Lex Fridman Podcast - #240 – Neal Stephenson: Sci-Fi, Space, Aliens, AI, VR & the Future of Humanity

Episode Date: November 12, 2021

Neal Stephenson is a sci-fi writer (Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, and new book Termination Shock), former Chief Futurist at Magic Leap and first employee of Blue Origin. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - Mizzen+Main: https://mizzenandmain.com and use code LEX to get $35 off - InsideTracker: https://insidetracker.com/lex and use code Lex25 to get 25% off - Athletic Greens: https://athleticgreens.com/lex and use code LEX to get 1 month of fish oil - Grammarly: https://grammarly.com/lex to get 20% off premium - ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free EPISODE LINKS: Neal's Twitter: https://twitter.com/nealstephenson Neal's Website: https://www.nealstephenson.com/ Termination Shock (book): https://amzn.to/3HhmDKi Snow Crash (book): https://amzn.to/3H7yFFW Cryptonomicon (book): https://amzn.to/3C01HDF The Diamond Age (book): https://amzn.to/3wxUF83 Seveneves (book): https://amzn.to/3kkhveg The Baroque Cycle, Vol. 1 (book): https://amzn.to/3koMW7n Innovation Starvation (article): https://bit.ly/3mYLSJ2 PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) - Introduction (08:34) - WWII and human nature (17:20) - Search engine morality (21:58) - Space exploration (38:59) - Aliens and UFOs (47:21) - SpaceX and Blue Origin (54:43) - Social media (59:11) - Climate change (1:11:00) - Consequences of big ideas (1:15:42) - Virtual reality (1:38:50) - Artificial intelligence (1:53:49) - Cryptocurrency (2:06:26) - Writing, storytelling, and books (2:29:05) - Martial arts (2:38:23) - Final thoughts

The following is a conversation with Neil Stevenson, a legendary science fiction writer, exploring ideas in mathematics, science, cryptography, money, linguistics, philosophy, and virtual reality, from his early book, Snowcrash to his new one called Termination Shock. He doesn't just write novels. He worked at the space company Blue Origin for many years, including technically being Blue Origin's first employee. He also was a chief futurist at the Virtual Reality Company Magic Leap. And now a quick few seconds summary of the sponsors. Check them out in the description it's the best way to support this podcast. First is Ms. In a Main, maker of my favorite performance dress shirts. Second is Inside Tracker, a service I use to track my biological data. Third is Athletic Greens, the all-in-one nutritional drink I drink twice a day. Fourth is Grammarly, a service I use to check spelling, grammar, and readability, and fifth

is ExpressVPN. The VPN I've been using for many years, so the choice is fashion, biological data, nutrition, grammar, or privacy. Choose wisely, my friends. And now onto the full ad reads, as always no ads in the middle. I try to make these interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. This show is brought to you by a new sponsor, Miss In A Main, the maker of comfortable, style-less dress shirts and other menswear like pants.

I wear their black dress shirts and I love it. It combines comfort and flexibility of athletic wear with the fit and style of a custom dress shirt. It's lightweight, breathable, and moisture wicking. That is a term I often see on the internet, and I don't think I've ever said that word out loud. But there you have it. It's moisture wicking.

They have a bunch of different styles on their website, but as you can imagine, the one I went for and the one I enjoy and the shirts, uh, several shirts that I have of theirs is just the plain black dress shirt. It's also the one I recommend. It looks badass. I've worn a lot of, uh, black, uh, dress shirts like without a tie, just a little bit more casual and I could say hands down. This is the best one that, uh, I've ever worn.

Right now if you go to mison and main.com and use promo code Lex, you'll receive $35 off and you regular price order of $125 or more. Go to mison and main, that's 2z, mizzen and main.com and use our promo code Lex. main.com and use our promo code Lex. This show is also brought to you by Inside Tracker, a service I use to track biological data from my body and then from that make decisions about my health. They have a bunch of plans, most of which include a blood test that gives you a lot of information that you can then make decisions based on. They have algorithms that analyze your blood data, DNA data, and fitness tracker data to

provide you with a clear picture of what's going on inside you and to offer you signs back recommendations for positive diet and lifestyle changes. Andrew Huberman talks about these guys quite a bit. Speaking of who, Dr. Huberman will be in town for a few days, probably a couple of weeks in Austin this next week. So we're going to hang out quite a bit, maybe do a podcast. I'm not sure. Just the talk his friends talk about science, talk about life, philosophy and everything else is truly one of the human beings that inspires me both because of his brilliance in the space of science and just how authentic he is as a human

being. Kind, real, Andrews the man. Anyway for a limited time you can get 25% off the entire inside tracker store if you go to inside tracker.com slash Lex. That's inside tracker.com slash Lex. This show is also brought to you by Athletic Greens and it's newly renamed AG1 Drink, which is an all in one daily drink to support better health and peak performance. It replaced the multivitamin for me and went far beyond that with 75 vitamins and minerals. I drink it twice a day.

I drink it early on before any meal and then later on in the day, when I go for a long run outside and it's hot, I enjoy coming back and before happening in the shower, I'll put actually, I'm making a thud of greens drink and I'll put in the freezer. So over a period of like 10, 20 minutes, it gets like nice and cold and it's refreshing

and just, it's a way to celebrate the run. I love that it gives me this nutritional base so I don't have to think about stuff as I do all the fun diets that I do in terms of low carb, in terms of just meat with carnivore. Overall, I love the way it tastes and the way it makes me feel. I'll give you one month supply of fish oil when you sign up to Athletic Greens .com slash Lex. That's Athletic Greens .com slash Lex.

This shows also brought to you by Grammarly, a writing assistant tool that checks spelling, grammar, sentence structure and readability. Grammarly premium, the version you pay for, and the version they hope you sign up for, offers a bunch of extra features. My favorite is the clarity check, which helps detect rambling, overcomplicated chaos that many of us, especially me,

could descend to, even in this very ad read. In writing, in speech, in life, I enjoy the beauty of simplicity. Niel Stevenson, for this episode actually, elsewhere talked about how he doesn't like to edit a lot. He likes to write it well first. I think there's something really powerful to that. I think most writers just kind of get the stuff on the page and do a lot of work in the edit. It really makes me think to consider maybe you really need to bring your best game

on the first draft and do very little editing after. I don't know, but tools like Grammarly surely can help. Make your first draft and your last draft, the best it can possibly be. Grammarly is available on basically any platform and major sites and apps like Gmail and Twitter and so on. Do more than just spell check. Get your point across more effectively with Grammarly Premium.

20% off Grammarly Premium by signing up at Grammarly.com slash Lex, that's 20% off at Grammarly.com slash Lex. This show is also brought to you by ExpressVPN. I use them to protect my privacy on the internet. I know you think that when you use incognito mode on Chrome, that the world cannot possibly track all the kinds of weird stuff you do on the internet. But ISPs in fact can track that information. They can have access to that data and make decisions based on the things you

do on the internet. So a VPN helps protect ISPs from getting that data. That's probably the most important thing to mention. Secondly, if you like watching stuff on the internet, you can change your location with the VPN so that the website thinks you're in Japan, in Britain, in Germany, in wherever else in the world, which opens up geolocked shows that are only available to certain locations. Finally, I should mention, I love great design, I love great implementation, ExpressVPN is super fast, works on any device and operating system, including my favorite operating system, Linux. Linux is a beautiful creation of humankind. Anyway, go to ExpressVPN.com slash Lex pod to get an extra three

months free. That's ExpressVPN.com slashlex pod to get an extra three months free. That's expressvpn.com slash You write both historical fiction like World War II in Crypto Namikon and Science Fiction, looking both into the past and the future. So let me ask, does history repeat itself? In which way does it repeat itself? In which way does it not? I'm afraid it repeats itself a lot. So I think human nature kind of is what it is. And so we tend to see similar behavior patterns emerging again and again. And so it's kind of the exception rather than

the rule when something new happens. What role does technology play in the suppression or in revealing human nature? Well, the standards of living life expectancy, all that have gotten incredibly better within the last, particularly the last hundred years. I mean, just antibiotics, modern vaccines, electrification, the internet. These are all improvements in most people's standard of living and health and longevity that exceed anything that was seen before in human history. So people are living longer, they're generally healthier and so on. But again, we still see a lot of the same behavior patterns, some which are not very attractive.

So some of it has to do with the constraints on resources. Presumably with technology, you have less and less constraints on resources. So we get to maybe emphasize the better angles of our nature. And in so doing, does that not potentially fundamentally alter the sort of the experience that we have of life on Earth? You know, until the last 10 or so years, I would have taken that view, I think, but you know, people will find ways to be,

to be divisive and angry, if it scratches a kind of psychological itch that they have got. And we used to look at the Weimar Republic, what happened in the economic collapse of Germany prior to the rise of Hitler, World War II, and kind of explain Hitler, at least partially by just the misery that people were living in at that time.

The economic collapse. Yeah, hyperinflation and unemployment and the decline in standard of living. And that sounds like a plausible explanation. But there are economic troubles now for sure. We had the bank collapse in 2008 and there's stagnation in some people's standards of living. But it's hard to explain what we've seen in this country in the last few years just strictly on the basis of people are poor and angry and sad. I think they want to be angry. So without being political in a divisive kind of way, can we talk about the lessons you can draw from World War II? Sure.

This singular event in human history, it seems like. Yeah. And yet, as you say, history rhymes at the very least. Yeah. Being who I am, I tend to focus on the curious technological things that happened in conjunction with that war, which may not be where you want to go. But- Well, there's several things that started to interrupt.

So one in crypto-nomicon is more like the Alan Turing side of things. Right. Right. And then there's the outside of technology. Well, first of all, there's the tools of war, which is a kind of things. Right. Right. And then and then there's the outside of technology. Well, first of all, there's the tools of war, which is a kind of technology. But then there's just like the human nature, the nature of good and evil. Yeah, well, so one of the things that emerges from from the war and from the the extermination camps is that we were never allowed to have illusions anymore about human nature.

So, you have to learn that lesson to be an educated person and you have to know that even in a supposedly enlightened civilized society, people can become monsters quite easily. So that is for sure the big takeaway. Did you agree with soldier Nitsyn about what is it? The line between good and evil runs the heart of every man. Yeah. That all of us are capable. Great line. Yeah people. I read a good chunk of the Gulag Archipelago when I was a teenager because my grandfather had it in his house because he was one of these Americans who was obsessed with the Soviet Union and the Soviet threat and wanted people to be aware of some of what had happened.

So, he had those books lying around and I would read them. It's a similar parallel story to what happened in Germany during the war, this creation of the system of camps and oppression and lots of troubling behavior. To me, it's a story of how fear and desperation combined with a charismatic leader can lead to evil, but it's also a story of bravery, of love, of brotherhood and sisterhood, and basically survival. You have like a man search for meaning,

which is the stories of the story of a man in a concentration camp, basically finding beauty in life even under most extreme conditions. So to me, World War II is not necessarily a bleak view of human nature. It's a little moment of evil that revealed a much bigger good in humanity. So I'm not so sure that it leads me

to pessimistic view of the world. The fact that somebody like Hitler could happen. The fact that a lot of people could follow Hitler and get excited and maybe even love the hate of the other for some moment of time. I think that's all of us are capable of that. But I think all of us also have a capacity for good. And I think, I don't know what you think, but I think we have a greater desire for good than evil. And that, it seems like that's where technology is very useful as a guide, as a helping hand. Okay. Can you give me an example? Maybe. So I give you examples of futuristic technologies and I can give you examples of current technologies current technologies

knowledge in the form of very basic knowledge which is like Wikipedia and Search the original dream of Google yeah that I think is very much a success, which is making the world's information accessible at your fingertips, that kind of technology enables the natural, if this axiom, this assumption that people want to do good is true, then letting them discover all of the information out there, false information, and true information, all of it, and let them explore that's

going to lead to a better world, to better people. Futuristic technologies is, I personally, I'm actually too offline, sort of love artificial intelligence. And so AI, that's an assistant, that's a guide, like a mentor to you, that you can, in the way that Google searches, but smarter, where you can help send it out and say, this is the direction in which I want to grow. Not authoritarian lecturing down from the algorithm of telling you, this is how you should grow, but almost the opposite, or you use

it as an assistant, a servant in your journey towards knowledge. That sounds like an easy thing, but it's actually from an A-app, but it's very difficult. I mean, this is the theme of a book I wrote called The Diamond Age, which talks about a book that essentially does that. I've been watching people try to come at the problem of building that thing from different directions. Ever since the book came out, basically. I haven't worked on it myself, I do get a sense of the level

of difficulty in realizing that goal. So that book is in the 90s. So as Google is coming to be essentially not Google, but the search engine, the initial search engines, and that which gave birth to Google essentially in contrast. Right. Yeah, yeah. That was still in the era of Altavista and ask Jebes and multiple different search engines. And yeah, I'm pretty sure I had not heard of Google at that point. That would have been 95, 96. I think the book came out in 94. And then of course the social networks followed, which is another form of guidance through the space of information. Yeah. Well, what happens is that

these things come along and then people find ways to game them. And so I saw an interesting thread the other day pointing out that, you know, 20 years ago if you had Googled Pythagorean Theorem, chances are you would have been taken directly to a page explaining the Pythagorean Theorem. If you do it now, you're probably going to, the top hits are going to be from somebody who's got an angle, who's got a scheme, they're trying to sell you math tutoring or they're working some kind of marketing plan on you. So the traditional engines become actually less useful over time for their original educational purpose. That doesn't mean that they can't, it shouldn't be replaced by newer and better ones.

First of all, to defend the people with the angle. Right. They're trying to find business models. Yeah, fun. Oftentimes, which is funny, you went with my figure. Like, you went at math. Those greedy bastards. But it's great because- How can we monetize the Pythagorean theorem? Well, I mean, education, right? Yes, to figure out, like, people who love math education, for example,

love it purely, not purely, but very often love it for itself, for just teaching math. Then they start, you know, when coming face to face with, for example, like the YouTube algorithm, they start to try to figure out, okay, how do I make money off of this? The primary goal is still that love of education, but they also want to make that love of education of their full-time job. But I see that sort of that dance of humanity with the algorithms as it finds this kind of local pocket of optimality or sub-optimality, whatever.

It gets stuck in it. It's a pocket of some sort. And but I see that pocket is way better than what we had before in the 80s, right? 90s before the internet. But like, and now we're now, this is, this is also human nature. We start writing very eloquent articles about how this pocket is clearly a pocket. It's not very good. And we can imagine much better lands far beyond.

But the reality is it's better than before and now we're waiting for... We have to escape from local minimum. And you have to wait either for low geniuses or for some kind of momentum of a group of geniuses that just say enough is enough. I have an idea. Yep. This is how we get out. And it's too easy to be sort of, I think partially because you can get a lot of clicks

in your articles being cynical about being in this pocket. And we are forever stuck in this pocket. And then like coming up with this grandiose theory that humanity has finally like is collapsing, stuck forever like a prison in this pocket. But reality, it's just like, it's just clickbait articles and books until we, one curious ant comes up with the next pocket. Yeah, tunnels through the barrier, or gets enough energy to jump over the barrier. And eventually, as you've talked about, we'll colonize the solar system,

and then we'll be stuck in the solar system. And then people will say, well, we're screwed when, because when the sun energy runs out, there's no way to get to the next solar system. And then, and so on, it goes on until we colonize the entirety of the observable universe. Yeah. I think, I think getting out of the solar system is going to be a hard one. So can you you mention this can you elaborate? Why you think

Back to sort of a serious question. Why do you think it's hard to get outside of our solar system? It's just a energy Calcul I mean you can do it slowly Whenever you want but when ever you want. But the idea of getting there in one lifetime or multiple, a few lifetimes is requires huge amounts of energy to accelerate. And then as soon as you get halfway there, you need to expend an equal amount of energy to decelerate, where you'll just go shooting by. And so that means carrying a lot of energy. And there's ideas like Yuri Milner,

I think is still funding the idea to use laser propulsion to send something to another star system, a small object. But it'll have no way to slow down as far as I know. They never talk about that part. Yeah, kind of slow down. Yeah. So. It's a quick fly by.

You take a good picture, I guess. Yeah, you better take some good pictures on your way by. So, and that's great if it happens. I'm not knocking it, but the amount of energy is that's needed is just staggering. And there's other issues like just how do you maintain an ecosystem for that long in isolation? How do you prevent people from going crazy?

What happens if you hit something while traveling in a significant fraction of the speed of light? What about it sort of some combination of expanding human lifespan, but also just good old fashioned stable society on a spaceship. Yeah, yeah, the generation ship. Yeah, yeah.

No, I think that's the only way. It would have to keep going for a long time. And they might get to where they're going and find a shitty solar system. Like we can try to do some advanced survey, but I mean, if you get there and all of the planets in that solar system are just garbage planets, then it's kind of a big letdown for this like thousand year voyage that you've just been on.

Right? So, I mean, we have a pretty narrow range of parameters that we need to stay between in order to survive in terms of the gravitational field that we can deal with. So that's such a bound on the size of the planet. And what we need in the way of temperature and atmosphere and so on. So when you look at all those complications, then basically building sort of exactly the environment we want out of available materials in this solar system starts to look a hell of a lot better. sort of exactly the environment we want out of available materials in this solar system

starts to look a hell of a lot better. It's hard to make an economic argument, let's say, for making that journey. One of the things I like about the expanse is the fact that the people who are trying to build the starship to go to the other solar system are doing it for religious reasons. I think that's the only reason that you would do it because economically it just makes more sense to build rotating cylindrical space habitats and make them perfect. Well, isn't everything done for religious reasons?

Like, why do we exploration? Like, why do we exploration? Like, why do we go to the moon again? And do the other things? What is JFK said? It's because, not because they're easy, but because they're hard. It's not kind of a religious reason. I knew a veteran of the Apollo program

who once said that the Apollo moon landings were communism's greatest achievement. who once said that the Apollo moon landings were communism's greatest achievement. Yeah, so the conflict between nations is a kind of, there's exactly a religion, but it's what you're talking about. Well, it's a struggle for meaning. I mean, and that meaning isn't found in some kind of, it's hard to find meaning in mathematics. Yeah, it's found in some kind of, in hard to find meaning in mathematics. It's it's found in some kind of in music and religion, whatever art.

I mean, some people do, but those are probably not enough of them to. Well, they people that find meaning in mathematics, they usually find meaning between the lines nevertheless, not in the actual, like proving, kind of thing. So from a cost perspective, do you actually see a possible future where we're building these kind of generationships and just why not launch them one a year out like a wandering ants out into the galaxy. I have nothing against it. It's just like I said, it's got the motivation to do it has to come from some kind of spiritual or kind of non-tangible calculus. So from a business model perspective, you don't think there's a business model there. No, no way.

One of the many fascinating things you've done in your life, you were at the very beginning, you were the person that convinced you to base us to start a spaceship company, a space company. You were there at Blue Origin for a few years in the beginning, working on alternate repulsion systems and at least according to Wikipedia, alternate business models. Yeah, I mean, to go back to the first thing you said, Jeff Bezos is not a guy who required a lot of convincing. He'd been thinking about it since he was five years old and it was an inevitability. But the idea that kind of got hatched in 1999 was to just do some advance

of scouting work, you know, explore the corners of the space of possibilities. And so that's what I was blue operations LLC, which was the precursor to Blue Origin. And so it was a small staff of people that did that for a few years. And I think it was about 2003, 2004 that it swung decisively towards the direction it's been following ever since, which is using basically existing aerospace technologies and models to make chemical fuel rockets for a space tourism. I believe and I continue to believe that the fact that we use chemical rockets is just an accident of history comes out of World War II. So until World War II, rockets are being built on a small scale by people like Robert Goddard, but then Hitler desperately wants to bomb London,

but he can't quite reach it. And the lift of AFA has been kind of neutralized. So he decides he's gonna lob warheads into it with rockets, which is a terrible misallocation of resources. It's a terrible idea. But so it only could have happened in a dictatorship controlled by a lunatic.

But that's the situation that existed. So they built these rockets. They, you know, that's the V2. And then it's just a complete coincidence that that war ends with atomic bombs being developed in a completely separate super weapon program. And so suddenly, the existence of the bombs creates a demand for rockets that didn't exist before. Because if you've got atomic bombs,

you need a way to deliver them. You can do it with bombers, but it's a lot better to just hurl them to the other side of the world on the top of a rocket. So suddenly rockets which had gotten a boost because of Hitler's V2 program got a much bigger boost during the 50s and 60s. And it is a complete, you're right, for somebody's never thought of this it is an accident of history the nuclear weapons are developed at a similar time Yeah, first of all Nuclear weapons didn't have to be developed at the same time as World War 2 that's an accident in history

Yeah, and then the fact that okay, so then Hitler started using rockets. That's an accident Okay, this fascinating. It's a fascinating set of coincidences. Yeah, and which is true of a lot of technologies, by the way. By the time these rockets are kind of working, we've got hydrogen bombs that are so big and so devastating that nobody really wants to use them. But it turns out you can fit a capsule

with a couple of people in it into the socket on the end of a missile that was made to hold a hydrogen bomb. So we start doing that instead as a proxy for having a war. And so- I'd love to be in the meeting where the first guy brought that up as an idea.

Yeah. It's probably a Russian. Why don't we strap a person to the rocket? Yeah. Yeah, well, it probably was because they did it first, right? The Russians did it. And they had perhaps less respect for sort of safety protocols.

Could be. They're a little bit more willing to sacrifice a life of an astronaut, or to risk the life of an astronaut. Could be. Yeah. Yeah. This is basically the story of how, through all of this competition, and because of these historical accidents, trillions of R&D dollars and rubles were put into

development of chemical rocket technology, which is, you know, now advanced to an incredibly high degree, but there's other ways to make things go really fast, which is all that rockets do. That's all orbit is. It's just going really fast. And because so many nerds are obsessed with space, people have been thinking about alternate schemes for as long as they've been thinking about rockets. And so one of the first things that you did I learned, kind of trying to explore new possibilities, to explore new possibilities was that I could put all of my brain power to work and be creative as I could and invent some idea that I thought was new from making things go fast.

And I would always find out that some guy in Russia or somewhere had thought the same idea up 50 years ago and figured out all the math. Yeah. And so at a certain point, you give up on trying to invent completely new ideas and just go poking around trying to find those guys. So there's a number of ideas that we looked at, you know, some are crazier, some are less crazy, but the direction that that company eventually took was chemical rockets.

Is there something you can comment on possible ideas? Like, first of all, like, I mean, like, you could use nuclear propulsion. Yeah, so that's, I mean, you've probably heard a project Orion, which was the Freeman Dyson and some of his collaborators had a scheme to power a large space vehicle by detonating atomic bombs behind it. And so one of the other people who was working at Blue Operations during this time was George Dyson, the son of Freeman. And so we knew all about Project Orion.

And he found an old film that they'd shot on a beach in La Jolla of a prototype of this that was powered by like lumps of C4. So that was an idea, but for a private company obtaining a large number of atomic bombs was probably out of scope. So there's more of a theoretical thing. There's a conceptually similar approach using lasers that Freeman worked on with Arthur Cantruitts and some others where you take a pulsed laser and you fire it at a vehicle that has a block of ice on the back and the pulse hits the ice and flashes off a layer of steam that becomes plasma. And plasma is opaque because it conducts. And so being opaque, it then absorbs all of the energy from the laser pulse and gets

really hot and just pushes on the back of the block of ice. And then you wait a moment for that to dissipate and then you do it again. So it would just kind of vibrate its way, like it sounds really violent, but Freeman said that if you were wearing like rubber sold tennis shoes standing in this vehicle, you would just feel a mild vibration. So there are your source of energies on the ground and you're getting higher specific impulse than you could get by burning chemicals. Jordan Care and others worked on another laser system, the late Dr. Jordan Care that just would heat up a heat exchanger by converging, many converging solid state lasers from the ground. And Kevin Parkin works on a similar scheme that just uses microwaves to do that. We looked at tall towers. I spent a while looking kind of semi-seriously at giant bullwips with a bullwip.

Just a whip. Just a... You have them here in Texas, right? Yeah, I understand. But how does that have to do with propulsion? If you think about it, a whip is an incredibly simple primitive object that can break the speed of sound. So it's unbelievable in a way that for thousands of years,

people with no technology have been able to accelerate objects through the speed of sound, just through an architectural trick, just the physics of a moving bend of material in a medium can do this. So, so that's the thing I still think about from time to time. You can use the same physics to make free standing loops of chain or or other flexible materials that just kind of stand up under their own physics. I mean, it's kind of awesome to imagine. So imagine using the same kind of physics of a whip but have at the end of it a spaceship. Yeah. That would detach at the moment of maximum

that would detach at the moment of maximum velocity. Why? Why not? Why wouldn't that? So part of my motivation in studying that was to ask that question. It was more, almost a symbolic way of saying, look, there's all kinds of physics we haven't explored yet, So there's all kinds of physics we haven't explored yet. It's no more crazy than the idea of chemical rockets.

It's just that more money's gone into chemical rockets, right? Can I ask you a question, a proportion that's a little bit more out there. So I don't know if you've seen quite a lot of recent articles and reports and so on about UFOs, like the Tic Tac aircraft. I keep seeing a lot of chatter about it but I haven't gone deep into it. So the DOD released footage filmed by pilots and there's a lot of reports about objects that moved in ways they haven't seen before that seem to defy the laws of physics if we consider the aircraft that we have today. So the reason I ask you that is because to me, whatever the heck it is, it's inspiring for the possibilities of ideas for propulsion.

If it's like secret projects from foreign nations or it's physical phenomena that we don't yet understand like ball lightning all those kinds of things or if it is aliens or objects from an alien civilization i most likely believe it's for if it's an object from an alien civilization it's got to be like a really dumb drone they just like that lost it's definitely not like the pinnacle of intelligence.

It's like some like teenagers like science fair experiment. Yeah, I just flew for a few centuries out and just landed. And then we humans are all like really excited about this. Yeah. Yeah. This wild thing. I mean, what do you think about those? First of all, like the millions of reports

of UFOs, right? There's some psychology there, this deeply cultural, but also the possibility of aliens having visited Earth. Yeah, I mean, I'd like to see some better pictures. For the reason I mentioned earlier, having to do with the difficulty of traveling between star systems, it's really hard for me to believe it's aliens. I just can't understand why you would go to all that trouble to transport something across

light years and then do what these UFOs are allegedly doing. How is that interesting? How does that justify the trip? So if you travel across those kinds of distances, you'd make a bigger splash. First of all, I would expect that the arrival of these things would be something we'd notice. It's got to deceler know, decelerate into into our solar system by, unless it got here really, really, really, really slowly. So I guess that's a possibility and just kind of snuck in. So the end of it, we would detect some kind of footprint in terms of energy.

You would think. So I actually think your idea of a science fair project gone bad, you know, it makes more sense. In that it would explain why these things are alien technologies. They're just kind of hanging around our aircraft carriers for no particular reason, like doing, not trying to communicate. Yeah. Is it, can you imagine a scenario where aliens have visited Earth or are visiting Earth and we wouldn't notice it at all? Oh sure, I mean, if they've got technology to get here, they've probably got technology to conceal the fact that they're trying to conceal themselves.

I meant more like they're not trying to conceal themselves, but we're just our cognitive capabilities are like too limited and we are not thinking big enough. We're looking for little green men. We're looking for things that operate at a time scale that's human-like. You know, it's... Yeah, no, I love thinking about ideas like that. That's great science fiction novel, father, you know, that the aliens are so different that we simply don't see them. I mean, is there, you know, in terms of language, do you think it would be difficult, not aliens visiting us, but traveling to other places to find a common language. You've written about the importance of language in intelligence civilizations.

How difficult is the problem to bridge the gap between aliens and humans in terms of language, so we're not lost in translation? Yeah, I mean, there is different takes on that, depending on how biologically similar they are to us. You know, I mean, there's a school of thought that says, basically, advanced life has to be carbon-based for just reasons of chemistry. So right away, if you impose that limitation, then you're kind of assuming a something that's starting to

be biologically similar to us. So if they're about as big as we are and they kind of move around in space, you know, in a physical body the way we do, then there's probably a way to solve that communication problem. If there are, you know, like beings of pure energy from Star Trek or something like that, then it's a different story. Well, I love thinking about that kind of stuff too. I mean, this consciousness itself maybe, it could be, like you said, beings of pure energy. I think of life as just complex It could be, like you said, a beings of pure energy. I think of life as just complex systems, and the kind of forms those complex systems can

take seems to be much larger than the particular biological systems we see here on Earth. I have to ask a Twitter question about aliens. Yeah. We're ready to do this for Twitter. I'm ready. What would you expect from Twitter? Can humans have sex with aliens? Nielstewson. You could pass. I asked the language question, can the community communicate?

Yeah. Can they fall in love before sex? That's how it works. So which question are in my answering the sex or the love? I mean, it depends what is more fundamental to relations across Yeah, across intelligence species. Yeah, I mean, um, you know, sex can mean a lot of things So I mean, if you're production, right, you know, the, the, the, wins in Star Trek and classic Star Trek, you had to, to really suspend your disbelief to think that, um, Spock was half Vulcan and half human, right?

Cause that's just not going to not going to work DNA-wise. So, if by sex you mean reproductive sex, then I would say no, unless you go to a pan-spiromy kind of theory, which is that humans were seeded onto the planet as part of a galactic, you know, program of some sort. And then we're just returning home. Yeah, hanging out with our older relatives. Distant cousins, yeah. Yeah. But that doesn't seem, you know, it doesn't seem seem plausible. We know that we know that humans had sex with neanderthals, with denisivans. You could think of them as aliens that came from our planet. That's a kind of data point, I guess. But, you know, if you broaden your definition of sex to mean any kind of gratifying

physical interaction, then sure. Right. Dancing. And that's how we get to love. Okay. And love can take many forms. Love can certainly take many forms. I have to ask you, in terms of space, just looking at where blue origin is, looking at where SpaceX is today. And maybe looking out 10, 20 years out from now, are you impressed of what's happening? We just saw William Schadener go up to space. Yeah, I was just watching his video this morning

before it came here. Yeah. Are you impressed the word things then today. Yeah. I didn't press the word things then today. Yeah. I mean, I mean, SpaceX in particular has done things that are just unbelievable. And I don't think anyone was anticipating 20 years ago, let's say, when this all started, just the speed with which they'd be able to rack up these incredible achievements. If you've kind of even seen a little bit of how the sausage is made and so the difficulty

of doing any kind of space travel, what they've achieved is just is unbelievable. What about maybe a question about Elon Musk, even more than Jeff Bezos, he has a very kind of ambitious vision of this project that we're on as a species of becoming a multi-planetary species and becoming that quickly. Yeah. As soon as possible landing on Mars, colonizing Mars. Yeah. What do you think of that project? There's two questions to ask.

First, the question is, what do you think about the project of colonizing Mars? And second, what do you think about a human being who is so unapologetically ambitious at achieving the impossible? What a lot of people would say is impossible. I think that colonizing Mars is the kind of goal that's easily stated. It's easily stated. It's catchy. It's the kind of thing that can inspire people to get involved in a way that some other programs might not.

So I think it's well chosen in that way. I have technical questions about, there's a problem of perclerates on the surface of Mars. There's going to be big trouble. And there's radiations. This is known. But what about business questions? You think, as you mentioned, sort of going outside of the solar system would best be done for religious reasons.

What about cognizant Mars? Can you spin it into a business proposition? It's hard to think of a resource that's on Mars that could be brought back here cheaply enough to compete with stuff we could just dig out of the ground here or grow here. So I don't know if there is a business plan for that or if it's just strictly we're gonna go there and see what happens. Maybe again when you communism to kind of get us going, to give us a reason a little bit of the competition.

Well, there's plenty of people who are sufficiently excited by the colonized Mars vision that they're willing to just go all in on it, even if there's not a business plan behind it. So I think it's well chosen. It's just I think it's probably the only the only approach to take. A lot of the when white people came to this con and started colonizing it, you know, there was not a lot of coherent planning. Like what plans they did have turned out to be terrible plans. You know, trying to come up with plans that extend decades into the future is is a waste of time. To do it for the kind of unexplainable love of the unknown, like the journey towards exploring the unknown. Yeah.

And just kind of keep going. Yeah. And while you saw it with Shatner and his reaction to the flight yesterday, he, for him that trip was more than worth it just for these intangible reasons. What did he say? I haven't watched the video yet. He was trying to express the talking a lot about the moment where suddenly you kind of rise above the thin blue blanket of the atmosphere and you're up into the blackness. And that had a huge impact on him. So he was kind of, I wouldn't say, groping for words,

because he was pretty eloquent, but he was trying to express his feelings about that in a way that is pretty gripping to watch. So you've worked on this kind of stuff, we can go back to 10 years ago, you wrote an essay called Innovation Starvation, you worked on this kind of idea since then. Kind of looking at maybe a little bit cynically about our age today and our unwillingness to take on big risky projects.

So in the face of that, what do you think of people like Elon Musk? Because to me, people like that are inspiring and gives you hope in the face of a more kind of pessimistic perspective of our age. Yeah, well he's clearly willing to tackle big ambitious projects without a lot of kind of soul searching or trying to make up his mind, right? It's like, let's dig tunnels under cities. Go, let's step one, make a joke about it on Twitter, step two, actually do it.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And I mean, things have slowed down quite our ability to build things at pace is a lot less than it was. And there's reasons for that. We're more concerned with safety and environmental impacts than people were when they were building some of the great public's works projects of the mid-20th century. But even we're at the point now we're even just maintaining

the stuff that we've got as such a huge project that we need to put big resources into it and good minds into it. Or else we're going to be losing things that we take for granted. Do you think that there's a lot to be done in the digital space? That's who mentions that Wikipedia and knowledge. Don't you think there could be a lot of flourishing in the space of innovation in terms of innovation

in the digital space? Yeah, I mean, I'd like to see that. I think it's where a lot of the brain power went during the last couple of generations because people who might previously have been building rockets or other kinds of hard technologies ended up instead going into programming computer science, which is understandable and great. We've got structural problems right now in the way social media works that are pretty severe. And so I certainly hope that we're not, it's 10 years from now that we're not exactly where we are today when it comes

to that stuff. We need to move on. The beautiful thing about problems is they show you how not to do things Yeah, and they give you give opportunity to new ideas to flourish and to beat out the ideas of old which is a dream for me in just to see new social media. Yeah. That beats out the ways that they go. So I tend to, you perhaps agree that it's impossible

to do social media well. Oh, not at all. I mean, I listened to your interview with Jaron a couple of weeks ago. I know Jaron, and we've talked about this. And he went hard on me. He basically says, it's very possible.

It's very nice. Well, the last time I kind of paid attention to Jiren's thoughts on it, he was thinking in terms of that basically there should be micro payments such that if I, by clicking the like button on something I'm essentially giving valuable intellectual property to Facebook or Twitter or whatever. It's not a very large amount of IP but it's definitely a transfer of information

that when they aggregate it is beneficial to them. So, and now I do remember that he, on his interview with you was talking about what data unions are. Yeah. Those are a lot of interesting ideas, but for me, the biggest disagreement was in the level of cynicism, he has a distrust and cynicism towards people in Silicon Valley being able to do these kinds of things. And I really, okay, when you have a large crowd of people that are doing things the wrong way, you should nevertheless maintain optimism. Because what's

important is to find the one person in that room that's going to do things the right way Sinuses, I'm just going to completely silence out the whole room. So he was saying I've been here a long time Oh, yeah, I've known you know, I I understand like how these folks work. They think They're gods and they know the right way to do things and they will Tell you how to do those things. And that kind of hubris is going to always lead you astray when you are the one who's engineering the algorithms. And there's a lot of deep truth to that because algorithms are powerful and many people,

when given power, do not do the best of things. I mean, most, what is it? The old Lincoln line, if you want to test the man's character, give him power. Yeah. Yes, but that doesn't mean that some people are not able to handle the power. And that some people are not able to come up with good ideas that create better social media. Yeah, I didn't interpret Jaren's statements as being entirely cynical and hopeless. I mean, he's definitely raising, you know,

issues of concern, but he wouldn't be out, you know, writing the books that he's written and talking about this stuff if he didn't think there was a way. If he didn't think there was hope. Yeah, and part of it, as you probably know, adjourned, he just loads a good argument. Yeah. He just lost that a little bit of fun. Well, I have to ask you about, I mean, we talked about taking all big, bold, risky ideas. So in your new book, Termination Shock, it's set here in Texas. Part of it is, yeah. Yeah, most of it.

Yeah, it's a great place to set it. So in it, the main character, TR, Macooligan, a Texas billionaire, oil man, a truck stop magnet, the size of the self climate change, take on climate change by himself. So this is an interesting philosophical exploration of how to solve climate change from a perspective that's perhaps different than we've been thinking about. I wouldn't use the word solve, but let's say, ameliorate the temporary effects, but please take on. Take on the challenge. So it's very interesting, but as there's a gradual nature to this process, and just like in your book, the power of innovation is something that has saved us quite a few times in history.

So what role does that play in this gradual process? Right. So ultimately, we don't solve the problem until we get the CO2 out of the atmosphere. But that is going to take a while. We're still adding more. We haven't even started to reduce the amount. So, there's two possibilities in Syed Junsuropa's reduce the amount that we're putting in the atmosphere, and two is removing what we got in the atmosphere. We have to do both. Right, and those are two different kind of efforts in terms of like what's involved.

Because it stays up there. So, I think just last week China announced that they're going to try to level off their CO2 emissions in like 2030. So 2031, they'll only put as much CO2 into the atmosphere as they did in 2030, which is still a lot of CO2. In 2060, they're saying, we'll be net zero. So if everyone in the world does that, and the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere by then is say 450 parts per million, it'll stay at 450 parts per million until we take it out. And taking it out is hard. It's a big...

We took us a long time. We had to empty out huge coal mines and oil reservoirs and burn all that stuff. We had to chop down forests and dig up peat bugs in order to create all of that CO2. And so we have to reverse all of those processes somehow in order to remove the CO2 and get it back down, hopefully into the 200 and some parts per million range where it used to be. So how about you get a single Texas billionaire to have a massive gun that blasts huge quantities

of sulfur into the upper atmosphere. So that's idea number one. That's this is called solar geoengineering and it's we know that it's a possibility on a technical level because volcanoes have been doing it forever. So many times in human history, we've seen a volcanic eruption that was followed by a global cooling trend that lasted for a couple of years. And one of these things happened, I think in the 60s or 70s in Indonesia and the Australian

sent a plane up into the stratosphere to take some samples of the plume. And when it came back down, the windscreen of the plane had a deposit on it. One of the Australian scientists licked it and reported that it was painfully acid. That was our first clue that what was being injected into the stratosphere was sulfur dioxide. And so we know, then we'll pin a tubo came along in the 90s and did this experiment for us. So we know that sulfur in the stratosphere, it forms little spherical droplets of sulfuric acid after it combines with water and those bounce back some of the suns rays and

Reduce the amount of solar energy entering the troposphere, which is where we live so So we know that it works and we we also know that the stuff goes away after a couple of years So it gradually washes out. And so it's not a permanent thing. So good news, bad news is, good news is, it's not permanent. So if you don't like what's happening, you can just stop and wait a couple of years. And you'll get back to where you started.

And the bad news, if you're in favor of this kind of thing, is that you have to keep doing it forever. So this guy is one of those, he's read these papers, he's the TR, the character in the book. He knows all this. And all people who are familiar with climate science are kind of know this. It's a pretty well-established fact.

And so he just decides he's going to take action unilaterally and do this. And so there's different ways to get the sulfur up there, but because it's Texas, he builds the biggest gun in the world. It's just six barrels pointed straight up and he begins firing shells loaded with sulfur into the stratosphere. And so the book is about not so much that as how people react to his doing that, what the political ramifications are around the world. Because, you know, this is a extremely controversial idea and not everyone's on board with it.

And even if you are willing to consider using a technological intervention, the fact is that it's going to have different effects on different parts of the world. So some areas may suffer negative, you know, more negatives than positives and they're not going to be happy. So what do you think? So in his case, in TR's case, he can get around, you know, getting permission from governments. If we were to look at our us facing outside of the story, us facing climate change, where do you think the solution will come from? Governments working together or from bold billionaire Texans? I'm pretty sure that this kind of intervention is never going to emerge from Western democracies.

This kind of sorry government coordinated, which option one or solar geoengineering. Solar geoengineering from a government, from a, like those are, I want to sort of the distinction, one is the idea, the technological idea you're talking about, but two is like, who comes up with the idea and agrees on it, governments or individuals. Yeah, if this were to happen, I think it would be either an individual or more likely, just some government somewhere that just decides it's in their interests to unilaterally do this.

And you know, that's not me advocating it. It's just, it's so, it would be comparatively so cheap and easy to implement a solar geoengineering scheme that someone is probably gonna do it once things get bad enough. But I don't think that the government will. Western governments, just because they're not...

Well, we've seen what happened with vaccines. So getting people to take vaccinations or wear masks, it's turned out to be incredibly hard, even though it might save those people's lives. See, I blame, that's not Western, that's I blame failure of leadership there, of leaders not coming off as authentic, not being inspiring, uniting, all those kinds of things.

I think that's possible. I think it's just that we've gotten the leaders we have right now aren't the right people because we've lived through a kind of a long stretch of relatively comfortable times. And it feels like unfortunate if you just look at history that hard times make great leaders and easy times make like bureaucrats that are you go statistical and greedy and not very interesting and not very bold. Yeah, no, I think that's fair. So, you know, we may be entering one of those interesting times, you know, a hardship in the Chinese curse sense, yeah. So I could be wrong, but I mean, there have been some efforts to explore solar geoengineering.

There was a plan to send up some balloons, high altitude balloons to take some measurements in Scandinavia that got squashed by objections from people who lived up there, who were just opposed to the whole program on principle. So we'll see a lot more of that. And it's going to be a hard program to advocate for just because I think people don't quite understand how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere and how far we are from even slowing down the rate that we're adding more to say nothing of

bringing that number down. We're a long way out from that. Do you see in terms of portfolio of solutions, us becoming a multi-planetary species as part of that, as this also being a motivator for investing some percent of GDP into becoming a multi-planetary species? And what percent should that be, you think? You know, in a indirect way, maybe, I mean, you know what people will say, which

is the same argument that has been leveled against space exploration since the Apollo program, which is why we solve our problems here on Earth before we spend money going into space. So I've never been a believer in that argument. I think there could be a sense in which the new perspective that could be obtained by thinking about, like if we're thinking about terraforming Mars, changing its atmosphere, making it more amenable to life and survival. You could see that maybe changing people's opinions about terraforming the earth. Yeah. There are some dangerous consequences to this particular idea of blessings, software, of geoengineering. What do you make of sort of big bold ideas that have, there are double edge sword?

Are all ideas like this, all big ideas like this, they have the potential to have highly beneficial consequences and a potential to have highly destructive consequences. I wouldn't say all. I think, you know, going back to what we were talking about earlier, you know, how technology developed in the 50s and 60s, there was a period of time there when people maybe had unrealistic ideas about new technology and weren't sufficiently attentive to the possible downsides. So we got, and there's a reason why. I mean, in the mid-20th century, we saw antibiotics, we saw the polio vaccine, we saw just simple things like refrigerators in the home, you know, my grandmother to her dying day called the refrigerator the ice box because when she grew up,

it was a box with ice in it. So you see all that change and it's largely for the benefit of people and so if somebody comes along and says, hey, we're going to build nuclear reactors to make energy. Or here's a new chemical called DDT that's going to kill mosquitoes. Then it's easy to just buy into that and not be alert to the possible downsides. And of course, we know that the way that those early reactors were built and the way that

the supply chain was built to create the fuel and deal with the waste was poorly thought out. And we're still dealing with the resulting problems that places like Hanford in the state of Washington. And we know that DDT, although it did kill a lot of insects, also had terrible effects on bird populations. So the kind of backlash that happened in the 70s that is still kind of going on is to assume that everything is a double-edged sword and always to look for,

we have to absolutely convince ourselves that the downside isn't going to come back and bite us before we can adopt any new technology. And I think the people are overly sensitized to that now. Yeah, it's funny, depending on the technology, people are a little bit too terrified of certain technologies, like artificial intelligence is one. My sense is that the things that they're afraid of aren't the things that are likely going to happen in terms of negative things is probably impossible to predict exactly the unintended negative consequences.

But what's also interesting is for AI as an example, not people don't think enough about the positive things. I mean, the same is true with social media. It's very popular now, for some reason, to talk about all the negative effects of social media. We've immediately forgotten how incredible it is to connect across the world. There's a deep loneliness within all of us. We long to connect in social media, at least in part, enables that even in its current state. And all the negative things we see with social media

currently are also in part just revealing the basics of human nature. It didn't make us worse. It's just bringing it to the surface. A step one of solving a problem is bringing it to the surface. The fact that we are divi- there's a division, the fact that they're were easily angered and upset. And all of that, the witch hunts, all those kinds of things. That's human nature and it just reveals that allowing us to now work on it is therapy. And so that's another example of a technology that's just we're not considering the positive effects now and in the future enough of, I have to ask above, there's a million things I can

ask about, but virtual reality, I got to ask you, you've thought about virtual reality, mixed reality, quite a bit. What are the interesting trajectories you see for the proliferation of virtual reality or mixed reality in Yeah, so I was, I was magically for what, five years, with the best title of all time. Oh, thanks. Chief futurist. Yeah. Yeah.

And so I, so I've had a little squad of people in Seattle doing what you might call content R&D. So we're trying to make content for AR. But because it's such a new medium, there's more of an engineering R&D project, almost than a creative project. So it was fascinating to see everything that goes into making an AR system that runs. So an AR device, if it's really going to do AR, needs to be running slam in real time. And that alone is a big. So for people who don't know, first of all, virtual reality is creating almost fully artificial world and putting you inside it, augmented reality AR is taking the real world and putting stuff on top of that real world. And when you say slam, that means in real time, the device needs to be

able to sense accurately detect everything about that world sufficiently, to be able to reconstruct the 3D structure of it so you can put stuff on top of it and do that in real time. Presumably not just real time, but in the way that creates a pleasant experience for the human perception system is Yeah, that's a that's an engineering project Right. Yeah, Will said and it's just one of the things that The system has to do. It's also tracking your eyes So it knows what you're looking at How far away what you're looking at how far away what you're looking at is.

It's performing all those functions and it's got to keep doing that without you know burning up the the CPU or depleting the battery unreasonably fast. And that's just table stakes. It's just the basic functions of the operating system. And then any content that you want to add has to sit on top of that. It's got to be rendered by the optics at a sufficiently low latency that it looks real. And you don't get sick.

So it's an amazing thing and you know magically shipped device that can do that in 2019. And they're about to ship the ML2, but I don't know anymore about that than anyone else because I don't work there anymore. because I don't work there anymore. Well, does it still, in some degree, boil down to a killer app, a content question? Like you said, it's kind of a wide open space. Nobody knows exactly what's going to be the compelling thing. Yeah.

So, doesn't a super compelling experience of some sort alleviate some of the need for engineering perfection. Well, there's a base layer of engineering that you have to have, no matter what. But you're certainly right that people, like in the early days of video games, put up with kind of low frame rate and what we would now call crappy graphics because they were having so much fun playing doom or whatever. Even Tetris.

Yeah, yeah. So for sure, that's true. And so, you know, I was working on consumer facing content. There was a great team in Wellington, New Zealand that made a game called Dr. Groyd Broitts invaders that realized the potential of AR gaming in a way that I don't else has before or since. That was definitely the strategy until, but April 2020, which is when the company decided to pivot to commercial industrial applications instead. So, and, you know, I haven't seen their financial projections, but I assume they had good reasons for making that strategic decision. It just means that it's no longer necessarily targeted at just end users who want to play

a game or be entertained. That, to me, from a sort of a dreamer, future's perspective is heartbreaking because I don't know necessarily from in the VR space, but I see this kind of thing with robotics, where to me, the future of robotics is consumer facing. And a lot of great roboticists, Boston Dynamics and companies like that are focused on industrial applications. Yeah. Because for financial business reasons. Yeah. Now I can see the parallels for sure. We'll see.

It was a fun project. We worked on an app, for example, called Baby Goats, which just populated your room with Baby Goats. That seemed like a killer app right there. Well, we thought highly of the idea for sure. Yes. So, but because of the slam, the system knew, for example, here's a table, here's a little end table. We know the heights, we know how high our animated baby goat can jump. And so our engineers had to build a system for converting the slam primitives into game engine objects that the AIs in the game could navigate around. and that ended up shipping as more of a dev kit or up sort of how to a sample app

then as a finished consumer facing. You mean the baby goat AI? Yeah. That seems to me like a world I can entertain myself for hours just every day coming home to to to see if baby goes. Yeah, I mean it was an ambient kind of it's not it's not a thing that you would sit there and play like a video just life. Yeah, yeah, but no, there's baby goes. I mean what's the purpose of having dogs and cats right in your life exactly it's kind of ambient. Yeah, they're not really helping you do anything, but it's enriching your life. You can go and play fetch or something for a while if you want, but you don't have to.

Right. Yeah. So, so we worked on that in a bigger project that was more of a storytelling and a fictional universe. The hardware is worth a look. There's still a belief I just saw it this morning looking at Twitter that the magically never shipped anything. But they've been since 2019 you can go to their website and buy one of these devices any time you want to spend the money. Yeah and And then you want us coming out, I think, in 2022, so in a few months. What do you think looking at 50 years from now? What wins? Virtual reality, augmented reality,

or physical reality? What wins? Meaning like what's, what do people that have financial resources enjoy spending most of their time in? I've always been a fan of AR and it's kind of an easy answer because if you're wearing an AR device, you put a bag over your head, it becomes a VR device. If you block out what's really there, then all you're seeing is a VR. What you are with AR constrained to kind of operate in something that's similar to physical reality. Yeah, with VR, you can go into fantastical worlds. True. True. So there are still issues in those fantastical worlds with with motion sickness. Right. So if your body is experiencing acceleration, your inner ear, that differs from what your eye thinks it's seeing, then you'll get sick, unless you're a very unusual person.

So, it doesn't mean you can't do it. It's just a constraint that VR designers have to learn to work with. Do you think it's possible that in the future we are living mostly in a virtual reality world. It would become more and more detached from physical reality. For entertainment, maybe for certain applications, I'm personally more... We have to make a distinction between what I would personally find interesting and what might win in the market. So maybe some people, maybe lots of people would like to spend a huge amount of time in VR.

I'm personally more interested in enhancing the experience that I have of the physical world, because the physical world is pretty cool, right? And there's a lot to be said for moving around in the real world. And I ask you for you personally see once one one to stay. Not because the physical world all of a sudden became really bad. Some reason, like you're trying to escape it. Yeah. But like literally it's just more enriching in the same way like there's a glimmer in your eye when you said you enjoy the physical world like Double up on that glimmer for the for the virtual reality. Can you imagine such a world?

Well, like I'll give maybe an example that's a bridge, which is that I've been I like making things So I like working in a machine shop and making objects with 3D printers or machines or whatever. And so I've had to learn how to get good at using a CAD program. There's many to choose from. I use one called Fusion 360. And I can spend hours in that trying to create, imagine and create the things I want to create. And it's not virtual reality exactly, but that whole time, my whole field of view is occupied by this monitor that's showing me a window into a three-dimensional space. I'm rotating things around. I'm imagining things, I'm making things. And so that is pretty close to being in virtual reality.

Does that thing have to exist for you to experience true joy? Can you stay in Fusion 360 the whole time? Do you have to 3D print it and touch it? Yeah, I mean, that's my game. That's what I'm up to. But, you know, it happens that if you're building a virtual environment, if you're making a game level or creating a virtual set for a film or TV production, the thing that you're designing in the program may never physically exist.

And in fact, it's preferable that it doesn't because the whole point of that is to is to make imaginary things that you couldn't build otherwise. So I think lots of people spend a good chunk of their working hours in something that's pretty close to VR. It's just that currently the output device happens to be a rectangular object in front of them. You could replace that with a VR headset and they'd be doing the same stuff. There's all kinds of interfaces. For example, I enjoy listening to podcasts or audio books,

but let's say it's your podcast, because there's an intimate human connection in a podcast. It's one way, but you get to learn about the person you're listening to, and that's a real connection. And that's just audio. For a lot of people, that's just audio. True.

And for me, that's just audio, as a fan of people. And you cut them a little bit, or friends with those people. Yeah. You'll live your listening to them, yeah. And I mean, they're not, they're as far away from real as he gets. There's not even a, yeah, there's not even a visual component. It's just audio, but there has real, like if I was on a desert island, like my imagination, like this thing works pretty good in terms of imagination, like that, It creates a very beautiful world with just audio.

So I mean- Or even just reading books. Exactly. Reading books. Even more so with reading books. Because there are certain mediums which stimulate the imagination more. When you present less, the imagination works more. And that can create really enriching experiences. So, I mean, to me, the question is, can you do some of the amazing things that make life

amazing in virtual worlds? It seems to me the answer there is obviously yes. Even if I like you and attached you a lot of stuff in the physical world, I think I can very readily imagine coming up with some of the same magical experiences in the virtual world, or you make friends and you can fall in love where the source of love in your life is to a much greater degree inside a virtual world and like and then love means fulfillment that means happiness that's the thing you look forward to and not some kind of dopamine rush type of love but but like long, long, last thing. Yeah, yeah, French deal. Yeah, yeah. It just depends on what is there in the way of applications, the content, and can it feed you those things, can it give you, like in my example of using the CAD program,

it gives me the ability to do something I enjoy, which is making, making you know imagining things and making things in a particular way But can we psycho analyze you for a second? Sure What exactly do you enjoy is there some component of you building the thing? Well, you get to at least a little bit share with others Like what is there a human in the loop outside of you in that picture? Will anyone ever see it? Right.

Like there's a source of your enjoyment because I would argue that perhaps it's like the turtles all the way down when you get to the bottom turtle, it has to do with other sharing with other humans. And if you can then put those humans inside the VR world, then you start to, then you can, okay, for example, you could do it in the physical world, the 3D printing, you share it in the virtual world, and that's where this was to happen.

It says, I think, at least speaking for myself, I'm always thinking in terms of an audience, and at some level, I feel like I'm doing this for someone or communicating to someone, even if there's not a specific someone in mind. You could just be an abstract theoretical someone. And like another app, I spend a lot of time in as Mathematica.

Okay, when I do a Mathematica. Yeah, yeah. And when I do a Mathematica notebook, if I'm trying to figure something out, I spend a lot of time typing. Just, my stuff is just a huge blocks of text, just me thinking out loud, and then some graphs and calculations and stuff.

Because to me, that act of explaining things and commenting helps me understand what I'm doing. And there's kind of an audience, amorphous audience, in my mind. Yeah, I mean, most of this stuff nobody will ever see. And yet, I'm creating it as if there were an audience that might read this stuff. Because that's a necessary constraint that helps me

do a better job. What's the, this might be tricky question answer. What comes to mind as a particularly beautiful thing that you're proud of the equate inside Mathematica? Visualization wise or something that just comes to memory if it's possible to retrieve? So the the thing I've spent the most amount of time on is I got obsessed a long time ago. I was trying to tile the globe with hexagons. Yes.

And an actual globe? Well, any spherical object, yeah, but with an eye towards putting it on the earth and so and have it be recursive so You can have hexagons within hexagons which is hard because it's probably a bad idea because you can't tile a hexagon with smaller hexagons They don't they stick out Got it. So they're, oh, they stick out. So there's a, can you do some kind of fractal hexagon situation? Yeah, yeah.

So it's that, and people who know me are always, now make fun of me for this. So they'll send me, if they see a picture with hexagons in it, they'll like send me a link to make fun of me. So, one of those people, Roger Prenner, was there? I think Roger's a little above my level. With season to put hexagons as well, entirely. Yeah, yeah.

So I did a lot of that and I thought, you know, it was pretty cool. But there's some, like, surprisingly intractable problems that keep coming up. Like, you've always gotta have some pentagons. Like if you start with the icosahedron, which is equilateral triangles, just a logical place to start, you can cover those with hexagons, but every vertex where the triangles come together

is a pentagon, has to be a pentagon. There's all hexagons, and then there's a pentagon at the intersections. Yeah. Cool. How did you figure that out? Is that a known fact? Well, it's just if you look at it, like just by instant, actually, the thing got it. Yeah. So, so you can't make that go away. So any system that you come up with to do this has got to have this exceptions built into it for for those 12. You could have quintillions of hexagons, but you still got to have 12

pentagons somewhere. So I've blown a hell of a lot of time on that over the years. By the way, a lot of those kind of problems are very difficult to prove something about. a lot of those kind of problems are very difficult to prove something about. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think Uber did it because someone, one of my friends who knows of my interest in this and who likes to give me a hard time, sent me a link. This is a couple of years ago to some code base that I think came out of Uber where they had done this. You break down the whole surface of the earth into little hexagons. So that was a real knife through the heart, but I'll probably come back to it someday. Is there something special about hexagons?

Are you interested in all kinds of tiling? Well, I'm interested in all kinds of tiling, but I know my limitations as a math guy. So hexagons are about my speed. You know, just sufficient amount of complexity. Yeah. So, but no, tiling is a really interesting problem both two and three-dimensional. Tiling problems are fascinating and they're one of those ancient puzzles that has

attracted Brainiacs for centuries. Let me ask you a little bit about AI. What are some likely interesting trajectories for the proliferation of AI in society over the next couple of decades? Do you think about this kind of stuff? I do not think about it a lot because it's a deep topic. And I'm not, I don't consider myself super well informed about it. And AI seems to be a term that has applied to a lot of different things. So I've messed around just a tiny little bit with neural nets with what's it called PCA,

principal component analysis. So I guess I tend to think in terms of granular bottom up ideas rather than big picture top down. Oh, God. It's a very specific algorithm. It's like, how are they going specific algorithms like how are they going to What probably are they going to solve in society such that it has like a lot of big ripple effects? Yeah, I mean We can talk a particular successful AI systems and

Success to find in different ways of recent years. So one is language models with GPT-3. Most importantly, they're self-supervised, meaning they don't require much supervision from humans, which means they can learn by just reading a huge amount of content created by humans. So read the internet, and from that be able to generate text into all kinds of things like that. It's possible they have you big enough new on that work, it's going to be able to have conversations with humans based on just reading human language. That's an interesting idea. To me, the very interesting idea that people don't think about it as AI because they're kind of dumb currently is actual embodied robots. So robotics, like Boston Dynamics,

I have downstairs and upstairs, Legit robots. You know, the currently Boston Dynamics robots and most Legit robots, most robots period are pretty dumb. Most of the challenges have to do with the actual, first of all, the engineering of making the thing work, getting a sense of suite that allows you to do it's the same things with magic leap, that base layer of like, where is it stuff? Where am I? And what am I looking at? Yeah. I don't need to deeply understand my surroundings at a level of like, like at a level beyond of what will hurt if I run into it. Yeah, yeah. But even that is hard.

That's hard, but the thing that I think people don't in the robotics basics, born off, is the human robot interaction part of the picture, which is how it makes humans feel, how robots make humans feel. And I think that's going to have a very significant impact in the near future in society, which is the more you integrate AI systems of whatever form into society where humans are in contact with them regularly so that could be embodied robotics or that could be social media algorithms. I think that has a very significant impact and people often think like AI needs to be super smart to have an impact. I think it needs to be super integrated with society to have an impact and more and more that's happening, even if they're dumb.

Yeah. Yeah. Now, I mean, a lot of my exposure to robots is that I'm associated with a combat robotics team and I've been to a few battle bots competitions. And that's not like, in a lot of ways, that's pretty far from the kind of robotics you're talking about, because these robots are remote controlled. They're not autonomous. And so they're pretty simple. But it's interesting to watch people's emotional reactions

to different robots. So there was one that was in the last year's season, the 2020 season called Rusty, that was just put together out of spare parts. And it looked kind of cute. And it became this huge crowd favorite. Because you can see it was made of like salad bowls and you know random pieces of hardware that this guy had like scavenged from his farm. And so immediately people kind of fell in love with

this one particular robot. Whereas they might other robots might be like the bad guy, if you think of professional wrestling, the heel and the baby face. So people do, for reasons that are hard to understand, form these emotional reactions. And we form narratives in the same way we do when we meet human beings with tell stories about these objects, and they can be intelligent, and they can be biological, or they be in almost close to inanimate objects. That to me is kind of fascinating and if robots choose to lean into that, it creates an

interesting world. If they start using feedback loops to make themselves cuter. Not just cuter, but everything that humans do. Let's not let's let's let's let's let's let's speak harshly robots. Humans do the same thing. Oh, no, I didn't it wasn't meeting it in a right. Humans based on feedback will change their appearance. Yes, they're great. I do the sun Instagram all the time. How do I look cuter? That's the fundamental question. I guess myself. Yeah. So why wouldn't I, why wouldn't a robot want to, it's like, oh wow, people, people really don't like the, you know, quad mount machine gun, you know, on top of my turret, maybe I should get rid of that. And that would, you know, people would feel more eddies or lean into it. Yeah. Proud of it. Yeah. Like you won't take my gun, whatever the saying is.

Yeah. From my dead cold hands. I mean, they're their personality, adding personality such that you can start the heel, you can start the weave narratives. I think that's a fascinating place where It's a fascinating place where there's this feedback loop, like you said, where AI, when it's especially when it's embodied, puts a mirror to ourselves, just like other humans are close friends, they kind of teach us about ourselves. We teach each other and through that process grow close. And to me, it's so fascinating to expand the space of deep meaningful interactions beyond just humans.

That's the opportunity I see with robots and with AI systems. And that's why I don't like my biggest problem, social media algorithms is the lack of transparency. It's not the existence of the algorithms. It's, well, there's this many things. One is the data. Data should be controlled by the individual by people. Yeah. Themselves. So, but also the lack of transparency and how the algorithms work and change your perception of what's real. Yeah. And in hidden ways. Yeah.

In hidden ways. Yeah. Like you should be aware, just like when you take, I don't know, if you take psychedelics, you should be aware that you took the psychedelics. It shouldn't be a surprise. Yeah. And second, you should, I mean, become a student and a scholar and there should be research done. There should be open

conversation about how your perception has changed and you, and then you are, become your own guide in this world of ultra perception because arguably none of it is real. You get to choose the flavor of real. I mean, this is something you explore quite a bit. Do you, yourself, think that there is a bottom to it where there is reality, there's a base layer of reality that physics can explore and our human perceptions and sort of layer stuff. Is there, is there, let's go to Plato? Is there such a thing as truth? I lean towards the platonic view of things. So I believe that mathematical objects haven't a reality that it's not all made up by human minds. And I don't know where that reality comes from. I can't explain it, but I do think

that mathematical objects are discovered and not invented. I did a lot of, not a lot, but I did some reading of Hussarol when I was writing anathum. He's a 20th century phenomenologist, and he's writing at the same time as scientists are starting to understand atoms and becoming aware that when we look at this table, it's really just a slab of almost entirely vacuum, and there's a very sparse arrangement of tiny tiny little particles there occupying that space that interact with each other in such a way that our brains perceive this object. So that's kind of the beginnings of phenomenology. And his stuff is pretty hard to read. You really have to take it in small bites and go a little bit at a time. But he's trying to come to grips with these come to grips with these kind of questions. How did you come to grips with it?

Like, why is this table feel solid? Well, I mean, we're an evolved system that we have biological advantages in knowing where solid objects are. So we've got this system in our head that integrates our perceptions into this coherent view of things. One of the take-homes that I like from Hussarol is the idea of intersubjectivity,

any idea that a fundamental requirement for us to stay sane is for us to share our perceptions and have them ratified by other. They don't even have to be people, but a prisoner in solitary confinement might domesticate a mouse or even insects because they perceive the same things that the prisoner perceives. And so, convinced him that he's not just hallucinating. Yeah, there's established a consensus. But see, that doesn't mean it's any of it is real. You just establish a consensus. real. You just establish a consensus. It could be very distant from something that's real in engineering sense of real. Like you could build it using physics.

Well, I think that that valuable application for an AI robot would be just to do nothing except that. So consensus. It just sits there. Yeah. And if you hear a Doris Lamm, you might turn to see what it is. If the robot at the same time turns to look at the Doris L slam, it's ratifying your perception. But isn't that the basis of love is when the door slams, you both look, but for deeper

things, you both hear the same music and others don't. I mean, isn't that what that mean? Yeah. By love, I mean, depth of human connection. Yeah. Like that's, or not, you, you arrive at similar reactions without having to, to explicitly communicate it. Yeah. Yeah. But we could start with a robot that listens explicitly for the slam doors. Yeah. but no, I've. Or scary sounds.

I can think of. So an example of this is, you know, when I went to college, we'd be sitting at the cafeteria, a bunch of people eating our dinner together that we had just met, let's say. So a bunch of new people in your life and someone might make a funny remark or not so funny remark or something would happen. And you might then at that moment make eye contact with someone you didn't know at the other end of the table. And in that moment, you would realize this person is reacting, this person heard what I heard. They're reacting

the way I reacted. Nobody else appears to get the joke or to understand what just happened. But random stranger down there and I, we have this connection. And then you build on that. So then the next time something happens, you automatically look at your new friend and they look back at you. And before you know it, you're hanging out together. Yeah.

Because you know, you've already established without even talking to each other that you're on the same wave length. Yeah. It's seemingly so simple, but so powerful. It's establishing that you're on the same wave length. Yeah. At some level. Yeah. There's no reason why you and a toaster can't have that. I'm just saying. No. Uh-huh. This smell burned to you. just saying. This smell burned to you. Exactly. I think it's burned. If a toaster could just say that to you. Yeah. Yeah. Cryptonomicon, published in 1999, set in the late 90s and involves hackers who build essentially

cryptocurrency. Bitcoin white paper came out in 2008. So, I have to kind of ask, from you looking at this layout of what's been happening in cryptocurrency the evolution of this technology, how has it rolled out differently than you could have imagined in two ways. One, the technology itself and two, the human side of things, the human stories of the hackers and the financial folks and the powerful and the powerless, the human side of things.

Yeah. Well, Cryptonomicon is pre Bitcoin, it's pre Satoshi, it's pre blockchain as you point out. So um, at that point, uh, I was kind of reacting to what I was seeing among people like the Bay Area Cypher punks in Berkeley. There was some suns, there was a branch here in Austin as well. And a lot of their thinking was, so based on the idea that you would have to have a physical region of the earth that was free of government interference. You couldn't achieve that freedom

by purely mathematical means on the network. You actually had to have a room somewhere with servers in it that a government couldn't come and metal with. And so a lot of ideation happened around that view of things that there were efforts to figure out jurisdictions where this might work. There was a lot of interest for a while in Anguilla, which is a Caribbean island that had some unusual jurisdictional properties. It was Sealand, which is a platform in the North Sea. And so there was a lot of effort that went into finding these physical locations that were deemed kind of safe.

And that all goes away with blockchain. It's no longer necessary. And so that really changes the picture in a lot of ways because you no longer have, I mean, from a novelist point of view, the old system was a lot more fun to work with because it gives you a situation where hackers are wandering around in strange parts of the world and trying to set up server rooms. So, that's a great storytelling thing. There's still a little bit of that, right, In the model world, but there's several server rooms as opposed to one centralized one. Yeah, and there's the, like the new wrinkle

is the need to do a lot of computation and to keep your GPUs from melting down. So people building things in Iceland or in shipping containers on the bottom of the ocean or whatever So But there's still governments evolved and there's still from a novelist perspective interesting dynamics What is big governments like China and more sort of running gay governments from all over the world trying to contend with this idea what to do in terms of control

and power over these kinds of centers that do the mining of the cryptocurrency. Yeah, so we're in a stage now that kind of goes beyond the initial. Like, the stuff I was describing in Cryptonomicon had a little bit of air about it of the underpants gnomes, and that we're going to build this system, and then we'll make money somehow. But the intermediate step was left out. And that is, I think we're now into that phase of the thing where Bitcoin blockchain exists, people know how it works. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies exist, people are using them, and it's like, okay, what now, where does this all lead?

You know, where does this all lead? So, do you have a sense of where it all leads? Like, is it possible that the set of technology kind of continues to have transformational effects on not just sort of finance, but who gets to have power in this world? So the decentralization of power. You know, big questions, right? So I guess there's a little bit of the cynic in me

thinking that as soon as it becomes important enough, the existing banks and people in power are gonna so have control it. I guess an easy answer is that maybe it won't be a big change in the end. There's a utopian strain sometimes in the way people think about this that I'm not so sure about. There's a technological aspect to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies that make it a little easier to pull along the utopian

thread because it's harder for governments to control Bitcoin. I mean, they have much fewer options. They can ban, they can make it illegal. It's more difficult. Yeah. So technology here is on the side of the the powerless, the voiceless, which is a very interesting idea. Of course, yes, it does have a utopian feel to it, but we have been making

progress throughout human history. Yeah. Maybe this is what progress looks like. There will be the powerful and the greedy and the bureaucrats that take advantage of it, skim off the top kind of thing. But maybe this does give more power to people that haven't had power before. In a good way, like distributing power. And enabling more greater resistance to dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, that kind of thing.

greater resistance to dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, that kind of thing. And also enabling all kinds of technologies built on top of it. Ultimately, when you digitize money, money is a kind of speech. It's a kind of mechanism of how humans interact. And if you make that digital more and more of the world, most of the digital space. And then you can have the, then you can finally fully live in that virtual reality with the toaster.

And then. Yeah. Yeah. In a lot of ways, I think in that realm of technology that the money per se is one of the less interesting things you can do with it. So I think cryptographically enforceable contracts and organizations built on those. That seems to me like it's got more potential for change just because we do already have money. And although it's an old system It's been digitized to a large extent by you know the stripes and the credit card companies of the world

And I also love the idea of like Connecting to connect to two smart contracts connecting data. So Making it more formal like Mathemat, more structured the integration of data, of weather data, of all kinds of data about the stuff in the world so they can make contracts between people that's grounded in data. And that's actually getting closer to something like truth, because then you can make agreements based on actual data versus kind of perceptions of data.

And if you can formalize, like distribute the power of who gets to tell the story, that's an interesting kind of resistance again, the powerful and the space of narrative. Yeah, David Brin has been saying for a while that the only way to settle arguments with across the political divide is to make bets.

So people can say, you know, the election was stolen or whatever controversial position they're taking. And they'll keep saying it until you wager real money on it. So, so maybe there's something there if you could turn that into a, put a user interface on that. Yeah, have a stake in your divisiveness, in your arguments. Right. Will Dogecoin take over the world? Twitter question.

I don't follow the different coins that much. I hear about Dogecoin and I've followed the story of it. The interesting aspect of Dogecoin is it. In contrast to Bitcoin and Ethereum, which are these serious implementations that cryptocurrency that seek to solve some of the problems that we're talking about with smart contracts and and resist the the banks and all those kinds of things Dogecoin operates more in the space of memes and humor while still doing some of the some of our things and it presents to the world sort of a question of whether

And it presents to the world sort of a question of whether memes, whether humor, whether narrative will go a long way in the future. Like march farther than some kind of boring old grounded technologies, whether we'll be playing in a space of fun. Like once we built a base of comfort and stability and like a robust system where everyone has shelter, everyone has food and the basic needs covered, I will go into the operate in a space of fund. That's what I think about Doshcoin because it seems like fund spreads faster than anything else. Fund of different kinds and that could be bad fund and that could be good fund. Yeah. And so it's a battle of good fund goes viral very very quickly when you if you post

something that people find fun to yeah and that's what dorsacorn represents so there's like so Bitcoin represents like financial like serious financial instruments yeah and then dorsacorn represents fun and it's interesting to watch the battle go on on the internet to see which wins. This is also like an open question to me of what is the internet? Because fun seems to prevail on the internet. And that's that of fundamental property of the internet moving forward when you look a hundred years out.

Or is this a temporary thing that was true at the birth of the internet and this just true for a couple of decades until it fades away and the adults take over and become serious again? Well I think the adults took over initially and then it was later on that people started using it for fun frivolous things like memes and that's I think that's pretty much unstoppable, you know. Yeah. Because even people who are very serious, you know, enjoy sending around a funny picture or something that imuses them.

Yeah, I personally think, we spoke about World War II, I think memes will save the world and prevent all future wars. You've been handwriting your work for the past 20 years since writing the Baroque cycle. What are the pros and cons of handwriting? We're just typing. For me, I started it as an experiment when I started the Baroque cycle because I had noticed that if I sometimes if I was stuck having a hard time getting started,

if I just picked up a pen and started writing, it was easy to go. So I just decided to keep with that. If it got in my way, I didn't like it, I could always just go back to the word processor, it'd be fine. So that never happened. So there's a certain security that comes from knowing that it's ink on paper and there's no operating system crash or software failure that can obliterate it. It's a slower output technique. And so a sentence or a paragraph

spends a longer time in the buffer up here before it gets committed to paper, whereas I can type really fast. And so I can slam things out before I really thought them through. So I think the first draft quality ends up being higher. And then editing, first draft of editing is just faster because instead of like trying to move the cursor around or whatever, or hitting the backspace key, I can just draw a line through a word or a sentence or just around a whole paragraph and exit out.

And in doing so, I very quickly created an edit, but I've also left behind a record of what the text was prior to the edit. Of course, all the digital versions have those, quote unquote features, but their experience is different. Yeah, yeah. Is there a romance to just the physical? You know the touch of the pen to the paper. I think what has been done for centuries. I think there is I think there is a

just the simplicity of it and not having any intermediary technology beyond the pen and the paper is just very simple and clean. So, I've got a bunch of fountain pens. I started buying fancy paper from Italy a few years ago because I thought I would be more conservative with it, but it's still a trivial expenditure, so it doesn't really alter my habits very much. All that said, once you do type stuff up, you use EMEX. I use EMEX,. I use Emax. Obviously the superior editor.

Of course. You, let me just ask the ridiculous, futuristic question, because Emax has been around forever. Mm-hmm. Do you think in 100 years, we will still have Emax in them? Or like, pick a, let's say 50, 100 years.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, no, I mean, whenever you're doing anything in Linux, you're spending a lot of time editing little config files and scripts and stuff. And you need to be able to pop in and out of editing those things. And it needs to work like even even if the the windowing gooey is dead, and all you've got is like a command line, you to get out of that problem, you might need to to enter

an editor and and alter a file. So I think on that level, there will always have to be sort of very simple, well, Emax isn't very simple, but you know what I mean, there have to be sort of very simple, well, EMAX isn't very simple, but you know what I mean. There have to be basic editors that you can use from either the command line or a GUI, just for administering systems. Now how widespread they'll be, you know, there's a certain amount of, what's the story of the, there's the American folk tale of the, the guy who, the hammer guy who drives the railroad spikes, John Henry, trying to keep up with the steam hammer.

And eventually this, the steam hammer wins, because he can't drive the spikes fast enough. So there's a sense in which Microsoft, like who knows how much they've invested in code, visual studio, or Apple with Xcode. So they've put huge amounts of money into enhancing their IDEs. And EMAX in theory can duplicate all of those features by, you know, if you just have enough Linux hackers writing EMAX-Lisp macros.

But, you know, at some point, it's going to be hard to maintain that level of to keep up feature for feature. The interesting thing about EMAX just is last in a long time. Yeah. I think you've talked about, there's certain fads, certainly in the software engineering space. It's interesting to think about technologies that last for a very long time. Just kind of being in them, what is it?

How do they get by? It's like the cockroaches of software, or the bacteria of software or something. Like this base thing that nobody, everybody just became reliant on, and they just outlast everything else and slowly, slowly adjust with the times, with a little bit of a delay,

with a little bit of customization by individuals, but they're always there in the shadows, and they outlast everybody else. And I wonder if that might be the story for a lot of technologies, especially in the software space. Shell scripts, all that stuff. You can't run the modern world without a bunch of shell scripts, you know, booting up machines and running things. So that is going to be a hard thing to replace. And then tech for types ending, they use, you said.

For when I want to print it out, yeah, I just have some simple macros that I use, but then I have to, the publisher put their foot down and they want an inward format now. So years ago, I wrote some macros to convert. And this time, what did I do? Copy paste. No, I use regular expressions. So I was to do italics and you put it in curly brackets and you do backslash IT and then you type what you want to type. And that's how you get italics in tech.

So you can create a regular expression that'll look for some text between curly brackets preceded by backslash IT and then instead convert that to italics. And word will do that. Word if you go deep enough into its search and replace UI. You can do a regular expression. It's just regps. Yeah, I was finding you that you did that. Yeah, I mean, I'm sure there's tools that help you with that kind of thing,

but, but the task is sufficiently simple. Tour, you can do a much better job than anyone, anybody else's tool can. Yeah. So that's a fascinating process. Which find for me. And it keeps you from messing around with formatting. Yeah, like, well, what if I put this chapter heading, you know, you know, a sans serif font,

you know, it's just classic wanking. And so, those options are closed off in what I'm doing. Is there advice you could say, what does it take to write a great story? The power of good yarns, good narratives to pull people in is incredible. And I think my sort of amateur theory is that it's an evolutionary development that if you're, you know, a cave person sitting around a fire in the Rift Valley a million years ago, if you can tell the story of how you escaped from the hyenas or how Uncle Bob, you know, didn't escape from the hyenas. And if the people listening to you can take that in and they can build that scenario in

their heads, like a kind of virtual reality and see what you're describing, then you've just conferred an incredibly important advantage on the people who've heard that story. And so they know a bunch of stuff now about how to stay alive that they could not have learned in any other way. I mean, animals who don't have speech, though, they might warn each other, they might make a sound, it says danger, danger. But as far as we know, they can't tell more complicated stories. So it's a part of us. The collective intelligence seems to be one of the key characteristics of Homo sapiens, the ability to share ideas and hold ideas together in our minds.

And storytelling is the fundamental aspect of that. Maybe even language itself is more fundamental. Yeah. Because the language is required to do the storytelling. Maybe they evolve together. Maybe they co-evolve. Yeah. So I think that you've got to work with that. And I think sometimes it seems like in kind of literary circles that having a lot of plot is a little bit found upon as it's pulpy or it's exploitative. But

for me, I don't have any compunctions whatsoever about that. I like stories that are grabby and fun and exciting to read. And once you've got one of those going, once you've got a good yarn going, that people will enjoy reading, then you're free to do whatever you want in the frame of that story. But if you don't have that, then you got nothing. What about having like, would she do a technological scientific rigor like to the accuracy and as much as possible? How does that add to Bob telling the story? Or telling the story, Bob, Bob story or telling the story Bob Bob or on the campfire. Well, the main thing that it does is present little details that you might not have come up with on your own.

So if you're just sitting there freely imagining things, your brain probably isn't going to serve up the wealth of details and the resulting complications and surprises that the real world is constantly presenting us with. And so, in my case, if I'm trying to write a story about, you know, some that involves some technology like a rocket or orbital maneuvers or whatever, then delving into those details eventually is going to turn up some weird unexpected, you know, thing that gives me material to work with, but also subliminally readers who see that are going to be drawn in more because they're going to find that, oh, I didn't see that coming, you know, it's got some of the complexity and surprise value of the real

world. Yeah, it does something. Alex Garland, director who did, who wrote, directed X-Mock and I think about AI movies and the more care you take and making it accurate, the more compelling the story becomes somehow. I'm not sure what that is. Maybe because it becomes more real to the people writing the story, maybe it just makes you a better writer. The key to any storytelling is getting the readers

to suspend their disbelief. And there's all kinds of triggers and little tells that can break that. Right. And once it's broken, it's really hard to get it back. You know, a lot of times that's the end. Somebody will just close the book and not pick it up. I got to ask you, you've answered this question, but I got to ask you the most

impossible question for an author to answer, but which new Stevenson book should one read first? So when people ask me that, I usually ask them what they like to read, right? Because I mean, there's the best known one is probably Snowcrash, but that's a cyberpunk novel that's at the same time making fun of cyberpunk. So it's kind of got some layers to it that might not seem so funny if you don't get the joke. So as you point out, I've written historical novels. Some people like those. Some people prefer those.

So if that's what you like, then Cryptonomicon or the brook cycle is where you would start if you like sort of techno thrillers that are set in a modern day setting but aren't science fictiony per se then a reem d is one of those and termination shock is definitely one of those. those. So it just depends on what people like. What what when people long time ago recommend every snowcrash, it said, it's it's Neil Stevenson light. It's the like if you don't want to be overwhelmed by the depth like the rigor uh-huh book like that's a good introduction to the man okay okay so so decision you're broken down by topics but if you wanted to read all of them mm-hmm what's a good introduction to the to the man because obviously these worlds are very different yeah the philosophy is a very different. Yeah, what's a good introduction to the human? People ask the same thing with the ASCII people, right? It's a hard one to answer.

Maybe seven eaves because it's got big themes. It's you know, it's about heavy heavy things happening to the human race. know, it's about heavy, heavy things happening to the human race. But hopefully the story is told through a cast of characters that people can relate to, you know, and it moves along. So it does go kind of deep eventually on how rockets work and orbital mechanics and all that stuff. But people were able to get through it anyway or some people just skip over that. It's fine. As an author, let me ask you, what books had a big impact on your life that you've read? Is there any that jumped to mind that you learned from as a writer, as a philosopher, as a mathematician, as an engineer.

This is one of these questions where I always blank out and then when I'm walking out the door, I'll remember 12. So this is a random selection that doesn't represent the top ones. Well, I mentioned Goulog Archipelago. That's kind of a hefty and dark, but... And then it has a personal connection as well. Yeah, just to... Yeah, because like where you found the book to... Right. ...the part... The time in your life where you found it,

Yeah. Who recommended it? That's also part of the story. Yeah. So there's definitely that. There's... You know, I circle back to Moby Dick a lot, because we read it in a really great English class I had in high school and I came in with an oppositional stance because I thought that

the teacher was going to try to talk me into having all kinds of high-falutin ideas about allegory and what does this mean and what's the symbolism and it turned out that it turned out to be a lot more interesting and satisfying than that. What was the first powerful book you remember reading that like convinced you that this form could have depth? Was it Moby Dick? Was it like in high school? that this form could have depth. Hmm. Was it Moby Dick? Was it like in high school? I'm trying to remember, well, Moby Dick

was definitely a big one. Man, I used to read a lot of classics comics when I was, I don't know if you've seen these. It's a whole series of comic books that it was viral. You could, in the back of each comic book was an order form. You could check some boxes and fill out your address and mail it in and more would show up. But it was like they would do the Count of Money, Christo, Movedec, Robert Lewis, Stevenson, Robinson, Crusoe, all this sort of classic books were

they had put into comic book form. That's amazing. Yeah. Reading Mooby Dick, if you're nine years old, is a tall order. There's some very complicated sentences in there and a lot of digressions. But if you're just looking at the comic book, it's like, holy shit, look at that whale. And ultimately, the power of the story doesn't need the complicated words. It's all about the man and the whale. Yeah. So you could get kind of a grounding in a lot of

classic works of literature without actually reading them, which is, you know, it's great when you're nine years old. So, so I read a lot of that stuff for sure, the annotated Sherlock Holmes. You mentioned David Doge to inspiration for some of the award. I mean, you obviously didn't like really a lot of research for the books. You do Roger Prenrose. What do you remember book that made you want to become a writer or a moment that made you become a writer? I think like the, you know, the answer I usually give is that when I was in like fifth grade, one of my friends came to school one day is wearing leather shoes like dress shoes. And I hated dress shoes because mine never fit. And so they were uncomfortable.

I couldn't run. They were cold. It was Iowa. So I kind of said, I remember very clearly thinking, okay, I don't like where this is going. Like, does this mean that next year, all of the kids are gonna be wearing leather shoes? So I need to find a job where I don't have to do that.

So that was like the first time I thought about trying to find such a job, you know, being a writer. And then, and I just read a lot of just classic science fiction short stories and started, you know, trying to write some of my own. And they were just classic young adult stories, liked by Heinlein. And the other classic names that you think of, but the Heinlein once stuck with me in a way that the others didn't. What's the greatest science fiction book ever written

removing your work from consideration? I'm loving toruring you right now. Are you ever in non-Steven's send? Do we include fantasy? There's to be science fiction. Oh, interesting, fantasy. Hmm. I did not expect that twist. Well, in a weird way, they're lumped together

in people's find, right? So they are, but there's also a boundary somehow. Yeah, I'm not sure what that is exactly. Nobody is, it's a mystery. So I mean, if we do include it then, it's easily the Lord of the Rings. But I mean, greatness is an interesting quality to try to define.

For me, a lot of the fun and the joy of such books is not in what you'd call greatness, but just storytelling. I was always a big fan of how the space suit will travel, which is a high-in young adult book. It's just it's just a fun good read. So so fun is a big component. Greatness is overrated. Well, I don't know it's overrated, but it's just you know, it's it might be underdefined, but that way. So how space suit will travel? Now I'd definitely have to read that one. Yeah. You mentioned Iowa.

I was there a couple of times. I got to spend quite a bit of time with Dan Gable, with Tom Brands, who are wrestlers. Was is it now wrestling martial arts part of your life or any part of your form, formation of who you are as a human being I Think so in a it was late. It was a late thing for me, but growing up in Ames Dan Gabel was a few years older than me and so sometimes we would go to the arena at the University and watch wrestling meets and Sometimes we would go to the arena at the university and watch wrestling meets.

This was before his Olympic career. Everyone knew he was the star of that team and then he was the best. People didn't yet know he was the greatest of all time. You saw Gabe. That was part. It's funny. It feels like a small world that you would be in the same space as Dan Gable. Well, it's two hundred feet away, a little dot on the mat,

francing his opponent. It's him and him and Chris Taylor. So the other star was this 400 pound plus guy named Chris Taylor, who also went to the Olympics. So yeah, people, you know, he was, he was a, he was an athletic hero. And wrestling is, there's certain states like Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Iowa where wrestling is the sport because those are states of small towns. And so if you're a small town, is if you're like Dan Gable,

and you have to be on a football team with 20 other guys who are not Dan Gable, then no matter how good you are, your team might suck. But in a solo thing, you can go to the Olympics. So we did a lot of wrestling in our gym classes in school. And I didn't like it. And I think partly it's just that it was so,

so competitive. And the people who were who cared about it, really cared about it a lot. You know, and so it was pretty tough. I didn't think I had the right body type. But then when I was after college, I was in Iowa City for a few years when he was coaching the wrestling team there. And he won like nine championships out of ten years during that time. So he was both the greatest individual wrestler of all time and like the greatest team coach.

So, I've never met him, but we've, he's kind of been like in my sphere of awareness since I was, you know, kind of my whole life. And people would always tell stories about him like, I think he got arrested once for some kind of, I don't know of minor offense in Ames. And so he just basically stayed up all night. He was in this cage in the jail. He just stayed up all night doing pull ups. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Sounds about right. Yeah. And so yeah. So has that been, I mean, I was such an interesting place in the world And wrestling is just part of that story Does that somewhere in there does that resonate deeply with who you are? It was a formative. Yeah, thing for me growing up there for sure. It's just a You know

Or at least used to be a very orderly place, high social capital, very minimal class differences. So like you'd have some people who would drive a Cadillac instead of a Chevy, but that was it. Those were the rich people. Right? So, and a college town is always a different environment, like, you know, Austin has some of this. So, it was a pretty kind of utopian other than the weather and a few other things, environment to grow up in. The martial art I ended up doing is sword stuff, which is interesting because it uses a different feedback loop. So, when you're grappling, everything is through

sense of touch. And your sense of touch is very old and simple, right? Like earthworms don't even have eyes, but they can tell when they're being touched, right? So it's very fast. And with a standoff, like boxing or some kinds of sword fighting, you're not touching the other person most of the time. Your visual system is doing something way more, it's doing slam and trying to figure out what the other person is up to. And so, that was felt more my speed. So in an Olympic style fencing,

it doesn't start really until you're crossing blades with the other person, and now you're back to wrestling, you're feeling what they're doing, and it's all about that. But some of the older sword arts don't engage the blade that way. You stand off at range, and then you make cutting attacks. And so those are all processed visually. And I think I'm more of a slow thinker. So it works for me better. I mean, the same, so it has the same, the artistry and the beauty of boxing, I suppose, just like you said, is like there's no, there's no contact in this whole process visually,

and I'm sure there's a dance of its own. Yeah. That depends on the characteristic of a sword involved. Yeah. There is a set of, of stances and, and basic reactions that you try to learn that are thought to be defensible andensible and safe or safer. And so it tends to be a series of short engagements where you'll close in, you'll try out your

idea, and it works or it doesn't, then you back off again. It's interesting to think about like human history because martial arts okay that's a thing but in terms of sword fighting just the full range of humans that existed who mastered sword fighting or sought the mastery of sword fighting just imagine the thousands of people who the heights they have achieved because the stakes are so incredibly high to be good. And it's the richest, most powerful people in those societies, spending whatever it takes to get the best gear and the best training because you're right, everything depends on it.

And it's still life and death. I mean, that's fascinating. That's fascinating. We perhaps have lost that forever with greater weapons. I mean, the artistry is sword fighting when it's life and death and you go into war. You have the Miyamoto Masashi of the world, right? The, I don't know, there's a, there's a poetry to that, there's a mastery to that, I don't know if we could achieve with any other kind of martial art. Well, the, one of the good, you were talking earlier

about the good effects of the internet, social media, that we sometimes overlook. And one of those is that there were all these isolated people around the world who were interested in this, who found each other and kind of created a network of people who help each other learn these things. So that doesn't mean that anyone is up to the level of that you're talking about yet. But it is happening. And so there's a large number of old treatises, old written documents that have been dug up from libraries and people have been going over these and translating them from old dialects of Italian in German to make sense of them and learning how to do these techniques

with different weapons. Actually, there's a guy here in Zostin named Dimon Stith who does African, historical African martial arts. Also martial arts of enslaved Africans who would learn machete fighting techniques in the Caribbean South America. He's probably within a mile of us. He's awesome. Amazing guy. I'm going look them up. Yeah, can I ask you for advice? Can you give advice for young people high school? college, you know undergrads

Thinking about their career thinking about life how to live a life that you'd be proud of You think quite a bit about like what it's required to be innovative in this world You think quite a bit about the what it's required to be innovative in this world. You think quite a bit about the future. So, somebody wanted to be a person that makes a big impact on the future. What advice would you give them? I think a big part of it is finding the thing that you will do happily and I want to say obsessively because that sounds like maybe it's pathological, but if you can find a thing that you'll sit down, you'll start doing it and hours later you kind of snap out of it, well where did the time go? Then that's a really key discovery for anyone to make about themselves when they're young.

Because if you don't have that, it's hard to figure out where you should put your energies. And as you might have the best intentions, you might say, I want world peace or whatever. But at the end of the day, what really matters is how do you spend your time? And are you spending it in a way that's productive? And because it doesn't matter how smart you are or well-intentioned you are unless you've figured that out. And so finding the thing in which you can sort of,

you're naturally lose yourself in. The thing is, at least for me, there's a lot of things like that, but I first have to overcome the initial hump of really sucking at that thing. Like the fun starts a little bit after the first hump of really sucking and then you could suck just regularly. So often, oftentimes people can give up too early, I think.

I mean, that's true with mathematics for me. For a lot of people is if you just give it a chance to struggle, if you give yourself time to struggle, you'll find a way. You'll find the thing within that thing that you can lose track of time with. Yeah, that's a key detail that there's an important thing to add to what I said, which is that this might not happen the first time you do a thing. Maybe it will, but you might have to climb that learning curve. And if there's pressures in your life that are making you feel bad about that, then it might prevent you from getting where you need to be.

So there's some complexity there that can make this kind of non-obvious. But that's why we need good teachers. You know, another beneficial thing of the internet is YouTube and being able to learn things, how to do things on YouTube. The dude who made the YouTube video doesn't care how many times you hit pause and rewind. They're never going to roll their eyes and be impatient with you. And sometimes spending a huge amount of time on one video or one book, like making that the thing you just spend a huge amount of time on rereading, rereading,

or rewatching, rewatching, that somehow really solidifies your love for that thing. And like the depth of understanding you start to gain. And it's okay to stay with that. I still think like there's all these books out there. So like I need to keep reading or keep reading. But then I realized, I think it was somewhere in college where you could just spend your whole life with a single textbook. There's nothing that textbook. Yeah, to really really state. Measner Thorn and Wheeler gravitation, you know, is one of those or another one is the road to reality by Roger Penrose, which is just incredibly deep. And it starts with like two plus two equals four. And at the end, you're at the boundaries of physics.

It's an amazing, amazing book. Let me ask you the big ridiculous question. Okay, since you've pondered some big ridiculous questions in your work, what's the meaning of this whole thing? What's the meaning of life? Wow, human life. Well, as far as I know We're unique in the universe. There's no evidence that there's anything else in the universe that's as complicated as what's between our ears might be

I can't rule it out, but So we appear to be pretty special and So it's got to have something to do with that. And one of the reasons I like David Deutsch, in particular his book, The Beginning of Infinity, is that he talks about the power of explanations, and the fact that most civilizations are a static that they've got a set of dogmas that they arrive at somehow.

And they just pass those on from one generation to the next and nothing changes. But that huge changes have happened when people sort of follow whatever you want to call it, the scientific method or enlightenment. There's different ways of thinking about it, but basically explanatory. It's about the power of explanations and being able to figure out why things are the way they are. And that has created changes in our thinking and our way of life over the last few centuries

that are explosive compared to anything that came before. And David sort of verges on classifying this as like a force of nature in its potential transformative power. If we keep going, you know, we could, you know, if we figure out how to colonize the universe, like you were talking about earlier, how to spread to other star systems, then it is effectively a force of nature. This kind of drive to understand more and more and more deeper and deeper and deeper. And to engineer stuff so that we can understand even more. Yeah. Yeah.

It's the, well, it's the, the universe created us to understand itself. Maybe that's the, the whole purpose. Yeah. It is an interesting peculiar side effect of the way we've been created is we seem to be conscious beings, we seem to have little egos, we seem to be born and die pretty quickly. There's a bunch of drama. We're all within ourselves pretty unique and we fall in love and start wars and there's hate and all the full interesting dynamic of it.

So it's not just about the individual people. Yeah. Somehow like the concert that we played together. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. So that's kind of interesting. There's a lot of peculiar aspects of that that I wonder if they're fundamental or just quirks of evolution. Whether it's death, whether it's love, whether all those things. I wonder if they're from an engineering perspective, when we're trying to create that intelligent toaster that listens for the slam door and the smell of burning toast. Whether that toaster should be afraid of death and should fall in love just like we do. Neil, you're a fascinating human being. You've impacted a lot of millions of people.

It was a huge honor that you would spend your valuable time with me today. Thank you so much. Thank you for coming down. It was a beautiful, hot Texas, and thank you for talking today. It was a pleasure. I'm glad I came and did it. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Neil Stevenson. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Neil Stevenson himself in his novel Snow Crash. The world is full of things more powerful than us, but if you know how to catch a ride, you can go places. Thanks for listening and hope to see you next time. Thank you.