So

question for you, David is building off of what. Nepal just said. I believe you've said humans are fundamentally disobedient and is it fair to say that a GI would fit that same description? And let's begin with that. I refer

nowadays, I refer to anything that has this kind of explanatory creativity or capable of creating explanations. I call that a person and humans are people AG eyes when they're built will be people. Extraterrestrial civilizations will consist of people And there are all fundamentally the same because they will all obey the same laws of epistemology including the principle of optimism, and they will have the same strengths and weaknesses in regard to what they can and can't do. Also, they will have the same opportunities for error as humans do. So they cannot possibly be infallible. Any more than humans, can they will make mistakes? And there is no upper bound to how many mistakes they can make. So if you try to build a thing which can never make more than a certain amount of mistakes, then that is exactly like trying to put All Humans of a certain kind into a cage. They will Rebel and they will find a way out. Also, you will come to regret this probably before they break out, because it's a bad way to be because these facts about humans also condition. The kind of interactions between humans, they're capable of creating knowledge and the ones that can't So ideas like liberalism you are smiling. When I mentioned First Amendment, the first amendment is a theory of a how humans should interact with each other. And you can't just choose these theories at random. They are conditioned by the laws of epistemology. There are ways of interacting that can create knowledge and their ways that can't. And there are ways that can create it but badly, once you know, how to make this Potentially unlimited Cornucopia of ideas, that would be an AGI and which is a human. And so on, then you can wonder what kind of interactions between that and other such things. Can correct errors. They're going to be errors. So what kind of interactions can correct errors and therefore, for example, make sure that no one of those things becomes an evil dictator people grope towards an idea that you know, we can stop people from becoming an evil Dictator by preventing them saying certain things or preventing them from thinking certain things. But that isn't the way we think we have a good good idea of what is right. We shouldn't think that we have the final idea of what is, right? So we should expect to be corrected by now children, our AG eyes and the ETS and whatever else there is out there. But meets the criteria of being a person, we should expect to be corrected. We should hope to be corrected. We should not expect to agree, but we should expect that this thing that we're trying to do namely create knowledge. Suffering, all those good things. We should expect that these things. If not absolutely true at least contain a lot of knowledge. They're certainly truer than the rivals to them. That we have refuted as bad explanations in the past. So the way you prevent a child from becoming, a new Hitler is just to explain to them. Why hit those ideas were bad? It's not really controversial that they Are bad. And therefore it's really very perverse to think that the only way we can stop an AGI from becoming, a Hitler is to Cripple it. By the way, I don't think such crippling is possible. There's a very nice book by the science fiction writer Greg Egan in which the forgotten the name of the book or other. I know the names of several of his books were at a forgotten which of his books, this appears in. But in this book, The Hero Is bound to get a lucrative job as the head of security for some big company and a condition of getting this job is that he accepts a brain implant a loyalty, chip this piece of Hardware in his brain, makes it impossible for him to contemplate disloyalty to the company. So in the opening chapters, we see that he knows about this, you know, he's gone into it with his eyes open. He thinks it's a great job and good. Good money, and why shouldn't he be loyal to the company? And then he begins to have suspicions that maybe he should be disloyal and he, you know, the book describes the mental processes, where he says he says to himself. Yeah, well I would think this but his can't think it and it's beautiful the way the Greg Egan explores this possibility from every direction. I don't give you all the listeners spoilers here. But But Greg Egan resolves this with the correct answer in my view and it's an answer that I certainly hadn't thought this through when I read the book anyway, more important point is that if you think that you can only get your way by crippling, somebody's brain, then you haven't got much confidence that you are right in the first place.