Palmer Luckey - Future of Virtual Reality, AI War, Autonomous Killing Machines, Militarized Policing

Channel: Alex Kantrowitz

Published at: 2023-04-04

YouTube video id: qy4h73mipyI

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy4h73mipyI

bomber welcome to the show thanks for
having me thanks for being here really
great you got a chance to speak with you
obviously been following your work for a
long time and you know excited to speak
both about about Oculus and then Andrew
so we can have some time talking about
both today
meta lost 13.7 billion on reality Labs
last year and it's planning to lose more
this year so you know it's you're an
interesting in an interesting position
because they're so dedicated to
investing in your vision and you're not
there anymore
so I'm just curious from your
perspective you know
where do you yeah
where do you think this is going for
them and do you think this is a good
move for them to be spending so much
money on this well look I'm far from a
meta apologist you know Facebook fired
me from Oculus so I'm not I'm not
naturally biased towards the Marine
means but I think that the second word
you used is better than the first it was
a it's an investment you know they
didn't lose 13 billion dollars they they
turned 13 billion dollars into a variety
of existing products and services but
more importantly into uh investment in
future products and services most of
that money is not going into things that
you can see today it's going into things
that you're going to see in the future
as for whether I think that they should
be doing that as to whether not I think
it makes sense look again I I'm a VR
Netter uh you know everyone's talking
about the metaverse now like it's this
kind of newly hyped idea but my email
signature was for 10 years see you in
the metaverse uh that was how I that's
actually how I signed the open letter
that I wrote when Facebook acquired
Oculus so I believed in this idea a
digital parallel world that exists
alongside our own blending the real and
the virtual seamlessly through your
daily life as
something that is uh if if not
inevitable at least very very likely to
be the last form of computing aside from
telepathy
um now they're making missteps like uh
horizon horizon worlds is is absolutely
terrible
um it's it's uh yeah that is that that's
not the metaverse that anyone wants I
don't but I also don't think that's the
meta verse that even people like Mark
Zuckerberg want you know I don't think
that there's a a false a false
recognition that it's a great product I
don't think that they are playing
themselves I think they understand that
they have made some missteps there and
and want it to be better
um I I do think in the long run it's
it's hard to say if it's going to be one
of these bigger companies that figures
out the first really kind of compelling
metaverse play or if it's going to be a
smaller player honestly my bet is that a
smaller player will figure it out first
just because there's so many different
approaches and it's very hard as a large
company to pick one approach that will
out compete every one of the Myriad of
other approaches that are all coming at
you from all angles and it's hard to
predict exactly what people really want
you know if I had to make a bet right
now I'd say it's something that's more
like VR chat than Facebook Horizons on
the software side
and so when you say that they're
investing in what the future is going to
look like what is that
I mean do you have any indication of
like what all that money is might be
going well well I mean I think there's
two there's two big parts of the future
there's hardware and there's software
and software is definitely important
because without really good content or
you know not even this like content that
makes it sound like you're just watching
movies but without good use cases you
know whether you're uh you know being
co-present with somebody working on
something or virtually merging two
different meeting rooms in the real
world or maybe one virtual one that's
real you know there's obviously a lot of
great stuff on the gaming side there's a
lot of great stuff on the training side
uh but I think the other thing that you
have a lot of this money going into is
the hardware side uh Hardware as they
say is hard and it's very expensive to
live on the bleeding edge especially
when you have uh multiple efforts to try
and build VR headsets and kind of
reprojected AR headsets and optically
transparent air headsets none of those
things are going to be ready for quite
some time and the hardware that we have
today day it's good for enthusiasts but
the hardware we have today is not is not
going to be something that the majority
of people want to use certainly not as
part of their everyday life for hours a
day I I wrote an article on my blog
called free isn't cheap enough and I I
my general thesis was that cutting costs
on VR at this point is only going to get
you limited gains because while it might
sell more to kind of these Niche gamer
uses if you want to go big it doesn't
matter how cheap the current Hardware is
even if it was literally free of oculus
Quest 2 was literally free today you
gave it to every American I think the
majority of people would not continue to
use it every day after the first week or
so and that's if it's free that's if
you're giving it away so how can you
hope to get them to pay for and continue
to invest in the ecosystem so there's
kind of a certain bar you need to get to
in terms of quality in terms of display
resolution in terms of comfort honestly
in terms of the way that it looks
because I don't care how I look when I'm
using VR headsets other people do seem
to care I think Apple's gonna have a
really big impact on that because in
addition to the hardware advancements
that they've been making I think they're
going to make VR headsets cool simply by
making sure that all the rich and famous
people are wearing one and you know when
when Beyonce is wearing something and
when uh you know Kanye's wearing
something you know that that that that
that that says something to people
Beyond just the Techno heads and by the
way like thinking about the timeline I
think is important here right because
they are moving what seems like fairly
slowly to everybody on the outside and
okay yeah you have the Oculus and people
are using it for gaming but um like you
mentioned Horizon world's not very great
this idea we meta is a social company
right the whole idea was to do the
social thing in virtual reality and no
one wants to do that I mean Horizon
world just filled with like little kids
shouting shouting boobs like that's what
it is and so you're they're sort of
delayed on the software there there's
it's going to take a lot more time on
the hardware even inside apple right you
remember referenced Apple yep today
there's a story or this week There's a
story about how Engineers inside Apple
are protesting the fact that they're
actually going to try to release this
virtual reality heads it so I'm curious
like you have a understanding of like
how much time this is going to take how
long is it going to be until like we
start to get to a place where it feels
less like what it feels now and more
like I guess like the Black Mirror
example where you put like one of these
chips on your on your the side of your
temple and the next thing you know
you're transported into a world that you
can't tell the difference between that
and the one you're living in well that's
what everyone wants right The Matrix
yeah they want that perfect level
experience and actually the end of that
article I wrote free isn't cheap enough
I I laid out all the people who claim
they don't want VR today yeah they don't
want VR I say well what if what if you
could put on a pair of sunglasses it
costs 99 and it felt like you were in
The Matrix and you could do anything you
imagined anything an AI generated for
you anything the human a human could
ever experience you could experience
and be like oh yeah you know that that I
would want I say well that that's VR you
know that's that's where it's going in
maybe not the next two years but there's
actually a pretty clear path to VR that
is visually indistinguishable from
reality in the next five to seven years
certainly not more than ten and when I
say visually indistinguishable for all
the display nerds in the audience I know
there's people thinking no there's edge
cases that'll never really be easy to
simulate what about ultra high
brightness glints off of fine Vernier
resolution you know lines it's like okay
yeah that's going to be really really
tough but you'll probably be able to
make something that replicates most
visual experiences or at least certainly
the visual experience of being indoors
in a room or inside of a Convention
Center or inside of an arcade that
you'll be able to do basically perfectly
well within 10 years for sure there's a
clear path to doing it the physics don't
preclude it this isn't like AI where
nobody knew how it was going to develop
we know exactly what the road map is to
get there as far as the other senses
that's where things get more difficult
you know if you want to feel like you're
in The Matrix you've got to simulate
touch and taste and scent and vestibular
vestibular vestibular senses your inner
ear telling you that you're actually
moving through space excelling
accelerating and decelerating that's
going to be a lot tougher there are
promising schemes for each of those but
it's more like AI was five years ago
where people didn't quite know exactly
what the winning approach was going to
be and it could be another 10 20 30
years before someone has the
Breakthrough which could just be going
directly to the brain or the peripheral
nervous system I I hope not for
practical reasons so briefly what is
that path that's going to get us to
basically visual Fidelity within five to
seven years
but the the interesting thing about VR
versus AR is that the path is very very
clear because uh it's it's mostly just a
Brute Force solution uh people have been
trying to come up with really really
fancy uh you know scanning laser
displays that project directly onto the
retina people have come up with ways to
inlay high resolution displays over
lower resolution displays so you get
wider field of view and also you know
what high PPI right in the center and a
lot of these schemes make sense in the
moment but I always tell people to think
the way that I did when I first got into
VR as a hobby I got into VR as a hobby
because I looked at my eight monitor
gaming rig set up and said what's the
next step you know or not what's that
what's the LA what's the culmination of
this what's the final step and I knew
that it wasn't 10 monitors or 16
monitors it was it was clear that it was
going to be virtual reality that's what
got me into VR that it's kind of the
final step in gaming technology not just
the next step and I encourage people to
think about displays the same way the
way I look at this is what's the final
step where is this all going let's
forget about the intermediary layers
like trying to merge high resolution and
low resolution displays the answer is
probably just we're going to Brute Force
this by having really high resolution
displays we're going to have obscenely
high resolution displays we're going to
have very very fancy kind of
multi-material uh holographic
holographic Optics that are able to
basically collimate and project photons
off those screens with a very very high
degree of realism and that I mean that's
where this is all going people people
often uh seem to think that there's got
to be this big breakthrough like that
we're going to be scanning lasers I'm
like no I think I think actually things
are going to look pretty similar you're
going to have Micro LED displays that
are very high brightness you're going to
have something like pancake Optics or
holographic Optics or multi-material
high refractive index material stamped
Optics and you're going to put those
Optics in front of the display and
you're you're going to be more or less
done now there's a lot more to it you
also have to have verifical systems that
can change the focal length of the
pixels that you're going looking at but
that's all been demonstrated that's all
been proven as well we can do it fast
enough if we have good eye tracking we
can correct for pupil swim with eye
tracking we can correct for a a a
asymmetry in terms of eye position in
the lens with eye tracking
it's all figured out
right okay so then then the question
comes all right when does this become
massive adopted now if you end up in a
place where you literally feel like
you're in The Matrix when you put on uh
you know VR glasses or chip or whatever
it is that does seem like something
that's going to be Mass adopted but the
visual Fidelity like you say is very
interesting because it's not going to
bring us all the way there going back to
this like you can give it away for free
and it's not going to get Mass adoption
maybe we'll get a little bit more then
but it does feel like there's almost a
step change moment where you end up like
getting good enough at those other
sentences where you do feel like you're
in Another Universe and then people take
hold of it question is if that's 30
years away right potentially then then
can medic keep investing this amount of
money oh yeah oh yeah no no I I think I
think there's no problem I mean so the
the visual the visual side is going to
happen the audio side is again barring
these these kind of extreme edge cases
that are going to be very hard to
simulate the audio side of it is going
to happen and you don't have to simulate
taste uh well or at all you don't have
to simulate touch well or at all you
don't have to simulate even Locomotion
well or at all if there are compelling
things you can do with just Sight and
Sound and remember most of what we
experience is Sight and Sound that's
what most of our brain is dedicated to I
mean what if you could hallucinate
anything in the real world you know and
when I say hallucinating I mean
functional hallucinations not not
Holograms but you know full-on
hallucination of you know people in
spaces things in spaces being in a
different space I I think there's a huge
number of things that you can see I mean
think about all of the times you've ever
had to do business travel and I've
lamented this before but you know I'll
travel to the other side of the world
I'll go to some company and then I'll
sit in a room just so I can talk with
people and you know look at a physical
model of something we'll talk for a few
hours in a fluorescent lit conference
room we'll shake hands and then I have
to fly home and think of all the fuel
that I'm burning to do that think of all
the money I'm spending to do that think
of all the time I wasted to do that the
only thing that I would lose if I did
that in VR with perfect vision and
perfect audio is that handshake at the
end I'm willing to lose it yes okay so
that brings up another really
interesting point which is when you can
create any experience right
where do you focus and you know I I know
we're like kind of talking about meta
here but like
they have a recent commercial that's up
that says like the metaverse can be a
museum it can be a doctor operating on
someone it could be someone fighting
fires
right exactly and it's just very
interesting because it's a social
company right and I keep going back to
this and
maybe that's why it doesn't feel normal
to anyone right now or doesn't feel like
I don't know not maybe not anyone but a
certain there's definitely a large
segment of the population that's just
like this is not living up to the to the
amount of money you're putting into it
because it feels relatively unfocused
yeah so what is you know and it feels
Enterprise also which is really
interesting and it's like oh you're
gonna go Enterprise but you're a
consumer company so is that like an uh
am I appreciating how big of a challenge
it is to focus on this stuff and where
do you think the right places to focus
are
well I'm not in charge anymore but I
feel like as long as the hardware is not
mainstream you have to focus on the
non-mainstream people you can't force
people to care about something that
isn't yet at a stage where it's for them
so I've seen these commercials and it'll
show you know like a stay-at-home mom
who is using it to exercise and see her
relatives there are some moms out there
that'll do that but for every dollar you
spend on customer acquisition costs to
get that that type of customer you
probably could have spent 10 cents and
gotten a hardcore gamer a techno head
some guy who desperately needed this to
solve some problem in his business if it
were me that's what I'd be looking at
what who are the people who need this
technology today some of them because
they're interested in it from a
recreational perspective but others
because they actually desperately need
this technology for let's say training
or real estate visualization and those
things are not as fun they don't Market
as well you don't want to say check out
this cool tool we're using corporations
can use it to make more money more
efficiently but but those are the users
that will buy it today that you can
convince to buy it today if you can
convince them that it'll save them money
and or make them money they kind of have
to buy it and then I would say focus on
these other groups of people as you
after you've actually built the
underpinning you you I I'm not a fan of
trying to sell to kind of Starbucks
crowd when the Mountain Dew crowd is the
only one that cares about VR
right and then like the thing is like
yeah you might become IPM right because
like you're sure you know this company
with like a it used to be a story that
now you're selling cases well it's worth
noting that you're over it it's worth
noting like yeah when I when I was when
I was running Oculus uh and when I not
even when I was running I went right at
the very beginning at the very start of
all this
um
I you know our Kickstarter video started
out with me saying I'm Palmer lucky I'm
the founder of Oculus the designer of
the rift the first virtual reality
headset designed specifically for gaming
and that was that that was that was the
focus it kind of really set our mission
it set our target audience it set our
developer audience and it was easy for
people to understand if we had started
out saying hey you know this is this is
the headset that changes everything for
everyone all the time everywhere I don't
think we would have gotten very far and
I think that it's like that that shift
from Focus to Broad uh I think that
there is a time when it will happen I
don't think today is the right time
unfortunately but on the other hand I I
look I I I I empathize a little bit with
where Facebook or meta is corporately I
mean they're investing a lot of money in
this as you've pointed out a few times
they have to answer to the public
markets so they they can't for example
be spending all this money and not
explain where it's going and why they
can't just say they can't say it's only
for gamers or it's specifically for
these Niche Enterprise use cases and
then spend 13 billion dollars because it
just doesn't spreadsheet out it only
works
as an investment if you believe in this
long-term vision of the metaverse of the
final computational platform of the
ultimate interface uh which was what it
was called even as a hype as a
hypothetical Ivan Sutherland even uh
even before it was uh a working
technology and yeah if you believe in
that then the investment makes sense if
you don't it's nonsense yeah and it's
more than just a communication issue for
them I mean it does literally look like
the product for them is just kind of all
over the place is that if you let's just
play the hypothetical game if you were
there today is that sort of what I mean
yeah I've seen you smiling here so I'm
kind of curious you know I think is the
the focus thing or what what yeah what
would be your plan for look I'm the
biggest I'd be the biggest investment
the company makes I'm I'm not close
enough to the problem look at the end of
the day I'm I'm focused I'm focused on
my new company Andrew and because of
that I don't know everything that
they're having to factor in you know
like I know they're having to Market to
shareholders I know they're having to
Market to Partners as well who are going
to be important for me this forward they
want to work with a lot of other
companies they have to convince them
that they should work with Facebook and
to do that they have to set a broad
Vision not a niche Vision so there's
there's a lot of constraints they're
working under that I didn't have to work
under uh and so that made my job easy
their job harder
um I will say I'll shoot there was
really there was really good point what
was what was the question that you had
asked
about like what you would oh that's
right I remember it so I what one idea
I'm not saying this is this is what I
would do so those are all my caveats one
thing that magic leap did really well
was creating a sense of Mystique around
what they were doing you know real
really talking about it in big terms
about how it was going to change
everything we're building the magic
verse imagine blending the real in the
virtual world but they did a great job
of not actually showing uh you know how
the sausage was made if they back in the
day uh in the 80s and 90s the people who
are most excited about VR were the ones
who hadn't tried VR they had seen the
movies they had read the articles but
they hadn't seen just how primitive it
was because anyone who had realized it
was no nowhere close to anything like
they had wanted it or imagined it to be
I think magic Elite tapped into the same
thing basically the people who hadn't
seen it were the ones who were most
excited they got enough people to see
these very high-end internal prototypes
that they had credible insiders saying
oh I can't tell you about it but I've
seen it and it's absolutely incredible I
sometimes wonder if that might have been
the better play on this metaverse front
to basically tell the public hey we're
investing in this and it's going to be
amazing to build some internal
prototypes that don't where you don't
have to spend all this money supporting
and building this thing like Facebook
Horizons in real time like building in
the open is hard and it's embarrassing I
love it because I'm an open source
software and Hardware guy I you know we
built Oculus in the open we did all
these Kickstarter updates we talked
about what we were doing we opened
sourced a lot what we did but it's
embarrassing to work in the open
sometimes because people get to see the
problems with what you're doing and you
know not not to be too mean to the media
as if such a thing was possible but uh I
I mean they're they're they're out for
blood with Neta to try and make what
they're doing look terrible and so
anything they do in the open is going to
be ripped apart and picked apart and I
sometimes wonder if maybe they could
have taken the magic leap approach and
kept the Mystique focused on just
building the right long-term thing
without the distraction of catering to
the catering to the near-term fires of
this screenshot looks bad this image
posts bad avatars don't have legs and
people are making fun of it you get what
I'm saying yeah and by the way like
after all that surprise
so that is true although although I'd
say I'd say the reason the reason they
ended up doing that I think was more a
reality of like they basically botched
their Hardware launch they botched their
software launch but most importantly
they over promised I think magic leap
was at its best when they were
non-specifically hyping themselves up
but then when they started to say we're
building uh we're building photonic
light ships that create full holographic
light Fields it's like no no this is
just this is just a normal display and
two wave guides with two Focus points
like that's kind of a neat trick but
it's not a photonic light ship this is
not a this is this is not building light
Fields it's it's just it the the problem
is what they built did not live up to
the hype that they had set but they also
were not spending 13 million dollars a
year so you know if you could build
something that lives up to the hype then
I I think that could be the right
approach I mean Apple's doing this too
like apple apple talk about app well
apples apples kept things pretty serious
and I know quite a bit I'm not gonna say
too much about what I know because it
wouldn't be appropriate but I feel like
we're going to be underwhelmed by
whatever Apple puts out oh I wouldn't
know I wouldn't be so sure I think that
people are going to be
I think that the hardware is going to be
great I I will admit you know the the
Apple headset it's a you know it's a
reprojected it's a reprojected augmented
reality headset which by the way I
believe is the future
without a doubt it is the only path to
better than human Vision real world
photons are overrated
but uh what is a that what does that
mean like the the your the images are
reflected against the mirror which then
everything else everything you see is a
synthetic Photon so kit sensors are
capturing the real world they're merging
it with a digital you know virtual side
and then every Photon that hits your eye
is created by the device rather than
trying to build an optical system that
allows for passage of real world photons
while simultaneously layering on
synthetic photons and that's that's a
very that's a the latter optically
transparent AR is a path that has been
so widely explored I think it's a dead
end it's a great hack in the near term
because it gives you real world Fidelity
in terms of focus and convergence and
resolution of the real world but I I
think it's a dead end in the long run so
I think apple is actually this headset
is a step down the right path for the
long run uh and I think probably if
people are going to be underwhelmed
it'll be on the software side
which I think is actually also fine I
mean remember when remember that
remember this uh Steve Jobs didn't want
to originally open up the iPhone to
external developers and actually one of
the people who convinced him otherwise
was the the former CTO of oculus that I
hired John Carmack
um and he he he got into a fight with
with uh with with with jobs and Johnny
Ive and a few others over this and of
course in the end John wanted to
basically start porting high performance
games to to the iPhone uh which couldn't
beat on his web apps effectively uh
which is was kind of the vision for how
people would run things on the iPhone
that were not the default apps I think
you're going to see a similar situation
to the early days of the iOS App Store
where there's very little content the
killer apps are kind of the Apple apps
that come with it and it's just gonna
take
you know a whole development cycle
there's not that many people that have
Apple headsets right now there's a few
people making content but it's not like
Oculus where we sold 55 000 developer
kits of dk1 and overall 150 000 DK2
development kits we're like in that case
every every Indie developer in the world
who wanted one had one uh and was able
to be ready for our consumer launch the
Apple One it because so few people have
them it I think it's going to take a
year or two before people feel like the
software side is really there but the
hardware is going to impress people I I
think it impressed me well so you've
used it
I've used I've used things that are I've
used things that are that are not quite
what it will be but are better than what
it was and so uh you know I I I I can't
say I've used the final the final device
but based on everything that I have seen
it's gonna be great is Tim Cook gonna
make Mark Zuckerberg look bad again I
mean part of it I think Zuckerberg is so
into the Oculus and and metaverse thing
is he finally wants to create an
operating system of his own and not be
sort of living on it on borrowed time
from Apple so well I mean this well this
is a neat yeah I mean that's not even a
that's not a conspiracy theory it was
kind of explicitly stated when they
bought Oculus if you go back and look at
the at the shareholder calls back then
uh it was very clearly he said like look
we we kind of missed we kind of missed
the boat on on uh mobile uh you know we
we're basically living on top of these
other ecosystems and it's valuable for
us to have an ecosystem that we have
control over where nobody can kind of
pull the rug out from under us and
that's true just in general it's good to
have a platform that you control and
it's especially good if that's the final
platform that will
Define the way that humans interact with
technology for the next hundred years
like that's that that's the real win you
know you don't want to have the you know
the flash the own The Flash and the pan
thing that's only going to last for a
couple years and uh so that was one of
the things that made Facebook attractive
to us when they bought us people thought
it was a really strange bedfellow but
you have to remember companies like
Microsoft Google even Apple VR wasn't on
their roadmap certainly not their
10-year or you know long-term roadmap it
was just an interesting thing going on
so even if they would have bought us it
would have been to you know use us as a
gimmick to sell game consoles or as an
interesting thing that would inevitably
get canceled like all of their other
projects you know depending on the
company you could probably attach them
if you if you put your mind to it but uh
Facebook was the one that had a strong
incentive to take what we were doing
build it up turn it into the next
computational Mega platform and shake up
the entire Tech World by kind of you
know putting making mobile making
traditional web and making normal
Computing obsolete Microsoft doesn't
really want to do that or at least
didn't did not 10 years ago and I'd say
apple didn't want to do that 10 years
ago and uh and uh and Google didn't want
to do that 10 years ago they're already
kind of on top there's no reason for
them to to you know shake things around
and reorder who's on top but Facebook
was a company that clearly had a strong
reason to invest in VR and that's why
you see them consistently investing for
a decade now yeah and I guess my
question with them is always like are
they going to be so invested in this
that like they might delusionally keep
putting money into it but I I think that
you've made clear that this is the right
bet for them look yeah I I if if it
isn't I'm gonna be there till the very
bitter end because I look I work in
defense now I am still a total believer
in virtual reality augmented reality the
metaverse the whole thing you know it's
a it's a quasi-religious fervor that I I
I've maintained for I guess the last 15
years
Palmer lucky is here with us he is the
founder of oculus also the founder
founder of Android which we haven't
spoken about yet but we will on the
other side of this break so stay tuned
we'll be back right after this
and we're back here on the big
technology podcast with Palmer lucky
he's the founder of oculus and the
founder of Andrew and I actually like I
mean we definitely went long about uh
virtual reality in the first half of
this show and I'm glad we did but um I'm
actually even more excited to speak with
you about what you're doing uh inside
Andrew so
um I think the public perception of
Andrew is that it's a company that uses
AI to develop military technology how
correct is that
that's more or less correct although I
think that the structure of the company
is as important as the output of the
company we're we think of ourselves not
as a defense contractor but a defense
Product Company and what that means is
we use our own money to decide what to
develop how to develop it when it's done
and then we sell it to our customers as
a working product when we go to our
customers we're not going to them with
you know just a white paper and asking
them to put to give us a bunch of money
to make something that we don't put our
own money into we're going to them with
prototypes and products that we've built
and say hey we've already built this
we've already we've already taken the
risk out of it you just need to buy it
and deploy it and get it out there the
risk is on us not on taxpayers and
that's a really important distinction
because most companies in this space are
defense contractors they work on Cost
Plus contracts where they get paid for
their time and their materials and then
a fixed percentage of profit up to on
top of that usually a very a very small
percentage of profit and so the only way
for them to make money is for their
systems to be as expensive as possible
for them to be as Exquisite as possible
for those contracts to go on as long as
possible in fact they're incentivized in
many cases to drag things out and for
them to go for very long periods of time
because that's how they make more money
and that's a really bad set of
incentives that we've tried to short
circuit and I think that it's led to us
being much more efficient internally
it's led to us being much more efficient
in our manufacturing and it's led to us
getting out there and moving much more
quickly because we're not waiting for
the government to Dole out a you know
million dollars here a million dollars
there over the course of five years to
research something instead we're saying
you know what we're gonna spend 10
million of our own dollars we're going
to do this in three months and then
we're going to start shipping it and
we've done that multiple times where
we've developed products over the course
of months not years and then replace
incumbents that have been doing what
we're doing worse for decades
right and so you guys are working on
what the future of warfare is going to
look like and people have said okay well
maybe this will be a future that we'll
see sometime in the future but
obviously you see the future of the
future but maybe the future is the
present right now in in Ukraine it does
seem like you have much more visibility
into this than I do but that the future
of warfare one where we have autonomy
and AI we have these killer drones that
are basically flying into you know their
intelligent missiles effectively that
Russia has been using
um that's all in action so how is the
future of warfare changing in Ukraine
right now
well I I have to start by saying the
future of warfare is Warfare so I know
that sounds really tautological like
it's obvious but remember that before
you crane there were a lot of people who
said the future of warfare is uh is is
trade agreements the future of warfare
is is is global trade this idea that we
lived at the end of History was very
popular you know that everything's kind
of uh firmed up and crystallized and
there's not going to be any more
large-scale conflict everyone agreed
that was even I mean that was in the 90s
right what that argument went went to
Flame since after 9 11. well what's
funny is it's this seductive argument
that keeps coming back with the
intellectuals and the elites who don't
actually have to interact with the worst
of human nature it there in fact I think
it was in 1903 the best-selling book in
the United States is I wish I could
remember the name offhand it's been
about a year since I talked about this
but in 1903 the best-selling book
according to the New York Times times
was A Treatise on economics that
specifically laid out why we're living
at the end of history and more
specifically said that for the first
time in history Europe is free from
violence and that will can that will go
forever because For the First Time
Europe and all of the Nations contained
therein are so economically
interdependent that Warfare between them
is Unthinkable and impossible and then
of course we had World War one and then
just a couple decades later we had World
War II I mean it was it's a seductive
idea that people who are out of touch
with reality keep coming back to and so
I'd say like it's important to point out
like the the the Russia's invasion of
Ukraine just blew the lid off of that
idea and all of us all the people that
were talking about it have very quietly
stepped into the shadows and pretended
that they never said anything like that
so that's been interesting to watch
because of course that's why we started
Android because we knew that there are
hostile entities out there that wish
violence on others to enact their aims
upon the world there are people who are
willing to kill for their interests and
a lot of those interests are directly
opposed to the United States directly
opposed to our allies and I would argue
directly opposed to universally
applicables universally applicable
principles of Human Rights whether it's
freedom of speech the right to
self-determination the freedom of
Association these are things that a lot
of our adversaries don't believe in and
uh Russia invading Ukraine I think has
been a reality check for people so the
future of warfare is Warfare we started
this company because we think that there
is no moral High Ground in leaving the
most moral people with the least
effective weapons because at the end of
the day Wars start when bad players
believe that they when they incorrectly
assess the risk you know people only get
into Wars because both sides think that
they can win it's very very rare for one
or both sides to believe that they are
going to lose War they incorrectly
estimate the prowess of the other side
the best way to deter to deter Warfare
is to have such an overwhelming
advantage that there's no question as to
the outcome you need people to basically
look at this like a chess game and they
need to look at the board and realize
that they've only got two pieces and
you've got a full set they say you know
what I can't possibly win I need to not
launch an offensive in the first place
and if we had been in a better place not
just the United States but uh our
partners I think that things would I
think things would be very different
Ukraine they would be very different in
Taiwan maybe they'd even be different in
Hong Kong
and so well let's just talk about this
because I feel like it's worth going
into
um I I do I guess like the counter
argument to this is that the United
States isn't really at risk of uh ground
Invasion oh not at all not at all
so what is that so then talk about I
mean if your compelling event was to
deter others from attacking the United
States and we don't think that there's
going to be a ground Invasion and so
then what is this company doing that I I
think I I've heard this argument a few
times I think there's there's two two
angles to it
um one there's never going to be a
ground invasion of the United States
because everyone in the United States
has a lot of guns and loves loves
America I mean there's a there's a
strong sense of patriotism that doesn't
necessarily exist in every other country
and we've got literally hundreds of
millions of guns and at least at least
you know maybe a hundred million people
who are capable of using them so for
that reason alone we're not going to see
a ground invasion of the United States
the other reason is because we are
actually we're far at that we're Geo
that was and that was my second point
geostrategically we're in a great
position we've got friends on all sides
of us we're an ocean away from everybody
who wants to do us harm we're a really
hard target to get to and fight but I
would say this is a little like you're
you're reversing cause and effect here a
little bit you know one of the reasons
that the United States has gotten into
this kind of leadership role with NATO
and this leadership role in five eyes
it's not just that we're economically
powerful it's because we are that kind
of unassailable you know Kingdom on the
mount that nobody's going to be able to
go after like think how dangerous it
would be for the you know the kind of
World Police Nation to be right next to
China or right next to Russia where you
can have major conflict potentially wipe
them out and then the rest of the world
is in in trouble where free trade is not
necessarily a given I'd say basically
our our our
populace and our geostrategic location
uh have made us the have made the United
States into what we are over time which
is the country that is uh I will say
it's basically the country that's trying
to uphold this kind of idea of free
trade self-determination democracy on
the round the world now have we done a
perfect job of it absolutely not but
generally I mean that's what we're
trying to do that's what Europe wants us
to do that's what Japan wants us to do
that's what Korea wants us to do you
know it's a it's a it's a pretty good
thing that's worked out so well so far I
think the big change you're going to see
going forward and this has really been
because of Ukraine yeah I think the
United States within our lifetimes is
not going to get boots on the ground in
a big way in major conflicts I think I
think the kind of Afghanistan in Iraq
days of tens or hundreds of thousands I
think those are great lessons I think we
learned you know what the the power of
the United States is not the ability for
us to send a bunch of our people to
another country to die for it I think
what we're seeing with Ukraine is we can
be very effective taking people who care
about their country
who are partners of the United States
and arming them with the tools they need
to make them so prickly that nobody
wants to step on them yeah we want all
of our partners they don't want to take
over the world they want to be prickly
porcupines that nobody else can step on
so like you look at Taiwan you look at
Japan you look at Korea you look at
Poland you look at NATO you look at the
Philippines none of these countries have
Ambitions to take over the world
they're great partners for us to give
weapons to that they can use to deter
aggression from China Russia Iran other
people who are up and coming and I think
artificial intelligence is going to lead
to some very unexpected up and comers uh
and I I think that's what U.S assistance
is going to look like it's going to be
providing very high-end weapons to
people who are ready to go and die for
their country not us going to die for
their country I see so basically what
you're saying is when you're the stuff
that you're developing at Anvil mostly
is for countries who might be under
threat from a China or Russia that's
that's what that that's what all of it
is for everything that we build is from
a lens of deterrence and that's actually
a really different way to think about it
than has typically happened uh typically
happened with companies like Andro so
you know I often talk about how the
right time to get involved with defense
if you don't want Wars to happen the
right time to get involved is before the
war starts if if you've got to have this
come to Jesus after a major conflict
starts it's already too late you're not
going to be able to build anything fast
enough to prevent The Invasion because
it already happened all you can do is
try to push weapons into the oven to
make the the conflict end as quickly as
possible and that's what we're seeing
with Ukraine I think we did not give
them the tools they needed to prevent an
invasion and so we're basically limited
to giving them tools they can use to
fight a war and what Andrew is doing
broadly is thinking okay what tools
would you build if you were trying to
build things that you would get them
before an invasion happen what are the
tools you can build that are going to be
operable on day one of the war which is
when you have all your runways and ports
but more importantly day 10 day 100 day
1000 what how can you build things that
will remain operable even in a sustained
military campaign against that country
because those are the tools that are
going to deter China and Russia because
they're not that afraid of let's say you
know things like long range long-range
surveillance drones that have to operate
off of 5 000 foot runways because they
know they're going to bomb those runways
in the first day or the first week of
the War uh they're what they're
terrified of is things that can be
operated you know vertical takeoff and
Landing aircraft that can operate out of
an abandoned gas station parking lot so
you know some Warehouse out in the Hills
you know kind of spread across the whole
country they're worried about weapon
systems that are covert that are hidden
that are almost impossible to find and
devastating when they when when they
work on you I mean those are the types
of systems that deter Warfare instead of
wind Warfare
so there's also an argument that's been
made and I definitely want to get into
the technology but you know we have a
the United States is a pretty mixed
record in terms of intervention sure
pass let's say you know 50 years or so
and there's an argument to be made that
even by prolonging the war in Ukraine
what's happening is it's driving Russia
and China China closer together and
putting more distance between the US and
these countries maybe that's worth I'm
curious what you think about I think
we're already so far apart ideologically
and interest wise that like
I don't think that we're going to come
to terms with China I mean China has a
very strong set of interests that are
absolutely
counter opposed to the United States and
in our allies I mean like you could make
the same argument with a lot of other
places like you could say Oh by by
helping Taiwan you know maintain their
independence and making sure that we
have access to their chips are are we
bringing China and and Russia and Iran
closer together I don't know if you're
familiar with the SEO the Strategic
Cooperative organization you know but
it's Russia it's Iran it's China now
turkey is talking about joining which is
absolutely nuts and a discussion for
another day but applying for NATO like
five minutes ago so it's it's a kind of
a it's kind of a crazy yeah exactly it's
a crazy situation but setting aside uh
SEO
um sorry it's not changing it's a
Shanghai Cooperative organization that's
what it's called and it's kind of this
counter NATO is is the idea
um and so the the the I think that China
and Russia they actually don't have
interests that diverge and so it's
actually pretty cheap for them to agree
with each other you know they don't want
the same places Russia doesn't want to
invest lead the Philippines Russia
doesn't want to own the South China Sea
uh you know there there's just not a lot
of overlapping interest so yeah we
probably are pushing them close together
and we probably are pushing ourselves
closer apart but I think that process
started decades ago when we allowed
China to kind of enter into our you know
free trade you know free trade uh free
trade deals in a way that was really
ignorant of what they would do with that
okay interesting so what are you
developing what is the technology that
Andrew is worth I mean fundamentally our
main product is a piece of AI software
called lettuce it's an AI Sensor Fusion
communication and Analysis platform that
uh can take data from hundreds or
thousands of different sources merge
them all into one comprehensive picture
of everything that's going on in an area
and then you tell what machines to do
what to get the right information to the
right people at the right time and it's
the really the underpinning of all the
hardware products that we make so you
know we make we make uh military-based
security towers that run on top of
lattice we make border border security
tools that run on top of lattice we
build aerial drones multiple ones that
run on top of ladders we build counter
drone Interceptor systems that knock
drones out of the sky Jam them hack them
and physically destroy them also running
on top of ladders we build loitering
Munitions that are built on top of
lattice we build robotic submarines that
dive to a depth of of 6 000 meters that
run lattice and I think actually our
submarines are the longest range
electric vehicles of any kind anywhere
in the world and uh all of these things
are built together it's also worth
noting lattice is not just a tool for
our own Hardware we actually integrated
more external systems that the dod
already owns than internal products so
we're integrated with manned fighter
jets with cruise missile early warning
systems with with counter air systems
with radar systems with electronic
warfare systems with naval ships with
you know across the board we're trying
to tie all these disparate Legacy
Hardware products together into a single
picture so that every sensor can be a
sensor for every effector and every
person has access to each node
so I think one of the things that when
people hear about this stuff the concern
is that okay there's going to be you
know this advanced technology built in
things like submarines fighter jets and
eventually and you know drone
interceptors and eventually we're going
to get into this world where we're going
to have you know
um so much distance between people and
warfare and we're gonna have robots
fighting each other and eventually
robots the robots that win to the
fighting against human populations so is
I mean that's the Doomsday scenario that
a lot of people talk about you don't
seem very concerned about it though
maybe you are well I mean
I mean we're already there I've heard
this argument and I think that it
probably made a lot more sense when we
went from guys shoving Spears into each
other to doing it from hundreds of yards
away with bows like I mean I I think
that was probably the right time where
you could get away from the physicality
and brutality of what you were doing and
every advancement there has taken it
further and further and so when people
say oh but you know isn't this just
making it more inhuman doesn't the
distance you know really make it make it
less human the they're they're
calibrated on what's normal for them and
I think that actually speaks to the fact
that people are able to understand
abstract Concepts like killing a person
even when they're not directly doing it
literally hand to hand I mean you know
you people are like oh well you know
today at least the guy needs to look at
the guy in his rifle scope and pull the
trigger and see him and of course that
is brutal and it gives people PTSD but
you know if if he's doing it from a
drone thousands of miles away surely
it's just so remote but then you look at
a lot of these drip drone operators they
get and that was and that was exactly my
point it turns and that's it turns out
people can people can understand this in
an abstract way I have faith in the
human in the in you know the human race
in this one aspect I don't think that
not being directly there uh is is I
don't think it's born out and so like if
but the autonomy the autonomy thing
though is not even that you're not
you're it's not even that you're not
directly there you're not even I mean
the robots are making goodness well so
that's right so that people are worried
about it but it's just not reflect of
U.S policy and I it's just it's just not
going to happen so I mean by by certain
definitions we already have autonomous
weapons you know the close-in weapon
systems that shoot down sea skimming
missiles going at aircraft carriers you
turn those on and they shoot anything
that comes rushing Over the Horizon
without a person having to give it a you
know kind of the pull of a trigger and
the the rules there are everyone who's
running those systems knows exactly how
they work exactly what their limitations
are and can only activate them in that
way when there is a really good reason
to do so a human is always accountable
for that decision the same thing with
for example radiation seeking missiles
which we've been using since before
Vietnam where you can basically send a
missile into an area where you're going
to lose Communications with it because
it's being jammed it finds uh you know a
radio signature that looks like a Target
that we know like a tank or a surface
air missile launcher and it flies into
that in that case it's making a decision
about which Target to strike when
exactly to do it but there's a person on
the hook for the deployment of that
system he's the one who launched it he
told it where to go he knows what the
limitations are he knows how it can be
tricked and if it goes poorly if
something bad happens we don't just say
oh the machine made a bad decision it
killed the wrong person
no people are at fault you know we have
a strong actually system for
accountability where it's always a
person they as they say on the loop a
person is always making that decision to
kill I don't think that we're going to
get away from that anytime soon and I'd
all say like even with current drones we
say oh well you know the guy is doing it
but it's still autonomous but I mean you
look at the predator drone what happens
is they now have algorithms and they
have for a long time where it finds the
Target in the view it locks onto that
Target it steers the laser autonomously
the missile flies autonomously nobody's
steering it you know it just flies to
the Target basically the only human
involvement there is making the decision
to end someone's life and that is a
decision that still causes people PTSD
which I I think speaks to the fact that
they fully recognize however removed it
is from shoving a spirit into somebody
that they're killing someone and I think
the United States has done a pretty good
job of of uh of of holding holding
accountability on that not perfect
but but better than better than anyone
else
so I I want to ask one more questions
about about like by the way I'll I'll I
just I have to digress for one moment I
will say I I actually am uh I I actually
am uh very sympathetic to the I General
argument that war you know people say
that the future war is going to be more
divorced from the reality of it I think
that's not the case because people think
in an abstract way that's it I think
there's an argument that it should be
more physical that we should return to
once it came I'm generally a fan of the
idea that world leaders should just have
trial by combat and they have to show up
with knives and they fight until one of
them is dead
um it would be good if the people at the
very top started to feel some of the
consequences and that's really what I'm
getting to like I think I think when you
talk about distance the distance is not
the guys who are pulling the trigger I
mean these guys are I I they have an
immense an immense moral load on them
and I you I've talked to them I mean we
hire a lot of them Android's about 30
veterans and these guys are not removed
from the things that they've had to do
you know who is removed from it a lot of
the people who are making the decision
to get into these fights in the first
place they're they're not they're
they're they're they're so far removed
that they what was last time you heard
of a congress person getting PTSD uh
because of a bill they passed that
funded some specific military action
it's just it doesn't happen they'll get
reelected after making votes like to
invade Iraq and stuff many of them are
still in the Senate yeah so I'm I'm a
I'm a big fan of of heads of state being
in war that's actually one of the things
I really like about Prince Harry uh you
know he that is that he he he he he
actually seems to you know he's been in
this he understood that Kings used
to have to ride into battle I think that
was a good thing
yeah so what about then this stuff go
ending up in the neighborhoods in the
United States so we have like a big
spillover for military technology they
almost always ends up in the hands of
the police in some way all right we have
police writing like armed personnel
carriers through the towns of the United
States right now and like when I hear
about AI based weapons or you know smart
weapons as a deterrent for others you
know to who we might want to invade our
allies you know around the world or
you know I think that's good but then I
also think like come on inevitably this
stuff is going to show up in communities
around the United States and end up
militarizing our police even further
than they have been at this point what
do you think about that so you and I
probably are going to disagree on this I
think that it's everyone who's concerned
about for example APC is going to police
is either one purposely fear-mongering
or more likely just doesn't understand
what they're buying them for at all like
it makes an easy headline right why does
this little shitty little
Podunk one stoplight Town need uh you
know I need a military vehicle you know
basic or as they usually report it a
tank you know they say what why does the
police department need a tank and if you
actually read the reasons that they get
these things uh it actually makes a lot
of sense so like let's go through that
specific example because it's easy to
talk broad but like I'll talk about that
specific one
um what happened with a lot of these
vehicles is they were things where we
they they fought in war they were you
know US Army or U.S Marine Corps
vehicles and then we basically built
them to fight a conflict and at the end
of the conflict we didn't need them
anymore so we had a few options either
one we could just literally cut them up
into scrap metal which would actually
cost quite a bit of money like cutting
apart these things and disposing of them
in an environmentally responsible way is
no is actually no joke especially I mean
that's ridiculous I'd want to be able to
buy one of those things that like a used
car dealer and use it for personal use
well I mean driving around Brooklyn one
of those things I have to say so act you
know it's actually worth noting that uh
it's actually working there's been a lot
of rules passed that Force the
government to Surplus off equipment like
that so you actually can buy a lot of
the stuff Surplus and actually I own an
armored personnel carrier I also own a
Humvee I also own a uh-60 Blackhawk hey
and I own a mark 5 Special Operations
craft I bought from Naval special
Warfare so I I'm very familiar with the
procurement rules but but here's the
idea you you don't you don't want to cut
them apart because that's too expensive
you can try to sell them but it turns
out there's not much of a market for
these vehicles you can't like people
don't actually want these these things
there's not a lot of use for them and so
what happened is a lot of police
departments would need to buy things for
their SWAT teams and for their uh for
like even medical First Responders that
were maybe not a giant armored you know
anti you know let's say an mrap you know
a mind resistance a mine resistant uh
you know uh kind of Transport vehicle
but they were out there saying hey we
need a vehicle that we can use an active
shooter scenario so that we can get
people close to a school let's say so
that they can get out and go into it or
any you know active shooter situation
anywhere without out necessarily having
to cross a hundred yards to a place
where there's people in the windows they
said we need a place where we can
evacuate people we need to be able to
get people into it and then move it out
some of these are also places where they
actually needed vehicles that were able
to Ford pretty deep water they said we
need a vehicle they can for example
cross that road over there that whenever
we go through flood season there's six
feet of water our trucks can't make it
through we're our we're literally cut
off from that side of the town and it
turns out that things like heavy
amphibious capable personnel carriers
met all of those requirements and so the
government was basically say look we're
going to get rid of this stuff but
there's all these local law enforcement
departments that if we don't give if we
don't if we don't sell these tools to
them for basically the same price we
would sell them on the Surplus Market if
we don't which is honestly giving them
away compared to the original cost
um they're gonna have to go out and
they're gonna have to buy something for
millions of dollars that does the same
job so when people look at how police
departments are using some of these
tools like people say oh my God I can't
believe they got an MR app it's like
well they didn't buy an mrap because
they're using it to you know go on like
you know urban patrol missions these
things mostly if you look what they do
with them they just sit in a hangar like
a fire truck they just sit somewhere
maintain and then when they have a flood
they have a vehicle that can
amphibiously cross to the other side of
town when they have an active shooter
situation they're able to get people
close to to another place when they need
to pull something where they need to
haul a truck let's say a semi that has
gone off and you know into some crazy
ditch and they need something that can
do a serious recovery guess what these
vehicles are also used for vehicle
recovery they have tons of torque tons
of fraction anyway I I I I I I guess I
guess I how I'd cap this off I've gone
deep on this one particular issue I
think that there's a lot of
fear-mongering about militarization of
the police and I think that distracts
from the handful of issues that probably
are more militarization of the police
which is really not the equipment
they're buying it's the tactics yeah
it's basically are we outfitting our
place pleased to be people who walk the
street and you know are we are we are we
building
um you know are we building the police
from Leave it to Beaver or are we
building the police from uh snow crash
you know are these basically sold you
know are these Soldier mentality police
and that is fun to each other though so
but let me ask you this I want to ask
you so so that so that that could be
true and like people like oh but if you
give them a number up but here's the
thing I've seen what they do they buy
these mraps they paint them bright red
you know they they really treat them
like fire or emergency vehicles people
say oh well it's still an mrap you're
gonna meet their police mentality and I
would say I don't think the right way to
deal with a town unless you have a small
town in Mississippi that has a problem
with the cops thinking they're Soldiers
the right way to get them back into the
right mindset is not to deprive them of
the tools that they need to help people
in flood zones or to tow vehicles out of
ditches oh you can't have that kind of
Hardware you you you have to be
incapable and running around on your own
two feet I I think you you we need to
know how to give them the tools that
they need
and also solve the mentality problem
otherwise we're not really solving
anything
yep let me ask you this are you as in as
Andrew gonna sell to police departments
in the United States well I mean we
already sell to law enforcement in the
sense that you know Customs and Border
Protection is is a law enforcement
agency so they're they're definitely not
military uh we sell to DHS the
Department of Homeland Security we
haven't done any local law enforcement
sales not because we are you know
ideologically opposed to ever doing so
but it would need to be the right thing
and the things we build I mean I mean I
talked about this earlier the things we
build are primarily
focused at deterring Warfare I mean
that's that that's really kind of the
fundamental use case for most of these
they're not the types of things that are
typically useful for a local law
enforcement uh yeah local law
enforcement type application now if
something came up again I don't want to
preclude ever selling to a specific
customer especially if the US government
told us that we needed to do so if the
US government for example said hey we
really think that you should be selling
some of your uh counter drone systems to
local counties so that they can protect
critical infrastructure like power
substations power plants oil refining
facilities I wouldn't say oh no we
refuse to do that because we don't want
to sell to law enforcement yeah I think
at the end of the day there has to be
some trust in our Democratic systems I
think a very dangerous outcome of this
idea of kind of tech CEOs deciding who
has what and how in the realm of Defense
technology is that you end up in a
situation where you have mega corporate
Executives having de facto authority
over U.S foreign and domestic policy you
know to basically be able to pull the
strings and say this war is okay but
this war is not I'll sell to you for
this but not that I'll let you defend
this but not that I think that's a very
dangerous thing to allow companies to
decide I don't think I should really
even have that ability honestly I wish I
could say I'll sell to anybody the US
government tells me to and I have
literally zero say over it unfortunately
I do I do have some say that the
government does has not fully has not uh
fully uh I've not been able to fully
defer responsibility to them but I I'd
say that that's where this is law
enforcement if we could and like also
when enroll started I just have to sorry
one more detour on this I want to note
one of our first two products we worked
on was a firefighting tool it was the
century firefighting tank the other
product we worked with was the Andro
Century Tower and uh unfortunately it
was a failure from a business
perspective it was basically a tracked
vehicle it was a tank that could carry
several tons of firefighting foam or
water it was amphibious it was tracked
it looked a lot like an armor armored
person an L Carrier we actually based
the design on an m113 armored personnel
carrier and uh it was it could
autonomously fight fires right in the
middle of a fire where you would never
put a manned vehicle where it's far too
dangerous to keep a fire crew as a
diesel electric hybrid could operate in
areas too hot and too oxygen starved to
ever even run most fire vehicles it was
a business failure but but that was
something that we would be selling maybe
not to law enforcement but to you know
to fire to Firefighters and in a lot of
communities those are the same thing
there's a lot of communities where where
they're kind of First Responders are
cross-trained in both things they can't
afford to have a fire department and an
EMS crew and also uh uh you know a
police station and so like I I happily
would have sold those to people no
problem I wouldn't sell them loitering
Munitions mostly because they don't want
them and they don't want them and don't
eat them
yeah okay do you have a time for like
maybe two more questions or do you have
to let's do it I know we're a little
over
um what I've what I saw you it was like
a public prayer at like a conference
recently are you religious
uh I I I am a religious person
uh-huh so I grew up religious too I'm
curious like how your religious
background if any you know influences if
any
um the way that you think about war
well I think that the strongest
influence is
you know it's it's it's hard to it's
hard to do a one-to-one comparison
because you know the United States is is
not Israel it's not a lot of the other
nations that are kind of more
specifically talked about in the theory
of theories of war that are that are in
the Bible but I think that it is pretty
clear at least from a from a Christian
perspective that war is sometimes
Justified and I think that's actually
true of most religions there's very few
religions they would say that violence
against others is never ever Justified
especially when it's for something that
is morally good and whether or not you
think the United States is you know uh
is is is a is a Christian Nation now or
at some point in the past the principles
that we have are definitely founded on
similar similar similar values I'd say
most radical atheists actually share all
maybe 99 moral overlap with Christians
in terms of like hey you generally
shouldn't kill people but it's also good
to stand up for the week it's also good
to not allow Injustice to be perpetrated
I mean that's you you generally should
uh you generally should try to do the
right thing in those areas
um I I I think that that's a that's a
good thing that the United States has
General agreement on those because
that's not the case in a lot of other
nations where uh you know people talk
about
religious differences in the United
States but again most of the people in
the United States regardless of their
religion do generally align with U.S
interests uh as it pertains to making
sure that NATO does not fall to Russia
with regards to making sure that Taiwan
does not fault fall fall to China so
um I I I'd say uh I'd say that the the
nice thing is
however it motivates me religiously I
think is actually more or less aligned
with the people who have absolutely no
religious justification for their moral
beliefs
yeah okay here's the last one for you
it's a two-parter based a little bit off
the last question so obviously like
you're working in artificial
intelligence
um first part of this is
how do what do you think about like
humans trying to create uh new
intelligence you know it seems that's
almost like playing the role of God it's
a you know so that's I'm kind of curious
about using that and then there's the
other side of it is okay so you're
working in an AI you're you've created
an AI weapons company or AI defense
company
sorry about that
so you created an AI defense company
um
how how uh based in reality do you think
people's fears are that like AGI could
like take over some of the systems
you're developing and kind of on its own
start going to war oh let's work
backwards uh look it's a it's it's a
valid concern but to be honest for me
it's so far down the list of other valid
concerns I am so much more terrified of
moderately intelligent varied morally
bad people
doing bad things then AGI doing really
bad things I'm I'm actually a lot more
worried about uh about bad people with
dumb AI than good people with really
really really really good AI I'm even
more worried about you know bad people
with bad AI than
really good AI with really good AI you
know I I feel like people say oh you
know what if it what if it wants to
exterminate us what if it turns out that
it's hyper intelligent and it's going to
take over I I've seen those scenarios I
think they could exist I think at the
end of the day we don't need to be
worried about the AI nearly as much as
people using AI as a tool to enact
totally human perversions on the rest of
the world it's going to be religious
extremists who decide that they're going
to use this to exterminate the people of
some other religious sect it's going to
be the people who are a rogue state that
decide they're going to be able to use
AI to settle a war that has been brewing
for hundreds maybe thousands of years
between them in a rival country I mean
it's going to be bad people with okay AI
that I'm much more worried about than AI
itself if that makes sense and I'd say
nothing and when I say yeah directly I
don't mean AI mean AI in the hands of
bad people I don't mean AI directly I
mean the things they'll create with it
for example uh biological weapons could
become much easier to build and tailor
through the existence
exactly and of course that's not just AI
you know relevant are all these other
technological advances that have made
biotech so much easier for colleges and
garage hackers to also work on so
there's always two sides of the coin but
uh you I would say the idea of it
the idea that a rogue State could build
a custom virus tailored to wipe out some
specific specific sub-ethnicity of their
population uh or at least try to do such
a thing they may not be successful and
that's terrifying you know this is how
bad Sci-Fi movies start you know they're
trying to wipe out the bad bad guys from
their perspective and it turns it out it
wipes out everybody and turns everybody
into zombies
um but like I'd say that the idea that
they could do that 10 years ago 20 years
ago was kind of unbelievable it would
have to be a crazy you know super power
effort to do something like that uh now
I I think it's believable that in the
next 20 years you could have the
smallest nations in the world doing
something like that or trying so that
the only reason I'm not worried about AI
killing us all of its own volition is
that there's way scarier things even
with even without Ai and certainly with
dumb AI uh then what was the other
question saying that it's not like a
person that's not AI is not going to
take you habits a person with AI is
going to take your job it's like a
little yeah he's not going to kill you a
person with AI exactly and I and I don't
think it has to be very smart AI it
doesn't need to be self-aware to do what
a bad person wants and in fact there's
actually a compelling argument that
maybe a smart AI would be better at not
doing what the bad person wants uh so
you know I I we'll see how it plays out
the um the last question was ask playing
God you know how yeah so there you go I
will say the things that we're doing are
so
functional and Mission focused that it
doesn't mean it just doesn't meet the
bar of of playing God and but not Andrew
Justin yeah in general this human
pursuit of AGI are you familiar with the
with the science fiction concept of
upload of of uplift
that sounds familiar but yeah definitely
I'm back it was it was a really popular
Concept in the 70s and the 80s there
were some examples in the early 90s in
science fiction and the it was it was a
term that basically got started getting
broad use almost as if it were a real
term of the industry an industry that
never existed uh and the idea of uplift
is to take species that are either below
or right at the brink of what we would
consider human sentience and bringing
them over the line that's the process
maybe you can bring it further and you
make them more intelligent or super
intelligent hyper intelligent even but
the the the concept of uplift is about
that step from where they don't realize
that they're a individual with you know
a level of of sentience and future
planning to all of a sudden being that
even at a low level and there's
typically the the candidate species are
uh you know Apes so you've got
chimpanzees you've got gorillas there's
a lot of a lot of Science Fiction about
dolphins getting uplifted because
dolphins are are very similar to human
brains in a lot of ways very high
glucose consumption about the same about
the same ratio between the different the
different regions
um and they are they are already quite
intelligent uh there's even people who
think that if you could get enough brain
folding to go on you might be able to do
it in African gray parrots which are
already very smart but they need a
little more brain mass they need a
little more brain folding before you
could probably get them just over the
line and you might be familiar with I
think his name's Alex the parent have
you ever have you ever read his story
there's been there's been a handful of
African grays that were clearly A Cut
Above the Rest and were able to learn uh
quite a bit of language not just in a
mimicking sense but in a way where they
could put words together limited sets of
them and they were even they were
clearly self-aware to the point they
could ask questions not just saying
things that are a request for other
things lots of animals have been able to
do that but actually asking questions
about the future or a thing that needed
to occur before they could get some food
or or be brought somewhere and it was
barely right about there and so I I
guess what I'm getting with this is
uplift has always been a really
interesting concept to me it's
unfortunate that it has died
I think mostly because AI has taken all
the oxygen out of the room in terms of
what it means to play God what it means
to do really really big things in the
realm of Consciousness and intelligence
I've always wished that there was more
focus on uplift because I think AI has
been focused on the way people think and
I think there's actually probably a lot
to be learned if we could learn more
about the way that the closest
intelligences that are non-human thing
you know could it be that there's really
good approaches in the way that a
dolphin or a chimpanzee or a parrot or
even an octopus think octopus in
particular it's very alien it's a very
different process modeling things after
ourselves I think we've done it because
we think we're right at the Pinnacle but
us being where we are now doesn't mean
that our thought structure is
necessarily reflective of the optimal
thought structure it's not necessarily
the one that will scale the furthest a a
common Trope of uplift science fiction
is that dolphins are yeah you know
extraordinarily gifted in
three-dimensional related geometry and
that they're able to get to a much
higher intuitive level than people are
the ultimate shape rotators if you will
uh and uh I've always thought that was a
really interesting idea whether whether
it's true or not and so you know are we
playing God with AI
maybe a little bit uh but I actually
wish we were playing God more I wish we
were just straight up you know hauling
other species up into sentience let's
like humans have done pretty well let's
bring some other guys along for the ride
I think you know what how it can't hurt
to have a little bit more I guess
neurodiversity would be the would be the
popular term these days uh you know if
you think if you think an autist is
neurodivergent how about a dolphin or or
an ape but I think it's probably
interesting things that could be learned
you know cool to find out that that's
your next company you know I I don't it
it's on the long list to be honest I
have a lot of things that I've looked at
working on and one of them was solving
obesity through petroleum foods and
other was solving the private prison
problem in the United States by running
a non-profit private prison chain that
out competes all the others by setting
the incentives where it only gets paid
once the person has not gone back to
prison after release fought for five
years basically realign the incentive so
that everyone is forced to you know
build the right systems that we actually
want because the incentives are just
like the defense industry flipped today
those are still pretty high on my list
if I were not doing Android but I I mean
there's there's there are so many
problems in the world it's like until we
achieve that old saw about world peace
globally I I think I'm going to be
focused on this I'll also say Mike Mike
Solana has an interesting counter
perspective to me that I've been
noodling on on uplift his point is that
the world is better when it's a when
it's a unipolar world meaning you kind
of have one Center of power that they
able to keep things in check we we've
been in a unipolar world for the last 30
40 years I'd say since the end of the
Cold War China has started to turn it
into a bipolar world and you can imagine
it turning into a tripolar world at some
point and that really breeds a lot more
conflict especially existential you know
kind of species level potential conflict
and uh his argument is you uplift more
species that have totally radically
different needs wants and desires and
interests in US you could end up in kind
of a mini polar world where you've got a
lot of different species with very
different interests in terms of what
they want the climate to be what
resources they need and uh that's a and
and no kind of kinship of man that we
have at least with every person around
the world and uh that's rare rarely
turned out well for most species that
have to compete with another species for
resources so I I've been I've been
pondering this idea I'm actually maybe
more afraid of uh of uh of Planet of the
Apes than Terminator if that makes sense
definitely and those animals are strong
so all right farmer thank you thank you
there's been a lot of fun joining
awesome