. Status quo just has it. This is, as far as I'm aware, the only practical, comprehensive approach of how we rethink our existence that could actually work in this moment. So with that said, why don't we do a quick wrap with each of you can offer your observations on what are you leaving tonight, what's on your mind and what do you, you know, what will you continue to think about in the coming days?

It's either you or I. I get.

Started if you want. I get started.

Don't.

Well, okay. I think that. I think I live a pretty healthy lifestyle and I'm just realizing like, dude, you're doing it a lot more healthy than me. So I'm like, whoa, okay, the markers, like the, like just getting the data on your own body then and applying it to this bigger methodology or thought process on how does that reflect the planet? Food is like the number one thing. I moved to the states in 2012 and I just was like, 10, dude, how are people eating the way they eat? Claiming the In N Out burger is good. I was like, what are you talking about? It's gross. But the thought process on don't die. My immediate reaction is it's very obviously very valid as a concept. I feel like there's another way to say it that allows people to receive it better. That's the only thing I keep thinking. But at the same time, like, well, when you, if you're willing to have the discussion with, let's say you, it still leads to this. Yeah. Like you understand it more. It's just like as a tagline, it's. It's not the most inviting when you hear that.

Right.

It doesn't feel as expansive of what the actuality of theory is.

But when, yeah, if you have a two hour conversation, it's like, yes, of course, everything leads to, to the idea that we got to protect our planet, protect our bodies, protect each other, and live ways that are just better and more optimal from a health perspective. But also kindness and, you know, all these different things. Talking about AI is complicated and nobody knows, which is totally true. And just, I think everyone's kind of scared. And it's a, it's an interesting prodding point because then we can also think, well, how as a whole populace keep that conversation going in a way that keeps us safe. You know.

I'm gonna go, Go ahead, I was gonna say I'm gonna get out here, go eat a cheeseburger and a bucket of ice cream. But I think, yeah, pulling from this don't die approach is, I think the three pillars for me are air, food and water. Focus on those, if I can kind of optimize those. And sugar, I think sugar is one of the biggest culprits to definitely cut out. I believe it was what you or Miranda said earlier about providing a world for our kids is to give them the most optimal world for them to have the best approach to be able to live the best life.

For sure. Yeah, thanks.

And I guess to just piggyback on that is like, I feel like education is a backbone for everything, but also creating systems that support it and like using AI to help us recreate these systems, but also to use data to try to understand our social norms are made on things that are irrelevant. And with data, we could make better social norms and better systems for all of us to don't die. And don't die gives us a common cause for all of us, the world, the planet and every species to get behind. So, yeah, but not that positive unless you talk about it for two hours and then we realize the brilliance of it.

So yeah, yeah, I think there's. We talked a lot about like AI and we talked a lot about not dying. So it's pretty big, big topics. But I feel that there's this really unique intersection of the two. I think if you couple AI with the don't die protocols, I mean it's, which is basically information and data. And if you're able to fine tune these AI models with that information, like everybody's going to have some kind of large language model that's like a social media profile, but it's just giving you all these insights when whether it's reducing inflammation or lengthening telomeres like we talked about, but also learning languages and having a robot that's driving you around town that's safer than you could ever drive. I think there is going to be an intersection that's going to accelerate or lengthen the don't die metrics in all of us. And so I think that's a good part of the future to be excited about.

Thank you.

I'm into it. I think so. So I'm a huge. I'm a science nerd and I love the. I've spent my career in the space of health. I am very focused on kids in science literacy and just understanding how to interpret the world around them. And so as we were going through things, I was like, oh my gosh, this is like, if I saw this idea online, I'd think about the mechanism of action and the safety profile. So from a safety. So when you have something that exists, where there's so many unknowns about it, you're thinking about, oh my gosh, what's it going to do to me and my body? And so I think from a safety profile perspective, there's really no downsides. Worst case scenario, you're better for thinking through it. If you take a supplement that doesn't hurt you in some way, you just have really expensive pee. I mean, it's just, it's like low downside risk. And then from like a mechanism of action, even spending time thinking about it in any capacity means you're leading to a more productive society to some degree. I was trying to just think through where it could go wrong and that I think it's a very inspiring, positive thought. That's scary to think about when you go too deep. But I like the way that conversation was constructed in terms of kind of getting all of us to this really fun space for our brains.

I mean, I love the way science and health are continually evolving and coming up with newer metrics for us to optimize our lives. And so if we have that data, we can provide it to our children and to each other. And we can then live in a way that we feel better. Because at the end of the day, there is no point in living if your quality of life is not there. So living in a way where you feel vibrant and you have vitality, you're going to enjoy yourself much more. And that's kind of what I try to teach my children when they're making choices with their food. And I feel like there's constantly more that we can learn and evolve, which is great. That you're doing that and providing a lot of us with that information so then we can make better choices for ourselves and our families. And I just think that it would be great to have more of this kind of at least questioning and thought process in the education system in general. I think that is, like, a critical thing because there's not really any basic, like, knowledge in the education system in general, like, worldwide, for our children to make better choices, to even know that that choice exists. Because they don't realize. They think that maybe they're so naive. They think that the food that they're being served at school is actually okay for them and that, you know, that people like me that say, oh, no, that, that. That I'm being like, that's right, hysterical. In, in saying that pizza is not beneficial for you to eat. They're like, what are you talking about?

Yeah.

So they're like, that's fun. You're, like, yucky now. Yum. Like, okay.

Because it's a social norm to have pizza, right?

Yeah.

But data.

But when it comes back to education and the data and the science behind it, and that's why you and I get along so well, because you provide a lot of the data that my teenager is looking for. And, you know, and I don't necessarily always have the time to be like, okay, let me just Google that. Hold on. Or like, yeah, as a science teacher, like, he, like, appreciates your opinion coming from the science. So I'd like the merging of science and health and the way that we can optimize our lives and the lives of the next generation and continually coming up the line.

Yeah, I guess I feel with better information, we make better decisions. And if we don't have a bunch of good information, we can't make a really great decision off of it. So I feel like, for instance, people used to smoke a lot of cigarettes. Enough data and information came out of how it kills you. Really poor for you. I'm seeing currently so many more people I know not drinking because enough data is starting to come out that it's that harmful. Now everybody's thinking twice about it that I know and going to other healthier alternatives. And then I'm starting to think it, like, myself and other friends become more knowledgeable about water and its effects and how people are more and more people know, what kind of water system do you have in your house? And air purifiers and things? But it's relatively new. I think now people are starting to pay a lot more attention, particularly people like RFK and other things on the quality of the food. I think, again, the more information needs to be gathered and how do you test your water, how do I test this food, or, you know, and the air quality and things as well. So I think there's. There's a movement that is starting there and I think AI will help to accelerate that. But I think, yeah, people are going to start making better decisions with better information. But then the other thing got in my head was just, yeah, I mean, it is a possibility that has been in the back of that about AI and the supercomputers and what could happen and that, yeah, ultimately we could destroy ourselves. And that's interesting to think about. Have other planets and things done that, you know, throughout this, the universe and the galaxy or what have you? So, yeah, you hope that we do get behind a common thesis of what's good for us all. Maybe that's one of the solutions here as we enter into this next phase.

For context, I've been to a couple of these now. Like over 50 and.

Just a couple.

Yeah, just a couple. And every time I take something new out of it. And although there is 90% predictability in the responses, there's also that 10% variation that allows me to milk out a little more each time, and it comes from the different people. So I appreciate everyone sharing your perspectives and being really vulnerable.

Yeah. What Talma was just saying is really interesting that what's really helpful is when we started doing this, we were trying to find these conversation formats which would be very conducive to conversation. And the predictability is that it doesn't matter who's present, it doesn't matter what level of intelligence at the table. The conversations are 99% predictable. The thoughts, emotions, ideas, arguments, preferences. It is such a humbling experience to realize we are all NPCs. We think we're original, we think our ideas are bangers. We think that we really are coming at the game of life, of this robotic, robust intellect. We are a mirror of our time and place. We behave in patterns that we consume. And we can't see it because our lived experience is original. But in this larger pattern of existence, we really are time and place. Which is why these thought experiments are meant to invite you, just to realize this, that if you travel back in time, you were Homo erectus, and you say, this is a million years ago. They have an axe in their hand. That's the technology of the day. And you pose questions to them, like, tell me about the future of existence. Right. It's laughable, right? They, they don't have models of, of markets or of technology or of antibiotics or of quantum mechanics. They, they don't know these models. And so they can't go into their mind and plug out a model to explain the future of existence. They don't have them. So the only thing intelligent that Homoxus could say is that their models map to a certain time frame of reality. And then after that they expire that they can't say anything intelligent about the future. They can make guesses. But the invitation here is that as we give birth to AI, the difference between the abilities and intellect of AI and us may be comparable to make us somewhat similar to Homo erectus and how primitive we are and how much we don't know. So it's an exercise above all to invite us to contemplate. We may be absolutely ridiculous in our ideas. We may have no idea whatsoever what is coming or how we should think. And so don't die is an invitation to say scrap all ideas of existence, all norms, all values, all systems, all imaginations, all goals, all objectives. Now we can softly do this, but we can be open minded to say that none of our ideas are going to travel in time, that they'll all be expired at some point in time. And so it's really that depth that you get to in this conversation is that level of humility. Now that's very hard because we hold on to knowing so strongly because that's what's gotten to this place. And so I've even wrote, I wrote out a script for Don't Tie Dinners and I actually created characters and I wrote what they say and when they say it. So for example, like every time we start the conversation, one person in the group will say, I'm first and I'll offer my opinion. They offer some construction, whether it's yes or no. Immediately following that person, a second person will confirm that idea. The third person will say okay, that opinion has been expressed. I'm taking the contrarian. Sarah, you did. So it was yes, I forget the exact same yes, yes. And then I think yes, yes.

And then I think it was yes, yes.

I would say yes.

So but it's like roughly like two or three of a similar opinion and then the group runs to a contrarian. It's accelerated. Ah, I'm going to take a different opinion. And so even on that, like it's so predictable on how group dynamics emerge. And so it's really, to me that's been the most humbling thing. And so I myself realize that I am an NPC in life. Like, even though I have the view of all of you going the process originally, when I step out of this, my lived experience is the same of this social, cultural moment. And so it's been really helpful for me to realize I am probably a 99% NPC. And, you know, don't die is probably the only original idea I've had in my entire life outside of that, but hopefully. Yeah. So there's that meta later for you. All right, everyone, you really like. Talmad said you all did a wonderful job. Many people are going to watch this, and I hope that this is. We've been doing this for years. We've never filmed one.

Oh. Oh, yeah.

It's hard to have capture of cameras, voices. It's just complicated. But you all did such a wonderful job. Your comments were very thoughtful and authentic, and I think people will resonate. So thank you for being here today. Thank you. Thank you for giving this your best go. I hope that people. I hope this does really well and that it becomes a zeitgeist conversation that don't die comes out as a doc and it's like, okay, biohacking help get it. But then this is really what we're after.

Oh, and that people can have these conversations in their own homes.

Exactly. Exactly. So we give the format out to say exactly everywhere. So we give the template and say, here are the five thought experiments and here's how you roll through them. And everybody gets a shot at trying to maneuver through their own minds of how to understand this moment.

Man, I thought you were gonna say as a gift, you're not gonna die.

Yeah, I mean, well, this. That's the craziest idea in existence. That that may actually be true. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.

Great din.