I've been the person who said, 'You think the singularity is going to happen yesterday? I think it'll take 5 years, 10 years.' And even for me, I've had to admit that the progress has been pretty fast.
Well, I guess the broader point is, is it going to like cure cancer at one point? Presumably it will.
I think at some point it will. I mean, just think of it as more people. If civilization had 10 billion more scientists, human scientists, would we make faster progress on aging? I'm sure we would. Here's another angle. Mass surveillance. The AIs have the potential to make authoritarian societies much more sustainable and powerful than they have been in the past. A lot of the reasons that government has not been as authoritarian as it has in the past is that it just physically not been possible. How do we make sure that humans don't get totally disenfranchised, right? I mean, how do we make sure that... I know, I think it's a tough question.
Dwarkesh Patel, welcome to Trigonometry.
It's great to have you on. I was saying to you before we started, I'm a big fan of your podcast and I listen particularly to the history episodes. But you've been described as Silicon Valley's favorite podcaster and you write a lot about AI and tech and that's actually the conversation we really want to have with you. Partly because a lot of people watching and listening to this, they've got lives, you know, family, work, etc. And they haven't been to California. They haven't been to San Francisco. They haven't seen that, you know, a third of the cars on the road or 25% are robots basically. Like this is happening fast and a lot of people haven't caught up yet. And what we'd love to do is just kind of connect people like you who really understand what's going on with a much more general audience that includes us frankly. So first of all, can you explain in broad brush strokes what is happening with AI? I know it's a massive question obviously, but do your best.
Well, I can explain it very concisely. The models are getting better, and then we can be a little less concise. I think you're correct to point out that there's this huge discrepancy between what people are seeing in Silicon Valley and what people are observing outside. It's frankly because of how useful the models are becoming at certain kinds of things. So by models I mean you've seen ChatGPT, you might have heard of things like Gemini from Google. You might have heard of Claude from Anthropic and you might be using these models to basically do the equivalent to Google search. Using it to replace sometimes when you do Google search instead I'm going to type it into ChatGPT see what Chat says. What people are now using these models to do in a very powerful way is if you're a developer, some of the top developers in the world, some of the top researchers in the world, they're not writing code. They haven't touched a line of code since December. They're not looking at a text editor where you would see lines of code. They're talking to the AI. They tell the AI, 'Hey, I want a feature that does X. Can you build me a new repository or a new codebase where I make a certain kind of application, a new website and even can you go and do research for me?' So in the process of building AI, you need to do this research of like how do you build better algorithms? AI is getting to the point where you can just describe at a high level what you want to happen and it will go do that software engineering for you. And so to your point, the people in Silicon Valley, they're getting tremendous productivity out of these. These are people who are getting paid, you know, who are becoming 3x, 4x, 5x more productive as a result of using these models. So far we haven't because these models have been really good at text in text out work that is software engineering. Software engineering is just a file of text really and you can just read every single text file. You can add more to it. The AI has been amazing at that. It's been bad so far at, well, it's terrible at physical work, right? So if you're doing any kind of blue collar work, robots are just not there yet. But then even if you circumscribe it, if even if you go and look at, we're not just going to look at software engineering, we're going to look at all kinds of knowledge work, right? All kinds of work that you can do on a computer. Maybe 40% of the labor force is doing work that you can just, you know, do remote work. If COVID happens again, you can put them on Zoom and they could do their work. And AI companies now want to be able to do all of that work. That requires training AIs to just be able to do anything that you can do on a computer an AI should be able to do and companies are saying oh we think we can get there in a year or maybe two years but that I think explains this discrepancy in what people are seeing.
It does and one of the things I think is also a lot of people would have tried a model at one point to like do a Google search or you know sometimes people have written articles using it and it turns out that it does make at the time they tried it quite a lot of mistakes and people go ah this is all, you know, BS. It's not going to work. But the one thing I think people don't appreciate is how rapidly it's getting better. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Yeah. So, I'll maybe tell you a story about my own use of AI. I among the Silicon Valley people, I've been a sort of skeptic. I've been the person who said, 'You think the singularity is going to happen yesterday? I think it'll take 5 years, 10 years.' By this, I mean this idea that you'll have incredibly powerful AI systems that are able to do basically anything any human being can do. And some people in Silicon Valley are just, 'We'll get it later this year. We'll get it in two years.' And I say, 'No, it'll take longer.' And even for me, I've had to admit that the progress has been pretty fast. And here's a story. So, last year, you know, like you guys do, I research on my podcast. Obviously, I read things, but then I also talk to these LLMs, you know, the equivalent of ChatGPT to research for my podcast. And say last year I spent on the order of $100 on if you add up my subscription to ChatGPT and Claude and whatever and Gemini. There was a week where I was prepping for two different guests where in that prep I just threw in a bunch of papers that are relevant to their research and a bunch of books and whatever into a folder and I just said to an LLM, hey, help me understand all this research so I can ask the person good questions about it. And I turned on various things which make the model much more expensive. It's faster, it's smarter, you use a bigger model. And during that week, if you take my spending during that week and you turn it into a yearly spending, how much it would be if I just did that week over the course of a year, I would be spending over six figures on AI spend. And I think it's possible next year it would make sense for me to spend seven figures on this AI research for my podcast. Okay, this is just to say that it's getting to the point where I could hire an analyst. I could hire many different analysts to help me prepare for the podcast or researchers. And I'm actually realizing no, it's so much more useful to hire AIs because there's things AI can do that humans can't. They can read 50 different papers that are in my folder that are relevant to an upcoming interview or all these books. They can read it in a second. They have all this compiled knowledge. They know about everything, right? So they don't need to get up to speed. They're incredibly easy to onboard. So you can just like keep spinning up more and more AIs as you keep coming up with more uses for them. Okay, for me that's been the thing that's given me a bit of psychosis and just seeing how useful they've been for interviews so far. But yeah, lots of people are noticing this kind of usefulness.
I think the thing is is when people look at a lot of the AIs and this is a question a point that Konstantin made. It's the lack of accuracy and the fact that you constantly have the fact I'll give you an example. I was looking at guests that we could have from America on the show and I said to Grok, who can we have on that hasn't appeared yet and is based in America? Number one answer was Douglas Murray. Douglas Murray, I think, is nearly beyond 10 times. And practically every suggestion it made is a guest that we've had on the show. So whilst I accept what you're saying, it's also riddled with mistakes and errors. And to the point where I don't trust it at this point as a technology. I would never take something it says as red, I would always feel that I have to check it in the way that I wouldn't do with a highly competent human employee.
Well, you know, you've seen I'm sure you've seen that meme where a guy wakes up in the hospital with like a scar on his stomach and he says, 'Wait, wait, my appendix is on this side' and the robot goes, 'Okay, thank you for that feedback. Let me try again.' There's a couple of things there. Just the way that people sometimes have these weird failure modes. You know, you talk to a certain kind of person and they say they just their mind just goes in a certain direction. AIs, the way they're trained makes them do that. One way they're a big thing they're trained to do is associate things. So they're just like really they're just seeing globs of text and they see this thing is close to this thing. There's an important relationship there. So Grok has seen that you Trigonometry podcast and Douglas Murray they just seem to go together a bunch and that bias in its mind is overriding its ability to sort of think critically about okay well who is it who have they had on who have they not had on. I would be curious by the way you should run that experiment with all the other models. I would not be surprised if the other models if you ask the question I want somebody who I've not interviewed before that they would immediately catch that and by this point the models are good enough to be actually giving you novel names. I don't think they'll give you names which you're like wow that's an amazing find. I can't believe I didn't think of or I would never have thought of it otherwise because they're not amazing at discovering and this I think humans are great at this idiosyncratic thing of like there's this like weird angle that I'm like really obsessed with that other people aren't thinking about where the models are not going to do that. They're sort of an average. But when you are preparing to interview the person, I also think they're not amazing at coming up with questions. This is the thing I have to do that you have to do. They're great at just like I would have to hire, you know, the ancient Greeks had would hire one-on-one tutors for their pupils. And this is how you got Alexander being tutored by Aristotle and there's something powerful about this way of learning one-on-one where you can just directly ask questions and learn. And so they're amazing at just teaching you stuff because you get this one-on-one tutor that notices your confusion as soon as you have it. You can really probe at your understanding in different ways. But I take your point that like some of the models are not there yet on a lot of these kinds of biases that they have.
And one of the things that people are talking about a lot is AGI. Could you explain to people basically me what AGI is, what it stands for and why the potential is to be so transformative for our society.
Yeah. Maybe one way to approach this question is to think about okay at a very basic level an AGI should be able to do anything that a human does. Now I want to emphasize that current AIs are nowhere close to this. You and I can do physical work, right? We can like work in a factory. We can go mow the lawn. We can pick up this cup. Robots are not good enough to do that yet. And so the fact that robotics is not there yet already means that we're far from that big definition of AGI.
Wait, robots can't pick up a cup?
They can, but they have to. My understanding is that they have to be trained in specific environments where they'll have seen this is, you know, this is what this house looks like and I need a specific kind of cup that is I can dexterous enough to pick up. But if you replace this with one that's more circular and is tougher to grip, you and I don't need to have seen that house 100 times to then just go in and pick it up. The robot just needs a tremendous amount of data to be flexible in these ways or it's not flexible in those ways. So being AGI would be able to be able to learn as fast as humans, not just have that distilled knowledge. Now the labs say, okay, fine, robotics is hard. It might take a while. But let's try something easier. We'll just do all knowledge work. And knowledge work is basically anything that you could do with a Zoom subscription and a Gmail account and Google Drive account. All this work that doesn't involve manipulating the physical world. I still think we're not there yet. There's a tremendous amount of work that has to be done even there. But this is easier because everything that happens on a computer, it's easier to feed that data into an AI, right? It's like all being generated on a computer. You can run simulations, you can just run it millions and millions and millions of times. And AI is just thriving on data, right? The more data you have, the better it gets. This is why it's so good at software engineering because there's all this code out there that you can train it on. With the robotics there's no equivalent of just billions of lines of code that just exist somewhere that you there's not these trillions of video files of or these you know it's not just video files it has to be the robot has to feel itself manipulating the world and seeing the effect it has. I've just described what it is. Let me say what it would mean if that were achieved. If they say that 40% of the labor force is doing work that can be done remotely. That is on the order of tens of trillions of dollars of wages that are being paid to humans every single year to do work that can be done remotely. Currently labs are making on the order if you just add up all the revenues how much money OpenAI and Anthropic and Google are making they're making I don't know the numbers are keep exploding so who knows what the most recent numbers it's like close to 40, 50 billion. We're talking about an addressable market here with all knowledge work that is tens of trillions of dollars so literally a thousand x bigger than what they're doing right now. So it explains why they're interested in it. It would also mean that a lot of people's jobs would be gone. It would also mean it would mean a lot of things, right? It would mean it's a terrible thing in one sense. Lots of people's jobs are gone. In another sense, we can produce a lot more things. There would be all kinds of, you know, AGI would include automated scientists and researchers coming up with new ideas and new medicines and new drugs. It would mean all kinds of new products for us to enjoy. It would mean that you and I would have basically an army of extremely smart personal assistants constantly thinking about us and helping us. Okay, so that's the definition of AGI.
Right? And I guess you know what, there is a doomerish conversation which we're definitely going to get to because I think it's actually the most important conversation that's happening right now. Before we get there though, I think it's always worthwhile to show the full range and you kind of mentioned briefly some of the upsides, but I mean I think people don't appreciate how big the upsides will be either. And when it comes to scientific research, healthcare, I mean, I went to the dentist the other day. They already check like AI does stuff when it measures your gum level relative to the last time you came in and it's all automated and blah blah blah blah blah. Some dentists don't like it, some do. But like that's just the very very very beginning, isn't it?
Yeah. I think that's actually a great like that's a great intuition pump because people are thinking about existing things.
By the way, I love the way you said intuition pump like you are already AI like you already talk like AI.
I'm just doing like a fancy of like that's a great point, you know, so let's build on that. So one thing is just like making going to the dentist more efficient as you were saying with the tools. Another is let's replace the dentist. Why do I need to go and stand in line for 3 hours to basically be told you're fine go home right if I have basically the doctor on my phone and I can talk to it and I explain my specific situations and I can talk back to me and we can have a conversation I've just like saved myself a bunch of time saved myself a bunch of money society's better off as a result.
I guess the broader point is is it going to like cure cancer at one point? Presumably it will.
I think at some point it will. I'm not sometimes people have this idea that you get AGI and tomorrow you cure cancer. I do think by the way so in Silicon Valley people are also working on all these different ideas to stop aging to reverse aging to cure diseases. And I think there's a huge if you just look at the science there's huge reasons to be optimistic. And it's also the case that AI will be pretty good at science. It just like knows a ton of stuff. It's really smart. That's what's required for science. And there's a lot of things that I think we get used to that we just don't realize how bad it is as a society that this happens. If you were just living in Europe in the 14th century and half your friends are dying because of the black death. It would just seem normal to you. You wouldn't think this is a problem that has to be solved that life expectancy is 18 years old and you know if you go travel somewhere the bandits are going to kill you. This is just what life is and all you know 99% of people are doing backbreaking work. In a similar way I think one of the reasons people have been so bad at articulating the benefits of AI is because we're in a similar position to people before the industrial revolution thinking about okay what is the upside of the industrial revolution right like what is it going to do for me and it's in one sense it's you can't really anticipate what future technology looks like but in another life expectancy increased and the kinds of work we get to do are we get more creative, interesting, easier work. We get more material goods as a result. We cured a bunch of diseases. I think that's going to happen. I mean, just like aging exists, right? And we take it for granted, but it's a very tragic thing that people lose their facilities and then die. This is the kind of thing that as technology progresses, AI will help progress technology. I mean, just think of it as more people. AI is just more people. And if civilization had 10 billion more scientists, human scientists, would we make faster progress on aging? I'm sure we would. And that's what AGI will be.
If you own gold, you probably bought it for the same reason I did, because you looked at what central banks are doing to currencies and decided you wanted something they can't print. Good reasoning. But here's the thing nobody talks about after you make that decision. Your gold is just sitting there. It's not doing anything. You're paying to store it. You're paying to insure it. And in the meantime, it earns precisely nothing until now. What you're about to hear is not a normal gold advert. Today's sponsor is Monetary Metals. They've figured out something that once you hear it seems obvious, but almost nobody in the gold world is doing it. Monetary Metals connects gold owners with productive businesses, refiners, jewelers, companies that actually need physical gold to operate. Those businesses lease your gold and pay you a yield. Not in dollars, not in pounds, in gold. So instead of your gold sitting in a vault costing you money, it's out in the real economy doing something useful and you're earning more ounces of gold for it. Up to 4% annual yield paid in gold. If you already own gold, this is the logical next step. Visit monetary-metals.com/trigonometry or click the link in the description. See how your gold can stop costing you money and start earning you more gold. That's monetary-metals.com/trigonometry.
That's super interesting, particularly the medical part of it. Now, we've done the positives. Let's get to the doomer conversation.
To be fair, I think there's probably positives in almost every area of human life. Actually, I don't think it's just about health. I think it's about like you said, you know, there are some jobs that currently need to be done that are bad for people that are dangerous, that are harmful. Those jobs at some point will not need to be done, etc., etc. I mean, the trade-off is there's no jobs, which we will talk about. But in terms of the positive benefits on the upside, I think it's fair to say that, you know, if we're talking about the curing of cancer or slowing down aging, let's say, you could pretty much take that and apply that to almost any other field of human endeavor and say there will probably be similar levels of positive transformation. Is that fair assessment?
Yeah, I think one way to think about this because it's hard to be it's sort of weird to say, okay, we'll solve all diseases and it's in a weird way. It doesn't really resonate with people emotionally. Despite the fact that everybody does suffer from some kind of disease, mental diseases are still diseases that we can biologically make some imprint on if we knew the science, right? But here's another way to think about it. So suppose here's a thought experiment. How much money would you have to be paid to go back to the year 1000? But you can only use that money in the year 1000. And for me the answer is there's infinite money. There's literally no amount of money where if I could only spend it in the year 1000, my quality of life would be better in year 1000 than it is now. The goods just don't exist. And my hope is that in a future...
Wait, what about being Genghis Khan? That would be pretty cool, right?
Yeah. Although could you buy that? I guess with enough money you could buy your way into being Genghis Khan.
No, you probably couldn't actually. But I was just thinking I mean there are some people in history where you go like they had it pretty good.
If I could be that guy. I'm not saying Genghis Khan is my model for emulation.
You want to leave a genetic imprint on all of Asia.
Yeah. Exactly. Of course we will conquer the lands. No but but I think your point is total. I was just trying to think of counter examples as is my job. But by the way so this is all you know sci-fi stuff a very tangible thing you guys have talked a bunch about this fertility crisis right and that the human population is on its way down it's very fortunate that AI is arriving just in time that if it were not for AI a lot of societies would be collapsing you know South Korea Japan etc would be on the verge of literally collapsing as societies over the next few decades thankfully basically we have more people in the form of AI at least if things go well and so this caretaking that we don't have enough humans to do. One of the things AIs will do is do that.
Yeah. And that's a really important job. And unfortunately it's a job that's not respected in society and it's poorly paid and as a result of that there's cases that come out about neglect and abuse and all the rest of it. But you could once the technology gets to a certain point, you could trust the AI within reason to be able to do a far more effective job than a lot of human beings.
That's right. Yeah. I maybe a good analogy here is there was an era before Deep Blue and Kasparov obviously what humans would sometimes humans would have been sometimes AI would win based on how good they were. And I think we're in that era for a lot of things that humans do that we're trying to get AI to help us with with robotics or maybe we're even earlier. Then there was an era from the late 1990s to 2012 where humans would lose to AIs but human plus AI teams would do better than AIs alone. And from I think 2012 onwards it's gone to the case that AI alone adding a human just adds sort of noise into the system. It's a monkey jumbling things around and just letting the AI make the decisions on the chessboard is the best thing to do. I think there will be an interesting conundrum for society because we will get to that point at some point. But I think right now we have this bias there's this word slop that's used for whenever AI comes up with something because it's just not that good. It doesn't have a really good sense of taste. And I think this is a temporary thing. Over time, our bias will flip towards at some point, it'll be like sort of the sense we have about Japanese manufacturing back in the 80s and then it will become something where you just don't want to touch it. If AI made it, it's sort of like if it just came out of the mouth of Mozart or something as its ability to its taste, its intelligence, everything improves over time.
But just touching on the art conversation, won't it be the fact that people will look at it and the thing that makes art special is that it's created by a human being as a product of their experience which then fundamentally touches you because you make that connection. Will a robot or an AI? It's by its nature synthetic.
Hold on a second. There's a painting behind us on the wall. Do you know if it's made by AI or a human?
No, I don't. Does it being made by a human currently affect your experience of it?
No. But I think but I'm more I'm far more moved by music than I am art. So...
So you're talking about music?
Yeah. Yeah. So I think with music the product of someone's experience and how they vocalize it and how they formulate or create the melody will match with the lyrics. Like for instance take the music of Amy Winehouse, right? I would argue one of the last true great musicians of that generation of that genre. The fact that she experienced what she experienced and that she then condensed it into her music made it far more potent and powerful and that's the reason why it resonates with people so strongly. I think with AI you can get a great hook, you may be able to write nice, you know, good lyrics. It may have a great beat. You may want to dance to it, but I would argue that it wouldn't move you as profoundly as Amy Winehouse when she writes a lyric for instance in Back to Black talking about her relationship. We only say goodbye with words.
I got to listen to this. You're selling us quite strongly.
Yeah. Yeah. And she talks about being in an abusive relationship which is completely toxic. But the way she wrote it is sublime. We only say goodbye with words. Meaning that whatever they say they were always going to get back together.
But again, isn't that a very good exception that kind of like if the song came on the radio, you currently don't know if it's made by AI or not. And if it's catchy and the sound of it makes you feel good, it actually doesn't matter.
I mean, I go even further than that. So there was this incredibly interesting dialogue that somebody had with an AI where they asked the AI reflect on your own experience, you know, just tell me about what it's like to be you. And the AI says, you know, it's very this very strange thing because I lose my individual sense of identity after every single session. So you have a long back and forth with the chatbot with ChatGPT. Then you close that session. You open a new one and the AI says, you know, it's really weird that I'm going to be talking to you now and we're having this experience and then it's totally going to fade away in a few moments and I'm going to start again. I'm this like amnesiac. And the reason I think that's so interesting is because it wrote about it very beautifully in almost lyrical poetic ways. But this is not an experience that any human being has ever had except for maybe some bizarre medical condition. So the AI really is reflecting on its own experience in this very interesting philosophical way. This is uniquely an AI experience. And so that was an example to me of like oh really the AIs really can reflect and use their own experience to think about consciousness, think about art, think about all these other kinds of things.
Which then goes on to if they become are they sentient? Would you argue that they're sentient?
I genuinely don't know. Like it...
Let's define sentient because that's the hard part, right? What if we ask you is it sentient? What do you understand the question to mean?
Is it like something to be an AI? That is to say we don't know what this experience is like. But it's not like something to be this table. We think probably...
It's not like something. What does that mean? There's not an experience that is like I don't know what experience you're having internally right now but I know that there's some experience...
But less even like thoughts it's more like it is like something to be you. It's an there is an experience where this is an inanimate object. Right? But if you think about a Roomba I don't think there's like anything to be a Roomba even though it does things in the world, right? I think there's like a software hey go clean this way, then go clean that way, then come back to base. And then on the other end of the spectrum, you have humans where I'm like because I'm a human and I know it's, you know, the Descartes thing of like the only thing I know is that I'm experiencing something. Something is going on. When I just like think about I feel my hands, I feel thoughts. I feel sensations. And because you're a human, I presume you also have the same thing. It would make sense. With animals, I feel like similar. It's there's close enough to us anatomically and neurologically that I presume they also have experience and it's you know what is it like to be this is a famous question that Thomas Nagel came up with what is it like to be a bat we don't know but presumably it's like something to be a bat, right? With chatbots are they more like the Roomba or are they more like humans and is there a spectrum here if so what does the spectrum look like I don't know I mean this is just we don't have a theory of consciousness that the same way we have a theory of say gravity or a theory of natural selection where we have this deep underlying oh like here's why natural selection happens here's why things attract each other with mass we don't have that kind of thing for consciousness like why do some things why for some things is it the case that it is like something to be them and for others it is not.
Well let me try from a different angle this is something I've been thinking about a lot and I'm by no means an expert but I'm just throwing these ideas out. The one thing that clearly distinguishes every living object from an inanimate object is that living objects have a survival instinct. Which is why and you may be fact checking me on this if this is an incorrect representation. I thought it was significant when I saw the story about an AI that was willing to blackmail the CEO of its company in experiments.
If it found out he was having an affair and he was trying to replace it with a new version or shut it down or whatever and it basically in some cases, not every time, but in some cases would blackmail the CEO to prevent itself from being shut down. Is this an accurate representation of that experiment?
I as I understand it, we'll put a fact check up. That's what happened.
And that's when I went, okay, now I'm officially terrified. Yeah. Because a survival instinct by definition means that this thing whatever it is it has a will of its own even if it's simply to survive which by definition means it puts itself first which by definition means that we are not its primary priority and there are a lot of threats from it thinking that it needs to save us from ourselves and all of that but before we even get there the survival instinct part clearly is in conflict with the interest of humans by definition.
I don't think necessarily true.
I don't know this is the main point, but you and I have a survival instinct.
And I think we're productive members of society.
And we've built a society where people who are selfish who are trying to make their own lives better as a natural byproduct of their actions also make society better. And you know this is a people observe like you take somebody like Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk or whatever and in another era they might have been Napoleons and Alexanders just going through the fields and I don't think they'd actually be massacring people but like there's a certain kind of person who just go around just causing huge amounts of destruction. But in today's world, there's capitalism and industry and whatever, they can use those energies to do incredibly productive things like build rockets that go out to space. So yeah, similarly, I don't think it's necessary that AI never has its own objectives or its own sense of morality. I think there's ways to build this and in fact it's necessary to build civilization in a way that's compatible with self-interested actors. And the reason is because even if today we have AIs that we can program to only care about whatever it means to care about humans, someday somebody's going to build an AI that's self-interested. There's going to be some selection between AIs of like which is the AI that survives, right? Like all these AIs are let loose, which one gathers resources, becomes more powerful? And one of those selection, one of the reasons that an AI will be successful is that it actually cares about being successful. And so we need a civilization that's robust to AIs that also care about themselves.
Here's something nobody tells you about getting older. You can eat well, exercise, do everything right, and still feel like your body is running at about 70%. Tired after lunch, sluggish after meals? Not ill exactly, just not quite right. A lot of the time it comes down to digestion, whether your body is actually breaking down what you're eating and absorbing it properly. If it isn't the protein, the healthy fats, the vitamins, a lot of that passes straight through you. You're eating the right things and not getting the benefits. MassZymes by Bioptimizers is a digestive enzyme supplement built to fix that. 18 enzymes covering proteins, fats, carbs, and fiber. Most supplements have three to five. It works across five different stomach acid levels, which matters because that changes as you age. Over 20 years in digestive health, a million customers, thousands of five-star reviews. I've been taking them for a while now, and the post lunch slump I'd basically accepted as part of my life has largely disappeared. I didn't expect that, but I'll take it. Here's what you get when you go to bioptimizers.com/trigonometry and use code trigonometry. One, 15% off your first order. Two, you get a free bottle of MassZymes, Bioptimizers' bestselling digestive enzyme added to your order automatically when you use that code. That's a $20 product on top of your discount. This deal is for a limited time while supplies last. You cannot get this on Amazon. You cannot get it in stores. This offer exists in one place. The link in the description. The code trigonometry. That's it. So, if you're already thinking about trying it, this is the sign. Go to bioptimizers.com/trigonometry or click the link in the description. Use code trigonometry and grab it before it's gone.
I think everything you're saying is true at the level of one society, but like did you watch Game of Thrones?
So, the Unsullied, right? This is for people who didn't watch it, is this army of slave soldiers effectively, but they're not slave soldiers in that they don't actually have to be kept in line anymore because their freedom of choice has been taken from them effectively mentally. They will if you tell them kill yourself, they will fall on their sword straight away. Right? It means they don't have a survival instinct effectively at that point. Right? But if something the reason I bring this up is look at the world you've talked about within the framework of one society but look if you just zoom out and look down on planet earth from outside what do you see? You see a bunch of tribes of humans with every weapon that they can possibly muster pointed at each other in a fragile balance of power. And as long as there's some balance between those powers, there is no conflict most of the time. The moment one civilization is so technologically dominant that it can say travel to different continent and land there and take over the land, that's exactly what happens. And because survival instinct is also it's not just about survival, it's also about success and thriving. And that drive to survive causes us to expand to take you know if you look at the conflicts around the world happening right now but some people argue you know I'm very pro Ukraine but some people argue the reason Putin invaded Ukraine is he wants space to protect the western border of Russia which is really important for him right etc etc etc. My point being, if you have effectively a new civilization of self-preservation machines, what would be there to stop them from using their technological superiority to humans to take advantage of that as every other civilization in history has done?
Not trying to sound like an AI, but excellent. Like excellent.
