YouTube Transcript:
This Terrifying Ideology has Infiltrated AI Labs | AI Expert Brendan McCord

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

People who are really high up at the AI

labs, they say that we are being rebels,

foolish rebels, if we don't listen to

the AI. They they truly say this. How

dare you rebel against God. Right.

Exactly. How dare you, you silly you

silly rebel. Nick Bostonramm is correct

that philosophy is on a deadline. He is

dead wrong about this

essential maybe central human good. Two

years from now, AGI is going to come

around the pipeline. You wouldn't be

doing what you're what you're doing now.

Right. There there's more pressing

questions to resolve. Yes. Wrong. People

right now believe that AI should tell

them what to do. There are Claude boys,

literally teenagers who call themselves

Claude Boys who will wake up and they

will do what Claude says and not

otherwise. And this, not EA, not

existential risk. This is the true

One of my friends uses chat GBT for

hours every day, not just as a search

engine, but as an operating system for

his life. He asks it where he should

eat, what he should text girls and

dating apps. He gets up every day and

has ChatGpt tell him what to do. My

friend does this not because he's

incompetent or stupid. He's one of the

smartest people I know. But because Chad

GBT already knows so much about him that

the advice is actually getting quite

good, the restaurants that it recommend,

for example, are already better than the

ones that he can find for himself. My

friend is not alone. Gen Z, Gen Alpha,

are increasingly using AI as a holistic

operating system to which they offload

all of their decisions onto. And Brendan

McCord argues that this kind of

offloading is the real danger of AI that

no one is talking about. In this

interview, you'll learn why human

autonomy is important, how AI threatens

it, and how to harness the power of AI

without forming an unhealthy dependency.

My name is Jonathan B. Brendan and I run

Cosmos together to deliver educational

programs, fund research, and build AI

startups that enhance human flourishing.

Both of us have a background in

philosophy and engineering. And we

believe that it's important to combine

the two if we are to build actually good

AI systems. If you want to join our

ecosystem of philosopher builders, you

can find roles we're hiring for, events

we're hosting, and other ways to get

involved on jonathanb.com/cosmos.

So, Brendan, today we're going to talk

about autonomy, which is uh a risk, but

also an opportunity that most people who

are building an AI, even for their

entire lives, are not really focused on.

Um but first I want to clear the ground

and talk about what people are worried

about. So there are very mature and

developed schools of philosophy in the

valley. The accelerationists, the

effective altruists, uh the x-risk

people and you argue that they're all

missing something essential about AI

development. Why is that? Uh and give us

an overview of these goals.

So the two main tendencies that I found

within the AI community are the

existential pessimists and the

accelerationists. and they roughly map

to the extremes of despair and the

extreme of hope.

The existential pessimist is kind of

three philosophies in a trench coat.

It's rationalism, effective altruism,

long-termism. These are all distinct,

but they're the intellectual incumbent.

And the prescription in light of this

possibility is that we should pause

development is that we should centralize

control is that we should radically

remake society on the basis of risk

avoidance. So it's a claim and then it's

a series of drastic and dystopian

prescriptions. you see some of the early

um godfathers of AI as they're called

people like Jeff Hinton

like having this almost Oenheimer like

hubristic awe of their own creation

saying I wish I hadn't done it

and you know that I brought this into

the world

and um you know the three schools as I

mentioned effective altruism rationalism

long-termism it's worth breaking it down

a little bit so rationalism comes out of

the 2000s Elizer Yubcowski um uh and

slatear codecs were kind of the

originating sources of this and they

claim to be focused on an idea of like

um uh perfecting human rationality but

they have a very very narrow commitment

to what rationality is. It's basian and

updating over a value function or the

value function over outcomes. It's a

kind of rationality that Aristotle and

Kant and you know modern thinkers would

not recognize. So, it's a commitment to

a very myopic kind of probabilistic

control type of morality. And what I

find interesting about this is that the

school is committed to rationality. Yet,

it finds itself the most fertile

breeding ground for the extremes of hope

and despair. And there's some kind of

irony to that. You know, the next one is

long-termism. And Bashram is probably

the source in long-termism. Long-termism

is worried about anything that could

affect the long-term outcomes for

humanity. That could be an asteroid. It

could be um you know pathogen. It

doesn't have to be AI. AI is

particularly important because its mo is

that of control. Boston advances

something called the orthogonality

thesis where you say something can

become very intelligent but on a totally

different axis. That does not imply that

they become more moral or that it

becomes more controllable. This is true

of humans as well. Um, and he worries

that a non-anthropomorphic final goal,

meaning create more paper clips, will

cause AI to pulp us all. So, this is a

concern that he has for the long-term

future of humanity based on this

orthogonality notion. And then the last

is effective altruism. And effective

altruism dominates the three when it

comes to the fundraising potential. It

is the most highly adopted academic

theory since Marxism. M and what

effective altruism does is it

rationalizes certain moral intuitions

and things that are not intuitive at all

it tries to pull in as well things like

you know other regarding behavior should

not factor in any notion of time or or

um a place. So, so what that means is I

should care about my family as much as

someone who lives 17 generations hence

in Indonesia or even plausibly a shrimp

equally. A util is a util whether it is

yours or those other entities. That is a

very radical premise. Um it also

attempts as as you know these forms of

utilitarianism do to reduce moral

questions to a single currency such that

we can compute them and maximize them.

And so um I reject and I think most

thinking people do reject that morality

is a thing that works like that. In

other words, endemic immorality appears

to be this difficulty of making pretty

sharply heterogeneous trade-offs. Like

how do you com compare the uh moral

question entailed by some suffering over

here with familial love with duty or

honor in battle? These are things that

don't commenserate

in utilitarianisms. They do and it's

false kind of scientistic way of viewing

the questions of morality that really

obiates what makes moral choice

difficult. The other thing I'll say here

is that um effective altruism

tries to take one's personal projects

and make them those of the universe

provide the calculational standpoint to

say rather than you know acting morally

in a way that inherently springs from me

right that's what we learn from

Aristotle and the comain ethics rather

than doing that it subordinates that

impulse that moral choices like is an

individual thing and tries to make it

the standpoint of the universe

subordinates uh what it means to act

morally. And this is why it is not

surprising to me to see such profound

moral failings in the EA community. In

other words, what is sexual assault?

What what is the what is the real issue

there if you're doing cosmically

significant work? What are the practical

consequences of following this through

of people who are actually building AI

or regulating AI thinking in this way?

What are the practical consequences?

So, two that come to mind. One is that

we would look to

governance solutions that are profoundly

illiberal and that would lead to tyranny

um namely the creation of a world state.

So in the paper um the vulnerable world

hypothesis Boston writes about the need

therefore you know it's always a

conclusion of these radical premises to

create a world state where basically you

eliminate the coordination difficulty of

having greater than one actor. So even

US and China let alone a more

multi-polar you know world presents this

like game theoretic challenge of racing

and so forth. And so we have to get to

one. we have to get to one state and of

course political philosophy has dealt

with the question of whether there

should be one state many times before.

There's a contan critique um that has to

do with uh you know the the challenges

of maintaining legitimacy uh uh versus

having to sort of squash disscent and

there's a Strauss co debate where Leo

Strauss argues that it would lead to a

universal perpetual homogeneous tyranny

and um and many other uh uh concerns. So

that's one. The other is that if we

accept and hold tight those utilitarian

premises, then we might think that it is

uh acceptable to live a life with

artificial intelligence that is

profoundly uh nonhumanistic.

In other words, that we might um be

perfectly willing to be downstream of

AI, having it tell us what to do and

guide our life like an autocomplete.

I see. Um, one interesting thing I want

to double click on is you use the word

hubris to describe these schools which

is I think is fascinating because in

many ways these schools portray

themselves to be egoless right the

effect of altruist is about it's not

about my good it's about altruism or the

rationalist right it's not about my ego

or my selfish interest it's about doing

what's rational but I was reading um one

of these uh important blogs of the EA

community and it said the way you should

make decisions is think what would a

benevolent an omnipotent God do. And I

think it's it's kind of a power trip,

right, to to to think about it in that

way. And maybe to build off of what you

said about Oppenheimer, I think that to

claim confession of one's guilt is at

once to claim credit for the sin. It's

to say, I am powerful enough to

potentially end the world. And there's

also a subtle ego trip there. Is that is

that what you meant by hubris?

Yeah. And I think it it's both the kind

of hubris that Bacon had in saying that

man would master nature, you know, at

the beginning of the scientific project

and the same kind of hubris that comes

through any serious philosophy project

where we try to find the one true answer

to all the things. Like there is a

hubris laden in that. And if you are the

type of person that can subjugate the

world with symbols mathematically

inclined among us, it is your moment and

what you do has cosmic significance for

the future of the race.

Right now I will say the strands of

philosophy to which I am attracted tend

to take a different approach. They tend

to be more epistemically

humble. They tend to focus on the use of

reason to whittle down the claims of

reason as David Hume would say. In other

words, a critical rationalism and not a

constructive rationalism that tries to

sort of say this is the way the world

is. Tries to focus a little bit more on

what the world isn't. Right?

Right?

Um so that there is, you know,

philosophy is not uh not solely the

domain of the hubristic,

right? Uh one of my favorite lines from

uh your favorite book from by Hayek,

which we'll talk about is something like

uh every political philosophy believes

other people are ignorant but liberals

also believe that they themselves are

ignorant. Right? And that's kind that's

the kind of difference there. Um many in

Silicon Valley have also reacted to

these dominant schools of philosophies

in the way that you have. Uh and so

accelerationism was born. Tell us about

that school and why you don't think

that's a satisfactory response. Right.

Right. So the the other end of the

extremes of hope and despair accelerationism

accelerationism

and this school would have us unleash

the development of AI as an end in

itself. And that's a very important

idea. You know, you and I, I think,

probably hold technology to be a very

powerful means by which we flourish as

individuals. The accelerationist school

confuses technology as a means with

technology as the end and views humans

as being a kind of instrument in this

trajectory that is sweeping,

transcendent, inexurable, this

technological trajectory. It draws a lot

not from basian thinking but from

thermodynamics. And so it wants to

portray humans as a kind of variable in

this thermodynamic equation in this um

broad project to be able to harness and

dissipate more energy or to be able to

uh climb the cardartesev scale which

means to harness not just the energy of

the planet or the sun but of the galaxy

you know ratchet up more and more and

more. These are not humanistic goals.

And it's very important because one of

the conclusions that the orthodox

accelerationists reach is actually that

we can and should hasten the time to

passing the baton

from humans. We invite the doom to

something higher. Yeah. Exactly. And I

think with both schools, but certainly

with accelerationism, you see a

metaphysical impulse, you know, the the

the the religious impulse that humans

have long had. You see it conserved but

redirected towards the thermodynamic

god. In other words, they're both kind

of esqueological. You know, in one case,

we die and in one case we build

something higher and better and then are

transcended. And here here's the upshot

is that both of these schools are very

imaginative in a sense, right? These are

you cannot fault them for being very

imaginative about the possibilities

here. um whether it's paper clips or

thermodynamic god but on the one thing

that is most needful they have a lack of

imagination and what I mean by that is

on what it means to be human what the

human good is. Yeah.

One side views humans as a kind of

aggregate of suffering or pleasure. In

other words, we view the human good as

the avoidance of pain. I have news for

you. That is not the entirety of the

human good. The other side abandons the

idea of the human good entirely. In

other words, it's a non-humanistic

philosophy. And this is precisely where

the issue is, is that we need a positive

uh uh uh approach that is humanistic,

that is grounded in the real goods, not

reductionist to to you know either

Beijing or thermodynamic effect, but

really focus on the underlying human

goods. If you are as we are investing in

for example application uh level

companies that are using AI uh if you're

worried about solving problems around uh

autonomy um and we'll discuss what that

means you are implicitly making a bet

and saying that there will no be there

there won't be a singularity or an AGI

within the next 5 to 10 years right

you were saying that there is a human

good that needs to be jealously defended

that's what you're saying and you're

saying that No one else will do it. We

have to do it.

So you're you're but you're agnostic to

the the speed of the the AI development.

You're agnostic to the development

scenarios. You're simply saying whatever

path we go down, this is a human good

that I want to protect and I must build

in order to protect it.

Let me push you in in one last direction

as a devil's advocate for these schools,

which is Brendan, you say that uh you

are agnostic to the AI kind of

development timeline. uh and the core

focus is figuring out how AI regardless

of development timeline can help these

human goods flourish and that's why for

example the the main questions we ask at

Cosmos are around autonomy which we'll

talk about soon decentralization and

truth seeeking the devil's advocate is

to say but if you think AGI is around

the corner then all of your energy

should be focused on getting that right

and aligning it and it will be able to

answer these questions

much better than we can today. And so

this is what Bolstrom said when I was

interviewing him, which is philosophy

has a deadline. And there are certain

philosophical questions that are more

urgent if you take that AGI is around

the corner kind of kind of idea. So even

though you claim you're agnostic, you're

still not agnostic, right? Because if I

told you, let's say I'm an Oracle, I

come from the future. In two years from

now, AGI is going to come around the

pipeline. You wouldn't be doing what

you're what you're doing now, right?

These questions we can save for later.

there's more pressing questions to

resolve. Yes.

Ron. Yeah. So I think you know for

example um when we talk when we get into

autonomy that is a lived practice. In

other words that is something that

humans do right and so the thought that

we will build AGI and AGI will figure

out autonomy is nonsensical. It's a

category error. Like it can't figure out

something that must live within us. In

other words we must self-develop. we

must self-direct. And so we can use AGI

instrumentally in that pursuit, but it

is not a thing to be figured out. It's a

practice. It's something to be lived. I see.

see.

And so like I I also want to um clarify

that my agnosticism doesn't imply a

withdrawal. In other words, we are

building like we're building the future

we want to see.

Okay. Well, this is a perfect segue.

Let's talk about the risk that I don't

think anyone in the valley has really

focused on in the way that we have

autonomy. What is the risk as well as

opportunity as it relates to AI and

human autonomy? So when you think about

the greatest goods in your life, you

probably think about things like friends

and family and loved ones. You might

think about the pursuit of wisdom.

That's I would say one of your highest

highest goods. Creative endeavor, that

sort of thing, right? Um it's actually

eating but wisdom is number two. Yeah.

Yeah. Eating. Exactly. That would I I

would say be one of the lowest that is

necessary for the highest. So this is an

interesting point about how the lowest

things in us are needed for the for the

highest uh as well. But these kinds of

goods what's common to them. Whatever

you hold to be your highest goods is

that they cannot be uh obtained on a

platter. You know AI can't give them

eating except for eating which we'll

I'll hold to the side.

We'll buck in. Um, and they have to be

uh attained as the result of some kind

of selfmotivated striving. In other

words, you had to get out there. You had

to try things. You had to enjoy it. You

had to experience it. You had to get

hurt by it. Being able to discover and

develop one's gifts, being able to

deliberate using reason and to line up

our actions and be able to pursue them.

So, this deliberative capacity for

self-direction, okay, is I think the

thing I want to call everyone's

attention to. This is autonomy. And

without this self-direction, we cease to

live fully human lives. We may act in

the world, but it isn't really our life

to live. And so I say this all so far at

the level of the individual. Like the

other piece of it is that it's very

important as a society, particularly a

democratic society, one that

self-governs. And this is because we

depend on individuals who can form

views, who can act on those views, who

can self-govern. Without that we lose

the the the greatest bull work against despatism.

despatism.

Right. So draw it out practically how uh

this current AI wave can harm or or

accelerate us being autonomous agents.

Okay. So the phrase that I would uh

stick in your mind is autocomplete for

life. What I mean by that is we use AI

systems, we obtain the incremental

convenience from them where we get not

just the next word in the sentence,

that's what everyone's familiar with of

autocomplete, but also the next

decision, the next, you know, uh uh job

recommendation, the next friend, the

next relationship, the next purpose. In

other words, we can sort of ladder up

what AI can do for us and feels very

harmless. It feels convenient and

probably useful, but it adds up. It it

causes a kind of erosion of choice. When

we offload, we can see at the level of

fMRI, but certainly we all recognize

this in our lived experience that we

atrophy. In other words, we um we

habitually offload in a way that causes

us to then lose the skill. you see this

like the fMRI stuff is like if you do a

lot of speed reading and not a lot of

deep reading you you lose some of the

ability to do that you know or if you do

a lot of calculator- based arithmetic

you lose the ability to do that now I

think an important point has to be made

like why is this not just another

version of that right Google uh Google

maps right I can't drive very well

without Google maps um you're probably

the same actually live in New York so

you probably can't drive period um but

um so then the next question becomes

Why is AI in particular a problem for this?

this?

Because this is a problem for all

technology, books and memory, right?

Like driving and being able to ride a

horse. Yeah. What what's

Well, actually, I think before we even

talk about that, I framed it as a

problem, but it's actually it's actually

a beautiful thing,

right? And you and I have talked about

the quote from Alfred North Whitehead

that the measure of civilizational

progress is the number of important

operations of thought we can perform

without thinking about them. Right?

Right?

It's a brilliant brilliant quote. There

are examples about my favorite of this

is Max Verssteppen the Formula 1 driver.

He's a kind of a prodigy, you know,

special driver. And when it's raining on

the course, he can talk to his pit wall,

his pit crew. And it's because he has

made it autonomic. Yeah.

He has done it so many times that he can

actually think about strategy. He's

talking about the tires. Yeah. You know,

he's going 220 m. In fact, I remember

one of the races, I'm big F1 fan. He was

watching the other drivers like on the

jumbotron and commenting on their races.

I mean, it's almost like he's just Yeah,

he's just like having a strategy thought

while everyone else is clinging on at

5Gs or whatever they drive at. And so

anyway, so it's a beautiful thing. It's

how we build the edifice of

civilization. It's how we do the higher

things, it's great. So it's a bit of a

paradox, right? On the one hand, it's

great. On the other hand, it's

problematic. Okay, so now we set sort of

the contours. So coming back to the key

question of why does AI why is that a a

thing that special case special case yeah

yeah

so one is you have to think about what

it is that you are offloading and thus

potentially eroding and in the case of

calculators it's calculation in the case

of maps it's like positioning in in

space yeah navigation that's

um in the case of writing that's is

essentially memory right primarily

memory and so these are kinds of

categories of

Never before has it been possible to

offload and therefore atrophy our core

practical wisdom or our core

deliberation I should say that leads to

a kind of wisdom so you know now you are

talking about something that is

necessary to self-direct that is

necessary for moral judgment right it is

necessary for us to decide what is good

for us and so it's a different kind of

thing that gets offloaded the other

question you have to you have to ask

okay now that we've pinpointed that this

is a very precious thing that we should

be careful to not offload then you have

to look at how pervasive is it likely to

be and AI is clearly something that can

scale it's clearly something that can be hyperpersonalized

hyperpersonalized

already 20% of human life is mediated by

algorithms human waking life is mediated

by algorithms

social media algorithms yeah

social media al algorithmic feeds not

just LLMs but AI that um determines or

guides or shapes what information

reaches your mind, what thoughts

therefore form within them. And so the

scale is already very significant. But

what that means is that you might not

encounter different possibilities. In

other words, you might not realize that

there's something else out there if you

have been sort of epistemically narrowed

to a high degree. I think another

mechanism that's important is how do you

sort of pull out, how do you recover,

right? In the case of calculators, you

can just do kind of the inverse

operation and check it. In the case of a

lot of the things AI does for us, it's

very hard to check and it seems

authoritative. You know, it can answer

questions like what is justice? Like no

one knows, but you know, you give us

that kind of question. And if if AI

seems authoritative and fast, the

computational cost of checking it is

very high, we don't check it. This is a

common automation issue. We don't check

it. So that fact combined with the

narrowing destroys the possibility of

error correction in the long term.

So so let me summarize the conversation

so far for our audience which is that

all technology as they give you a

superpower with their left hand takes

something away through dependence on the

right hand. Um this trade-off is worth

it if what is taken away isn't so

central. What makes AI special your view

is it sounds like is that because it's

the most uh it's a technology that's

most similar to humans that it can

potentially take away practical

deliberation. So it's the thing that you

lose. It's you know practical reason

versus navigation versus calculations

versus memory as well as the scope uh

with which you lose it because it can be

embed in everything. That's what makes

this extremely dangerous and the fact

that it is hard to recover because the

way you might audit that, the way you

might pull it out is through use of the

very same thing that it atrophies.

I see for example,

right? And so obviously I imagine people

are going to be curious about the

solution. What do we do about this? But

before we go there, uh I want to better

understand the concern by giving you a

thought experiment. Okay? And I I call

this thought experiment the uh the

initiant autocomplete. So, let's say

whatever practical question it gives

you, it'll always give you the best

answer for you to do. Should I marry

Sally? Should I marry Susan? Uh, and you

know, you know that it's the best

because historically it's been verified.

Okay. So, so you run back tests, it

always gives the right answer. And every

little thing that you've tested and that

your friends have tested, it always

seems to have have given you the right

answer. So, you're you're pretty

confident empirically that it's, you

know, it gives you always the right

practical answer. How would you use this system?

system?

I want to accept the thought experiment,

but but first I want to understand is it

um omnisient through time like is it is

it an oracle that so like in the middle

of the way through an NBA season um we

don't know who wins the championship,

right? Does this omnition oracle know

that? And I I raised this because there

is a class of knowledge that can only be

that's not sort of like computationally

reducible. It's something that only is

generated through actually playing out

the thing you know right and this is for

example um how markets uh function is we

you know across many different variables

we generate knowledge uh it's knowledge

that is known to no one because it isn't

even in existence in the world so let's

say that it's not a mission through time

um but let's say

let me put this way the wisest human

ever let's say Socrates it would make

the decision that they would make like

like Given imperfect information, date

Sally, date Susan, we don't know if

Sally or Susan has cancer, but given all

the the information, it makes like the

best possible answer. Yeah.

Yeah.

The reason I asked the question is because

because

um there is a mode of operation that is

suitable to exploiting knowledge then known.

known. Yeah.

Yeah.

In other words, like kind of what an

authoritarian government does, right?

there is quite another that is suited to

the maximal generation of knowledge,

right? And um for things that are not

known and won't be known except by sort

of playing it out, right?

right?

And so if you lean too hard on the

former uh on the exploitation of the

knowledge then known, you kind of

deplete the stock, right? You cease to

generate the new. And I would argue that

the real goal from the consequentialist

frame is we should want systems that can

uh allow the anonymous individual to

achieve his or her unknown ends. And if

we want to do that, it is not by simply

exploiting the knowledge of the unknown.

It is by maximally enticing the use of knowledge.

knowledge.

Right? But but but the AI could could

tell you to do that. So the AI could

say, you know, given what what you know

now about Sally and Susan, go with

Susan, but be open to it and then ask

you questions while you're dating Susan,

you know, every time you ask it a

question, it will come out with the with

the best kind of practical uh

deliberation. Yeah.

Yeah. So, so how would you use it? Would

you have like a pair of VR goggles that

it always tells you what to do? Would

you never consult it? Would you consult

it occasionally? M mhm. So I have a

four-year-old and a six-year-old and I

kind of am raising them with the idea

that this world is the world in which

they are entering. Right.

Right.

Okay. And so what I've done is on the

one hand try to utilize that oracle to

develop their skills. So that tilos is a

self-development one. And so my daughter

will do math that AI could trivially

answer, but she will still do it. So AI

poses questions and she does the math

and this works pretty well. But then I

timed limit that very strictly and uh

this is through a pro through uh a

curriculum at alpha school which you

know um in based in Austin. So there's a

time delimiting. Then for the remainder

of the day there is an experiential

learning component that is completely

without this oracle. In other words she

goes outside she tries things in the

world. She learns to ride a bike for

five miles without stopping. She climbs

a rock wall. She speaks in front of a

hundred people. Okay. So, there's a

nonoracle component. There can be light

consultation for like if I want to learn

how to garden, how do I do that? That's

a cons consultation that I would rely on

the oracle to tell me how to do. The the

last component is then um stimulating

through probably human discussion the

kind of characteristics and habits of

mind that are necessary to retain

self-direction in a world like that

because my biggest concern would not be

correctness. Correctness is solved but

it would be the concern around

infeeblement around not living a full

human life because I no longer

self-direct because I become a sheep.

And so what do I mean by that? Well, I

want to be able to cultivate a

reflective metacognition that says what

am I versus what is the pole of the

algorithm. In other words, if this is an

exosystem around me that I'm using quite

regularly, I sure as heck want to know

what I am, right? This is an extended

part of my mind um that I endorse, that

I transparently use, but I still need to

know what my boundary is so I don't get

lost in it, right?

right?

We need to know how to think in

connection with machines that could do

the thinking for us.

Right? So let me ask you this. One way

to frame your answer is to say I will

consult your oracle but I always need to

make sure that if I follow its

directions I need to know the steps. I

need it to tell me the full reasons. Is

that is that fair?

Uh I think it's more than that. I want I

need to be able to exercise my

deliberative capacity. In other words,

knowing the reasons. It is not enough to

just know them, right? I mean, this is

the Mino, right? You know, this is the

the idea that we need to have the statue

of datalus, I think, you know, tied

down. And the only way we can uh avoid

having this thought run away is through

working through it, giving an account,

as Plato would say. And so um I I need

not just to know the reasons but I also

need to be able to work through them

um myself

if that makes sense. Yeah. So and I and

the tilos is really important as well

because there's a lot you can do like

Rouso wrote in the Emil about how to

tutor uh how to raise an autonomous

child right and this gives us monosuri

um in in the end um but one thing he

does there is he configures the

environment for the boy in a way that is

very I don't know paternalistic like

controlling that environment but there's

a progressive uh letting go because the

end goal is self-development. With an AI

system, there's no end goal of

self-development. You know, that oracle

doesn't really care about that. That

oracle would just assume you be um

perpetually dependent and that you have

a habit of passivity and you just do

what it tells you to do, right?

So, it's crucial that you set that goal, right,

right,

of of self-development and not of, you

know, unthinking dependence.

Yeah. So, um, I agree with much of what

you said. One being that the shape of a

good life is to be self-directed, right?

So, so even if you're doing you're

making all the right choices, dating

Sally and not Susan, if you're not

feeling in the driver's seat, if you

live your entire life like that, that in

it in itself, the form of that, even

beyond the content of your decisions,

robs you of the good life. IPSO facto,

right? That that's what you're getting

at. So, I would definitely not use this

Oracle in like VR glasses mode where

like it would always just tell me to

raise your left hand, raise your right

hand because like and I would gladly

trade off suboptimal decisions for the

fact that I'm making the the decisions. Yeah.

Yeah.

But here's here's why I want to

challenge you. What if the Oracle is so

advanced that we can't even understand

its deliberations? And before this

sounds too dystopian, I'll draw an

analogy to religion, right? Um Dante

when he goes to paradise and he asks the

eagle of justice, why is the poor

virtuous pagan who lived before Christ,

who never even had a chance to see

Christ, why does he deserve to go to hell?

hell?

The eagle of justice says, none of your

damn business. Yeah.

Yeah.

And in the next Kanto, the eagle of

justice says, I'm the eagle of justice.

I don't even know. That's God. Okay. I I

just delight this. These are almost

exact words. I delight in following

God's will. The structure of faith as I

take it is that you uh try to validate

it as much as as you can. You know, is

it plausible that Jesus rose from the

dead? Are are the accounts accurate? But

after you validate the oracle, the

religion, the god to your rational

faculties, you as a leap of faith are

willing to um take actions even if you

cannot see the full reasons of those actions.

actions.

So if you now transplant that to a kind

of AI oracle, I imagine you wouldn't be

comfortable with that. And so and so my

question would be do you think faith

itself and do you think faith and

religion is just a deficient way of

living the human life even now

that's a big question so the most

beautiful part of the Bible for me is

the end of Job book of Job where

much the same as the eagle of justice

you have um

yeah where were you when I was building

the cosmos right what God says

yeah exactly and these harms have

befallen job and it's this beautiful

poetic explanation of the limits of

human um capacity to understand God. Now

in that case, God looks to us as a uh

from the standpoint of some form of

self-development. In other words, like

um we have a relationship with God in

which we self in which we develop um

that doesn't exist in the case of the

omnisient AI. Um and so it it's much

more likely to form a kind of passive

relationship. I think it's a close it's

a close call because in the because we

do sort of like try to give ourselves up

to Jesus.

My life is not my own. This is what they

say. Right.

Right. Right. But I think the fact that

like um there is some reciprocal expectation,

expectation,

not to say we're equal to God, but like

there's some reciprocity sets a slightly

different frame. We also choose in a

real sense, right,

right,

to uh engage in religion and like to to

sort of legislate upon ourselves that

ultimate question. And my concern with

the habituation mode of AI is we may

cease to choose like we may unknowingly

bind ourselves to a life of dependence

where we no longer are choosers.

Right? I see. I mean, it's not just

religion, right? What I'm trying to

highlight is that there's an entire

sphere of human activity that I I mean

may maybe you'll consider it all to be

deficient but but many serious

philosophical traditions don't that has

as an epistemic mode following the

advice of an authority

whose legitimacy kindness accuracy and

truth you have empirical reason to

believe in even if you can't understand

this specific piece of advice right

right

faith is one of them I gave Yeah,

maybe the military is is another one,

right? Where you don't know the full

reason that that you are being given

orders. Uh arranged marriage might be

another one.

Uh parental relationships that that's a

bit different because you're a kid there.

there.

But but do you see like what I'm trying

to highlight that there's an entire

sphere of human activity where you don't

trust and reason yourself on the advice

itself. Yeah. But you evaluate the

deliberator. You value the the advice

giver. Well, so I think you know were we

to be first principal reasoners about

everything, I think chaos would ensue. I

think we actually have to unthinkingly

accept quite a lot and not just to be

religious but to function in society. I

think we do that.

Um that is also the way in which I think

we should relate to tradition. In other

words, we should not use reason to

create tradition or to to scrap

tradition a new. This is where I think

Mill gets into some trouble and where

Hayek's Burkian reverence comes into

play in a better way. Okay. So there's a

conservative strand that I very much um

embrace as it pertains to the epistemic

value of tradition. But um so that's one

point is like I totally agree with that.

The the the point about um the military,

right? I was in the military. I think

Kant has a good framework for thinking

about the the laws that we give

ourselves. I mean he's talking about the

moral law and the categorical

imperative, but more broadly he's

talking about the idea that we can

restrict ourselves.

Yeah. We can be autonomous and not

heteronomous in so far as we rationally

choose to put something on ourselves. So

if I choose to join the military

and then in the military no longer get

to choose, I have to follow orders.

That's completely okay. That's fine.

That's autonomous. And in fact,

I can exit the military. I can hold the

officer above me to account through

court marshall. And so it seems to

matter very much whether we choose to um

to to willingly sacrifice our autonomy.

I'm trying to think of other things like

you know we we choose to do jury duty.

We choose to do a lot of things that you

know sacrifice that.

Yeah. So so just to be clear not talking

about AI yet talking about uh like human

interaction preai. It sounds like you're

fine with evaluating

the legitimacy, let's call it, of an

authority, outsourcing partial

deliberation to that authority, meaning

uh following certain kinds of orders

from that authority without

understanding the full reasons if you

maintain the ability to evaluate it if

not fully and the ability to exit.

Right? Therefore, let's just transplant

that exact structure that you talked

about the military onto AI. Would you be

comfortable with that? Again, this is

why I set it set it up to be the

omniscient autocomplete, right? The

oracle that that given every test you've

thrown in it, it's given you the best

practical decision. So, in this case,

would you be comfortable it just telling

you date Sally or Susan and he says date

Sally and you say explain to me the

reasons and it explains to you some

reasons, but you still can't understand

the full picture. Just like the eagle of

justice, would you be okay outsourcing

that decision decisions like that to

because like your reason, right, is kind

of perfected. Your reason is as good as

it can get. But again, I'm just assuming

that there's a limitation to to human

reason, then that AI potentially can be

higher. And so if you're if you're as as

good as you can get reason-wise and you

have the ability to to exit,

are you okay following that order?

I think I would I think on a case-bycase

basis, I would be willing to do it. I

would I hesitate a little bit on

marrying Sally. Um, one because I'm

married to Adrien, but um, no, but the

other is there's a um there's a critique

of utilitarianism

that Bernard Williams brings. Um, it's

called One Thought Too Many. And he

essentially poses this scenario in which

you have um, someone about to drown in a

rescue situation. And what he says is

that though the philosophers might want

you to do a calculation, you know, um

what you should do is go with your moral

intuition about that. You should just

act, you know, in other words, you

shouldn't actually run a calculation of

any sort.

And while in this case, I'm not running

calculation. I'm just kind of deferring.

I think on questions of love, yeah,

yeah,

I would I would I think it would be one

thought too many to have an external agent

agent

But but this is how arranged marriages

in all the like the premodern societies

have worked and okay and maybe if if

love is the trip tripping factor. Let's

say starting a company. Yeah.

Yeah.

Like like should I start company A or

company B? Let's let's take love because

I I understand it's more subjective.

Would you be comfortable outsourcing

that decision if you were able to

evaluate the oracle in all the ways that

that we described?

Yeah. I mean and and maybe it's um

semantic but I would outsource and um

give consideration to that question and

you know if I accept the thought

experiment maybe I need to give very

little consideration because it's like

already answering for me not just in

general like it's not just saying what

is the most profitable you know

opportunity here but it's actually

answering at the level of me I think I

would be comfortable using it I mean I

would want

a system of safeguards in place and

provided that was in place, right, I

would take advantage and in that way I

would be competitive with others that

were that were doing the same,

right? And this is actually very helpful

this thought experiment teasing it out

that the safeguards are you want to make

sure your reason

goes as high as it can go, right? Even

if it's not to constantly in use,

it's constantly in use. It's as you're

you're as practically sharp uh as you

can be trained by the AI. uh you want

the ability to exit and maybe compare

systems. You want different points of

view. But if those conditions are

satisfied and again I'm not suggesting

that Christian faith is like this,

you're willing to make the leap of faith

and and outsource certain certain decisions.

decisions.

Yeah. Yeah. The thing I own is the means

and hierarchy towards human flourishing

is one in one way and the deliberation

therein. In other words, I can use tools

as an instrument to attain my goals, but

I don't want my goals to be set for me.

And so if one of my goals is to um start

a company, I can use AI to help me

determine what that company should be,

but I don't want it to set the goal for

me. In other words, I don't want to be a

blank canvas and just say, "What should

my life be?" Right? However, let's say

you had it as one of your goals. Uh I

want to build a company to uh let's say

just make a lot of money, right? And I

think you and I both agree that a purely

merkantile life is not the best life.

Wouldn't it be better if the AI I mean

didn't force you to to add another end

but force you into a journey such that

you discovered the end of being

missiondriven and helping others. Does

does that make sense? So, it's not the

AI. The AI isn't saying, "No, no, here's

the real end you should you should go

for." The AI is, but the AI is also not

optimizing on your end that you told it

to optimize on.

Does that does that does that make

sense? Wouldn't that be better?

Yeah, it does. I mean, it's a kind of

like adult version of the tutor and Emil

honestly because you're sort of setting

a configuration for this child, in my

case, me, to do development. Now, that

presupposes that the AI cares about my

development, right? It also assumes that

the AI understands development in the

way that I understand it, which is to

say a process of self-direction that I

do. And even then, I think there is this

nagging question of that has been

externally computed. I am now the agent

of the AI. I'm the agent of an AI that

appears to be highly benevolent and very

focused on a kind of like Humbultian

million version of vision of human

flourishing. But the AI in your thought

experiment is determining my end for me.

It's saying that I should be developed

in this way.

Yes. But crucially, it sets you up on a

journey such that

you take on that end yourself. Does that

make sense? Yeah. So it's it's not like

beating you with the head saying like

money making bad, money making bad. It's

for example uh going through an IPO uh

and then giving you a business decision

that makes you lose a lot of money and

realize the the rather the relative

worthlessness of money.

Yeah. I think a good analogy here is the

um it's parenting, right? Parenting.

Well, another good analogy is the state.

So like do you want to have a system of

laws? Do you want to have a state that

views its raised as being um

developmental like that tries to

maximally endow you with autonomy? Or do

you want to have a state that is more

like a night watchman and preserve space

in which you can experiment and try

things and learn yourself? The latter

tends to have far fewer risks of

paternalism, right? because it genuinely

is not the role of the state in this

case to uh inculcate this habit in me.

And I I think that's a foundational

position I would take. In this case,

we're saying could AI fill that like

very benevolent paternalistic role.

I'm not asking could it fill it. I'm

saying let's assume it could. Would you

be happy to have it? Right. Right.

Because obviously, you know, but neither

you nor I believe that current AI can do

this effectively at all. Yeah. And maybe

even in our lifetimes, we won't have

this. I'm asking you the philosophical question.

question.

If we if you if you take the premise

that it can do this, would you be okay

with it? I.e. shaping your ends in a way

that you wouldn't agree with now, but in

some sense is the right answer to to the

human good because because you you also

don't want to go completely relativistic

and say there's no human good

whatsoever, right? It's it's what

whatever ends I want to have now.

Yeah, I tentatively accept it in so far

as the AI was um was setting up the

maximum space for me to have this

Sedartha like journey or whatever you

know this like developmental journey. If

AI was scaffolding that for me then that

it would be highly consistent with uh

the idea of human flourishing and

especially if I'm um directing the AI to

do so. In the case where AI is doing

this kind of surreptitiously, I'm a

little less enthused. But I think I'm

I'm trying to experiment with that as a

um completely unrealistic framework. Uh

but a thought experiment that could

could support

you don't have a philosophical problem

with it, right? You have engineering

doubts or something.

I have practical problems with it. Um

beyond just engineering, but I I think

the uh the philosophical premise I like

I tenatively accept.

I see. So obviously uh none of our AI

systems today are anywhere close to this

omissioned autocomplete. Um what do you

think our conversation and your thinking

around autonomy has to offer engineers

today and builders today in building

systems that that support and enhance autonomy?

autonomy?

Well, I want to say that the mere fact

that AI can't do the omnicient

autocomplete thing is uh it's only part

of the story. And I think this really

it's a really interesting um notion that

there is on the one hand the kind of

like epistemic question of like can it

do it right we agree it can't do it the

other question is why might we feel as

though it can or we should want it to

have that role in our life and that's a

psychological question. So there's kind

of the epistemic one and the

psychological one.

I'll make it really tangible here with

an example. So, a year or two ago, there

was a 42-year-old guy named Victor

Miller in Cheyenne, Wyoming who ran for mayor.

mayor.

And the what made his mayoral bid unique

is that he ran as the meat avatar

essentially of Chat GPT. In other words,

his pitch was I'm going to run for

mayor, but I'm going to turn around

every question that I get asked, I'm

going to tell Chat GPT.

Like the admission to autocomplete that

I suggested.

Yeah, exactly. He didn't win, but it's

interesting for a few reasons. One is

that it's potentially prophetic. Like we

may have AI playing a major role in

ruling, right?

That's one reason why it's interesting.

The other reason it's interesting is

that he thought that this was a good idea.

idea.

And I don't think he was making an

epistemic claim. Like I don't think he

was deeply analyzing what AI could and

couldn't do. I think he believed that it

was a good idea. And this is again a

psychological question. Like in this

case, we want to believe that all the

blood and treasure we spill on politics

can be solved by a ruler that has access

to truth that's authoritative, that's

seemingly impartial, neutral, right? And

so I think we really have to keep in

mind that like your scenario is far out,

but it almost doesn't matter. Like

people right now believe that AI should

tell them what to do. There are Claude

boys. There are literally teenagers who

call themselves Claude boys who will

wake up and they will do what Claude

says and not otherwise. Really?

Really?

Really? So they So

what do they do? Are they are their

lives good or?

Uh no. But I mean on what basis, right?

I mean it gets back to this

philosophical question, right? Are their

lives good in so far as they make fewer

dumb teenage errors? Probably actually.

And the point is like this is a great

litmus test for like do you think this

is a good idea?

Yeah. Right. I have been in closed door

you know room like in rooms with people

who are really high up at the AI labs

they tend to be effective altruists and

they say that we are being rebels

foolish rebels if we don't listen to the

AI they they truly say this and it is because

because

well it's religious language right we're

we're like re rebellion a like the

fallen angel right it's I'm like how

dare you rebel against God right

exactly how dare you you silly you silly

rebel And that is because they have a

view that the the things that we do

should be viewed purely through the lens

of of uh through a consequential lens.

In other words, they don't have a thick

notion of what it means to be a human.

And if you don't have that, why not take

the optimal path, whatever that means. Right.

Right.

Right. This is a major issue.

And I think both what you and I are

suggesting is

the optimal path ceases to be optimal

when you only think about optimality.

Like like like when you only care about

date Sally or date Susan when you don't

care about the autonomy the agency the

self that is willing that if you give

that up your life is ipso facto going to

be bad right

what is the point of optimizing a life

that ceases to be your life to live

right yeah but in the counter and this

is what I was trying to show with with a

thought experiment is that

AI if it does become and it's clearly

not there yet this omniscient

uh uh uh practical reasoner, it

potentially can help us direct our own

lives better.

Yeah. Yeah. Right. So that's you're

willing to grant it.

Yeah. And well, so I think the mechanism

why where I would be much more

wholesomely uh uh embracing of this is,

you know, if we built into AI the goal

of um uh fostering better

self-direction, right? Right?

And this is a little bit of this is kind

of where we were getting to in the

scenario, but like how do you do that,

right? So one way you could do it is you

kind of reject the idea that AI should

be an answer machine ever and always,

right? That's what it kind of is today.

We ask it a question. Doesn't matter

what question we ask, math question or

what is justice, just here's an answer,

right? In reality, the way we think

about questions is we have a question.

It invites other questions. There's kind

of a ball of questions around the

central question. And then we have to

kind of do a navigation of these things.

We have to balance that search for you

know broad understanding with a need to

act in the world. So we have to reach

some kind of an equilibrium that

balances you know both desires. Okay. If

you had an AI system that could guide

that that could spur that could raise

questions that could help you make

judgments that would get right at the

core of what um de direction and

deliberation entails. Yeah.

And I think there's no reason why, oh,

we can't do such a thing right now, right?

right?

But the difference is that tends to open

up the possibility for self-direction.

It raises questions. It doesn't close

off and just give you an answer. In

other words, the problematic use case is

the autocomplete, right? Like we should

be very concerned when anything

approximates autocomplete. When it when

AI is used instead as a provocator,

instead as a like a razor of questions

and as a helpful tool for deliberation, then

then yeah,

yeah,

you know, that's wonderful. An example

here is uh I'm talking with uh some of

my friends who are like junior

consultants or or or investment bankers

and they're just using it uh to replace

their own work, right? And that's the

kind of problematic case or or you know

the kid who uses GPT to write his own

philosophical essay. The way I'm using

GPT right now is that I'm using as a

live tutor to kind of read the text

together with me and and ask different

questions. And so that's the two

different paths you want to put in front

of us. And this not EA, not existential

risk. This is the true challenge that's

ahead of

us. Although I will say I'm not sure

that what analysts do at consulting

firms is that valuable. And so they confidence,

confidence,

right? And so like if they can make a

PowerPoint, great. But I think ideally

what would happen is that that freed up

space for them to do more, you know,

things whether that's higher level

strategic thinking or uh reading

philosophy in their spare time. But the

point is that that goes back to the

benefits of offloading. There are some

things that are very good to offload and

automate. Um but we should be very

careful to offload and automate the core

deliberative capacities, right? And uh

hopefully our audience can see why the

answer even if AGI is around the corner

to just focus on alignment and building

AGI and for AGI to sort of focus on on

these problems autonomy is short-sighted

is because by definition we are the ones

that need to be do this or or another

way to frame it is what alignment means

in our kind of philosophical framework

is to build AGI that enhances autonomy.

Yeah. Right. And so that well that's why

even if AGI is around the corner, we

have to be building AI with this

fundamental tension of autonomy and

dependency in view.

Yeah, Nick Bostonramm is correct that

philosophy is on a deadline. He is dead

wrong about the role of philosophy in

thinking about the deeper conception of

human good that AI needs to you know uphold.

uphold.

So we talked about the existing

landscape of philosophical schools. We

talked about what you actually think

matters which is the autonomy question

that people are overlooking. uh and how

it plays out in AI. But now I want to

dive deeper into autonomy itself. Okay.

So you described in your writing of

autonomy as the central good. Okay. Be a

bit more precise here. What do you mean

by that? Is it sufficient for the good

life? Is it necessary for the good life?

Um would you ever trade it off for other

goods? Tell us about that.

Yeah. So I think it is necessary to live

an autonomous life. It's something that

I think develops like a muscle. So I

think we try things out. We self-direct

maybe badly. Like certainly as kids we

do that really badly. We don't even

select our own projects essentially and

then we develop and we get better and

better and better and as we do that it

becomes more and more an important

contributor to our happiness. In other

words, we value it more. It becomes more

and more central to how we think about

the what pleasure even consists in. And

so it's this developmental thing that

sort of happens through our life. And

that for me is why it makes it the

central good because it is the thing

that unlocks our ability to know our own

selves, our own gifts, to develop those

gifts and to use those gifts to live the

life that we want to live.

Right? However, it's not sufficient for

a good life because one can imagine uh

this is another edge case where the the

fully autonomous man or woman who is

able to go through life like this but

just fails in all of his or her

endeavors, right? if all family dies

like this is the the Aristotle example

mic ethics about prium

prium

so so this is not the only good

I agree right yeah I agree it's not it

has a relationship to other human goods

but is not the only good and I agree

that it's not sufficient I also don't

think that autonomy um presupposes

choosing well and so I think that is

actually a consequence of having

autonomy that you can choose that you

have to allow people to choose very

badly in other words people choose a

self-directed path that is very harmful

to them and you have to let them and so

in other words like uh you know we it it

does not is not a prescription I say

causally efficacious because I think it

on balance tends to lead to happiness

but it certainly is not it also comes

with the weight of responsibility I mean

there's a lot to be said about the the

the burden that one feels when one can

freely choose

yeah well I I want to push you on on

that point because uh autonomy as you

described It is one of my like as I live

life like one of my central goods which

is why I'm doing this here and not not

in a more structured setting.

But I was really surprised when I

entered the workforce that most people

don't seem to like it. Like when I

started managing people out of college,

I structured their work environment how

I would like to be structured, which is

this is our goal. I'm going to explain

to you the reasons why we're going after

this goal. You choose how you you get

there. You just need to get there.

Yeah. They mo many people hate that and

they they won't say I want less

autonomy. They won't frame it there.

They would usually frame it that I want more structure in my life. So they want

more structure in my life. So they want to be told what to do. They want Yeah.

to be told what to do. They want Yeah. And so so how do you reconcile that? Is

And so so how do you reconcile that? Is it just people like you and me who value

it just people like you and me who value this and it's subjective or Yeah. This

this and it's subjective or Yeah. This is one of the most worrisome threads

is one of the most worrisome threads that my wife will raise with me because

that my wife will raise with me because she'll be like, "Brendan,

she'll be like, "Brendan, it may be the case that you are just

it may be the case that you are just like an outlier that you care about this

like an outlier that you care about this in a way that other people don't."

in a way that other people don't." Intuitively, meaning you may be like

Intuitively, meaning you may be like rationalizing it, but you may actually

rationalizing it, but you may actually just care about it deeply. Intuitively,

just care about it deeply. Intuitively, in the way that you might like

in the way that you might like chocolate, that doesn't mean everyone

chocolate, that doesn't mean everyone else likes chocolate.

else likes chocolate. So, we have lots of individual

So, we have lots of individual variation. I totally allow for that that

variation. I totally allow for that that people would like it more or less based

people would like it more or less based on their, you know, sociobiological

on their, you know, sociobiological kind of path. Um and I think what I mean

kind of path. Um and I think what I mean by that is that it could be like almost

by that is that it could be like almost epiphenomenal uh that somebody has

epiphenomenal uh that somebody has certain genetics and they have certain

certain genetics and they have certain disposition predisposition. Okay. But I

disposition predisposition. Okay. But I gen generally think that it's much more

gen generally think that it's much more determined by the by the conditions in

determined by the by the conditions in which we live and by the way in which

which we live and by the way in which we're habituated as a consequence. The

we're habituated as a consequence. The transition that I'll mention here is

transition that I'll mention here is that in um aristocracy,

that in um aristocracy, one of the things that one of the

one of the things that one of the benefits was that people knew their

benefits was that people knew their station. They knew their role. Um I'm

station. They knew their role. Um I'm not advocating for that. Obviously, I'm

not advocating for that. Obviously, I'm not advocating for a kind of hierarchal

not advocating for a kind of hierarchal system like that. But that was one of

system like that. But that was one of the silver linings, right? In America,

the silver linings, right? In America, when Alexis Toko came, he observed a

when Alexis Toko came, he observed a generalized anxiety. He called it

generalized anxiety. He called it enkiitude. It's a word in French for

enkiitude. It's a word in French for like anxiety without an object, a

like anxiety without an object, a particular object. And why he think it

particular object. And why he think it existed was because there was no one to

existed was because there was no one to tell you what to do, you know, like you

tell you what to do, you know, like you you had to make your own way. And so you

you had to make your own way. And so you look to the majority to tell you what to

look to the majority to tell you what to do, right? You look to the state. Like

do, right? You look to the state. Like these are the kind of pathologies of

these are the kind of pathologies of democracy is that you sort of fill the

democracy is that you sort of fill the void and it appeases you especially if

void and it appeases you especially if you take religion away. By the way,

you take religion away. By the way, religion grounds you and it minimizes

religion grounds you and it minimizes this.

this. Well, it's the ultimate form of telling

Well, it's the ultimate form of telling you what to do, right?

you what to do, right? And it grounds you and the family life

And it grounds you and the family life can ground you as well. Lots of things

can ground you as well. Lots of things can ground you, but absent those things,

can ground you, but absent those things, you kind of drift and float. In America,

you kind of drift and float. In America, it still was the case that people were

it still was the case that people were very self-directed. You're, you know,

very self-directed. You're, you know, the classic example of this is the

the classic example of this is the Jeffersonian ideal, which kind of like

Jeffersonian ideal, which kind of like thought of autonomy as being the farming

thought of autonomy as being the farming life, right? It's like you grow up on a

life, right? It's like you grow up on a farm. My wife's family has a ranch.

farm. My wife's family has a ranch. They're ranchers. And um it really is

They're ranchers. And um it really is the case that like you are very

the case that like you are very self-directed. So, I get it. And I

self-directed. So, I get it. And I wonder what the consequence of being a

wonder what the consequence of being a nation of farmers. Like almost

nation of farmers. Like almost allreneurs essentially were

allreneurs essentially were entrepreneurial farmers. Yeah. I mean

entrepreneurial farmers. Yeah. I mean like 85% of free Americans were were

like 85% of free Americans were were that way and now we're a nation of

that way and now we're a nation of employees,

employees, right? It's given way to being you know

right? It's given way to being you know industrial revolution caused us to enter

industrial revolution caused us to enter employment. We now are subservient to

employment. We now are subservient to process and to people in a way that we

process and to people in a way that we were not. And I say this to bring all

were not. And I say this to bring all this together is that the conditions

this together is that the conditions either the the regime like now we're in

either the the regime like now we're in a democracy, no one tells us what to do.

a democracy, no one tells us what to do. That's very scary for people. But also

That's very scary for people. But also the fact that we we move to an

the fact that we we move to an industrial system in which people tell

industrial system in which people tell us what to do constantly. Like can you

us what to do constantly. Like can you take vacation? Like no, you know, not

take vacation? Like no, you know, not today. Like these are kind of limits on

today. Like these are kind of limits on your self-direction. And um and as a

your self-direction. And um and as a result, we've now come to like it to

result, we've now come to like it to want it less,

want it less, right? It's Stockholm syndrome almost.

right? It's Stockholm syndrome almost. of sorts, right? Yeah.

of sorts, right? Yeah. You mentioned Stockholm and it makes me

You mentioned Stockholm and it makes me think of uh this uh uh case of Germany,

think of uh this uh uh case of Germany, which I fully understand is not in

which I fully understand is not in Germany, just so people don't think I'm

Germany, just so people don't think I'm an idiot, but um East and West Berlin

an idiot, but um East and West Berlin were two radically different systems, as

were two radically different systems, as different as it gets. You had the same

different as it gets. You had the same family, same genetics split across the

family, same genetics split across the wall, right? And

wall, right? And the East German system under Soviet

the East German system under Soviet control uh was habituated to follow

control uh was habituated to follow orders. The West German was much more

orders. The West German was much more like the general west and and less so.

like the general west and and less so. And then during COVID, like much more

And then during COVID, like much more recently, you had a very different

recently, you had a very different response. You had much more obedience

response. You had much more obedience among the people who had been habituated

among the people who had been habituated by the East German system.

by the East German system. Yeah.

Yeah. Why I say that is it appears that the

Why I say that is it appears that the habituation is longlasting.

habituation is longlasting. Like you can grow up under a system in

Like you can grow up under a system in which you're told what to do and then

which you're told what to do and then maybe for the rest of your life you are

maybe for the rest of your life you are inclined to do what you're told. Whereas

inclined to do what you're told. Whereas if you grow up in Texas, um you may be

if you grow up in Texas, um you may be inclined for the rest of your life to

inclined for the rest of your life to not do what you're told.

not do what you're told. Wait, wait, hold on. But that doesn't

Wait, wait, hold on. But that doesn't seem to be such a strong response for

seem to be such a strong response for the position that autonomy is the

the position that autonomy is the central good whether you appreciate it

central good whether you appreciate it or not. Right? Because what what you

or not. Right? Because what what you were saying is that nurture can greatly

were saying is that nurture can greatly change how people valued it or not.

change how people valued it or not. Right.

Right. But I thought you would you would want

But I thought you would you would want to argue for the position that

to argue for the position that regardless

regardless of what like whether you valued it or

of what like whether you valued it or not, it is valuable objectively.

not, it is valuable objectively. Yeah. I don't want to base the idea that

Yeah. I don't want to base the idea that it is constitutive of a flourishing life

it is constitutive of a flourishing life on the idea that it is widely used in

on the idea that it is widely used in practice or even that it is like um uh

practice or even that it is like um uh valued equally by all because again the

valued equally by all because again the mechanism is one of habituation so it's

mechanism is one of habituation so it's not going to be valued equally by all

not going to be valued equally by all and I actually think having highly

and I actually think having highly autonomous people is a total historical

autonomous people is a total historical anomaly.

anomaly. Oh yeah totally. Yeah. I mean, for most

Oh yeah totally. Yeah. I mean, for most of human life, we've either been in a

of human life, we've either been in a culture with slaves or we've been in,

culture with slaves or we've been in, you know, kind of hierarchical cultures

you know, kind of hierarchical cultures that really don't have the same

that really don't have the same presuppositions. So, I think it's

presuppositions. So, I think it's anomalous and it's precious,

anomalous and it's precious, but that's not why I think it's

but that's not why I think it's constitutive of a flourishing life. I I

constitutive of a flourishing life. I I simply think that like it is consistent

simply think that like it is consistent with it is the way in which we discover

with it is the way in which we discover our nature, the way in which we express

our nature, the way in which we express it. It is one of the things that humans

it. It is one of the things that humans uniquely do is to use reason to guide

uniquely do is to use reason to guide action to develop ourselves and um and

action to develop ourselves and um and it tends to also lead to happiness.

it tends to also lead to happiness. Okay. So, so what is the what is the

Okay. So, so what is the what is the reason like what is the reason that it

reason like what is the reason that it is constitutive despite the fact that

is constitutive despite the fact that people can be habituated out of desiring

people can be habituated out of desiring it? Yeah. Well, that's why it's because

it? Yeah. Well, that's why it's because we have a nature that the only way to

we have a nature that the only way to discover our purpose or our highest end

discover our purpose or our highest end is through this autonomous

is through this autonomous experimentation is through the

experimentation is through the development that we do through

development that we do through self-direction. What about again I'm

self-direction. What about again I'm going to go back to religion here

going to go back to religion here because I think this is the this is the

because I think this is the this is the counterpoint here. What about someone

counterpoint here. What about someone who surrenders themselves completely to

who surrenders themselves completely to Jesus and claims that through that that

Jesus and claims that through that that they that they found their true selves

they that they found their true selves or I mean in the Buddhist case they

or I mean in the Buddhist case they surrender themselves completely to the

surrender themselves completely to the master become completely obedient to the

master become completely obedient to the master and through that they think that

master and through that they think that that's the route through which their

that's the route through which their their development becomes

their development becomes well I think in so far as they

well I think in so far as they surrendered that is a pretty powerful

surrendered that is a pretty powerful act of self-direction you know in like

act of self-direction you know in like the making the choice I I do I do think

the making the choice I I do I do think that is pro it's difficult to square the

that is pro it's difficult to square the autonomy lens with say Islam that views

autonomy lens with say Islam that views that views um you know the

that views um you know the I mean submission it's in the name right

I mean submission it's in the name right yeah as submission but um but here's

yeah as submission but um but here's what I'll say about that I think you

what I'll say about that I think you know I think one of the most critical

know I think one of the most critical points one can make about the dynamism

points one can make about the dynamism in the west

in the west is that it uh it is a tradition that has

is that it uh it is a tradition that has been formed through different visions of

been formed through different visions of the good life all of which allow for

the good life all of which allow for some individual choice about what the

some individual choice about what the good life is. And to to be to be more

good life is. And to to be to be more specific on that,

specific on that, yeah,

yeah, one tradition, probably the earliest

one tradition, probably the earliest western tradition is from Homer. It's

western tradition is from Homer. It's from the Mesopotamian epics. It's from

from the Mesopotamian epics. It's from the Bronze Age, and it's the idea of the

the Bronze Age, and it's the idea of the heroic life, the life of of adventure.

heroic life, the life of of adventure. Achilles is a good good example of this.

Achilles is a good good example of this. The Greek response to that is a life of

The Greek response to that is a life of science and contemplation and philosophy

science and contemplation and philosophy and things like that. That's a life that

and things like that. That's a life that is to say a life in which Achilles is

is to say a life in which Achilles is replaced by Socrates like the

replaced by Socrates like the contemplative life. And those are two

contemplative life. And those are two totally different you know visions of

totally different you know visions of the good life. A third comes in the

the good life. A third comes in the Hebrew and biblical tradition in Jesus

Hebrew and biblical tradition in Jesus which is a life of pious devotion and

which is a life of pious devotion and centers more around the family and other

centers more around the family and other things. I would say none of these are

things. I would say none of these are commensurable. They're all different

commensurable. They're all different visions of the good life, but they form

visions of the good life, but they form a kind of tension that one I would say

a kind of tension that one I would say the overlapping areas is some measure of

the overlapping areas is some measure of individual choice as to what the good

individual choice as to what the good life is. Like it's not the community's

life is. Like it's not the community's job to tell the individual. The other

job to tell the individual. The other thing I would say is that

thing I would say is that even for the Christian tradition,

even for the Christian tradition, even for the Christian tradition in so

even for the Christian tradition in so far as we get to choose that path and we

far as we get to choose that path and we navigate that path towards Jesus, there

navigate that path towards Jesus, there is a submission element of it. But again

is a submission element of it. But again like the freedom to be unfree is I think

like the freedom to be unfree is I think a a satisfactory use of freedom to to

a a satisfactory use of freedom to to well because otherwise you wouldn't be

well because otherwise you wouldn't be able to enter enter into contract right

able to enter enter into contract right we bind ourselves and a lot of the you

we bind ourselves and a lot of the you know most important American figures

know most important American figures grappled with these and synthesized them

grappled with these and synthesized them in their own way like Lincoln read

in their own way like Lincoln read Shakespeare and the Bible for example

Shakespeare and the Bible for example like he's reading about these things and

like he's reading about these things and forming his own sort of local synthesis

forming his own sort of local synthesis and so I just say that you know we would

and so I just say that you know we would do well to preserve oberve those

do well to preserve oberve those tensions. One of the things I worry

tensions. One of the things I worry about with AI is that the dominant

about with AI is that the dominant schools seek to sort of come in with an

schools seek to sort of come in with an answer that's like no this is the one

answer that's like no this is the one true thing. It's actually

true thing. It's actually those good life things those are quaint

those good life things those are quaint really what it is is maximizing utils.

really what it is is maximizing utils. Wait, but you're coming in here and

Wait, but you're coming in here and you're saying autonomy is the central

you're saying autonomy is the central good

good precisely because it is the one in that

precisely because it is the one in that leaves open the possibility of deciding

leaves open the possibility of deciding the good life. In other words, it

the good life. In other words, it preserves the plurality. It preserves

preserves the plurality. It preserves that space for the individual. I think

that space for the individual. I think it's it's a critically important thing

it's it's a critically important thing because we could just say, well, isn't

because we could just say, well, isn't isn't it again isn't it just like

isn't it again isn't it just like another vision of the good life. But it

another vision of the good life. But it is very different to say that a vision

is very different to say that a vision that preserves one's individual ability

that preserves one's individual ability to question the ultimate question for

to question the ultimate question for themselves. That is different from one

themselves. That is different from one that tries to reduce and replace and say

that tries to reduce and replace and say we have found the one true answer.

we have found the one true answer. Right? And just to be clear here, when

Right? And just to be clear here, when you say autonomy, is it a very uh uh

you say autonomy, is it a very uh uh thin kind of simplistic I'm the one

thin kind of simplistic I'm the one willing it, whether that's the right

willing it, whether that's the right thing or the wrong thing, or it's

thing or the wrong thing, or it's something more like Kant where I am

something more like Kant where I am willing the thing that also is in like

willing the thing that also is in like rational and good and

rational and good and um there's a subtlety there in because

um there's a subtlety there in because so it's the former in the sense that I

so it's the former in the sense that I believe that one must deliberate but Not

believe that one must deliberate but Not that they need to necessarily deliver

that they need to necessarily deliver well. Nor am I stating that it is a

well. Nor am I stating that it is a moral autonomy like I'm not suggesting

moral autonomy like I'm not suggesting that what autonomy means is to give

that what autonomy means is to give oneself the moral law which is to say

oneself the moral law which is to say the categorical comparative. That's not

the categorical comparative. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we must

what I'm saying. I'm saying that we must have a capacity for reasoned

have a capacity for reasoned self-direction. We can do it wrong but

self-direction. We can do it wrong but we we must you know preserve that space.

we we must you know preserve that space. The the reason I say it's complicated is

The the reason I say it's complicated is because I do think Kant actually enters

because I do think Kant actually enters into it. In other words, I personally

into it. In other words, I personally draw a freedom maximizing principle from

draw a freedom maximizing principle from Kant. And this freedom maximizing

Kant. And this freedom maximizing principle is what gives people space to

principle is what gives people space to be autonomous. These are two different

be autonomous. These are two different conceptions of

conceptions of right. I see. So it's not just the

right. I see. So it's not just the simple notion of like a whim. Like let's

simple notion of like a whim. Like let's say I have a whim to jump off the

say I have a whim to jump off the building right now. Yeah.

building right now. Yeah. Because no deliberation went into that.

Because no deliberation went into that. Yeah. But it's also not the, you know,

Yeah. But it's also not the, you know, if I really really deliberate, like it

if I really really deliberate, like it would be good to steal Brendan's wallet

would be good to steal Brendan's wallet right now.

right now. Yeah,

Yeah, that would count.

that would count. It would count.

It would count. It would count because it's even though

It would count because it's even though I didn't deliberate, well, I made a fair

I didn't deliberate, well, I made a fair attempt. And your response was, "If I do

attempt. And your response was, "If I do that enough and I and I continue

that enough and I and I continue deliberating, I

deliberating, I We have to make mistakes."

We have to make mistakes." Yeah. Like that's a dumb thing for you

Yeah. Like that's a dumb thing for you to do to want to steal my wallet. It's

to do to want to steal my wallet. It's over there, by the way. But um but we

over there, by the way. But um but we have to make mistakes you know like I

have to make mistakes you know like I think part and parcel of autonomy is

think part and parcel of autonomy is doing dumb things and um you know it's

doing dumb things and um you know it's it's simply the wrong standard to

it's simply the wrong standard to suggest that we must always do things

suggest that we must always do things rightly.

rightly. Um let's say someone lives an autonomous

Um let's say someone lives an autonomous life. What else is missing to get to the

life. What else is missing to get to the good life or even the best life?

good life or even the best life? It's a good question. Um, one point that

It's a good question. Um, one point that needs to be said is that what I've

needs to be said is that what I've outlined so far is fairly

outlined so far is fairly individualistic, but I think the way in

individualistic, but I think the way in which we learn and experiment is

which we learn and experiment is profoundly social. And so we learn from

profoundly social. And so we learn from others, especially people who are, you

others, especially people who are, you know, above us in terms of

know, above us in terms of aspirationally, but not so far from us

aspirationally, but not so far from us that we can't sort of learn. And so I

that we can't sort of learn. And so I don't want to suggest that we're sort of

don't want to suggest that we're sort of like operating in in in a solopcyistic

like operating in in in a solopcyistic uh way or an isolated way. Um that's

uh way or an isolated way. Um that's important to say. The other thing way I

important to say. The other thing way I think about this is like how do I want

think about this is like how do I want to educate my kids? I want them to be

to educate my kids? I want them to be autonomous but I also want them to be

autonomous but I also want them to be autonomous and virtuous. In other words

autonomous and virtuous. In other words like I view the the role of the state as

like I view the the role of the state as being to a procedural a formal role to

being to a procedural a formal role to preserve freedom um to minimize coercion

preserve freedom um to minimize coercion that sort of thing um to provide for

that sort of thing um to provide for security. But I view the role of you

security. But I view the role of you know I view the good life as being

know I view the good life as being something more than autonomous and in

something more than autonomous and in fact like virtuous as well. Does that

fact like virtuous as well. Does that make sense?

make sense? Sometimes you need to trade off autonomy

Sometimes you need to trade off autonomy and virtue. Right? One example would be

and virtue. Right? One example would be well okay if I want I want want to jump

well okay if I want I want want to jump out this building right now uh after

out this building right now uh after poor deliberation. uh there's a good

poor deliberation. uh there's a good case where you should restrain and limit

case where you should restrain and limit my autonomy to preserve let's say my

my autonomy to preserve let's say my bodily function in order so that that I

bodily function in order so that that I can be more autonomous in the future but

can be more autonomous in the future but also potentially to be more virtuous or

also potentially to be more virtuous or to not kill a person right if and so so

to not kill a person right if and so so do you allow for a trade-off between

do you allow for a trade-off between autonomy and other goods and this

autonomy and other goods and this obviously a political question as well

obviously a political question as well one extreme idea would be no paternal

one extreme idea would be no paternal paternalism is is allowed you can never

paternalism is is allowed you can never interfere autonomy like there are other

interfere autonomy like there are other goods but autonomy

goods but autonomy can't be traded off for other goods.

can't be traded off for other goods. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, in general, I don't think

Yeah. I mean, in general, I don't think that the gains to welfare from

that the gains to welfare from paternalism outweigh the losses to

paternalism outweigh the losses to autonomy. And so, I would take a very

autonomy. And so, I would take a very strong um position on

strong um position on um uh not applying the tools of state in

um uh not applying the tools of state in particular to paternalistically

particular to paternalistically uh deliver welfare gains. Um and I would

uh deliver welfare gains. Um and I would apply that to things like uh you know

apply that to things like uh you know UBI for example um as well as many other

UBI for example um as well as many other many other areas but I think that um we

many other areas but I think that um we you know security is a is a good example

you know security is a is a good example of a kind of a of a vital interest as

of a kind of a of a vital interest as Mill would say that it's not clear that

Mill would say that it's not clear that autonomy has a lexical priority over

autonomy has a lexical priority over security like security seems

security like security seems preconditional to autonomy we have to

preconditional to autonomy we have to maintain security. So, so your answer is

maintain security. So, so your answer is uh it's it doesn't have lexical priority

uh it's it doesn't have lexical priority i.e. a trade-off is sometimes worth it.

i.e. a trade-off is sometimes worth it. Yeah.

Yeah. However, people overly value the

However, people overly value the benefits from uh from from welfare gains

benefits from uh from from welfare gains and under value the dangers of even

and under value the dangers of even removing a little bit of us. That that

removing a little bit of us. That that would be your answer.

would be your answer. Yeah. And this is a fundamental conflict

Yeah. And this is a fundamental conflict because we value convenience quite a

because we value convenience quite a lot. I mean this is this gets back to

lot. I mean this is this gets back to soft despatism from Toeville is that we

soft despatism from Toeville is that we welcome the incremental convenience and

welcome the incremental convenience and from a state that is farseeing and mild

from a state that is farseeing and mild you know that will offer this it's happy

you know that will offer this it's happy to offer it we're happy to welcome it

to offer it we're happy to welcome it or or from AI right

or or from AI right or from AI and uh from any sort of you

or from AI and uh from any sort of you know neutral or centralizing force but

know neutral or centralizing force but what do we give up well we give up the

what do we give up well we give up the vigorous use of our own capacities we

vigorous use of our own capacities we become infeebled we become like a flock

become infeebled we become like a flock of timid industrious animals I mean took

of timid industrious animals I mean took beautiful language around this and so

beautiful language around this and so this is a fundamental issue particularly

this is a fundamental issue particularly in democracy where again we otherwise

in democracy where again we otherwise have kind of enkitude because we have no

have kind of enkitude because we have no one to tell us what to do. So I think

one to tell us what to do. So I think like we staged then the critical issue

like we staged then the critical issue of our time which is we now have built

of our time which is we now have built something that can deliver the

something that can deliver the incremental convenience that can offload

incremental convenience that can offload our deliberation. We are going to

our deliberation. We are going to welcome it into our life. We're going to

welcome it into our life. We're going to be tempted more than we've ever been

be tempted more than we've ever been tempted before and we must find the

tempted before and we must find the resources within us to resist. Yeah, by

resources within us to resist. Yeah, by the way, this is uh as you know, I just

the way, this is uh as you know, I just uh interviewed uh the founder of Alpha

uh interviewed uh the founder of Alpha School and this where you send your kids

School and this where you send your kids and and I would I shadowed them for a

and and I would I shadowed them for a week uh and I was so excited by that

week uh and I was so excited by that project because I mean the so for our

project because I mean the so for our audience the quick pitch is that you

audience the quick pitch is that you learn basically your entire K- to2

learn basically your entire K- to2 curriculum instead of six eight hours a

curriculum instead of six eight hours a day with homework in two hours. You're

day with homework in two hours. You're like okay that's interesting. But what I

like okay that's interesting. But what I found when I talked to the kids was that

found when I talked to the kids was that the greatest benefit was a ch a

the greatest benefit was a ch a fundamental change in their character

fundamental change in their character that I am capable that I am autonomous

that I am capable that I am autonomous in this way

in this way and which is a fundamental difference

and which is a fundamental difference from how all the kids are being taught

from how all the kids are being taught today which is this kind of teacher in

today which is this kind of teacher in front of a classroom lecturing the kind

front of a classroom lecturing the kind of Prussian model to create industrial

of Prussian model to create industrial slaves industrial like employees

slaves industrial like employees essentially right

essentially right and so so that like I I almost think

and so so that like I I almost think that they're underelling underpitching

that they're underelling underpitching what what they offer. offering a fun a

what what they offer. offering a fun a fundamental building of a building of

fundamental building of a building of their own character and not just like

their own character and not just like being able to to to cram. That's

being able to to to cram. That's precisely right and I that's exactly the

precisely right and I that's exactly the benefit that I see in my own children

benefit that I see in my own children when I went there to like talk about

when I went there to like talk about entrepreneurship to eight and nine year

entrepreneurship to eight and nine year olds and I was just so moved by the

olds and I was just so moved by the extent to which the kids had

extent to which the kids had individuated they were highly individual

individuated they were highly individual and very autonomous and very um high

and very autonomous and very um high agency as well and um and I fear I just

agency as well and um and I fear I just to make it kind of a a cautionary point

to make it kind of a a cautionary point um I fear a kind of divide

um I fear a kind of divide Right. In other words, I see the alpha

Right. In other words, I see the alpha model and I see the vision by the way is

model and I see the vision by the way is to get that out there and I really hope

to get that out there and I really hope it I really hope it can can scale um

it I really hope it can can scale um massively.

massively. But I also understand that if one's

But I also understand that if one's relationship with technology is one of

relationship with technology is one of passivity, one of dependence, one of

passivity, one of dependence, one of doom scrolling um then we become highly

doom scrolling um then we become highly dependent from from the beginning

dependent from from the beginning and we almost create two classes of

and we almost create two classes of people. We almost create one individual

people. We almost create one individual who um for whom it is the best time in

who um for whom it is the best time in history to be a six-year-old and one

history to be a six-year-old and one individual that is um on the path to

individual that is um on the path to become an NPC. Right.

become an NPC. Right. And I I I think we we must avoid that.

And I I I think we we must avoid that. Yeah.

Yeah. And in some sense compared to early

And in some sense compared to early America, we're already there with the

America, we're already there with the employee with the employee versus uh

employee with the employee versus uh versus like gentleman farmership. So

versus like gentleman farmership. So what what you're saying is that there

what what you're saying is that there are a lot of uh things that don't seem

are a lot of uh things that don't seem political which build the autonomous

political which build the autonomous muscle or weaken the autonomous muscle

muscle or weaken the autonomous muscle in civil society. That's right.

in civil society. That's right. Education being one of them, workplace

Education being one of them, workplace being another. Okay,

being another. Okay, we've talked a lot about the intrinsic

we've talked a lot about the intrinsic importance of autonomy, how it's

importance of autonomy, how it's constitutive to a good life.

constitutive to a good life. I now want to move on to the exttrinsic

I now want to move on to the exttrinsic benefits of autonomy and why it's

benefits of autonomy and why it's important to defend autonomy. Not for

important to defend autonomy. Not for why it's gonna make you live a good

why it's gonna make you live a good life, but for a flourishing

life, but for a flourishing civilization. Okay. So, I know you've

civilization. Okay. So, I know you've been dying to talk about a Hayek, so

been dying to talk about a Hayek, so now's your chance.

now's your chance. H Yeah. So, um I'm kind of a Hayek

H Yeah. So, um I'm kind of a Hayek stand, but that the reason is because I

stand, but that the reason is because I think he's um desperately in need of

think he's um desperately in need of being revived for the for the AI age. Um

being revived for the for the AI age. Um where to start? I mean, he

where to start? I mean, he my favorite book of his is Constitution

my favorite book of his is Constitution of Liberty. And in that book he makes a

of Liberty. And in that book he makes a consequentialist case for liberty. So he

consequentialist case for liberty. So he says that

says that um liberty is useful. And the reason he

um liberty is useful. And the reason he does this is that when you argue for

does this is that when you argue for something and you start from axioms and

something and you start from axioms and you deduce from axioms, you just invite

you deduce from axioms, you just invite the challenge, well I don't agree with

the challenge, well I don't agree with your axioms. So like I don't care if

your axioms. So like I don't care if your deductive reasoning is good. I just

your deductive reasoning is good. I just don't agree with your axioms. So he

don't agree with your axioms. So he doesn't do that. He makes a

doesn't do that. He makes a consequentialist argument. I say that

consequentialist argument. I say that because I don't think that that is the

because I don't think that that is the only reason why Hayek thinks liberty is

only reason why Hayek thinks liberty is dear. But he makes a consequentialist

dear. But he makes a consequentialist argument and what he concludes is that

argument and what he concludes is that we should have a minimization of

we should have a minimization of coercion.

coercion. What is coercion? Coercion in for Hayek

What is coercion? Coercion in for Hayek is a kind of configuring of the decision

is a kind of configuring of the decision space such that you do the bidding of

space such that you do the bidding of another because it is the lesser of two

another because it is the lesser of two evils. Basically, you have your decision

evils. Basically, you have your decision space so so so configured by another

space so so so configured by another that you no longer are uh taking action

that you no longer are uh taking action on your own plans but you're taking

on your own plans but you're taking actions on the plan of others. Um the

actions on the plan of others. Um the steps to get there are are many but

steps to get there are are many but essentially what he says is that liberty

essentially what he says is that liberty is useful because it facilitates the use

is useful because it facilitates the use of knowledge in society and that

of knowledge in society and that knowledge is what allows the anonymous

knowledge is what allows the anonymous person to attain their unknown ends. So

person to attain their unknown ends. So that's a consequentialist view. How does

that's a consequentialist view. How does it do that? Well, what he says is that

it do that? Well, what he says is that most knowledge is practical. It's

most knowledge is practical. It's primordally practical. It's not the

primordally practical. It's not the explicit semantic knowledge that we

explicit semantic knowledge that we write down. So like the knowledge in

write down. So like the knowledge in science, what people usually think of as

science, what people usually think of as knowledge, he would say is the tip of

knowledge, he would say is the tip of the iceberg or the the droplet of the

the iceberg or the the droplet of the wave that above the ocean of knowledge.

wave that above the ocean of knowledge. What does he mean by knowledge being

What does he mean by knowledge being practical? He means the dispositions,

practical? He means the dispositions, the habits that each of us has. The way

the habits that each of us has. The way an entrepreneur thinks about an

an entrepreneur thinks about an opportunity, the way a diplomat sizes up

opportunity, the way a diplomat sizes up a room, the way we ride a bike, those

a room, the way we ride a bike, those are all things that are sort of locked

are all things that are sort of locked up and inside of us and they're either

up and inside of us and they're either inarticulated or inarticulable.

inarticulated or inarticulable. And so we have this, it drives our

And so we have this, it drives our action, but we can't share it. The way

action, but we can't share it. The way in which we can share it, the best way

in which we can share it, the best way we can share it is through the market.

we can share it is through the market. We have a low bandwidth mechanism called

We have a low bandwidth mechanism called prices, money prices that allows us to

prices, money prices that allows us to share our knowledge because as we try to

share our knowledge because as we try to do things, as we formulate ends, try to

do things, as we formulate ends, try to achieve those ends, we release bits of

achieve those ends, we release bits of this knowledge. Of course, I never like

this knowledge. Of course, I never like excavate it and share it with you, but

excavate it and share it with you, but my action is colored by it. So, it

my action is colored by it. So, it releases this knowledge. And as this

releases this knowledge. And as this happens in parallel across the entire

happens in parallel across the entire world, we pursue our independent plans.

world, we pursue our independent plans. The market allows for us to kind of

The market allows for us to kind of equilibriate those plans. preferences

equilibriate those plans. preferences change constantly. So the equilibrium

change constantly. So the equilibrium should be thought of as an asmtote, not

should be thought of as an asmtote, not a fixed raenzian equilibrium as

a fixed raenzian equilibrium as traditional economics would say. But it

traditional economics would say. But it allows us to do that. We share knowledge

allows us to do that. We share knowledge and this is what gives us a way to

and this is what gives us a way to benefit from knowledge that we don't

benefit from knowledge that we don't possess. uh part of Hayek's

possess. uh part of Hayek's consequentialist uh argument for

consequentialist uh argument for autonomy uh is uh as is described in the

autonomy uh is uh as is described in the second chapter of the of the book uh the

second chapter of the of the book uh the creative powers of a free civilization.

creative powers of a free civilization. Um what do you make of the tremendous

Um what do you make of the tremendous creative powers of unfree civilizations

creative powers of unfree civilizations as well as unfree peoples? Let me give

as well as unfree peoples? Let me give you a few few examples. The pyramids,

you a few few examples. The pyramids, the great wall built by basically

the great wall built by basically slaves. Virgil was writing propaganda,

slaves. Virgil was writing propaganda, right? Pro-mpire propaganda. Uh Dosi

right? Pro-mpire propaganda. Uh Dosi wrote in exile, imprisonment, financial

wrote in exile, imprisonment, financial uh great distress. Most religious

uh great distress. Most religious traditions had these unquestionable

traditions had these unquestionable truths. Uh and as you know, early modern

truths. Uh and as you know, early modern science and philosophy flourished under

science and philosophy flourished under severe uh censorship and sometimes even

severe uh censorship and sometimes even persecution. M so I think that if you

persecution. M so I think that if you have as your goal to exploit the

have as your goal to exploit the existing stock of knowledge then I think

existing stock of knowledge then I think unfree societies can do that. In other

unfree societies can do that. In other words if you want to demonstrate what

words if you want to demonstrate what command and control can do you build the

command and control can do you build the pyramids. Um but I think to discover new

pyramids. Um but I think to discover new production methods for example you need

production methods for example you need the um undirected experimentation and

the um undirected experimentation and the spontaneous um order that arises

the spontaneous um order that arises through the through free societies. In

through the through free societies. In other words, it's a totally different

other words, it's a totally different question to say how do we um uh deliver

question to say how do we um uh deliver something at this moment in time based

something at this moment in time based on the knowledge then known versus how

on the knowledge then known versus how do we promote how do we bear and

do we promote how do we bear and disseminate and generate more knowledge

disseminate and generate more knowledge in the in the world and make progress.

in the in the world and make progress. But but surely you're underappreciating

But but surely you're underappreciating the uh the difficulty and innovation in

the uh the difficulty and innovation in building like the first pyramid or

building like the first pyramid or starting to build the Great Wall or

starting to build the Great Wall or another from from Chinese antiquity

another from from Chinese antiquity being able to divert rivers away such

being able to divert rivers away such that uh such that you know it doesn't

that uh such that you know it doesn't flood certain parts of areas like that's

flood certain parts of areas like that's not just you know these are things that

not just you know these are things that they they didn't know how to do before

they they didn't know how to do before right well so I think you can um set as

right well so I think you can um set as a goal like you have a known goal you

a goal like you have a known goal you want to create a pyramid and then we

want to create a pyramid and then we have a lot of technical obstacles that

have a lot of technical obstacles that we need to get or um we want to go to

we need to get or um we want to go to space and we need to do it with alloys

space and we need to do it with alloys that haven't yet been invented to grow

that haven't yet been invented to grow JFK and Rice University.

JFK and Rice University. This is the kind of like top down uh

This is the kind of like top down uh it's like the pinnacle of the top down

it's like the pinnacle of the top down model is that we can set an audacious

model is that we can set an audacious goal and we can we can often realize it

goal and we can we can often realize it if we have the right structures in

if we have the right structures in place. What I think free societies do is

place. What I think free societies do is they secure a kind of like adaptation to

they secure a kind of like adaptation to the future. So as future conditions

the future. So as future conditions change, people doing lots of experiments

change, people doing lots of experiments in parallel create um varants create

in parallel create um varants create solutions that just sort of bubble up.

solutions that just sort of bubble up. Right? That's one thing. They also are

Right? That's one thing. They also are the best way to grow the stock of

the best way to grow the stock of knowledge in general. Like yes, you

knowledge in general. Like yes, you know, the creating creation of new

know, the creating creation of new alloys was probably accelerated by JFK's

alloys was probably accelerated by JFK's push, but in general, science works

push, but in general, science works through, you know, a kind of republic of

through, you know, a kind of republic of science, you know, like to quote Michael

science, you know, like to quote Michael Palani, where you have distributed

Palani, where you have distributed science. No one is setting the

science. No one is setting the direction. There's no house of Ben Salem

direction. There's no house of Ben Salem from, you know, um, the new Atlantis.

from, you know, um, the new Atlantis. There's no one saying what what science

There's no one saying what what science should do. It's just a a republic that's

should do. It's just a a republic that's loosely connected of people all trying

loosely connected of people all trying things and experimenting.

things and experimenting. Right. So your response to the seeming

Right. So your response to the seeming counter example of early modern science

counter example of early modern science like Galileo uh surviving and

like Galileo uh surviving and flourishing under persecution is to say

flourishing under persecution is to say but there is a republic that is free

but there is a republic that is free among the scientists or relatively so.

among the scientists or relatively so. Right? That's what you would be forced

Right? That's what you would be forced to I'm also saying that there's a

to I'm also saying that there's a tension where like Galileo h you know

tension where like Galileo h you know DSki they have to carve out pockets of

DSki they have to carve out pockets of freedom in very bad conditions in order

freedom in very bad conditions in order to do their work and you know the

to do their work and you know the inquisition with Galileo or the

inquisition with Galileo or the geneticists under Lysenko are good

geneticists under Lysenko are good counterexamples where you have

counterexamples where you have authoritarian you know control that for

authoritarian you know control that for non-scientific reasons wants to shut

non-scientific reasons wants to shut them down and succeeds to some degree in

them down and succeeds to some degree in those cases

those cases right so your response there um is

right so your response there um is essentially like a lack of counterfact

essentially like a lack of counterfact actual response like if Galileo did what

actual response like if Galileo did what he did surviving persecution but what if

he did surviving persecution but what if we had a a parallel Europe that that was

we had a a parallel Europe that that was free at the time think about how much

free at the time think about how much better that would be right that's

better that would be right that's I think that's brilliantly put yeah I

I think that's brilliantly put yeah I think it's you know you look at the

think it's you know you look at the examples where uh great art was created

examples where uh great art was created amidst terrible conditions but then what

amidst terrible conditions but then what you don't consider is yeah what would

you don't consider is yeah what would the parallel universe have looked like

the parallel universe have looked like yeah okay well well I'm glad uh I'm glad

yeah okay well well I'm glad uh I'm glad I trapped you there because I set up a

I trapped you there because I set up a little trap for you because America

little trap for you because America which I think any reasonable person is

which I think any reasonable person is the mo would would say is the most free

the mo would would say is the most free in the way that you're in this hayekan

in the way that you're in this hayekan way society it's not totally free but

way society it's not totally free but the most right uh a sort of nation in

the most right uh a sort of nation in human history America clearly is amazing

human history America clearly is amazing in its entrepreneurial innovations and

in its entrepreneurial innovations and its creativity there but where is

its creativity there but where is America's Virgil where is America's

America's Virgil where is America's Shakespeare we've had three thou 300

Shakespeare we've had three thou 300 years man like like like and like but

years man like like like and like but even hard sciences like America's is

even hard sciences like America's is okay for like practical applied science,

okay for like practical applied science, but like Einstein, well, he he well it

but like Einstein, well, he he well it was in America, but he's obviously he

was in America, but he's obviously he was in a different you see what I'm

was in a different you see what I'm trying to say like the counterfactual

trying to say like the counterfactual response would be a lot more compelling

response would be a lot more compelling if America became this land of infinite

if America became this land of infinite creativity and great works being written

creativity and great works being written left and right and yet

left and right and yet the only place where America seems to

the only place where America seems to extend creativity is in the uh is the

extend creativity is in the uh is the economic sphere.

economic sphere. I think it's a good point. Um I mean I I

I think it's a good point. Um I mean I I want to say that we are not without

want to say that we are not without achievements in each area, right? there

achievements in each area, right? there is an American novel, you know, there is

is an American novel, you know, there is a Faulner kind of thing. But I I think

a Faulner kind of thing. But I I think right I take your point that we're we

right I take your point that we're we have like relative greatness in other

have like relative greatness in other ways. And you know the question is like

ways. And you know the question is like does our does something about our system

does our does something about our system tend to uh uh squash the other kinds of

tend to uh uh squash the other kinds of greatness that we would see and it's a

greatness that we would see and it's a little reminiscent of like Toqueville's

little reminiscent of like Toqueville's concern obviously because you know he

concern obviously because you know he thinks that um democracy can create a

thinks that um democracy can create a kind of mediocrity and a particularly

kind of mediocrity and a particularly particularly a mediocrity of desire or

particularly a mediocrity of desire or of like aspiration. He he writes about

of like aspiration. He he writes about like um the American merchant captain

like um the American merchant captain actually I think this is a very funny

actually I think this is a very funny and not well-known uh thing which is

and not well-known uh thing which is that uh he sort of like looks at where

that uh he sort of like looks at where honor still exists very aristocratic

honor still exists very aristocratic virtue of honor uh all but lost to the

virtue of honor uh all but lost to the world but he says it exists among these

world but he says it exists among these merchant captains in America who you

merchant captains in America who you know when they do something and save

know when they do something and save somebody else they say I won't accept

somebody else they say I won't accept payment because it's a captain's role to

payment because it's a captain's role to not accept it and so he's like it exists

not accept it and so he's like it exists but I think what he says is that we need

but I think what he says is that we need to keep the memory alive of the like

to keep the memory alive of the like high aspirations. And so I would say

high aspirations. And so I would say that I probably fault not the free

that I probably fault not the free society but the system of education that

society but the system of education that doesn't like cultivate this kind of

doesn't like cultivate this kind of desire, this kind of like highest

desire, this kind of like highest desire, right?

desire, right? In other words, like your example about

In other words, like your example about the Prussian system of like industrial

the Prussian system of like industrial education, the kind of sameness that it

education, the kind of sameness that it breeds, that sort of thing I think is

breeds, that sort of thing I think is one proximal cause. And then I, you

one proximal cause. And then I, you know, I mean, I I don't I don't think I

know, I mean, I I don't I don't think I disagree that like capitalism um tends

disagree that like capitalism um tends to produce the kind of person who has

to produce the kind of person who has material desires. I'm a little bit

material desires. I'm a little bit ambivalent on this because on the one

ambivalent on this because on the one hand, I think um I agree probably with

hand, I think um I agree probably with Freriedman that um markets are a

Freriedman that um markets are a consequence of freedom. In other words,

consequence of freedom. In other words, like we truck, barter, and exchange.

like we truck, barter, and exchange. That wasn't Freeman, that was Smith. But

That wasn't Freeman, that was Smith. But and if we're left free to do it, markets

and if we're left free to do it, markets kind of arise. Now, institutions play a

kind of arise. Now, institutions play a big role. But if that's true, then on

big role. But if that's true, then on the one hand, markets are just kind of

the one hand, markets are just kind of like a product of of freedom. On the

like a product of of freedom. On the other hand, they clearly shape

other hand, they clearly shape uh the way we see the world,

uh the way we see the world, normative ends. Yeah.

normative ends. Yeah. Yeah. And um but all things do this like

Yeah. And um but all things do this like I mean like the availability of clocks

I mean like the availability of clocks shapes our the way we think about time.

shapes our the way we think about time. Yeah.

Yeah. These are unavoidable.

These are unavoidable. Yeah. Well, I'm I actually uh prepared a

Yeah. Well, I'm I actually uh prepared a quote actually from one of my favorite

quote actually from one of my favorite passages from Toqueville that kind of

passages from Toqueville that kind of gives his answer about why he would say

gives his answer about why he would say why he said uh that America would never

why he said uh that America would never produce her own Pascal.

produce her own Pascal. And I think he's been right so far,

And I think he's been right so far, right? Who who's the best American

right? Who who's the best American philosopher so far? John Dwey probably

philosopher so far? John Dwey probably not a Pascal. I quote you Toville. If

not a Pascal. I quote you Toville. If Pascal had had in mind only some great

Pascal had had in mind only some great source of profit, this is what you're

source of profit, this is what you're saying about the markets, or had been

saying about the markets, or had been motivated only by self- glory, I cannot

motivated only by self- glory, I cannot think he would have been able, as he

think he would have been able, as he was, to gather, as he did, all the

was, to gather, as he did, all the powers of his intellect for a deeper

powers of his intellect for a deeper discovery of the most hidden secrets of

discovery of the most hidden secrets of the creator. When I observe him tearing

the creator. When I observe him tearing his soul away, so to speak, from the

his soul away, so to speak, from the concerns of life, to devoted entirely to

concerns of life, to devoted entirely to this research, and severing prematurely

this research, and severing prematurely the ties which bind his soul to his

the ties which bind his soul to his body, to die of old age before his 40th

body, to die of old age before his 40th year, I stand a gasast and realize that

year, I stand a gasast and realize that no ordinary cause can produce such

no ordinary cause can produce such extraordinary effects. So um again like

extraordinary effects. So um again like I think Hayek's uh consequentialist

I think Hayek's uh consequentialist argument of creativity and freedom and

argument of creativity and freedom and which I understand is not his only

which I understand is not his only argument would be a lot more compelling

argument would be a lot more compelling if you know in the American system you

if you know in the American system you had all these great artists and great

had all these great artists and great great great creators and great writers

great great creators and great writers in addition to the great entrepreneurs

in addition to the great entrepreneurs that America clearly does have. But but

that America clearly does have. But but that seems to be the only domain that

that seems to be the only domain that American creativity expresses itself

American creativity expresses itself notably in human history. Mhm.

notably in human history. Mhm. Mhm.

Mhm. Yeah. I think this is a very tough line

Yeah. I think this is a very tough line of inquiry. The was Pascal wealthy?

of inquiry. The was Pascal wealthy? Uh I Yeah. I I think I think he might

Uh I Yeah. I I think I think he might have been a a gentleman scholar kind of.

have been a a gentleman scholar kind of. Yeah. Because I think Toqueville also

Yeah. Because I think Toqueville also shares this kind of like it's a

shares this kind of like it's a controversial point to make but that the

controversial point to make but that the the um avail the multigenerational

the um avail the multigenerational wealth that like um primogenitor like

wealth that like um primogenitor like the estate law basically the idea that

the estate law basically the idea that whether or not a country breaks up

whether or not a country breaks up estates or passes it to the firstborn

estates or passes it to the firstborn son

son has a big role in the kinds of goals one

has a big role in the kinds of goals one can pursue because

can pursue because says this exactly

says this exactly and so I think this is I say it's

and so I think this is I say it's controversial because like people don't

controversial because like people don't like to talk about you know the literal

like to talk about you know the literal elite and like you know a state uh

elite and like you know a state uh estate sort of law in that way. But I

estate sort of law in that way. But I think Toville is right that we if we you

think Toville is right that we if we you know to the extent that we sort of break

know to the extent that we sort of break up uh estates we give people uh a

up uh estates we give people uh a starting point that makes them very

starting point that makes them very hungry to but but but especially hungry

hungry to but but but especially hungry for material things. Whereas if you're

for material things. Whereas if you're born into wealth, which I was not to be

born into wealth, which I was not to be clear, you know, if you're born into

clear, you know, if you're born into wealth, then you have a different set of

wealth, then you have a different set of ideas like you kind of are are kind of

ideas like you kind of are are kind of um blasze about it and you you're like

um blasze about it and you you're like thinking and you either become, you

thinking and you either become, you know, lazy or you pursue different ends

know, lazy or you pursue different ends that are higher. Um but it I think

that are higher. Um but it I think Toqueville thinks it's a useful

Toqueville thinks it's a useful experiment to have. So what you need to

experiment to have. So what you need to concede maybe is the full creativity of

concede maybe is the full creativity of the market or or something like that. I

the market or or something like that. I mean obviously the market itself is

mean obviously the market itself is creative in the entrepreneurial sphere

creative in the entrepreneurial sphere but you still can preserve your point

but you still can preserve your point about li like liberty itself being

about li like liberty itself being important for for creativity just

important for for creativity just different kinds of liberty are needed

different kinds of liberty are needed something like that.

something like that. Yeah. Yeah. I I also will say to in

Yeah. Yeah. I I also will say to in defense of of of of entrepreneurs that

defense of of of of entrepreneurs that some of them have very great desires

some of them have very great desires about humanity that are that would rival

about humanity that are that would rival the the desires of the the most laudable

the the desires of the the most laudable aristocrats of old. Like in other words,

aristocrats of old. Like in other words, I don't think that honor and those

I don't think that honor and those questions while I do think they're

questions while I do think they're they're they're they've diminished. I do

they're they're they've diminished. I do think that people get into the game for

think that people get into the game for reasons like that, but it's the

reasons like that, but it's the expression that would be kind of totally

expression that would be kind of totally different than what Toqueville is is is

different than what Toqueville is is is is thinking of. So, I want to move on to

is thinking of. So, I want to move on to the last part of our interview, which is

the last part of our interview, which is about we talked about what right you

about we talked about what right you want to achieve mostly about autonomy as

want to achieve mostly about autonomy as it relates to AI. We talked about why

it relates to AI. We talked about why that's important, the intrinsic and the

that's important, the intrinsic and the extrinsic reasons. And now I want to

extrinsic reasons. And now I want to move on to the how and it's in this idea

move on to the how and it's in this idea that uh that you suggested of the

that uh that you suggested of the philosopher builder. So so what is a

philosopher builder. So so what is a philosopher builder?

philosopher builder? So the philosopher builder is a new kind

So the philosopher builder is a new kind of technologist. It's a technologist

of technologist. It's a technologist that thinks very deeply, contemplates

that thinks very deeply, contemplates very deeply about the alternate ends of

very deeply about the alternate ends of technology and also has the skill to

technology and also has the skill to build that in the world. When you think

build that in the world. When you think of the philosopher builder, you should

of the philosopher builder, you should think of Benjamin Franklin who you know

think of Benjamin Franklin who you know everyone will know as one of America's

everyone will know as one of America's founding fathers as the face on the $100

founding fathers as the face on the $100 bill. Um, what a lot of people don't

bill. Um, what a lot of people don't know is that Franklin is an engineer of

know is that Franklin is an engineer of a very high caliber. He invents the

a very high caliber. He invents the lightning rod. He invents the bif focal

lightning rod. He invents the bif focal lens. He coins positive and negative

lens. He coins positive and negative charge and electricity. He's also a

charge and electricity. He's also a philosopher. He lives by a 13 virtues

philosopher. He lives by a 13 virtues idea and creates this thing called the

idea and creates this thing called the junto for mutual evaluation, mutual

junto for mutual evaluation, mutual discussion.

discussion. When Franklin is at his best and when he

When Franklin is at his best and when he really brings to life this idea of the

really brings to life this idea of the philosopher builder is when he's

philosopher builder is when he's translating a philosophical idea into a

translating a philosophical idea into a practical innovation in the world. He's

practical innovation in the world. He's taking the idea that for example

taking the idea that for example knowledge should live outside of the

knowledge should live outside of the scope of authority outside of the church

scope of authority outside of the church in the state and he's translating that

in the state and he's translating that into the world through the first lending

into the world through the first lending library or the first network of

library or the first network of independent publishers in America. That

independent publishers in America. That is the essence that we want to capture.

is the essence that we want to capture. the idea that you're thinking about

the idea that you're thinking about these philosophical ideas and you're

these philosophical ideas and you're translating them into real world

translating them into real world innovation. So today, you know, it's

innovation. So today, you know, it's never been more necessary to have that.

never been more necessary to have that. But I think the institutions we have are

But I think the institutions we have are failing to produce the archetype. You

failing to produce the archetype. You know, most universities um I would say

know, most universities um I would say produce pretty narrow technicians or

produce pretty narrow technicians or conforming ideologues. I think that's by

conforming ideologues. I think that's by and large an accurate descriptor. Most

and large an accurate descriptor. Most tech companies produce people who are

tech companies produce people who are very very good at building and thinking

very very good at building and thinking about the means but who are not thinking

about the means but who are not thinking about the ends beyond just sort of the

about the ends beyond just sort of the customer use case satisfaction and then

customer use case satisfaction and then think tanks create theorists that don't

think tanks create theorists that don't tend to build. So that's what I'm

tend to build. So that's what I'm focused on. The the inspiration that I

focused on. The the inspiration that I draw is that there have been moments

draw is that there have been moments when institutions

when institutions uh uh really rose to the challenge.

uh uh really rose to the challenge. institutions that come to mind are

institutions that come to mind are Cambridge during the industrial

Cambridge during the industrial revolution took a lot of mathematicians

revolution took a lot of mathematicians and turned them into the engineers that

and turned them into the engineers that powered that. Um MIT during World War

powered that. Um MIT during World War II, the Rad Lab in particular took

II, the Rad Lab in particular took physicists, made them into inventors,

physicists, made them into inventors, help the war. And then Chicago more

help the war. And then Chicago more recently um took economists and made

recently um took economists and made them into uh reformers who freed markets

them into uh reformers who freed markets across five continents. So we can do it

across five continents. So we can do it like when a mission has that as their or

like when a mission has that as their or when an institution has that as their

when an institution has that as their purpose and acts urgently we can do it

purpose and acts urgently we can do it that is what we're doing in cosmos is

that is what we're doing in cosmos is creating that new kind of technologies

creating that new kind of technologies and in some ways it's reflective of your

and in some ways it's reflective of your own story right because you you started

own story right because you you started off on the building side uh and then you

off on the building side uh and then you got into philosophy uh later on in life

got into philosophy uh later on in life so tell us that story

so tell us that story yeah I mean it even goes back a little

yeah I mean it even goes back a little further like my mom was an educator she

further like my mom was an educator she taught special needs kids for 36 years

taught special needs kids for 36 years and she brought us up in what people

and she brought us up in what people call a virtue culture So arisatilian, an

call a virtue culture So arisatilian, an idea that things like courage, honor

idea that things like courage, honor mattered. And this was very effective

mattered. And this was very effective and it is what caused my sister, my

and it is what caused my sister, my brother and I to all go into the

brother and I to all go into the military. I was a submarine officer, my

military. I was a submarine officer, my brother was as well. My sister was the

brother was as well. My sister was the lead medical person when we defeated

lead medical person when we defeated ISIS in battle with Mosul. And it's

ISIS in battle with Mosul. And it's because that was a natural expression

because that was a natural expression for this um desire for public good that

for this um desire for public good that that she and my father had inculcated in

that she and my father had inculcated in us. I then went, you know, went to MIT,

us. I then went, you know, went to MIT, joined the military, went to Harvard

joined the military, went to Harvard Business School. So, I had this kind of

Business School. So, I had this kind of classic STEM in business. And it was

classic STEM in business. And it was only after selling two AI companies and

only after selling two AI companies and having my second of two kids, my son

having my second of two kids, my son who's four, that I really was hit with

who's four, that I really was hit with this like big perennial human question

this like big perennial human question like what what do you what is the good

like what what do you what is the good life? What do you do with the rest of

life? What do you do with the rest of your career? What do you model for the

your career? What do you model for the little humans? That's a profound thing

little humans? That's a profound thing that happens when you have kids is you

that happens when you have kids is you you realize that you're on the hook. And

you realize that you're on the hook. And I didn't have answers and I was very

I didn't have answers and I was very dissatisfied with the depth. I had

dissatisfied with the depth. I had cocktail party level answers. And so I

cocktail party level answers. And so I started to read and I had a mentor uh

started to read and I had a mentor uh named Michael Strong who gave me the

named Michael Strong who gave me the gift of a lifetime, a 17page reading

gift of a lifetime, a 17page reading list that really started with the

list that really started with the ancients philosophy and went up to the

ancients philosophy and went up to the enlightenment, the American founding,

enlightenment, the American founding, contemporary debates. It changed my

contemporary debates. It changed my life. It transformed me. It made me more

life. It transformed me. It made me more interesting to myself and it totally

interesting to myself and it totally changed the trajectory and that's how I

changed the trajectory and that's how I shifted from being an entrepreneur to

shifted from being an entrepreneur to being well I'm still an entrepreneur but

being well I'm still an entrepreneur but to creating to be a philosopher.

to creating to be a philosopher. Entrepreneur.

Entrepreneur. Sure. Philosopher.

Sure. Philosopher. There we go.

There we go. Exactly.

Exactly. Um you said that you didn't grow up in

Um you said that you didn't grow up in wealth. Uh and in some sense what's

wealth. Uh and in some sense what's quite crazy about your entrepreneurial

quite crazy about your entrepreneurial journey was how quick the exits came.

journey was how quick the exits came. Right. It was a span of what 18 months

Right. It was a span of what 18 months or or something like that that there was

or or something like that that there was like 400 million uh exits. What was like

like 400 million uh exits. What was like coming into that much wealth in that

coming into that much wealth in that short period of time? How did that

short period of time? How did that manifest for you?

manifest for you? So, I had people around me that um

So, I had people around me that um played a big role in this. So, I saw

played a big role in this. So, I saw examples of lives that I didn't want to

examples of lives that I didn't want to live. And these are people that I'm in

live. And these are people that I'm in some cases friends with. So, I don't

some cases friends with. So, I don't want to be too uh too specific here, but

want to be too uh too specific here, but I saw examples of lives that I did not

I saw examples of lives that I did not want to live. And I also saw examples of

want to live. And I also saw examples of lives I did. And so I had a friend of

lives I did. And so I had a friend of mine who is part of a philanthropic

mine who is part of a philanthropic network of young people like in our 30s

network of young people like in our 30s and 40s who are doing pretty serious

and 40s who are doing pretty serious philanthropic work. And I saw him do

philanthropic work. And I saw him do something that I felt was

something that I felt was transformational at a young age. And I

transformational at a young age. And I remember the moment when I heard this

remember the moment when I heard this and he had given, you know, $5 million

and he had given, you know, $5 million or something to this amazing cause. Um,

or something to this amazing cause. Um, and I I just talked to Adrian. I

and I I just talked to Adrian. I thought, you know, we could do something

thought, you know, we could do something like that. you know, we could do

like that. you know, we could do something big and the counterfactual of

something big and the counterfactual of not doing it was felt huge. In other

not doing it was felt huge. In other words, not having the benefits of not

words, not having the benefits of not just money but like time and effort and

just money but like time and effort and talent applied and not compounding that

talent applied and not compounding that felt like a huge missed opportunity. So,

felt like a huge missed opportunity. So, I really credit it to being uh able to

I really credit it to being uh able to surround myself with examples of what I

surround myself with examples of what I thought bold action looked like and I

thought bold action looked like and I chose, you know, very deliberately the

chose, you know, very deliberately the path that I wanted to to emulate.

path that I wanted to to emulate. I see. Oh well, let's let's go back to

I see. Oh well, let's let's go back to the philosopher builder archetype

the philosopher builder archetype because um I think about it as fleshing

because um I think about it as fleshing out this third option um in platonic

out this third option um in platonic political philosophy. So obviously uh

political philosophy. So obviously uh Plato separates his polus into three.

Plato separates his polus into three. There's the ruling class, uh there's the

There's the ruling class, uh there's the the army, right? The military uh and

the army, right? The military uh and then then there's the producers like the

then then there's the producers like the the merchants, the builders essentially.

the merchants, the builders essentially. And Plato obviously advises the rulers

And Plato obviously advises the rulers to be philosophers. This is the

to be philosophers. This is the philosopher king. Um I think we see in

philosopher king. Um I think we see in the end of the Roman Republic the

the end of the Roman Republic the philosopher general. These are people

philosopher general. These are people like uh Cicero like uh like um Caesar

like uh Cicero like uh like um Caesar who was ve very learned. He was like

who was ve very learned. He was like composing uh tracks about anomaly and

composing uh tracks about anomaly and analogy in Gaul while like arrows were

analogy in Gaul while like arrows were flying in his face. Um and now you're

flying in his face. Um and now you're suggesting is that it's the third class

suggesting is that it's the third class which to Plato was in some sense the

which to Plato was in some sense the lowest class the builders

lowest class the builders should be philosophers. Why? Why is

should be philosophers. Why? Why is that? Well, yes. I mean, I think it

that? Well, yes. I mean, I think it draws some inspiration but differs in

draws some inspiration but differs in really import one really important way

really import one really important way from those those archetypes. The

from those those archetypes. The inspiration is that there is a belief

inspiration is that there is a belief that you can have not a unity of

that you can have not a unity of contemplation and power, wisdom and

contemplation and power, wisdom and power as you see in the philosopher

power as you see in the philosopher king, but a unity of the wisdom and the

king, but a unity of the wisdom and the contemplation that gets you there with

contemplation that gets you there with uh the ability to create to create

uh the ability to create to create worlds to build. Um what I think it it

worlds to build. Um what I think it it makes the distinction clear is actually

makes the distinction clear is actually the Greek concept of order which divides

the Greek concept of order which divides into two distinct words. There is taxis

into two distinct words. There is taxis and there is cosmos.

and there is cosmos. Taxis is the order that we impose on the

Taxis is the order that we impose on the world from the top down. It's taxonomy,

world from the top down. It's taxonomy, right? Or it's more generally a kind of

right? Or it's more generally a kind of top down order, right? Um and then the

top down order, right? Um and then the alternative is the bottomup emergent

alternative is the bottomup emergent order that is Cosmos. And obviously I've

order that is Cosmos. And obviously I've embraced this uh in so far as we're

embraced this uh in so far as we're named the Cosmos Institute. But what it

named the Cosmos Institute. But what it means in practice is that we're not

means in practice is that we're not looking for one individual who has a

looking for one individual who has a kind of blueprint that we look to to

kind of blueprint that we look to to rescue us in difficult times um and who

rescue us in difficult times um and who can implement that plan sort of from the

can implement that plan sort of from the top. That's the philosopher king. We are

top. That's the philosopher king. We are looking for a much more bottom-up

looking for a much more bottom-up distributed approach where people may

distributed approach where people may have slices of truth, slices of the

have slices of truth, slices of the solution and are working in their corner

solution and are working in their corner of the world to project that that vision

of the world to project that that vision forward. That's the cosmos approach and

forward. That's the cosmos approach and the philosopher builder approach. It's a

the philosopher builder approach. It's a different archetype, much more like

different archetype, much more like Franklin, much more distributed and one

Franklin, much more distributed and one that I think is

that I think is right,

right, you know, necessary for the the current

you know, necessary for the the current moment.

moment. Right. So taking the insight from Plato

Right. So taking the insight from Plato about the importance to join worldly

about the importance to join worldly activity and and and philosophy and and

activity and and and philosophy and and uh and contemplation but given

uh and contemplation but given everything you said about autonomy

everything you said about autonomy transplanting that into an autonomous

transplanting that into an autonomous decentralized way. Yes.

decentralized way. Yes. And hence you find the philosopher in

And hence you find the philosopher in the third class and not in the not in

the third class and not in the not in the ruling class. I I was going to give

the ruling class. I I was going to give a very different answer to to why this

a very different answer to to why this is important today. please

is important today. please which is that technology like you can

which is that technology like you can argue in some sense that in Plato's time

argue in some sense that in Plato's time uh ruling and political power was the

uh ruling and political power was the dominant pole right um whereas today I

dominant pole right um whereas today I think it's the market uh as well as

think it's the market uh as well as technology that is the dominant pole of

technology that is the dominant pole of the three um you see how uh I mean

the three um you see how uh I mean obviously you see how technology is

obviously you see how technology is dominant over politics given everything

dominant over politics given everything we've described so far about how

we've described so far about how technology can form political citizens

technology can form political citizens to be more autonomous or less autonomous

to be more autonomous or less autonomous uh and you canso O see with things like

uh and you canso O see with things like Anderil or or Palunteer how an AI of

Anderil or or Palunteer how an AI of course has has dual use technology uh

course has has dual use technology uh you see what I'm trying to say here

you see what I'm trying to say here right like the technology like it's

right like the technology like it's important for the philosopher builder

important for the philosopher builder not just because of what you said but

not just because of what you said but because technology

because technology now supersedes the other two spheres.

now supersedes the other two spheres. Yeah. And it becomes the driving logic

Yeah. And it becomes the driving logic of the two spheres.

of the two spheres. Absolutely. No. And it's a break with

Absolutely. No. And it's a break with the ancient idea that politics is

the ancient idea that politics is architectonic. the regime sets the frame

architectonic. the regime sets the frame for what kind of technology could even

for what kind of technology could even be done, right? I am persuaded by that.

be done, right? I am persuaded by that. But as you as you sort of look at where

But as you as you sort of look at where we are in 2025,

we are in 2025, it's opposite.

it's opposite. It's flipped a bit. And so yeah, so you

It's flipped a bit. And so yeah, so you could talk about it being upstream, but

could talk about it being upstream, but I like your idea that it sort of is like

I like your idea that it sort of is like techn technology is kind of

techn technology is kind of architectonic. Like it's kind of the if

architectonic. Like it's kind of the if you think about who the best reformers

you think about who the best reformers are, the most capable reformers are,

are, the most capable reformers are, it's not people like John Stewart Mill

it's not people like John Stewart Mill who whom I love, but it's people like

who whom I love, but it's people like Elon Musk. And I I don't say that to

Elon Musk. And I I don't say that to endorse

endorse everything he stands for.

everything he stands for. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying his position as a profoundly capable

his position as a profoundly capable builder gives him enormous leverage on,

builder gives him enormous leverage on, you know, what we thought of as like

you know, what we thought of as like political questions of old or or but

political questions of old or or but again I just want to tease out the the

again I just want to tease out the the mechanism because one of it is him able

mechanism because one of it is him able to use his money um and to be able to

to use his money um and to be able to for example fund Trump. Um but and I

for example fund Trump. Um but and I think alpha school is the better example

think alpha school is the better example here like the technology of AI when it

here like the technology of AI when it applies to education might be a a much

applies to education might be a a much more powerful political tool for liberty

more powerful political tool for liberty than you know like doing anything with

than you know like doing anything with the government that can possibly done

the government that can possibly done today. Yeah. Yeah. Because because

today. Yeah. Yeah. Because because precisely because technology is going

precisely because technology is going through all of our lives in this way.

through all of our lives in this way. Yeah. That's right. And alpha school

Yeah. That's right. And alpha school example gives also color on the

example gives also color on the interdependencies because if you don't

interdependencies because if you don't have a political order that is capable

have a political order that is capable of uh sustaining that kind of innovative

of uh sustaining that kind of innovative school model um you at the very least

school model um you at the very least have a it's hampered

have a it's hampered right so so you're saying it is the

right so so you're saying it is the dominant poll but it's not the only poll

dominant poll but it's not the only poll that is constrained by the others. Um,

that is constrained by the others. Um, one can respond to to this and say that

one can respond to to this and say that what we may say is true, but all the

what we may say is true, but all the other waves of technology, whether it's

other waves of technology, whether it's printing press, industrial, certainly

printing press, industrial, certainly nuclear, web, PC, would also have

nuclear, web, PC, would also have benefited from philosopher builders. Um,

benefited from philosopher builders. Um, why is there something specific about AI

why is there something specific about AI that that makes this more urgent?

that that makes this more urgent? I think that gets back to autonomy.

I think that gets back to autonomy. Yeah. But it also, you know, more

Yeah. But it also, you know, more generally, I think there have been

generally, I think there have been epical moments in science and tech that

epical moments in science and tech that have made us question what it means to

have made us question what it means to be human.

be human. And, you know, I think of Galileo or

And, you know, I think of Galileo or Capernicus and and and and Darwin. I

Capernicus and and and and Darwin. I think about pushing us out of the center

think about pushing us out of the center of the universe, putting us among the

of the universe, putting us among the animals. Those were major major

animals. Those were major major reorienting moments in human life as a

reorienting moments in human life as a consequence of technological insight and

consequence of technological insight and breakthrough. AI is similar. The age of

breakthrough. AI is similar. The age of Turring brings this question of what

Turring brings this question of what does it mean to be human in a world in

does it mean to be human in a world in which we are no longer you know the most

which we are no longer you know the most intelligent being um or at least

intelligent being um or at least plausibly uh uh becoming so and so

plausibly uh uh becoming so and so that's one kind of broad impetus broad

that's one kind of broad impetus broad strokes but I think the question of like

strokes but I think the question of like because AI substitutes for this

because AI substitutes for this essential maybe central human good then

essential maybe central human good then it becomes a very philosophical

it becomes a very philosophical technology. It operates through

technology. It operates through language. It has a semantic um

language. It has a semantic um interface, you know, with with humans

interface, you know, with with humans and um and has a mediating effect

and um and has a mediating effect between us and the world, especially the

between us and the world, especially the world of words and information, right?

world of words and information, right? Whereas it's just as important, maybe

Whereas it's just as important, maybe more so, you could easily make the

more so, you could easily make the argument, to get nuclear, right? Right.

argument, to get nuclear, right? Right. To get the the game theory of nuclear

To get the the game theory of nuclear right. um it doesn't raise as many

right. um it doesn't raise as many interesting philosophical uh questions

interesting philosophical uh questions and problems as AI does because of how

and problems as AI does because of how humanlike it is. Um and it's not

humanlike it is. Um and it's not manipulable through the semantic way,

manipulable through the semantic way, but but rather through the numeric way.

but but rather through the numeric way. Yeah. I I also think there's an argument

Yeah. I I also think there's an argument to be made that AI is plausibly the end

to be made that AI is plausibly the end of the modern technological project. In

of the modern technological project. In other words, is plausibly a technology

other words, is plausibly a technology that can create other technologies or

that can create other technologies or create other scientific breakthroughs.

create other scientific breakthroughs. We we are barely scratching the surface

We we are barely scratching the surface there. But if you go back to Bacon and

there. But if you go back to Bacon and the beginning of this whole modern

the beginning of this whole modern scientific project, the thought of a

scientific project, the thought of a technology that could discover other you

technology that could discover other you know breakthroughs would have been held

know breakthroughs would have been held in a special category. So I want to

in a special category. So I want to offer uh you a few critiques and see how

offer uh you a few critiques and see how you respond to this philosopher builder

you respond to this philosopher builder ideal. And the first one is a catalyst

ideal. And the first one is a catalyst critique and that's to say look uh it's

critique and that's to say look uh it's redundant. We don't need our builders to

redundant. We don't need our builders to aim towards any higher normative end uh

aim towards any higher normative end uh other than profit because this is one of

other than profit because this is one of the key tenants of of uh classical

the key tenants of of uh classical liberal thinking and markets thinking

liberal thinking and markets thinking about capitalism that the invisible hand

about capitalism that the invisible hand of the market will turn private vice

of the market will turn private vice into public virtue. Uh and so it seems

into public virtue. Uh and so it seems like the urgency by which you uh uh

like the urgency by which you uh uh recommend the philosopher builder kind

recommend the philosopher builder kind of undermines that that piece.

of undermines that that piece. Well, I think the market does turn

Well, I think the market does turn private vice into public virtue by and

private vice into public virtue by and large. I also think it permits private

large. I also think it permits private virtue. In other words, the market

virtue. In other words, the market permits you to um act in a way that is

permits you to um act in a way that is uh yours uh you know as as it is chosen

uh yours uh you know as as it is chosen and you can uh do that in so far as you

and you can uh do that in so far as you offer value to others. But what I would

offer value to others. But what I would say here is like you need to think about

say here is like you need to think about the two poles of kind of how an

the two poles of kind of how an entrepreneur is seen to act in a in a

entrepreneur is seen to act in a in a capitalist system. One is Freriedman who

capitalist system. One is Freriedman who I think occupies the the most narrow

I think occupies the the most narrow farthest poll 1970 what is the corporate

farthest poll 1970 what is the corporate social responsibility business. He

social responsibility business. He writes this writes this article and it

writes this writes this article and it says that the the role of an

says that the the role of an entrepreneur is to uh is to seek

entrepreneur is to uh is to seek shareholder value to deliver that and

shareholder value to deliver that and the other end of the extreme is ESG I

the other end of the extreme is ESG I would say where you have a kind of

would say where you have a kind of unitary goal a United Nations goal for

unitary goal a United Nations goal for example to to do something that we we

example to to do something that we we view as being laudable and then

view as being laudable and then entrepreneurs are seen as the execution

entrepreneurs are seen as the execution instrument for that goal and I would say

instrument for that goal and I would say both are troubling in a sense I'm much

both are troubling in a sense I'm much closer to the Freriedman view, but they

closer to the Freriedman view, but they they both position the entrepreneur in a

they both position the entrepreneur in a low agency way in so far as on the one

low agency way in so far as on the one hand we're we're we're supposedly very

hand we're we're we're supposedly very limited in what we can do. we just think

limited in what we can do. we just think very financially about the shareholder

very financially about the shareholder value and on the other we're we're seen

value and on the other we're we're seen as the agent of another who's

as the agent of another who's implementing this you know this this

implementing this you know this this goal and I would say there's an

goal and I would say there's an alternative that and the alternative is

alternative that and the alternative is the entrepreneur as a pioneer the

the entrepreneur as a pioneer the entrepreneur who sets the norms and

entrepreneur who sets the norms and builds that future and there is simply

builds that future and there is simply nothing that restricts that one needs to

nothing that restricts that one needs to be creative I would argue that's what

be creative I would argue that's what entrepreneurs do today in many cases um

entrepreneurs do today in many cases um but I would say one needs to be creative

but I would say one needs to be creative because the um the customer may not may

because the um the customer may not may or may not care about your underlying

or may not care about your underlying philosophy. And so I'll give you an

philosophy. And so I'll give you an example is like if we want to think

example is like if we want to think about autonomy, there's a lot of stuff

about autonomy, there's a lot of stuff that we could do architecturally.

that we could do architecturally. But if we consider the case Bloomberg

But if we consider the case Bloomberg terminal for anyone who's not in finance

terminal for anyone who's not in finance is a kind of mainstay of finance and the

is a kind of mainstay of finance and the use of it is about improving decision

use of it is about improving decision quality. That's the the point when you

quality. That's the the point when you use social media. Often the point is to

use social media. Often the point is to kind of check out like that's the job to

kind of check out like that's the job to be done is like you had a hard day and

be done is like you had a hard day and you just want to scroll and so you need

you just want to scroll and so you need to think about that. You need to think

to think about that. You need to think about your business model as well. Are

about your business model as well. Are you paying money in a subscription or

you paying money in a subscription or are you being subsidized because the

are you being subsidized because the model is adriven? These are really

model is adriven? These are really important design questions. But in so

important design questions. But in so far as opportunities do exist that

far as opportunities do exist that resemble the Bloomberg terminal where

resemble the Bloomberg terminal where you're improving decision quality and

you're improving decision quality and getting paid for it on subscription

getting paid for it on subscription basis, there's an entirely consistent

basis, there's an entirely consistent pro- capitalist way to build autonomy

pro- capitalist way to build autonomy producing tools.

producing tools. Right. Right. Uh so when I say the

Right. Right. Uh so when I say the philosopher builder undermines a key

philosopher builder undermines a key tenant of capitalism,

tenant of capitalism, I'm not taking the capitalist position

I'm not taking the capitalist position to be that you can't aim towards

to be that you can't aim towards normative uh goals. But I'm taking it to

normative uh goals. But I'm taking it to to say it's not necessary for the

to say it's not necessary for the positive benefits to ensue. And yet what

positive benefits to ensue. And yet what I hear you saying is if we don't have

I hear you saying is if we don't have philosophers who are builders, then

philosophers who are builders, then entrepreneurs driven by the profit

entrepreneurs driven by the profit mechanism can build systems that just

mechanism can build systems that just turn people into automatons. You you see

turn people into automatons. You you see you see the difference I'm trying to

you see the difference I'm trying to draw.

draw. And I also So one is like profit pools

And I also So one is like profit pools are incredibly important. They tell us

are incredibly important. They tell us what to go figure out about. They're

what to go figure out about. They're they're things that people value based

they're things that people value based on their preference preference ordering

on their preference preference ordering sort of so to speak. But also someone

sort of so to speak. But also someone needs to care about preserving the

needs to care about preserving the institutions that make free markets

institutions that make free markets possible. Someone needs to care about

possible. Someone needs to care about preserving the habits of mind that do

preserving the habits of mind that do that. And also markets are while

that. And also markets are while incredible a means by which we attain

incredible a means by which we attain human flourishing. And so someone also

human flourishing. And so someone also needs to care about that. And so those

needs to care about that. And so those are things that are entirely consistent

are things that are entirely consistent with free markets. It's a bit of a

with free markets. It's a bit of a thicker conception of liberalism than I

thicker conception of liberalism than I would say you know Freriedman would

would say you know Freriedman would hold. I grant that. But I think it's

hold. I grant that. But I think it's critical that we we we we consider those

critical that we we we we consider those other dimensions.

other dimensions. Right? So now let me push you from the

Right? So now let me push you from the exact opposite direction. Right? That

exact opposite direction. Right? That was the pro- capitalist critique. This

was the pro- capitalist critique. This is the anti- capitalist critique. And I

is the anti- capitalist critique. And I think OpenAI is a is a good example

think OpenAI is a is a good example which is let's say there is an

which is let's say there is an entrepreneur who is motivated by more

entrepreneur who is motivated by more than the profit motive.

than the profit motive. There are two kinds of pressures upon

There are two kinds of pressures upon him or her that might deter his genuine

him or her that might deter his genuine desire to do this. Number one is when a

desire to do this. Number one is when a company scales and brings on investors

company scales and brings on investors and other shareholders, they just might

and other shareholders, they just might need to optimize shareholder value.

need to optimize shareholder value. Regardless of what the entrepreneur,

Regardless of what the entrepreneur, what the philosopher builder wants and

what the philosopher builder wants and number two is competitive pressures. You

number two is competitive pressures. You might build a social media platform that

might build a social media platform that genuinely helps people that gives them

genuinely helps people that gives them socratic dialogues, but people might

socratic dialogues, but people might just uh gravitates towards the addicting

just uh gravitates towards the addicting one and then the profit incentive drives

one and then the profit incentive drives growth towards that.

growth towards that. Yeah, I would I would add another which

Yeah, I would I would add another which is that for early stage companies which

is that for early stage companies which I think a lot about investors the

I think a lot about investors the incremental financing if you fund your

incremental financing if you fund your company at a seed stage and you have a

company at a seed stage and you have a real mission behind it but then the

real mission behind it but then the series A investor doesn't care they just

series A investor doesn't care they just reduce you to a metric because they're

reduce you to a metric because they're they're chasing DPI um they are not

they're chasing DPI um they are not going to be um uh kind if you sort of

going to be um uh kind if you sort of deviate from a growth plan and so you

deviate from a growth plan and so you have to kind of this is a big design

have to kind of this is a big design question for like how you bring these

question for like how you bring these companies into the world. You need to

companies into the world. You need to have a group of investors capital that

have a group of investors capital that is

is aligned

aligned aligned philosophically and this is a

aligned philosophically and this is a big reason why we started Cosmos

big reason why we started Cosmos Holdings which is a complimentary

Holdings which is a complimentary portion of this that focuses on venture

portion of this that focuses on venture creation and venture backing is because

creation and venture backing is because you need to have align capital to do

you need to have align capital to do this. What you can't insulate from is

this. What you can't insulate from is the customer. In other words, like right

the customer. In other words, like right you can provide insulation in terms of

you can provide insulation in terms of the capital and have very principled

the capital and have very principled capital, but you can't insulate from the

capital, but you can't insulate from the customer, which is why you need to kind

customer, which is why you need to kind of be inspired by the Bloomberg model,

of be inspired by the Bloomberg model, which is funny to say because in 2025

which is funny to say because in 2025 it's not exactly the greatest, you know,

it's not exactly the greatest, you know, user interface or whatever. They they

user interface or whatever. They they they beat their competitors though

they beat their competitors though because they've chosen a part of the

because they've chosen a part of the market where it's real mutual benefit

market where it's real mutual benefit like they're really offering benefit for

like they're really offering benefit for their customers. You have to build in

their customers. You have to build in those kinds of pockets and directions.

those kinds of pockets and directions. What about the other pockets? Well, so I

What about the other pockets? Well, so I think once you once you demonstrate

think once you once you demonstrate that, I think the costs and the design

that, I think the costs and the design patterns will come down and I think you

patterns will come down and I think you will be able to kind of infect the other

will be able to kind of infect the other regions of the world, right?

regions of the world, right? I'm not sort of utopian in thinking, but

I'm not sort of utopian in thinking, but I do think there's a path, there's a

I do think there's a path, there's a trajectory, there's a way to enter into

trajectory, there's a way to enter into this market, right?

this market, right? And then improve and learn about this in

And then improve and learn about this in such a way that we can kind of cross

such a way that we can kind of cross apply our lessons into the more

apply our lessons into the more difficult areas. I also think that

difficult areas. I also think that there's something to be said about like

there's something to be said about like there's a great deal of entrenchment

there's a great deal of entrenchment when you have one business model like

when you have one business model like adriven model that is this entrenchment

adriven model that is this entrenchment is not felt by new challengers. In other

is not felt by new challengers. In other words, if you set up your business to

words, if you set up your business to monetize entirely differently then you

monetize entirely differently then you don't bind yourself in the way that

don't bind yourself in the way that Google has bound itself

Google has bound itself like Substack for example.

like Substack for example. Substack is a great example. Yeah.

Substack is a great example. Yeah. Exactly. And so this is a challenge for

Exactly. And so this is a challenge for incumbents. I think if I were an

incumbents. I think if I were an incumbent trying to drive change there,

incumbent trying to drive change there, it would be hard. And that's why a lot

it would be hard. And that's why a lot of the top researchers that we know are

of the top researchers that we know are people who worked at at big tech

people who worked at at big tech platforms who built something that was

platforms who built something that was incredibly I think potent for you know

incredibly I think potent for you know promoting human flourishing. It went

promoting human flourishing. It went against the business model for them. The

against the business model for them. The right answer is you need to either build

right answer is you need to either build it, you know, in academia and open

it, you know, in academia and open source it or you need to start a startup

source it or you need to start a startup and find a business model that can take

and find a business model that can take that into the world. Let me give you uh

that into the world. Let me give you uh a different line of critique. Um and

a different line of critique. Um and I'll begin by quoting uh part of an

I'll begin by quoting uh part of an essay that we are soon to publish. The

essay that we are soon to publish. The way to acquire more stable views is

way to acquire more stable views is almost paradoxically more inquiry. Okay,

almost paradoxically more inquiry. Okay, you're explaining why it's important for

you're explaining why it's important for the builder to philosophize. In Plato's

the builder to philosophize. In Plato's Mino, Socrates describes this with

Mino, Socrates describes this with reference to the legend of the statues

reference to the legend of the statues of Datalus which were said to run about

of Datalus which were said to run about if not tied down. The idea being that

if not tied down. The idea being that opinion is made valuable via inquiry

opinion is made valuable via inquiry which helps to ground our knowledge and

which helps to ground our knowledge and holds it more stably in place. Inquiry

holds it more stably in place. Inquiry improves our convictions even as it

improves our convictions even as it replaces them. You're talking about here

replaces them. You're talking about here the importance of the builder, many of

the importance of the builder, many of whom in Silicon Valley are just uh

whom in Silicon Valley are just uh unthinking in their building of

unthinking in their building of philosophizing that one of the benefits

philosophizing that one of the benefits is that it grants them more conviction.

is that it grants them more conviction. However, many of the of the uh Socratic

However, many of the of the uh Socratic dialogues end in appar

um uh uh sort of answer to the what is X question is arrived at. And even

question is arrived at. And even stronger for some of them, the

stronger for some of them, the interlocular seems to be made worse,

interlocular seems to be made worse, more puzzled, more angry, more

more puzzled, more angry, more humiliated through the conversation. So,

humiliated through the conversation. So, and of course, there's an entire school

and of course, there's an entire school that's been founded from Socratic

that's been founded from Socratic apparcics,

apparcics, right?

right? And so, why are you so certain that kind

And so, why are you so certain that kind of philosophical questioning is going to

of philosophical questioning is going to lead to more certainty for builders who

lead to more certainty for builders who are even considering to take this path?

are even considering to take this path? Yeah, it's an interesting question. So

Yeah, it's an interesting question. So the um

the um the kind of thing that we want to do is

the kind of thing that we want to do is to inculcate a habit of mind. We want

to inculcate a habit of mind. We want people who inquire, who think deeply

people who inquire, who think deeply about the alternate possibilities, who

about the alternate possibilities, who understand that philosophy, the love of

understand that philosophy, the love of wisdom and the pursuit of wisdom is a

wisdom and the pursuit of wisdom is a kind of quest for knowledge but never an

kind of quest for knowledge but never an attainment and who are satisfied to some

attainment and who are satisfied to some degree by simply knowing more about what

degree by simply knowing more about what they don't know. In other words, we can

they don't know. In other words, we can we can look to I mean a lot of the most

we can look to I mean a lot of the most inspirational philosophy for me is

inspirational philosophy for me is people who have un who have tried to

people who have un who have tried to demarcate the limits of reason what we

demarcate the limits of reason what we can know. Yeah. Exactly. Kant Hume many

can know. Yeah. Exactly. Kant Hume many others. Hayek and so I think that's a

others. Hayek and so I think that's a perfectly acceptable place to land in

perfectly acceptable place to land in philosophy that requires a um one to

philosophy that requires a um one to have a constitution that isn't like

have a constitution that isn't like pathologically certainty seeking. But if

pathologically certainty seeking. But if that's true, then we would rather have

that's true, then we would rather have questioners who are constantly

questioners who are constantly questioning, which by the way is a habit

questioning, which by the way is a habit that I think is very consistent with

that I think is very consistent with company building. It's like you're

company building. It's like you're asking questions, you're deeply curious,

asking questions, you're deeply curious, you're fostering that. It's just you're

you're fostering that. It's just you're asking more capacious questions, more

asking more capacious questions, more expansive questions that um get at what

expansive questions that um get at what the technology is actually going to do

the technology is actually going to do for what matters, which is human

for what matters, which is human flourishing,

flourishing, right? Um what do you think is ideal

right? Um what do you think is ideal path to train these philosopher

path to train these philosopher builders? Is it to take builders such as

builders? Is it to take builders such as yourself uh and then try to teach them

yourself uh and then try to teach them philosophy when they're ready or is it

philosophy when they're ready or is it to take the best philosophers uh and uh

to take the best philosophers uh and uh teach them how to build?

teach them how to build? Good question. So my focus is to try

Good question. So my focus is to try primarily to take the builders who have

primarily to take the builders who have this kind of sense that they want to

this kind of sense that they want to help humans and just like I did but it's

help humans and just like I did but it's untutoed just like mine was and then be

untutoed just like mine was and then be able to give them tools to um really try

able to give them tools to um really try to derive a set of principles or ideas.

to derive a set of principles or ideas. The method I think must be a combination

The method I think must be a combination of education and that education must

of education and that education must blend the kind of textual and technical

blend the kind of textual and technical meaning if we want to think about

meaning if we want to think about collective intelligence we might read

collective intelligence we might read mill on how to correct collective error

mill on how to correct collective error but we should also understand research

but we should also understand research at the very front you know very forward

at the very front you know very forward parts of the frontier like what

parts of the frontier like what midjourney is doing on collective

midjourney is doing on collective intelligence that's one part of it the

intelligence that's one part of it the other part is practice it's action it's

other part is practice it's action it's translation So you can think about

translation So you can think about translation in two senses. One is how do

translation in two senses. One is how do you create prototypes that test ideas

you create prototypes that test ideas and for that what we do at Cosmos is we

and for that what we do at Cosmos is we back you know individuals to build

back you know individuals to build projects in 30 60 90 days with micro

projects in 30 60 90 days with micro grants inspired by Tyler Cowan inspired

grants inspired by Tyler Cowan inspired by emergent ventures.

by emergent ventures. The other method is to do deeper

The other method is to do deeper research. And so for some questions that

research. And so for some questions that deal with like the heart of what is

deal with like the heart of what is inquiry or what it what does it mean for

inquiry or what it what does it mean for a machine to uh promote virtue? These

a machine to uh promote virtue? These are big questions that I think

are big questions that I think prototypes would be valuable for. But

prototypes would be valuable for. But there's a much deeper kind of question,

there's a much deeper kind of question, right? And so for that we helped to you

right? And so for that we helped to you know um facilitate this by setting up an

know um facilitate this by setting up an AI lab at the University of Oxford

AI lab at the University of Oxford called the human- centered AI lab where

called the human- centered AI lab where you have some of the top philosophers

you have some of the top philosophers Philip Coralus leads this um he's a very

Philip Coralus leads this um he's a very unique philosopher who thinks about

unique philosopher who thinks about reason but you combine that with people

reason but you combine that with people who are fresh out of open AI anthropic

who are fresh out of open AI anthropic deep mind that kind of thing and they're

deep mind that kind of thing and they're building systems and doing research that

building systems and doing research that I don't think could be done anywhere

I don't think could be done anywhere else I don't think it could be done

else I don't think it could be done within

within I don't think it would be done within

I don't think it would be done within academia in a traditional way. So you

academia in a traditional way. So you kind of put that alchemical set of

kind of put that alchemical set of philosopher and technologists together

philosopher and technologists together and you do incredible research. Then as

and you do incredible research. Then as I mentioned the last part of it which I

I mentioned the last part of it which I still view as part of like this journey

still view as part of like this journey of transformation is you kind of

of transformation is you kind of graduate and you build a company. That's

graduate and you build a company. That's what what makes this so distinctive is

what what makes this so distinctive is that, you know, we want to take ideas

that, you know, we want to take ideas and then scale them out into the world.

and then scale them out into the world. And the way to do that is through

And the way to do that is through markets, is through entrepreneurship.

markets, is through entrepreneurship. And so that's where Cosmos Holdings

And so that's where Cosmos Holdings comes in.

comes in. Well, it's really interesting because uh

Well, it's really interesting because uh most of the people we interview in this

most of the people we interview in this series, the really successful

series, the really successful philosopher builders, all went the

philosopher builders, all went the opposite direction.

opposite direction. They all studied philosophy. Reed

They all studied philosophy. Reed Hoffman, Peter Teal, Colin Moran, uh

Hoffman, Peter Teal, Colin Moran, uh Marcus Rue, and then they were pulled

Marcus Rue, and then they were pulled into the real world. Yeah. I'm not

into the real world. Yeah. I'm not saying there's a necessary tension

saying there's a necessary tension there. I I just think that's it's very

there. I I just think that's it's very interesting. Yeah,

interesting. Yeah, absolutely. Well, I mean, I think it

absolutely. Well, I mean, I think it hits people at the right moment for

hits people at the right moment for them. So, I don't mean to dismiss people

them. So, I don't mean to dismiss people who come at it from the other direction.

who come at it from the other direction. We're very welcoming of that. I know for

We're very welcoming of that. I know for me, I took one philosophy class at MIT.

me, I took one philosophy class at MIT. I didn't like it that much.

I didn't like it that much. Yeah.

Yeah. And then it had to be the case that I

And then it had to be the case that I found it in my, you know, mid30s after

found it in my, you know, mid30s after selling the companies, after having the

selling the companies, after having the kids. It took hold. So, it's very unique

kids. It took hold. So, it's very unique the journey that each individual

the journey that each individual and uh same for me. it could just be be

and uh same for me. it could just be be a matter of months or even a single year

a matter of months or even a single year where for me uh I took Colombia's Great

where for me uh I took Colombia's Great Books core curriculum after I filled the

Books core curriculum after I filled the company, dropped out and went back. Um

company, dropped out and went back. Um and uh that was life-changing.

and uh that was life-changing. Yeah.

Yeah. If I were forced to take in my freshman

If I were forced to take in my freshman fall, I think I would have hated it.

fall, I think I would have hated it. Yeah.

Yeah. Because I didn't realize the importance.

Because I didn't realize the importance. So yeah. Uh let me end this interview

So yeah. Uh let me end this interview with a final challenge and it is a

with a final challenge and it is a challenge from an unsuspected friend.

challenge from an unsuspected friend. Hayek. Okay.

Hayek. Okay. This is uh constitution of liberty.

This is uh constitution of liberty. Coercion however cannot be altogether

Coercion however cannot be altogether avoided because the only way to prevent

avoided because the only way to prevent it is by the threat of coercion. Free

it is by the threat of coercion. Free society has met this problem by

society has met this problem by conferring the monopoly of coercion on

conferring the monopoly of coercion on the state and by attempting to limit

the state and by attempting to limit this power of the state to instances

this power of the state to instances where it is required to prevent coercion

where it is required to prevent coercion by private persons. So for our audience,

by private persons. So for our audience, what Hayek is saying here is that if you

what Hayek is saying here is that if you don't want

don't want individuals, private citizens to coersse

individuals, private citizens to coersse each other, you need to have the

each other, you need to have the ultimate form of coercion or at least a

ultimate form of coercion or at least a singular form of coercion, which is the

singular form of coercion, which is the monopoly of violence of the state

monopoly of violence of the state guarding these rules.

guarding these rules. Might there be an uncomfortable

Might there be an uncomfortable structure as it relates to building

structure as it relates to building non-coercive AI in the sense that right

non-coercive AI in the sense that right now with Cosmos and philosopher

now with Cosmos and philosopher builders, you're going for the

builders, you're going for the non-coercive approach to build that,

non-coercive approach to build that, right? They're saying, "Let's let's give

right? They're saying, "Let's let's give people these fast grants. Let's build

people these fast grants. Let's build these these these uh these companies.

these these these uh these companies. Let's let markets do their trick."

Let's let markets do their trick." But, you know, if someone is about to

But, you know, if someone is about to build an AI and push it on the masses

build an AI and push it on the masses that is going to turn them into

that is going to turn them into automatons, might we need a coercive

automatons, might we need a coercive measure to ensure that coercion does not

measure to ensure that coercion does not happen either through regulation or

happen either through regulation or other means. So what Hayek is

other means. So what Hayek is identifying there, I think you could

identifying there, I think you could call the paradox of government, which is

call the paradox of government, which is to say you've got to have a government

to say you've got to have a government that is sufficiently powerful to defend

that is sufficiently powerful to defend to defend liberty. Um

to defend liberty. Um that invites uh huge difficulty if you

that invites uh huge difficulty if you grant a government that much power that

grant a government that much power that monopoly and violence as you said. But

monopoly and violence as you said. But it's it's it's essential um that we live

it's it's it's essential um that we live with this paradox as it concerns

with this paradox as it concerns regulation. I would call to mind three

regulation. I would call to mind three three tests. Um one is the test of is

three tests. Um one is the test of is that consistent is it consistent with

that consistent is it consistent with the rule of law. In other words, with

the rule of law. In other words, with the idea that each um each law needs to

the idea that each um each law needs to be general, abstract and perspective.

be general, abstract and perspective. That's f the first. And so there are

That's f the first. And so there are lots of ways in which regulation can can

lots of ways in which regulation can can violate that and be commands to specific

violate that and be commands to specific groups and things like that that violate

groups and things like that that violate the generality so on and so forth. So

the generality so on and so forth. So that's a baseline test that again draws

that's a baseline test that again draws from K. The second is is the regulation

from K. The second is is the regulation something that is made based on

something that is made based on knowledge that we have no reason to

knowledge that we have no reason to believe that we possess. In other words,

believe that we possess. In other words, if we had made regulation at the

if we had made regulation at the beginning of the internet era, would we

beginning of the internet era, would we have gotten it right? I can tell you we

have gotten it right? I can tell you we would not have. You know, I I can tell

would not have. You know, I I can tell you that we would have been in profound

you that we would have been in profound ignorance about what was to come. We

ignorance about what was to come. We would have gotten it wrong. And this

would have gotten it wrong. And this gets at the idea of um the dominant

gets at the idea of um the dominant paradigm which is ex anti trying to

paradigm which is ex anti trying to regulate before some hypo hypothesized

regulate before some hypo hypothesized harm occurs versus the much more

harm occurs versus the much more adaptive incremental evolutionary

adaptive incremental evolutionary approach which is expost through the

approach which is expost through the common law. So expost adjud adjudication

common law. So expost adjud adjudication I think should be favored on an

I think should be favored on an epistemological basis because we can't

epistemological basis because we can't make such predictions.

make such predictions. Thirdly any intervention that we might

Thirdly any intervention that we might have should be evaluated not just on the

have should be evaluated not just on the basis of the local cost benefit. In

basis of the local cost benefit. In other words if we if we intervene here

other words if we if we intervene here and we intervene here and we intervene

and we intervene here and we intervene here then this proximal harm that we can

here then this proximal harm that we can that we can foresee. We may not have

that we can foresee. We may not have experienced it because again we're not

experienced it because again we're not taking the ex post approach but if we

taking the ex post approach but if we can foresee it and articulate it is it

can foresee it and articulate it is it sort of worth it and the cost benefit

sort of worth it and the cost benefit analysis that really I think we should

analysis that really I think we should do in that case is don't just look at

do in that case is don't just look at the harm that you're trying to solve

the harm that you're trying to solve proximally look at the overall harm to

proximally look at the overall harm to the system and so if you if you buy the

the system and so if you if you buy the idea that the system is just especially

idea that the system is just especially because that tends to allow the

because that tends to allow the anonymous individual to achieve his or

anonymous individual to achieve his or her unknown ends. Then you have to be

her unknown ends. Then you have to be committed to some idea that we care

committed to some idea that we care about the way in which knowledge

about the way in which knowledge propagates through the system and gets

propagates through the system and gets generated through the system. And in

generated through the system. And in fact, our interventions tend to harm

fact, our interventions tend to harm that crucial crucial attribute of

that crucial crucial attribute of spontaneous order. And so

spontaneous order. And so that is something that needs to go on

that is something that needs to go on the other side of the ledger, right?

the other side of the ledger, right? And this is a good place to end it

And this is a good place to end it because it mirrors what you said about

because it mirrors what you said about the trade-off function of autonomy in

the trade-off function of autonomy in the good life, which is that it's not a

the good life, which is that it's not a lexical priority. It's not like no

lexical priority. It's not like no regulation whatsoever. It's that simply

regulation whatsoever. It's that simply people underestimate the cost of doing

people underestimate the cost of doing business, so to speak, right? Of

business, so to speak, right? Of intervening. All right. Thank you,

intervening. All right. Thank you, Brendon. Thank you for a fascinating

Brendon. Thank you for a fascinating conversation.

conversation. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for watching my interview. If you

Thanks for watching my interview. If you like these kinds of discussions, I think

like these kinds of discussions, I think you'd fit in great with the ecosystem

you'd fit in great with the ecosystem we're building at Cosmos. We deliver

we're building at Cosmos. We deliver educational programs, fund research,

educational programs, fund research, invest in AI startups, and believe that

invest in AI startups, and believe that philosophy is critical to building

philosophy is critical to building better technology. If you want to join

better technology. If you want to join our ecosystem of philosopher builders,

our ecosystem of philosopher builders, you can find roles we're hiring for,

you can find roles we're hiring for, events we're hosting, and other ways to

events we're hosting, and other ways to get involved on jonathanb.com/cosmos.

get involved on jonathanb.com/cosmos. Thank you.

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:This Terrifying Ideology has Infiltrated AI Labs | AI Expert Brendan McCord

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
This Terrifying Ideology has Infiltrated AI Labs | AI Expert Brendan McCord