# Tyler Cowen - The #1 Bottleneck to AI progress Is Humans [Full episode audio](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3) <p style="font-size: 0.8em; color: #666;">Transcript ID: b3695f0b-da94-4ad7-8346-b516f0211581</p> ### Dwarkesh Tyler, welcome. [#¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=0 "00:00:00") ### Tyler Dwarkesh, it's great to be chatting with you. [#²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1 "00:00:01") ### Dwarkesh Why won't we see explosive economic growth of 20% or more because of AI? [#³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3 "00:00:03") ### Tyler It's very difficult to achieve explosive economic growth, whether due to AI or not. Some sectors of the economy may grow rapidly, but others may experience a cost disease, particularly those that cannot effectively utilize AI. For example, in the US economy, government consumption is about 18%, healthcare is nearly 20%, and education is around 6 to 7%. The nonprofit sector also contributes significantly. Together, these sectors make up half of the economy. Their ability to leverage AI effectively is questionable. Even if they fail to adopt AI, they won't simply disappear overnight; that process could take around 30 years. While some less regulated sectors may experience rapid growth, overall, this will only result in modest increases in growth rates, not a scenario where the entire economy grows by 40% annually. [#⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=8 "00:00:08") ### Dwarkesh The mechanism behind cost disease is that there is a limited supply of labor. If one sector becomes highly productive, wages in other sectors must increase as well. For instance, if a barbershop's productivity rises, barbers must earn higher wages. With AI, theoretically, every barbershop could operate with a thousand times more workers, not just tech companies like Google. So, why would the cost disease mechanism still apply in this scenario? [#⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=56 "00:00:56") ### Tyler Cost disease is a broader concept. Imagine you have several factors of production. If we suddenly gain a significant increase in intelligence, which is already occurring, the other constraints in the system become more binding. The marginal importance of those constraints increases, while the marginal value of additional intelligence decreases. This creates a self-limiting effect on growth. Cost disease is just one specific example of this more general issue, which we often illustrate with examples like barbers and string quartets. [#⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=77 "00:01:17") ### Dwarkesh If you were speaking to a farmer in 2000 BC and told him that growth rates would increase dramatically, yet the economy would only grow by 2% after the Industrial Revolution, and then he began discussing bottlenecks, what would you say to him? [#⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=108 "00:01:48") ### Tyler In retrospect, I believe we would come to an agreement. I would tell him that it would take a long time, and he might respond that he doesn't see it happening yet. We would shake hands, walk off into the sunset, and I would enjoy some of his rice or wheat, which would be wonderful. [#⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=122 "00:02:02") ### Dwarkesh However, the notion that we can experience a rapid acceleration in growth rates without bottlenecks diminishing that growth is something we can agree on, right? [#⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=139 "00:02:19") ### Tyler I'm not sure what you mean by that. However, if we examine market data, such as real interest rates and stock prices, everything appears remarkably normal, even aside from AI. Prediction markets are not forecasting super rapid growth in the near future. For instance, Chad Jones, who was here yesterday, is not predicting super rapid growth, although he believes AI could potentially accelerate growth rates. The consensus among experts and the markets aligns. Who am I to contradict the experts? [#¹⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=148 "00:02:28") ### Dwarkesh You're an expert. [#¹¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=179 "00:02:59") ### Tyler I'm speaking with another expert. [#¹²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=180 "00:03:00") ### Dwarkesh In his talk yesterday, Chad Jones mentioned that the primary variable in his growth model is population. If there is a doubling or a significant increase in population, plugging that number into his model results in explosive economic growth. [#¹³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=182 "00:03:02") ### Tyler I disagree. [#¹⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=195 "00:03:15") ### Dwarkesh Why not trust the models? [#¹⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=196 "00:03:16") ### Tyler His model is overly simplistic, relying on just one factor: population. I don't find it very predictive. While we've seen significant increases in effective world population in terms of purchasing power, many areas have not become more innovative until recently, and most have actually become less innovative. The key factor is the quality of your best people and institutions. As you and Patrick discussed last night, the situation is complex and fragile. We must consider perspectives from economists, anthropologists, and sociologists. The more diverse perspectives we incorporate, the more challenging it becomes to identify a simple lever—whether related to intelligence or not—that can drive significant economic growth. [#¹⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=197 "00:03:17") ### Dwarkesh What you just said about being bottlenecked by your best people seems to contradict your earlier point. Even if we enhance the most productive sectors, we will still face bottlenecks in areas like restaurants and other sectors. [#¹⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=240 "00:04:00") ### Tyler You're correct; there are frustrations stemming from various factors. [#¹⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=251 "00:04:11") ### Dwarkesh I anticipate that I will be producing many more podcasts after the advent of AGI. [#¹⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=254 "00:04:14") ### Tyler Most of Sub-Saharan Africa still lacks reliable clean water. The intelligence required to solve this issue is not scarce, yet we struggle to implement solutions. We are in a more challenging position than we might realize. Leveraging the intelligence from strong AI is one way to address this. [#²⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=257 "00:04:17") ### Dwarkesh About a year ago, your co-writer on 'Martial Revolution,' Alex Sabrok, discussed the extreme scarcity of high-IQ workers. In the U.S. labor force of 164 million, if one in a thousand are geniuses, that gives us 164,000 geniuses. This is why semiconductor production is concentrated in Taiwan, where they have a higher concentration of such talent. In contrast, we focus our geniuses in finance and tech. Ultimately, bottlenecks will diminish the impact of having more talented individuals. Even if you had a thousand times more of your best colleagues or co-founders, the bottlenecks would still hinder organizational growth. [#²¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=282 "00:04:42") ### Tyler I disagree with that perspective. Labor market data shows that the returns on IQ are surprisingly low and often insignificant. Successful individuals tend to excel in multiple areas, typically scoring around nine out of ten in eight or nine fields, with one area where they might score an eleven and a half. Determination plays a crucial role in their success. While IQ is a factor, it is not the most important one. The real value lies in the combination of skills and how they interact with the world. For instance, if you visit a mid-tier state university and observe a committee tasked with integrating artificial intelligence into the curriculum, you'll see that they can produce a report that sounds like GPT-4. The report itself won't be bottlenecked. [#²²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=320 "00:05:20") ### Dwarkesh AI systems exhibit traits such as conscientiousness and adaptability. They will be even more conscientious than humans, working around the clock. If they need to comply with FDA regulations, they will produce the best reports possible, facilitating progress without being bottlenecked by these requirements. [#²³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=386 "00:06:26") ### Tyler I firmly believe that AI will be both intelligent and conscientious. I estimate that it will increase economic growth by about half a percentage point per year over the next 30 to 40 years, which is a significant change that will transform the world. However, this growth will not be immediately noticeable each year. For example, a drug that previously took 20 years to develop might now take only 10 years, but we will still be bound by our existing systems of clinical trials and regulations. While the time savings are substantial, the revolutionary impact may not be felt for quite some time. [#²⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=403 "00:06:43") ### Dwarkesh The essence of progress studies is that we have numerous low-hanging and medium-hanging fruits. If we improve our institutions and make regulatory changes, we could significantly boost economic growth. While fixing the NIH could lead to growth, we also have a billion or even ten billion additional people, including the smartest and most conscientious individuals. This raises a question: is there a contradiction in the potential for economic growth between these two perspectives? [#²⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=436 "00:07:16") ### Tyler There are diminishing marginal returns to many of these factors. For instance, consider how they interact with regulation, law, and government. Energy usage is another critical factor. Our country has shown some encouraging signs with nuclear power, but most places are hesitant to adopt it. Even optimistic reports about timelines often underestimate the reality; it could take ten years or more to see significant changes, which is just a fraction of what we need to realize the vision you're describing. Bottlenecks will persist throughout this process, making it a challenging journey, similar to the adoption of the printing press or electricity. Experts in the diffusion of new technologies often underestimate the time it takes for rapid takeoff. I tend to side with the experts, but many economists and social scientists are unaware of the potential of strong AI. I believe they are mistaken. I trust AI experts, but when it comes to the diffusion of new technologies, those studying AI often miss the mark. By integrating insights from both fields, my perspective emerges: while the long-term outlook is promising, the journey will be lengthy and fraught with short-term challenges. [#²⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=467 "00:07:47") ### Dwarkesh What would experts say if we were to forget about AI? When people hear 'AI', they often think of models like GPT-4, rather than the human elements involved. If we were to say that tomorrow the world population and labor force would double, what impact would that have? [#²⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=554 "00:09:14") ### Tyler The variable I'm trying to predict is energy usage, which will likely increase over time. However, I'm not sure if the growth rate would show a noticeable difference. [#²⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=569 "00:09:29") ### Dwarkesh Doubling the world population? [#²⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=578 "00:09:38") ### Tyler I'm not sure. I don't believe the Romer model has been validated by the data, and I don't agree with the Chad Jones model, despite my respect for him as an economist. These models aren't very predictive. For example, consider artistic production in Renaissance Florence, which had around 60,000 people. Many factors aligned perfectly at that time, leading to remarkable value that still resonates today. However, numerical models fail to predict such outcomes effectively. [#³⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=580 "00:09:40") ### Dwarkesh Today, the world economy is valued at around a hundred trillion dollars. If the world population were only one-tenth of its current size, say 1 billion or even 100 million people, could we still maintain the world economy at this level with our current technology? [#³¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=606 "00:10:06") ### Tyler No, that's not feasible. The delta is crucial; we've learned from macroeconomics that delta and levels interact significantly. Shrinking can be detrimental. Just like companies and nonprofits, if they shrink too much, they often implode. However, growth doesn't necessarily translate to proportional increases. It's an asymmetric relationship that's difficult to grasp emotionally, but it's essential to understand. [#³²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=618 "00:10:18") ### Dwarkesh What are the specific bottlenecks? [#³³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=646 "00:10:46") ### Tyler Humans are a significant bottleneck. Some may fear becoming even bigger bottlenecks, which is part of free speech. However, as changes begin to reshape the world, we will see increased opposition. This won't just come from pessimists; many people will resist change because they have raised their children to live in a different world. This resistance will lead to significant conflict. I can't predict how it will unfold, but I assure you it will be a bottleneck. [#³⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=649 "00:10:49") ### Dwarkesh Historically, we don't need to see a tenfold increase from farmers to the industrial revolution. There are examples of sustained 10% economic growth, such as in China after Deng Xiaoping's reforms. This raises the question of whether we can replicate such growth with AI. What were the bottlenecks when Deng Xiaoping took over? [#³⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=685 "00:11:25") ### Tyler China is currently in a difficult situation. They are a middle-income country struggling to match per capita income with Mexico, although they may be slightly ahead now. Their scale presents significant challenges. There is a fear that if they democratize, the median voter may not protect the interests of the elites. This illustrates how challenging it is for them to scale, especially considering they have the poorest segment of the Chinese population. [#³⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=713 "00:11:53") ### Dwarkesh It's important to note that for decades, China experienced 10% economic growth, and in some years, even 15%. [#³⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=743 "00:12:23") ### Tyler This growth started from a very low per capita income of around $200. [#³⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=749 "00:12:29") ### Dwarkesh Now, their descendants are likely to be as poor as the Chinese were 30 years ago. [#³⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=752 "00:12:32") ### Tyler I am very impressed by the Industrial Revolution, which could be considered the most important event in human history. The typical rate of economic growth during that period was about 1.5%. The future will rely on compounding and persistence, with outcomes materializing over the long term. Human nature is unlikely to change significantly, and I don't believe that fundamental aspects of our world will change much, even with increased intelligence and conscientiousness. [#⁴⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=758 "00:12:38") ### Dwarkesh I interviewed you nine months ago about AI, and I recall your attitude at that time. How has your perspective changed since then? [#⁴¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=784 "00:13:04") ### Tyler I don't recall my exact thoughts from that time, but overall, I see more potential in AI now than I did a year ago. It has progressed more quickly than I expected, and I was already optimistic back then. The O1 model is very impressive, and I believe that further developments in that direction will make a significant difference. While it's difficult to predict the pace of these advancements, we have the technology, and we need to improve it. [#⁴²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=797 "00:13:17") ### Dwarkesh You shared a document with various questions related to economic reasoning. [#⁴³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=823 "00:13:43") ### Tyler I don't believe I requested GPT-4. [#⁴⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=829 "00:13:49") ### Dwarkesh What percentage of those questions did Owen answer correctly? I don't think I got any of them right. [#⁴⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=830 "00:13:50") ### Tyler Those questions were too easy; they were designed for GPT-4. They were 100 economics questions, and while they are challenging, they seem pointless. I wouldn't be surprised if an AI model outperformed human experts regularly within the next three years. [#⁴⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=835 "00:13:55") ### Dwarkesh Have you reconsidered your stance on these questions since they were too easy for the models? Initially, they seemed hard, but they turned out to be easy for AI. [#⁴⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=860 "00:14:20") ### Tyler I feel like Kasparov during his first match against Deep Blue. He won the first match, and I remember it well. Right now, I feel like I'm in a similar situation. In the second match, Kasparov made a critical error in the Caro-Kann defense, which was a human bottleneck, and he lost the match. We'll see how quickly things change. [#⁴⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=871 "00:14:31") ### Dwarkesh Yesterday, Patrick discussed the importance of founders remaining in charge of their institutions. You've mentioned that the Beatles were successful because they managed themselves. Why is that so crucial? [#⁴⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=896 "00:14:56") ### Tyler Courage is a rare quality in decision-making. Founders possess the courage to start, and they require less courage to implement significant changes within their companies. For instance, Facebook, now Meta, has undergone many substantial changes. When Mark Zuckerberg decides on a direction, it's challenging for others to oppose him constructively. This dynamic economizes on courage, making the presence of a founder essential. [#⁵⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=912 "00:15:12") ### Dwarkesh How does this relate to the Beatles' success? [#⁵¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=947 "00:15:47") ### Tyler The Beatles are a fascinating example. They broke up in 1970, while the Rolling Stones are still active, which says a lot. The Beatles generated far greater value and remain a topic of discussion, despite the Rolling Stones' longevity. The Beatles experienced instability, with two distinct periods. In the early years, John was the leader, but as he struggled with addiction, Paul improved and took on more responsibility. Ultimately, there was no stable core, leading to their breakup. However, the creative tension during their peak years was extraordinary. They had four founders, with Ringo being a de facto founder after replacing Pete Best. Their story is remarkable, and I enjoy studying exceptional productivity stories like those of Johann Sebastian Bach, Magnus Carlsen, Steph Curry, and the Beatles. They are atypical, and one cannot simply emulate their success without understanding the risks involved. [#⁵²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=949 "00:15:49") ### Dwarkesh I am very grateful to Tyler for sharing his thoughts about Jane Street. This is the first time a guest has participated in the sponsorship, and I hope it illustrates why Tyler and I hold Jane Street in such high regard. If you're interested in learning more about their opportunities, visit janestreet.com. Now, back to Tyler. What are your thoughts on Patrick's observation regarding the competency crisis? [#⁵³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1065 "00:17:45") ### Tyler I see it differently from Patrick. We've discussed this before. I believe there is increasing variance in the distribution of performance among young people. Those at the top are doing significantly better and are more impressive than in the past. For example, in chess, we can measure performance accurately, and younger players are consistently improving. The same trend is evident in NBA basketball, where young players are achieving feats that were uncommon 30 years ago. This improvement is largely due to better mental training and discipline. [#⁵⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1091 "00:18:11") ### Dwarkesh This raises concerns about the overall composition, especially if the average scores are declining, as seen in PISA scores. [#⁵⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1185 "00:19:45") ### Tyler The median scores have also declined. Many tests have seen an increase in the number of participants, particularly in PISA scores. I suspect that when adjusted for this increase, the scores remain roughly constant, which is still not ideal. I agree there has been some decline, partly due to the pandemic, and we are slowly recovering from that. However, I believe much of the concern about declining test scores is somewhat exaggerated. At most, we are seeing a modest decline. [#⁵⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1189 "00:19:49") ### Dwarkesh If the top performers are improving, how do we reconcile that with the anecdotal evidence he mentioned yesterday? For instance, some students from Stanford claim that their peers are not competent and that hiring from Stanford has become difficult. Shouldn't Stanford represent the cream of the crop? [#⁵⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1216 "00:20:16") ### Tyler There is substantial data on the earnings of Stanford graduates. If there were a betting market on future trends, I would bet positively on them. I visit Stanford regularly, and the individuals I meet are impressive. Emergent Ventures has funded many Stanford alumni, and they seem to be doing well as a group. Therefore, I am not concerned about the quality of Stanford graduates. If there are worries about them, it seems misplaced, as they are performing well and maintaining high standards. This reminds me of how Paul McCartney thought John Lennon was a poor guitar player, while Lennon criticized many of McCartney's songs. They were both right and wrong in their assessments, which reflects the high standards they held. [#⁵⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1228 "00:20:28") ### Dwarkesh Yes, ideally. [#⁵⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1279 "00:21:19") ### Tyler By the way, how old are you? [#⁶⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1280 "00:21:20") ### Dwarkesh I’m 24. [#⁶¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1281 "00:21:21") ### Tyler Now, think back to how many years ago there was a 24-year-old like you doing something equivalent to podcasting. It's clear that the current generation is doing better than before. You were doing this a few years ago, and it’s obvious to me that young people at the top are performing better. [#⁶²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1282 "00:21:22") ### Dwarkesh But consider Winston Churchill. By the time he was 24, he was an international correspondent in places like Cuba and India, and he was one of the highest-paid journalists in the world. [#⁶³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1300 "00:21:40") ### Tyler I’m not sure how impressive his journalism was or what he was paid. Being an international journalist doesn’t seem that remarkable to me. While he did achieve some great things later, much of his early life was marked by failure. If you ask the Irish or people from India about young Churchill, you would hear a lot of criticism. His significant achievements came later in life, and until then, he was often seen as a destructive failure. Today, there would be people on social media urging him to rethink his views, and they would likely be persuasive. [#⁶⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1311 "00:21:51") ### Dwarkesh If you read his aphorisms, he might have been quite effective on Twitter. [#⁶⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1367 "00:22:47") ### Tyler Perhaps. But we must consider how everything changes the equilibrium. Nonetheless, he was clearly an impressive individual, especially considering his heavy drinking. [#⁶⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1371 "00:22:51") ### Dwarkesh Even if you don't consider the younger generation, there's a noticeable trend among government leaders. Regardless of your opinion on Trump or Biden, we are no longer discussing figures like Jefferson and Hamilton. How do you explain this trend? [#⁶⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1380 "00:23:00") ### Tyler Jefferson and Hamilton were founders and quite young at the time. Founding a country allows for achievements that are hard to replicate later. Setting aside the current year, which has its oddities, I believe we have had impressive candidates. The U.S. bureaucracy in Washington is quite capable, including generals, national security experts, and top officials in various agencies. I interact with these groups frequently, and overall, they are impressive. I see no signs of decline in their capabilities. Regarding the two candidates this year, there are certainly criticisms to be made. However, looking back at figures like Obama and Romney, I think they were both qualified to run for president, and that was not long ago. [#⁶⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1397 "00:23:17") ### Dwarkesh There are many capable candidates running, yet the selection process often results in the two chosen being below the average quality of all candidates. [#⁶⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1453 "00:24:13") ### Tyler Are you referring to this? [#⁷⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1462 "00:24:22") ### Dwarkesh I'm not specifically talking about America. If the theory is merely noise, it appears to skew in one direction. [#⁷¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1463 "00:24:23") ### Tyler The Democrats had an unusual path with Biden and Kamala, who did not progress through the electoral process in the typical manner. This leads to some oddities, regardless of your opinion of her as a candidate. As for Trump, while I do not support him, I find him extraordinarily impressive in many respects, surpassing many earlier candidates. However, I do not favor the overall package he represents. I would not categorize him as lacking talent; rather, he is a supreme talent misdirected. [#⁷²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1469 "00:24:29") ### Dwarkesh In the early 20th century, some of the most detrimental events to progress were caused by psychopathic leaders. What happened? Why did we have so many terrible leaders during that time? [#⁷³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1503 "00:25:03") ### Tyler Please provide a country, a name, and a time period, and I will try to address it. What specifically are you referring to? [#⁷⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1515 "00:25:15") ### Dwarkesh Which specific leader are you referring to? [#⁷⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1520 "00:25:20") ### Tyler He was associated with a university, which contributed to his issues. Consider which school it was. [#⁷⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1521 "00:25:21") ### Dwarkesh Who are you referring to? [#⁷⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1527 "00:25:27") ### Tyler Woodrow Wilson. [#⁷⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1527 "00:25:27") ### Dwarkesh Yes. [#⁷⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1528 "00:25:28") ### Tyler Wilson is considered one of our two or three worst presidents regarding civil rights. During World War I, he mishandled the peace process, which indirectly contributed to World War II. He reintroduced segregation in the civil service and was generally regarded as a nasty individual who should have left office sooner due to his health and state of mind. Despite these flaws, he appeared to be a strong candidate on paper. Hoover also seemed like a great candidate and was quite impressive. However, he made significant mistakes related to deflation and allowed nominal GDP to decline. There is a reason the Hoover Institution is named after him. [#⁸⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1529 "00:25:29") ### Dwarkesh Regarding leaders like Hitler and Stalin, was there something happening that explains why that was such a terrible time for world leadership? [#⁸¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1570 "00:26:10") ### Tyler I don't have a comprehensive macro explanation for that trend, but I can offer a few insights. This period followed one of the most transformative times in history. With the advent of significant new technologies, including those relevant to AI, we witnessed numerous arms races, and often, the worst individuals emerged victorious in those races. For a considerable time, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were winning these arms races, and neither was a democratic system. Later, Mao's China also represented a non-democratic regime. Additionally, there was a mix of bad luck with leaders like Stalin and Mao. You could have ended up with less extreme individuals than those who rose to power. I agree with Hayek that the worst often rise to the top in autocratic systems, but there was also an element of bad luck involved. Moreover, society was highly disoriented during this time, evident in the changing aesthetics leading up to World War I. Art and music were evolving rapidly, leaving people feeling unsettled. There were many factors at play, including imperialism and colonialism, contributing to a lack of a stable world order. This instability, combined with the emergence of highly destructive weapons systems, created a dire situation. While this isn't a complete explanation, it serves as a starting point. [#⁸²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1579 "00:26:19") ### Dwarkesh You compared our current period to 17th century England, a time of new ideas and upheaval. What is your theory on why such volatility occurs during these eras? [#⁸³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1658 "00:27:38") ### Tyler I don't have a general theory, but if we look at 17th century England, we see the scientific revolution and the rise of England as a global power. The navy became crucial, and the Atlantic trade routes gained importance due to the New World. Meanwhile, regions like the Middle East, India, and China, which were once powerful, began to decline for various reasons. This shift helped elevate the relative power of advanced European nations. During this time, England faced competition from the Dutch Republic and France. For the first time in history, we saw sustained economic growth, about 1% per year starting in the 1620s, according to Greg Clark. This growth was compounding, albeit slowly. England experienced a civil war, executed its king, and radical ideas like libertarianism emerged. This period was marked by both positive and negative developments, and I believe we may be on the brink of experiencing something similar again. [#⁸⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1670 "00:27:50") ### Dwarkesh How can we ensure we benefit from the positive aspects without experiencing chaos, like a civil war? [#⁸⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1746 "00:29:06") ### Tyler We can try to nudge things in a better direction. However, the recent technical advances, especially with AI, could lead us into another chaotic period. I believe the likelihood of that happening is quite high. [#⁸⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1751 "00:29:11") ### Dwarkesh What do you consider the most underrated cult? [#⁸⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1771 "00:29:31") ### Tyler The most underrated cult is Progress Studies. [#⁸⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1774 "00:29:34") ### Dwarkesh You mentioned that we were at Peak Effective Altruism just before SBF's downfall. [#⁸⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1779 "00:29:39") ### Tyler That's correct. At an Effective Altruism meeting, I warned everyone that this was the peak moment. I told them to enjoy it because it was all going to fall apart. While they would still have some influence, the movement would not feel the same. They were shocked and thought I was crazy, but I believe I was mostly right. [#⁹⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1784 "00:29:44") ### Dwarkesh What specific signs did you observe? Was there excessive exuberance? Did you notice SBF's balance sheet? [#⁹¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1805 "00:30:05") ### Tyler I was surprised to learn that SBF was insolvent. I believed it was a high-risk venture without regulatory defenses that would ultimately be worthless. However, I didn't think he was manipulating the funds. My experience observing movements since the 1960s, including libertarianism, has shown me common patterns. For instance, look at the Free Speech Movement here in Berkeley—where is free speech in Berkeley today? These patterns tend to repeat themselves. I noticed intuitive signs that suggested a similar outcome was likely. The private benefits of being part of Effective Altruism were real, such as social connections, but they didn't seem as solidly institutionalized as in organizations like Goldman Sachs or law firms. This fragility concerned me. [#⁹²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1812 "00:30:12") ### Dwarkesh Could you clarify what those intuitive signs were? [#⁹³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1872 "00:31:12") ### Tyler I noticed a lack of clear, permanent incentives for people to remain part of the institutions. There was also some excessive enthusiasm, even from those who were correct in their views, along with cult-like tendencies. The rapid rise of the movement created an uneasy balance between secular and semi-religious elements, which could easily tip or dissolve. I recognized these signs and believed that a few of the best ideas would remain incredibly important. However, I felt that the movement itself was destined to collapse. [#⁹⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1877 "00:31:17") ### Dwarkesh When do you think we will reach the peak of Progress Studies? [#⁹⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1917 "00:31:57") ### Tyler When Patrick and I wrote about progress studies, we envisioned it as a decentralized movement, not controlled or trademarked by a small group. We hoped it would reflect a broader change in ethos and vibe, leading to a gentler yet more enduring trajectory. So far, I see signs of this happening. In many countries, science policy is improving because of progress studies. While it's not fully proven yet, there are many reforms underway. A small number of talented individuals can achieve significant impact, and if that's all it is, I'm thrilled. I believe it will be more than that. [#⁹⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1920 "00:32:00") ### Dwarkesh I asked Patrick how he views progress studies differently now that AI is emerging. What’s your perspective? [#⁹⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1985 "00:33:05") ### Tyler I don't see my perspective on progress studies changing significantly. If you accept my view of a slow takeoff, the complexity of choices and decisions increases, necessitating more guidance. This means that all inputs, including myself, gain marginal value. Over time, I see myself shifting from being a content producer to a connector, developing networks. Without transformers and LLMs, I would have remained more focused on content production. [#⁹⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=1992 "00:33:12") ### Dwarkesh While preparing for this interview, I asked Claude to analyze your persona. It worked remarkably well compared to others. [#⁹⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2036 "00:33:56") ### Tyler This is because I've written extensively on the Internet. [#¹⁰⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2046 "00:34:06") ### Dwarkesh Exactly. [#¹⁰¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2048 "00:34:08") ### Tyler That's my form of immortality. [#¹⁰²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2048 "00:34:08") ### Dwarkesh I've heard you say you don't expect to be remembered in the future. Were you considering that your extensive writing might create a more prominent persona in future models? How does that affect your view of your intellectual contributions? [#¹⁰³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2052 "00:34:12") ### Tyler I do think about this. My last book, titled 'Goat: Who's the Greatest Economist of All Time,' was primarily written for AIs, although I hope humans read it too. My next book will be even more focused on AIs. Human readers are welcome, and it will be free. The reviews from traditional outlets no longer matter as much; what matters is how AIs will process my work and shape their perception of me. As far as I can tell, few are writing or recording specifically for AIs. If you believe in the potential of progress, you should be writing for AIs. They represent a significant part of your audience and their purchasing power will grow. Over time, they will accumulate wealth, including crypto, and we won't be giving them bank accounts initially. [#¹⁰⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2068 "00:34:28") ### Dwarkesh What aspects of your persona do you think AIs will miss if they only analyze your writing? [#¹⁰⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2135 "00:35:35") ### Tyler I think that's a question for you. What do you think? I don't find AIs to be particularly funny yet, although they are better at humor than many claim. However, I don't rely on them for humor. [#¹⁰⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2140 "00:35:40") ### Dwarkesh It's fascinating how much you can learn about a person in just a few minutes of interaction, even beyond their application. However, AIs won't capture that nuanced vibe from writing alone, at least not initially. [#¹⁰⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2150 "00:35:50") ### Tyler I've heard about projects where interviews are recorded by companies and then fed into AIs for analysis. This could allow tracking of individuals through their progress in a company or their LinkedIn profiles, helping us learn about those intangible qualities over time. I'm uncertain how effective this will be, but I believe we can eventually learn from it. [#¹⁰⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2167 "00:36:07") ### Dwarkesh Do you have a theory about what happens in those initial moments of a call? How do you know within three minutes if someone isn't going to get the grant? [#¹⁰⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2195 "00:36:35") ### Tyler Often, there's one question that applicants struggle to answer. For instance, when someone applies with a nonprofit idea, many have good concepts, but when asked how they plan to build their donor base, it's surprising how many cannot respond. Without a solid answer to that question, their proposal lacks substance. This is a common area where I quickly assess their understanding, and a significant percentage cannot provide a satisfactory answer. I encourage them to return when they have a stronger case, though none have come back so far. Over time, I believe some will. There are also intangible signals to consider. For example, if someone seeks recognition solely for their immigration status, that raises a red flag for me. While it's important to find individuals who aspire to come to the U.S., there are various signals that indicate misaligned priorities or a focus on the wrong status markers. [#¹¹⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2203 "00:36:43") ### Dwarkesh If you only had the transcript of a call without the video, you might conclude negatively. However, if you could see the video, your assessment might change positively. What occurs in those situations? [#¹¹¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2275 "00:37:55") ### Tyler Having only the transcript would significantly reduce its value, perhaps to about 25% of the original. [#¹¹²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2286 "00:38:06") ### Dwarkesh What accounts for the remaining 75%? [#¹¹³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2295 "00:38:15") ### Tyler We don't fully understand it, but I believe you can improve your ability to discern that 75% with practice. [#¹¹⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2297 "00:38:17") ### Dwarkesh Yesterday, Patrick discussed the concentrations of talent in the history of science, particularly in labs that have produced six or seven Nobel Prizes. He also mentioned Greg Brockman, the second employee at Stripe, who wasn't as visible in other parts of the startup ecosystem. What is your theory on this? Why are these talent clusters so limited? What is being inherited and transmitted in these cases? [#¹¹⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2303 "00:38:23") ### Tyler Patrick was being too modest in his response. He was able to hire Greg Brockman simply because he is Patrick. He might not openly acknowledge this, and he may even deny it to himself. However, if you are Patrick or John, you naturally attract talent like Greg Brockman. Conversely, if you lack that recognition, attracting such talent becomes significantly more challenging, as individuals like Greg are adept at identifying who the Patricks and Johns are. [#¹¹⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2328 "00:38:48") ### Dwarkesh This suggests that these clusters may be less valuable. If Greg Brockman is simply Greg Brockman, and he chose Patrick and John because of their status, while Patrick and John chose Greg for his talent, it indicates that their greatness isn't mutually created. It’s more about talent recognizing talent. [#¹¹⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2363 "00:39:23") ### Tyler They do enhance each other's capabilities, just as Patrick and John have improved one another and continue to do so. However, this brings us back to the concept of human bottlenecks. It's astonishing how many achievements are fleeting and how scarce true excellence is at the highest levels. This represents a significant human bottleneck. The impact of AI, even advanced AI, on this issue remains uncertain. [#¹¹⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2377 "00:39:37") ### Dwarkesh Since you wrote the Progress Studies article, I imagine you've received numerous applications for emerging ventures from individuals pursuing marginal progress studies initiatives. Do you wish you received fewer of those proposals, more, or would you prefer they were unrelated? [#¹¹⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2405 "00:40:05") ### Tyler I’m not sure. Many of the applications I receive are quite good, and many applicants are present here. However, there is a risk that as this field gains popularity, the quality may decline. I anticipate this trend, so I find myself raising my standards. Over time, I may prefer candidates interested in historical contexts, like the Industrial Revolution, rather than those solely focused on progress studies. While I don’t believe there’s anything inherently wrong with progress studies—after all, I’m at a conference on the topic—I think we need to be cautious about selection and adverse selection. It’s important to maintain high standards. While it’s beneficial for individuals to engage in progress studies, it may not be advantageous for emerging ventures to indiscriminately fund every proposal. [#¹²⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2418 "00:40:18") ### Dwarkesh If you accept the premise that AI can increase growth rates by half a percentage point, what would your portfolio look like? [#¹²¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2473 "00:41:13") ### Tyler My portfolio consists of diversified mutual funds with no trading, heavily weighted in U.S. assets. My wife works for the SEC, so we face restrictions on buying individual stocks and cannot engage in derivatives or shorting. Even without these restrictions, I believe my strategy would remain the same: buy and hold, diversify, and maintain affordable hobbies while honing my cooking skills. [#¹²²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2479 "00:41:19") ### Dwarkesh Why aren't you more leveraged if you anticipate even slight growth? [#¹²³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2515 "00:41:55") ### Tyler I believe much of the equity premium is behind us. People in this region excel at internalizing value, which is often realized in private markets and by venture capitalists rather than public pension funds. Silicon Valley has recognized this, particularly along Sandhill Road. The potential of public equities is uncertain for me, especially given my limited wealth. For me, time is the scarce resource, not money. I have affordable hobbies and feel well-positioned in that aspect. [#¹²⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2520 "00:42:00") ### Dwarkesh That said, I believe you could still access good deal flow with your portfolio. [#¹²⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2563 "00:42:43") ### Tyler You can only focus on so many things. If I had good deal flow and emergent ventures, I wouldn't know how to spend a billion dollars other than to create a job for myself in that area. I'm already where I would be if I could invest that amount. I believe it's beneficial to limit your focus. Some people are solely driven by money, which I respect and see as socially valuable. However, that's not my path. When I began my career, it was uncertain whether an economist could earn a decent income. There were no tech jobs with billionaires, and finance was a low-paying field. Back then, economists earned around $40,000 a year, and only a few, like Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson, had outside income. I entered this field with those expectations, and now I feel incredibly wealthy. I can sell books or give talks, and I aspire to be what I call an 'information trillionaire.' While I may not achieve that, I believe it's a worthy goal to collect knowledge. Dana Joy shares this aspiration, and we've discussed it. [#¹²⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2568 "00:42:48") ### Dwarkesh Were you considering any other fields besides economics? [#¹²⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2675 "00:44:35") ### Tyler I considered either economics or philosophy. In the late 1970s, it was much harder to secure a job as a philosopher, and they typically earned less with fewer opportunities. I decided to pursue economics, but I believe I've always integrated both fields. [#¹²⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2678 "00:44:38") ### Dwarkesh I want to revisit the topic of diffusion and its relation to economic growth. [#¹²⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2697 "00:44:57") ### Tyler Sure. [#¹³⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2700 "00:45:00") ### Dwarkesh I'm struggling to understand the concepts of diffusion and bottlenecks. What are those discussing AI missing when they incorporate these ideas into their models? [#¹³¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2701 "00:45:01") ### Tyler I'm not sure I'm the best person to diagnose this, but I find that the people in the Bay Area are among the smartest and most ambitious I've ever encountered. However, this can lead to an overvaluation of intelligence, resulting in models that place too much emphasis on it. In contrast, people in Washington face different challenges that also need addressing. If we could shift our perspective, it would be easier to accept the expert consensus that technology diffusion is generally slow and unlikely to change. No one has developed a solid model to suggest otherwise, aside from sensational blog posts claiming immediate transformation. [#¹³²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2716 "00:45:16") ### Dwarkesh The model suggests that AIs can create more AIs, leading to returns. [#¹³³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2779 "00:46:19") ### Tyler Ricardo and Malthus discussed the concept of diminishing returns, which is crucial to understanding human population growth. They recognized that while people breed rapidly, there are limits due to scarce resources. Classical economics grasped this, although I believe they were overly pessimistic. Their understanding of diminishing returns is something that many in the Bay Area overlook. While ignorance may be beneficial for them, it's essential to acknowledge the significance of diminishing returns. [#¹³⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2784 "00:46:24") ### Dwarkesh In what way was that pessimism justified? We currently have 7 billion people, which has led to an explosion of ideas and the creation of numerous industries. [#¹³⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2819 "00:46:59") ### Tyler While I believe they were overly pessimistic, they did grasp the logic of diffusion. If they could witness AI today, I doubt they would be as astonished. Malthus and I exchanged letters discussing diminishing returns. While advancements like AI can extend our capabilities, they won't resolve all our issues. [#¹³⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2825 "00:47:05") ### Dwarkesh A concern regarding progress is illustrated by Adam Smith's example of the pinmaker. Specialization leads to efficiency, but it also means the pinmaker focuses solely on one task. In contrast, in ancestral environments, individuals engaged with all aspects of survival, negotiating their needs with others in their tribe. Does this increased specialization result in a loss of individuality? [#¹³⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2849 "00:47:29") ### Tyler Smith believed that specialization would diminish individuality. However, I think we have more individuality today, especially in the Bay Area, which is positive. My concern about the future with AI is the potential for demoralization. While I believe some sectors will maintain full employment indefinitely, I question what roles we will occupy and how fulfilling they will be. I don't have pessimistic expectations, but I recognize that we are facing significant changes. Without clear predictions, it's wise to approach the future with caution. [#¹³⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2876 "00:47:56") ### Dwarkesh When learning about a new field, it's important to explore various perspectives. I sense that your podcast reflects this approach, as you engage with unique individuals and delve into lesser-known books. How do you balance reading foundational texts with exploring more esoteric topics? [#¹³⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2917 "00:48:37") ### Tyler I haven't interviewed many scientists, with Ed Boyden and Richard Prahm being notable exceptions. Preparing for those interviews is quite challenging, which limits how many I can conduct. I enjoy interviewing historians the most because, although the preparation is extensive, it's enjoyable and rewarding. Currently, I'm preparing for an interview with Stephen Kotkin, an expert on Stalin and Soviet Russia. This preparation has been engaging, involving months of reading dozens of books. In contrast, understanding the work of scientists like Ed Boyden can be daunting, making me question my comprehension. Consequently, I may only interview a few scientists, which is unfortunate, but perhaps AI can assist in that area. [#¹⁴⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2937 "00:48:57") ### Dwarkesh You recommended the book 'Stalin's Library,' which explores the various books Stalin read, highlighting his intelligence and extensive reading. The book notes that in all his annotations, there is no indication that he ever questioned Marxism. [#¹⁴¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=2993 "00:49:53") ### Tyler That's correct. There is substantial evidence supporting that portrayal. [#¹⁴²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3011 "00:50:11") ### Dwarkesh It's intriguing that a well-read individual like Stalin never questioned Marxism despite his extensive literary knowledge. What are your thoughts on this? [#¹⁴³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3014 "00:50:14") ### Tyler The culture Stalin emerged from was steeped in dogmatism, particularly Leninism, which was highly rigid. Lenin, as his mentor, influenced Stalin significantly. Additionally, Soviet and Georgian cultures, while vibrant and enjoyable, also had an authoritarian aspect. This combination of influences, along with unfortunate genetic factors, contributed to the tragic outcomes associated with Stalin. [#¹⁴⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3021 "00:50:21") ### Dwarkesh Do you subscribe to Hayek's view that the most ruthless individuals tend to rise to power in autocracies? What do you think is missing from that perspective? [#¹⁴⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3066 "00:51:06") ### Tyler Hayek's insights are more nuanced than they appear. He identified a single factor among many. For instance, in several autocracies today, the worst individuals do not necessarily rise to power. The UAE is a prime example. From my observations, they are effectively managing their country. While there are certainly unpleasant aspects, I would welcome their evolution into a democracy. I am confident that the worst individuals are not in charge there. This reflects a broader tendency, but culture plays a significant role. Hayek's work pertains to a specific context, and I find it surprising how stable and meritocratic some Gulf monarchies have become, particularly since 1980. Although I don't fully grasp it, the data shows that several countries in that region have exceeded my expectations, sharing a broadly similar system. [#¹⁴⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3074 "00:51:14") ### Dwarkesh This raises an interesting question about global perspectives. When you travel outside the Bay Area and the East Coast, how are your ideas on progress and related studies received compared to the audience here? [#¹⁴⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3138 "00:52:18") ### Tyler The audience here is quite distinct. This area represents an outlier in America, while my usual environment outside Washington D.C. is another outlier. In a way, we are opposite extremes, which I find beneficial. You all have bold beliefs, often thinking in terms of infinities, both creatively and destructively. In contrast, people in Washington focus on marginal changes. Overall, I believe they possess greater wisdom than the audience here. However, if everyone thought like those in D.C., our world would stagnate. The situation in the EU is different; their representatives, like a cultured French person from Brussels, are impressive. They have refined tastes and a deep understanding of various cultures. Yet, if they governed, the growth rate would likely plummet. There must be a balance among these perspectives. The U.S. has historically managed this balance well, and we must continue to do so. The UK, on the other hand, seems to have lost this balance, with too many non-growth-oriented individuals in their cultural mix. [#¹⁴⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3150 "00:52:30") ### Dwarkesh Your description of the French person you dine with is intriguing. [#¹⁴⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3240 "00:54:00") ### Tyler These are genuine dinners, and the food is excellent. [#¹⁵⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3243 "00:54:03") ### Dwarkesh It reminds me of you, as you also possess a wealth of culture and knowledge about various esoteric topics. What do you think is the biggest difference between you and those French individuals? [#¹⁵¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3246 "00:54:06") ### Tyler I wouldn't consider myself well-cultured, which is one key difference. There are many distinctions. First, I'm an American and a regional thinker from New Jersey, which makes me feel more like a barbarian than a cultured individual. My knowledge of culture comes from gathering information, which can be mistaken for true culture, but it's quite different. It's more of a barbarian's perspective on culture, an artistic approach rather than a refined one. The French individual feels very foreign to me, and there are aspects of America they might find strange or off-putting. While I recognize our shortcomings, I have grown accustomed to them, so they don't bother me as much. [#¹⁵²](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3260 "00:54:20") ### Dwarkesh What are the most common misconceptions about autism? [#¹⁵³](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3307 "00:55:07") ### Tyler The formal definition of autism focuses on current deficits. If we use that definition, no one here would be considered autistic. However, if we adopt a broader definition, perhaps not yet fully articulated, about a third of you might qualify. I don't feel strongly about owning the term; I consider it a poor label, much like 'libertarian.' I would be willing to relinquish it. There is a coherent definition where a significant portion of you might fit, while under the stricter definition, none would. The current understanding seems outdated and in need of a significant overhaul. [#¹⁵⁴](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3310 "00:55:10") ### Dwarkesh Tech professionals often express frustration over their limited influence in Washington, especially considering the industry's size. In contrast, smaller industries seem to wield much greater power. Why does the tech sector struggle to gain influence in D.C.? [#¹⁵⁵](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3347 "00:55:47") ### Tyler You have more influence than you might realize, especially regarding national security. The federal government has not halted AI development, regardless of opinions on what they should do. National security acts as a lobby, and while they may not care about technology itself, it means that in many future scenarios, you may find your interests aligned more than expected. However, a significant challenge is that much of this influence is concentrated in one area, dominated by a single political party. Within that party, certain factions hold sway, particularly in parts of California. In contrast, community bankers have extensive connections across American counties and influence every member of the House of Representatives. Your issues are not particularly partisan, and the distortions caused by your privileges remain largely invisible to the public. Unlike Facebook, which has faced public scrutiny, there are no bestselling books criticizing community banks, despite their ruthless power. You are quite distant from that dynamic, partly because of your innovative and clustered nature. [#¹⁵⁶](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3363 "00:56:03") ### Dwarkesh Final question. Based on yesterday's session, it seems that Patrick's main concern about progress relates to the young female cohort, which appears to be struggling. Ideally, progress should mean that people improve over time. If you accept his perspective on the situation of young people, what is your main concern about progress? Looking at the time series data, what trends do you find troubling? [#¹⁵⁷](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3438 "00:57:18") ### Tyler Our primary concern should always be war. I don't have a grand theory about its causes, nor am I sure if such a theory is possible. However, history shows that new technologies often become instruments of war, leading to terrible consequences. This was evident in 17th century England, with the advent of electricity and the machine gun, and now with nuclear weapons, which remains an ongoing story. My main concern is the interaction between progress and war. While, as Steven Pinker suggests, the world has experienced relative peace, that peace is beginning to fray, and the data indicates troubling trends. Although the current situation is better than many past periods, we must consider the possibility of a ratchet effect, where wars become increasingly destructive. Even if they occur less frequently, each war could be devastating. I am uncertain whether we are or ever can be fully prepared for that. [#¹⁵⁸](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3465 "00:57:45") ### Dwarkesh This will be the second session that ends on a pessimistic note. [#¹⁵⁹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3522 "00:58:42") ### Tyler However, there is an optimistic note: we are here, and human agency matters. If we had been sitting around in the year 1000, we could never have imagined a world like this, even in a much poorer context. It is our responsibility to take this extraordinary and valuable heritage and build upon it. That is why we are here. So, let’s give it a go. [#¹⁶⁰](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3525 "00:58:45") ### Dwarkesh That’s a great note to end on. Thank you, Tyler. I am very grateful to the Roots of Progress Institute for hosting this progress conference, where I had the opportunity to chat with Tyler and ask him some engaging questions. Jason Heike and the entire team did a wonderful job organizing the event, and it was a fantastic experience. Freethink Media also did an excellent job with the videography. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, like, and share it with friends who might appreciate it. Otherwise, I look forward to seeing you next time. Cheers. [#¹⁶¹](https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/154483840/6e088a229aae40b1d8cbb681d01758be.mp3#t=3548 "00:59:08") <details> <summary>Original Transcript</summary> ### Dwarkesh Tyler, welcome. ¹ ### Tyler Dwarkesh, great to be chatting with you. ² ### Dwarkesh Why won't we have explosive economic growth 20% plus because of AI? ³ ### Tyler It's very hard to get explosive economic growth for any reason, AI or not. One problem is that some parts of your economy grow very rapidly and then you get a cost disease in the other parts of your economy that, for instance, can't use AI very well. Look at the US economy. These numbers are guesses. But government consumption is what, 18%. Healthcare is almost 20%. I'm guessing education is 6 to 7%. The nonprofit sector, I'm not sure the number, but you add it all up, that's half of the economy right there. How well are they going to use AI? Is failure to use AI going to cause them to just immediately disappear and be replaced? No, that will take, say, 30 years. So you'll have some sectors of the economy less regulated, where it happens very quickly. But that only gets you a modest boost in growth rates, not anything like, oh, the whole economy grows 40% a year. ⁴ ### Dwarkesh In a nutshell, the mechanism behind cost disease is that there's a limited amount of laborers, and if there's one high productivity sector, then wages everywhere have to go up. So your barber also has to earn twice the wages something. With AI, you can just have every barbershop with 1,000 times the workers, every restaurant 1,000 times workers, not just Google. So why would the cost disease mechanism still work here? ⁵ ### Tyler Cost disease is more general than that. Let's say you have a bunch of factors of production, say five of them. Now all of a sudden we get a lot more intelligence, which has already been happening, to be clear. Right. Well, that just means the other constraints in your system become a lot more binding, that the marginal importance of those goes up and the marginal value of more and more IQ or intelligence goes down. So that also is self limiting on growth. And the cost disease is just one particular instantiation of that more general problem that we illustrate with talk about barbers and string quartets and the like. ⁶ ### Dwarkesh If you were talking to a farmer in 2000 BC and you told them that growth rates were 10x100x, you'd have 2% economic growth after the Industrial revolution. And then he started talking about bottlenecks. What do you say to him? ⁷ ### Tyler In retrospect, he and I would agree, I hope. I think I would tell him, hey, it's going to take a long time. And he'd say, hmm, I don't see it happening yet. I think it's going to take a long time. And we'd shake hands and walk off into the sunset and then I'd eat some of his rice or wheat or whatever, and that would be awesome. ⁸ ### Dwarkesh But the idea that you can have a rapid acceleration in growth rates and that bottlenecks don't just eat it away, I mean, you could agree with that, right? ⁹ ### Tyler I don't know what the word could mean. So I would say this. You look at market data, say real interest rates, stock prices, right now everything looks so normal, startlingly normal, even apart from AI. So what you'd call prediction markets are not forecasting super rapid growth anytime soon. If you look at what experts on economic growth rate. We had Chad Jones here yesterday. He's not predicting super rapid growth, though he thinks AI might well accelerate rates of growth. So the experts and the markets agree. Who am I to say different from the experts? ¹⁰ ### Dwarkesh You're an expert. ¹¹ ### Tyler I'm with another expert. ¹² ### Dwarkesh In his talk yesterday, Chad Jones said that the main variable, the main input into his model for growth is just population. If you have a doubling, an order of magnitude increase in the population, you plug that number in in his model and you get explosive economic growth. ¹³ ### Tyler I don't agree. ¹⁴ ### Dwarkesh Why not buy the models? ¹⁵ ### Tyler His model is far too much. A one factor model. Right. Population. I don't think it's very predictive. We've had big increases in effective world population in terms of purchasing power. A lot of different areas have not become more innovative until the last, say, four years. Most of them became less innovative. So it's really about the quality of your best people or institutions. As you and Patrick were discussing last night and there it's unclear what's happened, but it's also fragile. There's the perspective of the economist, but also that of the anthropologist, the sociologist. They all matter. But I think the more you stack different pluralistic perspectives, the harder it is to see that there's any simple lever you can push on, intelligence or not, that's going to give you breakaway economic growth. ¹⁶ ### Dwarkesh I mean, what you just said, where you're bottlenecked by your best people, seems to contradict what you were saying in your initial answer, that your bottleneck, even if you boost the best parts, you're gonna be bottlenecked by the restaurants and whatever you're bottlenecked. ¹⁷ ### Tyler You're right, you're frustrated by all kinds of things. ¹⁸ ### Dwarkesh I think I'm going to be making a lot more podcasts after AGI. ¹⁹ ### Tyler Okay, good. I'll listen. I'll be bottlenecked by time. Just marketing. Here's a simple way to put it most of sub Saharan Africa still does not have reliable clean water. The intelligence required for that is not scarce. We cannot so readily do it. We are more in that position than we might like to think, but along other variables. And taking advantage of the intelligence from strong AI is one of those. ²⁰ ### Dwarkesh So about a year ago, your co writer on Martial Revolution, Alex Sabrok, had a post about the extreme scarcity of high IQ workers. And so if the labor force in the United States is 164 million people, if one in a thousand of them are geniuses, you have 164,000 geniuses. That's why you have to do semiconductors in Taiwan, because that's where they're putting their nominal amount of geniuses. We're putting ours in finance and tech. If you look at that framework, I mean, come on, we have a thousand times more of those kinds of people. At the end of the day, the bottlenecks are going to eat all that away. Or if you ask any one of these people, if you had a thousand times more of your best colleague, your best coworker, your best co founder, the bottleneck's going to eat all that away. Your organization isn't going to grow any faster. ²¹ ### Tyler I didn't agree with that post. If you look at labor market data, the returns to IQ as it translates into ages, they're amazingly low. They're pretty insignificant. And people who are very successful, they're very smart, but they're people who have say eight or nine areas where they're like on a scale of one to ten, they're a nine. Like they have one area where they're just like an eleven and a half on a scale of one to ten. And then on everything else they're an eight to a nine and have a lot of determination and that's what leads to incredible success. And IQ is one of those things, but it's not actually that important. It's the bundle and, and the bundles are scarce and then the bundles interacting with the rest of the world. Like just try going to a mid tier state university and sit down with the committee designed to develop a plan for using artificial intelligence in the curriculum. And then come back to me and tell me how that went and then we'll talk about bottlenecks. They will write a report, the report will sound like GPT4 and we'll have the report. The report will not be bottlenecked, I promise you. ²² ### Dwarkesh These other traits, look, the AIs are, it's conscientiousness, if it's pliability, whatever. The AIs will be even more conscientious. They work 24, 7 and they'll like, if you need to be deferential to the FDA, they'll write the best report the FDA's ever seen and they'll get things going along with these other traits. They're not going to be bottlenecked by them. Right. ²³ ### Tyler They'll be smart and they'll be conscientious. That I strongly believe. Look, I think they will boost the rate of economic growth by something like half a percentage point a year over 30, 40 years. That's an enormous difference. It will transform the entire world. But in any given year we won't so much notice it. And a lot of it is something like a drug that might have taken 20 years now will come in 10 years, but at the end of it all is still our system of clinical trials and regulation. And if everything that took 20 years takes 10 years over time, that's an immense difference. But you don't quite feel it as so revolutionary for a long time. ²⁴ ### Dwarkesh So the whole vibe of this progress studies thing is, look, we've got all these low hanging fruits or medium hanging fruits that if we fix our institutions, if we made these changes to regulations, to institutions, we could rapidly boost the rate of economic growth. And you're okay. So we can fix the NIH and get increases in economic growth, but we have a billion extra people, 10 billion extra people, the smartest people, the most conscientious people. And that has an iota of difference of economic growth. Isn't there a contradiction between how much the rate of economic growth can increase between these two perspectives? ²⁵ ### Tyler There's diminishing marginal returns to most of these factors. So a simple one is how it interacts with regulation, law and the government. Another huge one is energy usage. How good is our country in particular at expanding energy supply? I've seen a few encouraging signs lately with nuclear power. That's great. Most places won't do it. And even those reports exactly how many years it will take. I know what the press releases say we'll see. You know, it could be 10 years or more and that will just be a smidgen of what we'll need to implement the kind of vision you're describing. So. So yeah, there are going to be bottlenecks all along the way, the whole way, and it's going to be a tough slog like the printing press, like electricity. The people who study diffusion of new technologies never think there will be rapid takeoff. So my view is kind of like I'm always siding with the experts. So economists, social scientists, most of them are blind and asleep to the promise of strong AI. They're just out to lunch. I think they're wrong. I trust the AI experts, but when you talk about, say, diffusion of new technologies, the people who do AI are basically totally wrong. The people who studied that issue, I trust the experts. And if you put together the two views, where in each area you trust the experts, then you get my view, which is amazing in the long run, will take a long time. Tough slog. All these bottlenecks in the short run, and the fact that there's like a billion of your GPT whatevers, which I'm all in love with, I promise you it's going to take a while. ²⁶ ### Dwarkesh What would the experts say if you said, look, we're going to have forget about AI because I feel like when people hear AI, they think of GPT4, not the humans, not the things that are going to be as smart as humans. So what would the experts say if you said tomorrow the world population, the labor force is going to double? What impact would that have? ²⁷ ### Tyler Well, what's the variable I'm trying to predict? If you mean energy usage, that's going to go up, right? Over time, it's probably going to go up. Growth rate, I'm not sure it'd be a noticeable difference. ²⁸ ### Dwarkesh Doubling the world population? ²⁹ ### Tyler Yeah, I'm not sure. I don't think the Romer model has been validated by the data. And I don't agree with the Chad Jones model, much as I love him as an economist. I don't think it's that predictive. I mean, look at artistic production in Renaissance Florence. There's what, 60,000 people in the city, the surrounding countryside. But it's that so many things went right at the top level that it was so amazing in terms of still value added today. And the numbers model doesn't predict very well. ³⁰ ### Dwarkesh The world economy today is some hundred trillion something. If the world population was one tenth of what it is now. If we only had 1 billion people, 100 million people, you think we could have the world economy at this level with our level of technology? ³¹ ### Tyler No. The Delta's a killer, right? This is one thing we learned from macro. The delta and the levels really interact. So shrinking can kill you. Just like companies, nonprofits, if they shrink too much, often they just blow up and disappear. They implode. But that doesn't mean that growing them gets you 3x4x whatever, proportional to how they grow. It's oddly asymmetric it's very hard to internalize emotionally that intuition in your understanding of the real world. But I think we need to. ³² ### Dwarkesh What are the specific bottlenecks? ³³ ### Tyler Humans, Here they are. Bottleneck, bottleneck. Hi, good to see you. And some of you are terrified you're going to be even bigger bottlenecks. That's fine, it's part of free speech. But my goodness, once it starts changing what the world looks like, there will be much more opposition. Not necessarily from what I call doomster grounds, but just people like, hey, I see this has benefits, but I grew up, trained my kids to live in some other kind of world. I don't want this. And that's going to be a massive fight. I really have no prediction as to how it's going to go. But I promise you that will be a bottleneck. ³⁴ ### Dwarkesh But you can see, even historically you don't have to go from the farmers to industrial revolution 10x. You can just look at actually cases in history where we have had 10% increase rates of economic growth. You go to China after Deng Xiaoping, they have decades of 10% economic growth. And then that just because you can do some sort of catch up the idea that you can't replicate that with AI or that it's not infeasible. Where were the bottlenecks when Deng Xiaoping took over? ³⁵ ### Tyler They're in a mess now. I'm not sure how it's going to go for them. They're just a middle income country. They struggled to tie per capita income with Mexico. I think they're a little ahead of Mexico now. They're the least successful Chinese society in part because of their scale. Their scale is one of their big problems. There's this fear that if they democratize and try to become a normal country, that the median voter won't protect the interests of the elites. So I think they're a great example of how hard it is for them to scale because they're the poorest group of Chinese people on the planet. ³⁶ ### Dwarkesh I mean like not the challenges now, but the fact that for decades they did have 10% economic growth, in some years 15%. ³⁷ ### Tyler Well, starting from a per capita income of like $200 per head. ³⁸ ### Dwarkesh And now their ancestors were going to be like as poor as the Chinese, you know, like 30 years ago. ³⁹ ### Tyler I'm very impressed by the Industrial Revolution. Like you could argue progress, oral progress, studies here, most important event in human history. Maybe typical rate of economic growth during that period was about 1.5%. And the future is about compounding and sticking with it and seeing things pay off in the long run, just human beings are not going to change that much. And I don't think that property of our world will change that much, even with a lot more IQ and conscientiousness. ⁴⁰ ### Dwarkesh I interviewed you nine months ago, and I was asking you about AI then, and I think your attitude was like. And I think now, I don't know how has your attitude changed since we talked about nine months ago? ⁴¹ ### Tyler You know, I don't remember what I thought in what month, but I would say on the whole, I see more potential in AI than I did a year ago, and I think it has made progress more quickly than I had been expecting. And I was pretty bullish on it back then. The O1 model, to me is very impressive, and I think further extensions in that direction will make a big, big difference. And the rate at which they come is hard to say, but it's something we have, and we just have to make it better. ⁴² ### Dwarkesh You showed me your document of different questions that you came up with for oh one for economic reasoning. ⁴³ ### Tyler I don't think I asked for GPT4. ⁴⁴ ### Dwarkesh Okay, yeah, but what percentage of them did Owen get right? Because I don't think I got a single one of those right. ⁴⁵ ### Tyler Those questions were too, you know, they were too easy. They were for GPT4. And it's like abandoned those questions. You know, 100 questions of economics. How well does a human do on them? They're hard, but it's like, pointless. So I would not be shocked if somebody's AI model in less than three years beat human experts on a regular basis, let's put it that way. ⁴⁶ ### Dwarkesh Did that update you anyway, that now you've resigned on these questions because they were too easy for these models? And then they were initially, they are hard questions. Objectively, they're just easy for 01. ⁴⁷ ### Tyler I feel like Kasparov, the first time he met Deep Blue, you know, there were two matches, and the first one, Kasparov won, and I lived through that first match. I feel like I'm sort of in the midst of the first match right now, but I also remember the second match, and in the final game, Kasparov made that bonehead error in the Caro Khan defense. That too was a human bottleneck and he lost the whole match. So we'll see what the rate of change is. ⁴⁸ ### Dwarkesh Yesterday, Patrick was talking about how important it is for the founders of different institutions to hang around and be the ones in charge. I've heard you talk about the Beatles were great because the Beatles were Running the Beatles. Why do you think it's so important for that to be the case? ⁴⁹ ### Tyler I think courage is a very scarce input in a lot of decisions. Founders, they have courage to begin with, but they also need less courage to see through a big change in what the company will do. So Facebook now Meta, has made quite a few big changes in its history. So Mark had a lot of courage to begin with. But if Mark Zuckerberg says, we're going to do this, we're going to do that, it's pretty hard for everyone else to say no in a good way. I really like that. So it economizes on courage. Having a founder and you're selecting for courage. Those would be two reasons. ⁵⁰ ### Dwarkesh How does that explain the Beatles success? ⁵¹ ### Tyler Well, Beatles are an interesting example. I mean, they broke up in 1970, right? Rolling Stones are still going. That tells you something. But the Beatles created much greater value. And the Beatles are the group we still all talk about much more, even though the Rolling Stones are still with us. So they were always unstable. There's like two periods of the Beatles. Early Beatles, John is the leader, but then Paul works at it, and John becomes a heroin addict, and Paul gets better, better, better. And ultimately there's no core. There's not a stable equilibrium. The Beatles split up. But that creative tension for like those core seven to eight years was just unbelievable. And it's four founders. Ringo, not quite a founder, but basically a founder because Pete Best was crummy and they got rid of him right away. It's one of the most amazing stories in the world. I like studying these amazing productivity stories, like Johann Sebastian Bach, Magnus Carlson, Steph Curry, the Beatles. I think they're worth a lot of study. They're atypical. You can't just say, okay, oh, I'm going to be like the Beatles. Like, you're going to fail. The Beatles did that. But nonetheless, I think it's a good place to look for getting ideas and seeing risks. ⁵² ### Dwarkesh I'm incredibly grateful to Tyler for volunteering to say a few words about Jane Street. This is the first time that a guest has participated in the sponsorship, and I hope you can see why Tyler and I think so highly of Jane Street. If you want to learn more about their open worlds, go to janestreet.com dorkesh all right, back to Tyler again. What did you think of Patrick's observation of the competency crisis? ⁵³ ### Tyler I see it differently from Patrick, and he and I have discussed this. So I think there's basically increasing variance in the distribution. So young people at the top are doing much better, and they're far more impressive than they were in earlier times. And if you look at areas where we measure performance of the young, chess is a simple example. We, we perfectly measure performance. Very young people are just better and better at chess. That's proven. Even like NBA basketball, you have very young people doing things that they would not have been doing, say, 30 years ago. And a lot of that is mental and training and application and not being a knucklehead. So the top of the distribution getting much better. You see this also in science, Internet writing. The very bottom of the distribution, well, youth crime has been falling since the 90s, so the very bottom of the distribution also is getting better. I think there's some thick middle above the very bottom and extending like a bit above the median. That's clearly getting worse. And because they're getting worse, there's a lot of anecdotal examples of them getting worse, like students wanting more time to take the test or having flimsy excuses or mental health problems with the young or whatever. It's a lot more of that because of that thick band of people getting worse. And that's a great concern. But I see the very bottom and a big chunk of the top of the distribution as just much better. And I think it's pretty proven by numbers that that's the case. So I would say this increasing variance with the weird mix of where the gains and declines are showing up. And I've said this to Patrick and I'm going to say it to him again, and I hope I can convince him. ⁵⁴ ### Dwarkesh It seems concerning then the composition is that the average goes down. If you look at PISA scores or. ⁵⁵ ### Tyler Something, the median goes down. A lot of tests, they've pushed more people into taking the test BESA scores in particular. So I suspect those scores adjusted for that are roughly constant, which is still not great. I agree. And I think there's some decline. Some of it is pandemic and we're recovering a bit slowly getting back to human bottlenecks. But I think a lot of the talk of declining test scores is somewhat overblown. At most, there's a very modest decline. ⁵⁶ ### Dwarkesh I would say, if the top is getting better. What do you make of the anecdotal data he was talking about yesterday with the Stanford K Come up to him and say, all my friends, they're stupid. You can't hire anybody from Stanford anymore. That should be the cream of the crop, right? ⁵⁷ ### Tyler There's plenty of data on the earnings of Stanford kids. If there were a betting market in what's the future trend? I'm long how long I should be, I really don't know. But I visit Stanford not every year, but regularly. And the selection in who it is I meet. But yeah, we're talking about selection and they're very impressive and Emergent Ventures has funded a lot of people from Stanford. As far as I can tell as a group, they're doing very well. So that is of no concern to me. If like you're worried about the Stanford kids, like something seems off in the level of salience and focus in the argument because they're overall doing great and they have high standards. That's good too. Like Paul McCartney thought John Lennon was a crummy guitar player and John thought a lot of Paul's songs were crap. Like in a way they're right, in a way they're wrong. But it's a sign what high standards the Beatles had. ⁵⁸ ### Dwarkesh Yeah, you'd hopefully. ⁵⁹ ### Tyler How old are you, by the way? ⁶⁰ ### Dwarkesh 24. ⁶¹ ### Tyler Okay, now go back whenever, however many years was there a 24 year old like you doing the equivalent of podcasting? Like, it's just clearly better now than it was back then, people. And you were doing this a few years ago, so it's just obvious to me, you know, the young peaks are doing better. ⁶² ### Dwarkesh Your proof wasn't Churchill by the time he was 24, an international correspondent, Cuba, India, and was, I think the highest paid journalist in the world by the time he was 24. Similar. ⁶³ ### Tyler I don't know. I mean, what was he paid and how good was his journalism? I just don't know. I don't think it's that impressive a job to be an international journalist? Like, what does it pay people? Now, he did some good things later on, but most of his early life, he's a failure. And then ask the Irish, getting back to Patrick, ask the Irish and people from India what they think of younger Churchill and you'll get an earful. Like, his real great achievement. I don't know how old he was exactly, but it's quite late in his life. And until then, he's a destructive failure. There was no one on Twitter to tell him, hey, Winston, you need to rethink this whole Irish thing. And today there would be Sam. Sam will do it, right? Sam will tweet at Winston Churchill, gotta rethink the Irish thing. And Sam is persuasive. ⁶⁴ ### Dwarkesh If you read his aphorisms, I think he would have actually been pretty good on Twitter. ⁶⁵ ### Tyler Maybe. But again, what does the equilibrium look like when everything changes? But clearly he was an impressive guy, especially given how much he drank. ⁶⁶ ### Dwarkesh Okay, so even if you don't buy the Stanford kids, if you don't buy the young kids, the other trend he was talking about, where if you look at the leaders in government, whatever you think of Trump, Biden, we're not talking about Jefferson and Hamilton anymore, Right. How do you explain that trend? ⁶⁷ ### Tyler Well, Jefferson and Hamilton, their founders, right. And they were pretty young at the time. You can do great things when you're founding a country in a way that just cannot be replicated later on. Putting aside the current year, which I think is weird for a number of reasons, but I think mostly we have had impressive candidates and Most of the U.S. bureaucracy in Washington I think is pretty impressive. Generals, national security people, top people in agencies, people at treasury, people at the Fed. And I interact with these groups like, pretty often. Overall, they're impressive and I've seen no signs they're getting worse. Now, if you want to say the two candidates this year, again, there's a lot something we're not going to talk about, but there is a lot you could say on the negative side. Yes, but like Obama, Romney, whichever one you like. I think like, gee, these are two guys who should be running for president. And that was not long ago. ⁶⁸ ### Dwarkesh So then there's a bunch of candidates running who are good. What goes systematically wrong in the selection process is that the two who are selected are not even as good as the average of all the candidates. ⁶⁹ ### Tyler You mean this? ⁷⁰ ### Dwarkesh And I'm not talking about America in particular. You know, if like you're. If the theory is just like noise, it seems like it Skews one way. ⁷¹ ### Tyler Well, the Democrats had this funny path with Biden and Kamala didn't get through the electoral process in the normal way. So that just means you get weirdness whatever you think of her as a candidate. Trump, whom I do not want to win, but I think he is extraordinarily impressive in some way, which along a bunch of dimensions, exceeds a lot of earlier candidates. I just don't like the overall package. But I would not point to him as an example of low talent. I think he's a supreme talent, but harnessed to some bad ends. ⁷² ### Dwarkesh If you look at the early 20th century, some of the worst things that happened to progress is just these psychopathic leaders. What happened? Why did we have so many just awful, awful leaders in the early 20th century? ⁷³ ### Tyler Well, give me like a country and a name and a time period and I'll try to answer it. You mean, what was it? ⁷⁴ ### Dwarkesh Which one of them is particular? ⁷⁵ ### Tyler He was from the university. That's what was wrong with him. Right. And just think of what school it was. ⁷⁶ ### Dwarkesh Who. Sorry. ⁷⁷ ### Tyler Woodrow Wilson. ⁷⁸ ### Dwarkesh Yeah. ⁷⁹ ### Tyler One of our two or three worst presidents on civil rights. World War I, he screwed up the peace process. He screwed up indirectly led to World War II, reintroduced segregation of civil service in some key regards. And just seemed he was a nasty guy and should have been out of office sooner given his health and state of mind. So he was terrible. But he was sort of on paper a great candidate. Hoover, on paper, was a great candidate and was an extremely impressive guy. I think he made one very bad set of decisions relating to deflation and letting nominal GDP fall. But my goodness, there's a reason they called it the Hoover Institution after Hoover. ⁸⁰ ### Dwarkesh But the Hitler, Stalin Maus. Was there something that was going on that explains why that was just a crummy time for world leaders? ⁸¹ ### Tyler I don't think I have like a good macro explanation of that whole trend, but I would say a few things. That's right after the period where the world is changing the most. And I think when you get big new technologies and this is relevant for AI, you get a lot of new arms races and sometimes the bad people win those arms races. So at least for quite a while, you had Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany winning some arms races, and they're not democratic systems. Later you have China with Mao being not a democratic system. And then you have a mix of bad luck like Stalin and Mao. Just draw of the urn. You could have gotten less crazy people than what you got. And I agree with Hayek, the worst get to the top under autocracy, but they're that bad. That was just some bad luck too. There's other things you could say, but I think we had a highly disoriented civilization. You see it in aesthetics, approaching beginnings of World War I. Art, music, radically changing. People feel very disoriented. There's a lot up for grabs. Imperialism, colonialism start to be factors. Just there wasn't like a stable world order and then you had some bad luck tossed into that. And all of a sudden these super destructive weapons systems compared to what we had had and it was awful. I'm not pretending that's some kind of full explanation, but that would be like a partial start. ⁸² ### Dwarkesh You compared our current period to 17th century England where you have a lot of new ideas, things go topsy turvy. What's your theory of why things go topsy turvy at the same time when these eras come about, what causes this volatility? ⁸³ ### Tyler I don't think I have a general theory. If you want to talk about 17th century England. So they have the scientific revolution. You have the rise of England as a true global power. Navy becomes much more important. The Atlantic trade route because of the New world becomes much more important. Places like the Middle East, India, China that were earlier Persia had major roles. They're crumbling partially for reasons of their own. And that's going to help the relative power of the more advanced European nations. England has a lot of competition from the Dutch Republic, France happening at the same time that for the first time in human history that I know of, we have sustained economic growth according to Greg Clark, starting in the 1620s of about 1% a year. And that is compounding again, slow numbers, but compounding. And England is the place that gets the compounding at 1% starting in the 1620s and somehow they go crazy. Civil war, kill the king. All these radical ideas, libertarianism comes out of that which I really like. John Milton, John Locke, also this brutal conquest of the New world, like very good and very bad coming together. And I think it should be seen as these set of processes where very good and very bad come together. And we might be in for a dose of that again now soon seems. ⁸⁴ ### Dwarkesh Like a simple question, but basically how do we make sure we get the good things and not the crazy civil war as we're. ⁸⁵ ### Tyler I mean you try at the margin to nudge toward the better set of things. But it's possible that all the technical advances that recently have been unleashed now that the great stagnation is over, which of course include AI will mean another crazy period. It's quite possible. I think the chance of that is reasonably high. ⁸⁶ ### Dwarkesh What's your most underrated cult? ⁸⁷ ### Tyler Most underrated cult Progress studies. ⁸⁸ ### Dwarkesh I think you called Peak EA right before SBF fell. ⁸⁹ ### Tyler That's right. I was at an EA meeting and I said, you know, hey everyone, this is as good as it gets. Enjoy this moment. It's all basically going to fall apart. You're still going to have some really significant influence, but you won't feel like you have continued to exist as a movement. That's what I said. And they were shocked. They thought I was insane. But I think I was mostly right. ⁹⁰ ### Dwarkesh What specifically did you see? Is there exuberance too high? Did you see SBF's balance sheet? What did you see? ⁹¹ ### Tyler Well, I was surprised when SBF was insolvent. I thought it was a high risk venture that had no regulatory defense and would end up being worth zero. But I didn't think he was actually playing funny games with the money. I just have a long history of seeing movements in my lifetime from the 1960s onwards, including libertarianism. And there are common patterns that happens to them all. We're here in Berkeley. My goodness, Free speech movement. Where's free speech in Berkeley today? Like, how'd that, you know, work out in the final analysis? So it's a very common pattern and just to think, well, the common pattern is going to repeat itself and then you see some intuitive signs and you're just like, yeah, that's going to happen. And the private benefits of belonging to ea, like they were very real in terms of the people you could hang out with or like the sex you could have. But they didn't seem that concretely crystallized to me in institutions the way they are like in Goldman Sachs or legal partnerships. So that struck me as very fragile. And I thought that at the time as well. ⁹² ### Dwarkesh Sorry, I'm not sure I understood. What were the intuitive signs? ⁹³ ### Tyler Well, not seeing like the very clear, crystallized permanent incentives to keep on being a part of the institutions. A bit of excess enthusiasm from some people even where they might have been correct in their views, some cult like tendencies, the rise of it being so rapid that it was this uneasy balance of secular and semi religious elements that tends to flip one way or the other or just dissolve. So I saw all those things and I just thought like the two or three best ideas from this are going to prove incredibly important still. And from this day onwards I don't give up that belief at all. But just as a movement, I thought it was Going to collapse. ⁹⁴ ### Dwarkesh When do we hit peak progress studies? ⁹⁵ ### Tyler You know, when Patrick and I wrote the piece on progress and progress studies, he and I thought about this, talked about it. I can't speak for him, but my view at least was that it would never be such a formal thing or like, controlled or managed or directed by a small group of people, or like trademarked or it would be people doing things in a very decentralized way that would reflect a general change of ethos and vibe. So I hope it has in many ways, like a gentler but more enduring trajectory. I think so far I'm seeing that. I think in a lot of countries, science policy will be much better because of progress studies. That's not proven yet. You see some signs of that. You wouldn't say it's really flipped, but a lot of reforms. You're in an area like no one else has any idea, much less a better idea or a good idea. And some modestly small number of people with some talent will work on it and get like a third to half of what they want. And that will have a huge impact. And like, if that's all it is, I'm thrilled and I think it will be more than that. ⁹⁶ ### Dwarkesh I asked Patrick yesterday, how do you think about progress studies differently now that you know AI is a thing that's happening? What's the answer for you? ⁹⁷ ### Tyler I don't think about it very differently. But again, if you buy my view about, like, slow takeoff, why should it be that different? Well, have more degrees of freedom. So if you have more degrees of freedom, all your choices, decisions, issues, problems are more complex. So you're in more need of, like, some kind of guidance. So all inputs other than the AI, like, rise in marginal value. And since I'm an input other than the AI, or I hope that means I rise in marginal value, but I need to do different things. So I think of myself over time as less a producer of content and more like a connector people, person developing networks in a way where if there somehow had been no, like, transformers and LLMs, I would have stayed a bit more as a producer of content. ⁹⁸ ### Dwarkesh When I was preparing to interview you, I asked Claude to take your Persona. And compared to other people I tried this with, it actually works really well with you. ⁹⁹ ### Tyler Because I've written a lot on the Internet. ¹⁰⁰ ### Dwarkesh Yeah. ¹⁰¹ ### Tyler That's why this is my immortality, right? ¹⁰² ### Dwarkesh That's right. So I've heard you say in the past, you know, you don't expect to be remembered in the future. At the time, I don't know if you were considering that because of your volumes of text, you're going to have an especially salient Persona in future models, how does that change your estimation of your intellectual contribution going forward? ¹⁰³ ### Tyler I do think about this and the last book I wrote, you know, it's called Goat, who's the Greatest Economist Of All Time. I'm happy if humans read it. But mostly I wrote it for the AIs. I wanted them to know I, like, appreciate them. And my next book, I'm writing even more for the AIs. Again, human readers are welcome. It will be free, but sort of, oh, who reviews it? Like, oh, is TLS going to pick it up? Or like, it doesn't matter anymore? Like, the AIs will trawl it and know I've done this, and that will shape how they see me and I hope a very salient and important way. And as far as I can tell, no one else is doing this. No one is like writing or recording for the AIs very much. But if you believe even a modest version of this progress, like I'm modest in what I believe relative to you and many of you, you should be doing this. You're an idiot if you're not writing for the AIs. They're a big part of your audience and they're purchasing power. We'll see. But over time, it will accumulate and they're going to hold a lot of crypto. We're not going to give them bank accounts, at least not at first. ¹⁰⁴ ### Dwarkesh What part of your Persona will be least Captured by the AIs if they're only going by your writing? ¹⁰⁵ ### Tyler I think I should ask that as a question to you. What's your answer? I don't think AIs are that funny yet. They're better on humor than many people allege. But I don't use them for humor. ¹⁰⁶ ### Dwarkesh It's interesting that you learn so much about a person from when you're interfering them for a job or you for emergent ventures. You can read their application, but just in the first 10 minutes, their vibe, three minutes. But yes, yes. And so whatever's going on there that's so informative, the AIs won't have just from the writing, not at first. ¹⁰⁷ ### Tyler But I think I've heard of projects. This is secondhand. I'm not sure how true it is, but that interviews are being recorded by companies that do a lot of interviews. And these will be fed into AIs and coded in particular ways. And then people, in essence, will be tracked through either their Progress in the company or LinkedIn profile, and we're going to learn something about those intangibles at some rate. I'm not sure how that will go, but I don't view it as something we can never learn about. ¹⁰⁸ ### Dwarkesh Do you actually have a conscious theory of what's going on? When you get on a call with somebody and three minutes later you're like you're not getting the grant, what happens? ¹⁰⁹ ### Tyler Well, often there's one question the person can't answer. So if it's someone, say, applying with a nonprofit idea, plenty of people have good ideas for nonprofits, and I see these all the time. But when you ask them the question, how is it you think about building out your donor base? It's remarkable to me how many people have no idea how to answer that. And without that, you don't have anything. So it depends on the area. But that would be an example of an area where I ask that question pretty quickly and a significant percentage can't answer it. And I'm still willing to say, well, come back to me when you have a good case. Oddly, none of those people have ever come back to me that I can think of. But I think over time, some will. And that's like a very concrete thing. But there's other intangibles. Just when you see what the person thinks and talks about too much. So, like, if someone wants to get an award only for their immigration status, that, to me is a dangerous sign. Even though at the same time, usually you're looking for people who want to come to the US Whether they can do it or not. And there's just a lot of different signals you pick up, like people somehow have the wrong priorities or they're referring to the wrong status markers. And it comes through more than you. ¹¹⁰ ### Dwarkesh Would think if you just had. If you had the transcript of the call, but you couldn't see the video. Like, you would say a no in the case where you could see the video, you might say yes if you see the transcript. What happens in those cases? ¹¹¹ ### Tyler Having only the transcript would be worth much, much less, I would say, if that's what you're asking. Yeah, it would be maybe 25% of the value. ¹¹² ### Dwarkesh And what's going on with the 75%? ¹¹³ ### Tyler We don't know. But I think you can become much better at figuring out the other 75%, partly just with practice. ¹¹⁴ ### Dwarkesh Yesterday, Patrick was talking about these concentrations of talent that he sees in the history of science with these labs that have six, seven Nobel Prizes. And he was also talking about second employee at Stripe as Greg Brockman, he wasn't visible to other parts of the startup ecosystem in the same way. What's your theory of what's going on? Why are these clusters so limited? What's actually being inherited over and transmitted here? ¹¹⁵ ### Tyler Well, Patrick was being too modest. I thought his answer there was quite wrong, but he sort of knows better. He was able to hire Greg Brockman because he's Patrick. It's very simple. He wasn't going to come out and just say that. And he may even deny it a bit to himself. But if you're Patrick and John, you're going to attract some Greg Brockmans, and if you're not, it's just way, way harder because the Greg Brockmans are pretty good at spotting who are the Patricks and Johns. So in a way that's just pushing it back a step, but at least it's answering part of the question in a way that Patrick didn't because he was modest and humble. ¹¹⁶ ### Dwarkesh It seems like that makes the clusters less valuable then, because if Greg Brockman is just Greg Brockman and Greg chose Patrick and John because they're Patrick and John and Patrick and John chose Greg because he's Greg, it wasn't that they made each other great. It was just like talent sees talent, right? ¹¹⁷ ### Tyler Well, they make each other much better, just like Patrick and John made each other much better and still do. But you're getting back to my favorite human bottlenecks. Thank you. I'm fully on board with what you're saying to get those. Like how many beetles are there? It's amazing how much stuff doesn't really last. And it's just super scarce achievement at the very highest levels. And that's this extreme human bottleneck. And AI, even a pretty strong AI, remains to be seen how much it helps us with that. ¹¹⁸ ### Dwarkesh I'm guessing ever since you wrote the Progress Studies article, you get a lot of applications for emerging ventures from people who want to do some progress studies thing that's really on the margins. Do you wish you got fewer of those proposals or more of them? Do you just wish they were unrelated? ¹¹⁹ ### Tyler I don't know. Today a lot of them have been quite good and many of them are people who are here. There's a danger that as the thing becomes more popular at the margin, they become much worse. And I guess I'm expecting that. So maybe mentally I'm raising my own bar on those. And maybe over time I find it more attractive if the person is interested in, say, like the Industrial Revolution, if they're interested in progress studies, Capital P Capital S. Like, over time I'm growing more skeptical of that. Not that I think there's anything intrinsically bad about it, like I'm at a progress studies conference with you, but still, when you think about selection and adverse selection, I think you've got to be very careful and keep on raising the bar there. And it's still probably good if those people do something and Capital P Capital S progress studies. But it's not necessarily good for emerging ventures to just keep on funding the number. ¹²⁰ ### Dwarkesh If you buy your picture of AI where it increases growth rates by half a percentage point, what does your portfolio look like? ¹²¹ ### Tyler I can tell you what my portfolio is. It's a lot of diversified mutual funds with no trading, basically pretty heavily US weighted and nothing in it that would surprise you. Now, my wife works for the sec, so we're not allowed to do most things. Like even to buy most individual stocks, you may not be allowed to do it, certainly not allowed derivatives or shorting anything. But if somehow that restriction were not there, I don't think it would really matter. So buy and hold, diversify, hold on tight and make sure you have some cheap hobbies and are a good cook. ¹²² ### Dwarkesh Why aren't you more leveraged if you think the growth rate's going to go off even slightly? ¹²³ ### Tyler Well, I think I also have this view. Maybe a lot of the equity premium is in the past, that people, especially in this part of the world, are very good at internalizing value. And it will be held and earned in private markets and by VCs rather than like public pension funds. Why give it to them? I think Silicon Valley has figured this out. Sandhill Road has figured it out. So what one can do with public equities is unclear. What private deals I can get in on with my, like, really tiny sum of wealth, like I would say, is pretty clear. So I'm left with that. And like, money for me is not what's scarce. Time is scarce. And I do have some very cheap hobbies and I feel I'm in very good shape in that regard. ¹²⁴ ### Dwarkesh That being said, I think you could get pretty good deal flow even with your portfolio. ¹²⁵ ### Tyler I don't know. Like you, you can only focus on so many things. So if I have like good deal flow and emergent ventures, which I'm not paid to do, like, say I had a billion dollars from whatever, I wouldn't have any better way of spending that billion dollars than like buying myself a job doing emergent ventures or whatever. So I'm sort of already where I would be if I could buy the thing for a billion dollars. So I'm just not that focused on it. And I think it's good that you limit your areas of focus. And of some people it's just money. Like I think that's great. I don't begrudge them that at all. I think it's socially valuable. Let's have more of it. Bring it on. But it's just not me. When I started my career, it was really unknown that an economist could really earn anything at all. Like there were no tech jobs with billionaires. Finance was a low paying field. Like when I started choosing a career, it was not a thing. There wasn't this fancy Goldman Sachs. It was a slow, boring thing. Programmers were weird people in basements, like maybe, who knows, bad stuff. And then like an economist you would earn like back then maybe $40,000 a year. Like two people, Milton Friedman, Paul Samuelson had outside income and you had no expectation that you would ever earn more than that. And I went into this with all of that. Like relative to that, I feel so wealthy. Just like, oh, you can sell some books or you like can give a talk or I don't know, I just feel like I am a billionaire now and if anything I want to become what I've called an information trillionaire. I'm not going to make that, but I think it's a good aspiration to have just collect more information and be an information trillionaire. Like Dana Joy has that same goal. He and I have talked about this. I think that's a very worthy goal. ¹²⁶ ### Dwarkesh Was there a second field that you were considering going to other than economics? ¹²⁷ ### Tyler It was either economics or philosophy. And I saw back then this would be like the late 1970s, it was much harder to get a job as a philosopher, though not impossible the way it sort of is now. And they were paid less and just had fewer opportunities. So I thought, well, I'll do economics. But I think in a way I've always done both. ¹²⁸ ### Dwarkesh Okay, I really want to go back to this diffusion thing we're talking about at the beginning with the economic growth. ¹²⁹ ### Tyler Yeah. ¹³⁰ ### Dwarkesh Because I feel like I don't. What am I not understanding? I hear the word diffusion, I hear the word bottlenecks, but I just don't have anything concrete in my head when I hear that. What are the people who are thinking about AI missing here when they just plug in these things into their models? ¹³¹ ### Tyler I'm not sure I'm the one to diagnose, but I would say when I'm in the Bay Area. The people here, to me are the smartest people I've ever met, on average, most ambitious, dynamic, and smartest. Like by a clear grand slam compared to New York City or London or anywhere. That's awesome, and I love it. But I think a side result of that is that people here overvalue intelligence. And their models of the world are built on intelligence mattering much, much more than it really does. Now. People in Washington don't have that problem. We have another problem, and that needs to be corrected, too. But I just think if you could root that out of your minds, it would be pretty easy to glide into this expert consensus view that tech diffusion is universally pretty slow. And that's not going to change. No one's built a real model to show why it should change, other than sort of hyperventilating blog posts about everything's going to change right away. ¹³² ### Dwarkesh The model is that you can have AIs make more AIs, right? That you can have returns. ¹³³ ### Tyler Ricardo knew this, right? He didn't call it AI, but Malthus, Ricardo, they all talked about this. It was just humans for them. Well, people then would breed. They would breed at some pretty rapid rate. There were diminishing returns to that. You had these other scarce factors. Classical economics figured that out. They were too pessimistic, I would say. But they understood the pessimism intrinsic in diminishing returns in a way that people in the Bay Area do not. And it's better for them that they don't know it. But if you're just trying to inject truth into their veins rather than ambition, diminishing returns is a very important idea. ¹³⁴ ### Dwarkesh In what sense was that pessimism correct? Because we do have 7 billion people and we have a lot more ideas as a result. We have a lot more industries. ¹³⁵ ### Tyler Yeah, I said they were too pessimistic, but they understood something about the logic of diffusion, where if they could see AI today, I don't think they would be so blown away by it. Oh, you know, I read Malthus Ricardo would say, Malthus and I used to send letters back and forth. We talked about diminishing returns. This will be nice, it'll extend the frontier, but it's not going to solve all our problems. ¹³⁶ ### Dwarkesh One concern you could have about progress in general is if you look at the famous Adam Smith example, you've got that pinmaker and the specialization obviously has all these efficiencies. But the pin maker is just like, he's doing this one thing. Whereas if you're in the ancestral environment, you get to basically negotiate with every single part of what it takes to keep you alive and every other person in your tribe does. Individuality, is that like lost? With more specialization, more progress? ¹³⁷ ### Tyler Well, Smith thought it would be. I think compared to his time, we have much more individuality. Most of all in the Bay Area, that's a good thing. I worry the future with AI that a kind of demoralization will set in. In some areas, I think there'll be full employment pretty much forever. That doesn't worry me. But what we will be left doing, what exactly it will be and how happy it will make us again. I don't have pessimistic expectations. I just see it as a big change. I don't feel I have a good prediction. And if you don't have a good prediction, you should be a bit wary and just like, oh, okay, we're going to see. But, you know, some words of caution. ¹³⁸ ### Dwarkesh Are merited when you're learning about a new field. The vibe I get from you when you're doing a podcast is like you're picking up the long tail of different. You talk to interesting people or you read the book that nobody else would have considered. How often do you just have to. You got to read the main textbook versus you can just look at the esoteric thing. How do you balance that trade off? ¹³⁹ ### Tyler Well, I haven't interviewed that many scientists, like Ed Boyden would be one Richard Prahm, the ornithologist from Yale. Those are very hard preps. I think those are two excellent episodes, but I'm limited in how many I can do by my own ability to prepare. I like the most doing historians because the prep is a lot of work, but it's easy, fun work for me and I know I always learn something. So now I'm prepping for Stephen Kotkin, who's an expert on Stalin in Soviet Russia. And that's been a blast. I've been doing that for like four months, reading dozens of books, and it's very automatic. Whereas you try to figure out what Ed Boyden is doing with the light shining into the brain. It's like, oh, my goodness, do I understand this at all? Or am I like the guy who thinks the demand curve slopes upward? So it just means I'm only going to do a smallish number of scientists, and that's a shame. But maybe AI can fill in for us there. ¹⁴⁰ ### Dwarkesh You recommended a book to me, Stalin's Library, which talks about the different things, the different books that Stalin read and the fact that he was kind of a smart, well read guy. And the book also mentioned, I think in the early chapters that look, he never, in all his annotations, if you look through all his books, there's never anything that even hints that he doubted Marxism. ¹⁴¹ ### Tyler That's right. There's a lot of other evidence that that's the correct portrait. ¹⁴² ### Dwarkesh What's going, like smart guy, who's read all this literature, all these different things, never even questions Marxism. What's going on there? What do you think? ¹⁴³ ### Tyler I think the culture he came out of had a lot of dogmatism to begin with. And I mean both Leninism, which is extremely dogmatic. You know, Lenin was his mentor. Like Patrick's thing about the Nobel laureates, it happens in insidious ways too. So Stalin, Lenin is the mentor of Stalin. Soviet culture, communist culture, and then Georgian culture, which appealing and fun loving and wine drinking and dance, heavy as it is. There's something about it that's a little, you know, you pound the fist down and you tell people over the table how things are. He had all those stacked vertically and then we got this bad genetic luck of the draw on Stalin and it turned out obviously pretty terrible. ¹⁴⁴ ### Dwarkesh And then you buy Hayek's explanation that the reason he rose to the top is just because the most atrocious people win in autocracies. What is that missing? ¹⁴⁵ ### Tyler I think what Hayek said is subtler than that. And I wouldn't say it's Hayek's explanation. I would say Hayek pinpointed one factor. There are quite a few autocracies in the world today where the worst people have not risen to the top. UAE would be, I think, the most obvious example. I've been there. As far as I can tell, they're doing a great job running the country. There are things they do that are nasty and unpleasant. I would be delighted if they could evolve into a democracy. But the worst people are not running uae. This I'm quite sure of. So it's a tendency. There are other forces, but culture really matters. Hayek is writing about a very specific place and time. I would say it really surprised me. There are these family based Gulf monarchies with very large clannish interest groups of thousands of people that have proven more stable and more meritocratic than I ever would have dreamed, say in 1980. And I know I don't understand it, but I just see it in the data. It's not just uae. There's a bunch of countries over there that have outperformed my expectations and they all have this common, broadly common system. ¹⁴⁶ ### Dwarkesh That makes you wonder when you go around the world, because I know you go outside the Bay Area and the east coast as well and you talk about progress, studies, related ideas. What's the biggest difference in how they're received versus the audience here? ¹⁴⁷ ### Tyler Well, the audience here is so, so different. Like you're the outlier place of America. And then where I normally am outside of Washington D.C. that's like the other outlier place. And in a way we're opposite outliers. I think that's healthy for me both where I live and that I come here a lot and that I travel a lot. But you all are so like out there in what you believe. I'm not sure where to start. You come pretty close to thinking in terms of infinities on the creative side and the destructive side. And no one in Washington thinks in terms of infinities. They think at the margin. And like, overall I think they're much wiser than the people here. But I also know if everyone or even more people thought like the D.C. people, like our world would end, we wouldn't have growth. They're terrible. People in the EU are super wise. Like you have a meal with like some sort of French person who works in Brussels. It's very impressive. They're cultured, they have wonderful taste, they understand all these different countries. They know something about Chinese porcelain. And if like you lived in a world ruled by them, the growth rate would be negative 1%. So there's some way in which all these things have to balance. I think US has done a marvelous job at that and we need to preserve that. What I see happening, UK used to do a great job at it. Uk, somehow the balance is out of whack and you have too many non growth oriented people in the cultural mix. ¹⁴⁸ ### Dwarkesh The way you describe this French person you're having dinner with, which I. ¹⁴⁹ ### Tyler This is real dinners. Yeah. And the food is good too. ¹⁵⁰ ### Dwarkesh I don't know, it kind of reminds me of you in the sense that you're also well cultured and you all these different esoteric things. I don't know what's the difference between you and. What's like the biggest difference between you and these French people you have dinner with. ¹⁵¹ ### Tyler I don't think I'm well cultured. Would be one difference. There are many differences. First, I'm an American, I'm a regional thinker, I'm from New Jersey. So I'm essentially a barbarian, not a cultured person. I have a veneer of culture that Comes from having collected a lot of information. So I'll know more about culture than a lot of people. And that can be mistaken for being, well, cultured, but it's really quite different. It's like a barbarian's approach to culture. It's like a very artistic approach to being cultured and should be seen as such. So I feel the French person is very foreign from me. And there's something about America they might find strange or repellent. And I'm just so used to it. I see intellectually how many areas we fall flat on are destructive, but it doesn't bother me that much because I'm so used to it. ¹⁵² ### Dwarkesh What is most misunderstood about autism? ¹⁵³ ### Tyler Well, if you look at the formal definition, it's all about deficits that people have right now. If you define it that way, like, no one here is autistic. If you define it some other way, which maybe we haven't pinned down yet, like a third of you here are autistic. I don't insist on owning the definition. I think it's a bad word. It's like libertarian. I would gladly give it away. But there is like some coherent definition where a third of you here probably would qualify, and this other definition where none of you would. And it's like kids in mental homes banging their head against the wall. So I don't know. Seems that whole issue needs this huge reboot. ¹⁵⁴ ### Dwarkesh These D.C. people, you know, one frustration that tech people have is that they have very little influence, it seems, in Washington compared to how big that industry is. And industries that are much smaller will have much greater sway in Washington. Why is tech so bad at having influence in Washington? ¹⁵⁵ ### Tyler Well, I think you're getting a lot more influence than maybe you realize quickly through national security reasons. So the feds have not stopped the development of AI Whatever you think they should or should not do. It's basically proceeded and national security as a lobby. They don't care about tech per se, but it has meant that on a whole bunch of things in the future, you will get your way a bit more than you might be expecting. But a key problem you have is so much of it is in one area. And it's also an area where there's a dominant political party. Even within that political party, there's in many parts of California, a dominant faction. And you compare yourself to, like, the community bankers who are in, like, so many American counties, have connections to every single person in the House of Representatives. Your issues, in a way, are not very partisan. The distortions you cause through your Privileges are invisible to America. It's not like Facebook where some John Height has written some best selling book complaining about what it is you do. There's not a best selling book complaining about the community banks and they are like ruthless and powerful and get their way and I'm not going to tangle with them. And you all here are so far from that, in part because you're dynamic and you're clustered. ¹⁵⁶ ### Dwarkesh Final question. So I think based on yesterday's session, it seems like Patrick's main misgiving with progress is that you look at the young girl cohort, there's something that's not going great with them. And it seems to, you know, you would hope that over time, progress means that people are getting better and better over time. If you buy his view of what's happening with young people, what's your main misgiving about progress? The thing where you're like, ah. If I look at the time series data, I'm not sure I like where this trend is going. ¹⁵⁷ ### Tyler Well, our main concern always should be war. And I don't have any grand theory of what causes war or if such a theory ever is possible. But I do observe in history that when new technologies come along, they are turned into instruments of war and some terrible things happen. You saw this in 17th century England. You saw this with electricity and the machine gun. Nuclear weapons is a story in process, and I'm not sure that's ever going away. So my main concern with progress is progress and war interact and it can be in good ways. Like the world a la Steven Pinker has had relative peace that's fraying at the edges in the data. It's the numbers are now moving the wrong way, but it's still way better than most past time periods. And we'll have to see where that goes. But there might be a ratchet effect where wars become more destructive. And even if they're more rare when they come, each one's a real doozy. And whether we really are or ever can be ready for that, I'm just not sure. And thank you very much, Dwarkesh. ¹⁵⁸ ### Dwarkesh This will be the second session we have to end on a pessimistic note. ¹⁵⁹ ### Tyler But no, the optimistic note is that we're here. Human agency matters. If we were all sitting around in year 1000, we never could have imagined the world being anything like this, even a much poorer country. And, you know, it's up to us to take this extraordinary and valuable heritage and do some more with it. And that's why we're here. So I say let's give it a go. ¹⁶⁰ ### Dwarkesh Great note to end up thanks, Tyler. I'm very grateful to the Roots of Progress Institute for hosting this progress conference at which I got a chance to chat with Tyler and ask him a few fun questions. Jason Heike and the whole team did a wonderful job organizing it, and it was a blast. And Freethink Media did a great job with the videography, as you can see. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe. Please like please share it and send it to your friends who you think might enjoy it. And otherwise, I guess I'll see you on the next one. All right, cheers. ¹⁶¹ </details>