#324: Debating the future of AI with Marc Andreessen

One of the rare events in Sam Harris’ podcast career is the occasional conversational train wreck. If nothing else, these remind us all that even our genius host is not quite infallible. When he interviewed Ezra Klein, for instance, (episode number 123) the listening audience could only marvel at the apparent Pexiglass wall that prevented them from understanding each other. Though you couldn’t really hold that against Ezra—Sam was at least half responsible for that fiasco.

But Marc has none of Ezra’s charm. In fact, he’s the hands down the most repellent guest I’ve ever heard on this podcast. Even Scott Adams with his absurd defense of Trump seems more palatable than this guy.

I think Marc’s secret sauce for achieving this distinction is fourfold:
* His almost Naziesque fixation with smart versus dumb people, particularly his conviction that people like him with engineering PhDs are better suited to make public health decisions than people “whose IQs are 50 points lower.”
* His double standard applied to his thinking versus Sam’s, such as which of them is too “religious“ about their convictions.
* I suppose Marc’s gratingly false attempts at a self-deprecating chuckle don’t help.
* And (though this might be unfair) nothing rubs me the wrong way more than a fatuous billionaire.

The funny thing is, I began the podcast with the expectation that Marc was going to champion my point of view: I also didn’t agree with Sam that any imminent AI is likely to “have the lights come on”, i.e. to become conscious. But after having listened to this, I am less secure than ever in that quasi religious conviction.

#318, physics and philosophy with Tim Maudlin

This guy Tim puts the aunt in pedant. He spends far too much of his time burning air on trivial and obvious things like “actual“ versus “now.” Or on whether it was Laplace or Bosch who invented the free-will demon.

I do like his succinct explanation of the difference between “many worlds“ and Copenhagen. That is, a measurement or a photon collapses the photon’s wave function from a quantum superposition to a single state in the many worlds view because the photon in your universe picks one path and the other universes pick the other paths. Whereas in the Copenhagen view the photon wave function collapses because it interacts with a macroscopic object (an eye, a cat).

Tim doesn’t like this explanation because he says the definition of macroscopic is unclear. But I think it’s extremely clear. A macroscopic object is one made of a very large number of particles. Each particle has a wave function. All of those wave functions have become so enmeshed with each other that they have essentially collapsed. And any particle that interacts with them has to lose its quantum superposition too.

Of course, Sam doesn’t point this out because he hasn’t studied quantum physics. But where he does take issue with Tim is when they start debating free will.

Sam says a person choosing between a crème brûlée and a bowl of broken glass might think he’s choosing freely, but he can’t control the subconscious thought processes that determine his choice. So he doesn’t have free will. But Tim says he doesn’t care what the subconscious thought processes are, as long as he doesn’t have to eat the broken glass.

So Tim and Sam have different opinions about whether a choice that you are happy with was done with free will. Both agree that it was orchestrated by some unknowable force that is hidden from you, in your subconscious mind. Sam says that means it’s not free because we’re not in control of that force, and Tim thinks that it’s only not free if you don’t get what you want.

And even though he veers to the pedantic, I agree with him.

My take on #314, "The Cancellation of JK Rowling", with Megan Phelps-Roper

This conversation in itself, though more reasoned and thought-provoking than almost anything else I've come across recently, was not really all that remarkable for Sam, certainly not worth highlighting in this blog....

...but for one salient reason. And that is his recommendation to listen to Megan's podcast, "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling".

Once again, Sam has struck gold and then shared it with us. This podcast is remarkably well done: empathetic, intelligent, highly controversial, and very well produced. It was a fantastic find. And there's no way I would have heard of it--or even of Megan--without Sam's introductions to her. We'd met her already in podcast #12, "Leaving the Church" which, if it did nothing else for me, convinced me to seek a better way to communicate with people "outside my tribe."

So, be you muggle or witch, trans-philic or trans-phobic, I'd recommend you check out Megan's podcast--only 7 episodes long, but full of great moments.

Another new book

I just self-published another book. This has next to nothing to do with Sam Harris or Making Sense.

But on the other hand, I did write it. So here it goes: Here's the link: An IQ of 84: A Gaijin Chronicle

#307 The Long Game: with David Waldinger

This was more of a "feel-good" episode than anything eye-opening or world-view challenging. For the first-ever Sam Harris podcast listener, something new might come out. Otherwise, it's really nothing more than comfort food for intellectuals.

But let's be honest: in these times, intellectuals need all the comfort they can get.

To be fair, though, I did learn one thing: the meaning of this Koan:
"If you meet the Buddha on your path, kill him."

David explains that this means the ideal of an post-epiphanal existence where the subject has evolved beyond his imperfections and has become a guru beyond reproach, is not in keeping with Buddhism. There is no Buddhist delusion of anything like a Pope, the embodiment of God's Word, who can implicitly and unquestioningly be trusted with your 12-y.o. daughters (or sons).

Given the horrific records of so many Christian fathers, Islamic fatwaists, and Jewish fascists, one rather wishes this bit of wisdom was more broadly shared among the world's religions.