0:01 So last time we talked about all this different. You know, perhaps like using organic cells and these, you know, massive neural networks and, like, you know, some of the ethical overlays to that. And, I got to thinking about, you know, if, if it ever is resolved to where the organic cells or biological, mediums carry no, no more relative significance than, digital or just material networks like wires.

0:32 Right. Right. PB boards, you know, printed circuit boards. Yeah, yeah. Printed circuit boards and connectivity and wires and these mesh networks, if those are on equal playing field with biological material. Then we can then and we're going to apply the ethical overlay to the biological materials. We get to a certain point where like is it wrong morally to destroy certain computer networks once they reach a certain you know, but that's like, that's like I guess stuff for matrix conversation.

1:01 But still it's interesting if, if you, if you put them on equal terms, you know, then you, you had a word that you were looking for the other day that. Yeah. That's basically it dovetails right into what we're talking about, enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies that can enhance longevity, cognition, and well-being.

1:26 So that would have to include integrations. Yeah. So not just not just what we're integrations like we're talking about or. Yeah. And as soon as you blurred the line from body to environment, which is appropriate, we have we've talked about that before. But this idea that we have a continuous, intermix, a continuous interplay with our environment and reliance upon our environment.

1:49 Yes, a symbiotic relationship. Yes. This, this concept that you're talking about, this transhumanism ties into that. So like the the technology, sculpting the environment itself and the individual. So internal and external components working together to, to do this longevity and yeah, immortality. You know, and I think as much as we don't always boldfaced admit it, that's the goal to to persist forever your ideas, you're not just your ideas, but you're being right.

2:24 There's that movie where, you know, the bad guy has or a bunch of people have like almost infinite backup copies of themselves, and they can just restore the backup at any time and then start from that point, you know, whatever. Yeah. And, definitely you could see where that becomes a possibility. And really interesting change in in dynamic.

2:41 When you're not worried about fear, you don't have the fear of death anymore. You go and you can pull a mother Teresa. You can go serve the the disease and the dying because you can just restore your backup. That's really interesting, too, is that you could, like, try out different. You know, if you have all this time, you know, you could spend the life like a current, what we call lifetime, trying to be a bad guy and see what happens.

3:04 True. Right. Try to just base jump off a cliff, unsuccessfully. And. Yeah, like Groundhog Day. Like I just keep killing yourself and perfect the day. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Really interesting. So, our theme today is to talk specifically about, scapegoating using technology as a scapegoat. And this, this conversation started with the idea that when someone, someone works at a corporation with you and they leave, like, this happens a lot of times, especially in it probably have it's in all aspects, but probably this concentrator magnified and it all of a sudden all the IT problems, you know where I'm going with this.

3:41 Yeah, man. You know, someone leaves the organization all of the like manifesting everything that they touched. You know if that then goes wrong and you can even include things upstream and downstream. Yeah. So the whole organization. Yeah. So, you know, such and such whatever Jimmy, you know, whatever his name was, you know, it's due Jimmy Wells, the founder of Wikipedia.

4:04 It was him. Jimmy wells. Yeah. Jimmy Wells quit, and now everything's falling apart because he didn't. He did everything, you know, on his own. He went outside the robe. Yeah. He was against policy. Yeah. And then even if there's a question, you know, if there's a chance that it was me that did it, I would just say, well, I think Jimmy, you know.

4:23 Well, you know, I was I partnered with Jimmy on that, but he really spearheaded the effort. And I think he cocked it up. Yeah. And so the, the the overlap of the when we started talking about technology in AI and all that kind of crap, you know, serving as these agents and actors and these, you know, kind of roles is that we're already primed for it.

4:41 So like, you know, we we didn't know what Jimmy was really doing. See what I'm saying? Yeah. We didn't know what because there was a policy and we could see on the we could see some of the effects of the things that, you know, Jimmy did and put into place and products they worked on and things that he touched.

4:57 But, you know, since he did so many things on his own, you know, of course, scapegoating him now, he really didn't. But, you know, since he did all this stuff on his own, we're going to then pull the Jimmy card every time we can because it's nebulous. It's not well defined, right? Right. We don't know what he did, but what Jimmy had in the code now and see.

5:16 Yeah, he had his tentacles and everything. That's right, that's right. And so when we have these, AI coworkers, you know, partners, agents that are acting on doing different roles in our corporation, we can now have the same thing. In fact, we can have this almost exponential to blame because we don't understand the full context of the algorithm and all the things that when we were talking about this the other night, but there's already been a court case along those lines.

5:41 Yeah, it was a mo fat versus Air Canada. In British Columbia, they found Air Canada liable for misinformation given to a consumer by its AI chatbot, and they awarded damages to the user as they should, because it's a representative of the company, even though it's an AI. But what are they trying to do with that? I think they tried to say that is the ass fault.

6:03 Yeah, they tried to escape the hell out of it. Right. So there there it is. Right? Like that's the first. Probably not the first, but that's one of the early cases of how this is going to be. Yeah. So there's the there's the reverse too right. Like we could, we could say that if we could get it to the point where like legally or in terms of the corporate policy, the agreement that you sign up with is that there are times when the damages, because the AI created that, you know, in the end user license of driving that car that has that AI engine, there again, comes with it, you know, an agreement that you

6:37 signed when you purchased that, then the company's in perpetuity, indemnified against any knock on effects. Yeah. And you can even word it like they always do in a contract. A list of things, but not limited to. Right, right. These acts of God. Yeah. These things, like, you know, it could kill you. It could go rogue. It becomes sentient and drives off a cliff.

6:59 You know, like, including but not limited to this list of, you know, terrible sounding things. Right. And so. But included but not limited to is like anything. Yeah. Right. And so now legally, the legally now the AI is indeed scapegoated or, you know, whatever the technology is, has been scapegoated. And so you could think of it too, like, just even before digital, you can think of it back in an analog world, like where, you know, we had cars zooming all over the place with no seatbelts and, you know, they were like death boxes.

7:33 Yeah, yeah, you hit something at 40 miles an hour and it's just you versus that. Was that movie Unsafe in Any Speed? That was a movie that was a book by nature or book. Was it a book? Didn't they make a movie about it? I don't know. Am I wrong? I if they make a movie about it, I want to see that.

7:49 But I did read the book years and years ago because, that was Ralph Nader, unsafe at any speed. It was a big thing against, General Motors. Yeah, yeah. And, it became like the standard, critique of a company putting profits over people, you know? Yeah, it's a good, what is that model for that kind of thinking of, like the what can happen when a company puts profit over people?

8:13 To me, it's a demonstration, really. I mean, it's it's it's soup to nuts. What does happen? You know, and, you know, not to be not to assume nefarious, but when you have the omnipresent pressure of capitalism putting on, you know, the pressure on everybody involved to consistently and, you know, consistently and recurring, make more money, make more money, make more money.

8:37 You can see where, you know, on the edges, on the margins. You'd get this kind of behavior repeated over and over. Right. Predictably. Yeah. Okay. Where I first heard about it was an animated short. Oh, and then I then. Yeah. Okay. So it was an animated short in 2011. That's my bad. Gotcha. So back in this back in this day when, you know, General Motors, I think it was two was buying all these rail run railways and not to not to buy them and operate them, but to just uproot them, like lift, you know, destroy the track.

9:09 Because now the only form of transportation was, was automobile. Wow. So, like, you know, there's this really, robust in some kind of city. There's this really robust commuter light rail type of scenario, and in comes this massive, you know, company buys the whole railway and then just decommissioning it all scraps it. That's crazy. Because now you now you need roads going everywhere to to do the transportation.

9:32 So you know, it's that whole holy shit. The cat. Yeah. Up in the window like stretching that is, that is weird looking. Just look over and see. It was like I'm fat hanging.

9:48 Cats. Weird anyway. But we love him. So anyway, he was like Garfield in it. Yeah. You know, so for some reason, the technology gets a scapegoat because the technology offers a capability that that we wouldn't have anyway and seduces us into then not blaming it like our mobile is a perfect example. Like how many people have died in automobiles throughout the history of all mobile?

10:09 But we don't say the technology could be improved. Controls could be put around the technology. No, we glorify this height of technology, whatever it is at the time, this this apex of awesomeness. And we say it's not at fault. It doesn't need to be changed. We need to be changed. It was a humans error that caused it to cause that to happen.

10:31 It's the same thing we're doing with guns. There you go. And we have this, strange affinity for technology. We humans do because we get seduced by the capabilities that either affords us or we perceive it affords us. Right? It gives us this hyper ability that we wouldn't have otherwise. And so it seduces us into not blaming it then for the for the collateral damage that it may cause.

10:55 Yeah, right. So like, I don't want to get into the Unabomber manifesto here and sound like, you know, sound like I'm crazy, but it's true. There's there's a there's a secondary effects. There's collateral effects from all technologies that are, that are negative, that the technology, because of the benefits that that it does offer or is perceived to offer, gets a pass on.

11:15 Right? People die in cars, those things. So like the lateral effects continue unmitigated almost because we make these things into idols, we bow to them and worship them and pour energy and effort into them. I think that's a great way to say is isn't a dollar idolatry style phenomenon? I think that's perfect. Yeah, I think that that perfectly describes and, I was using the term seduce because, especially with some technology like social media or something.

11:48 Yeah. It's like people are seduced by the dopamine cycle. You're right. It's a chemical seduction, right? That's a good point. And that's an excellent point. But but it's but it becomes like the worship of that, now augmented behavior. Yes. You know, and acceptability. Right. So like, like a parent now isn't perceived as a bad parent if they stick their kid on a tablet all day long.

12:09 Yeah. Right. It's almost expected. You see, now, just out in public, you know, most young children will be carrying a device that the parents are using to sedate and sidetrack, you know, which is which is, not the right kind of feedback loop because it creates what I believe is technology induced ADHD and other negative psychological symptoms and poor cognitive development.

12:33 Myopia even. Yeah, right. Physical and cognitive impairments that come up, you know, and people say, oh, it's just alternate brain. It's just the way things are trending now. Well, not necessarily because there's there's a natural being there that has certain natural needs by nature. Bye bye. You know the nature of what it is to be a human being.

12:52 A human brain is, you know, evolved in a certain paradigm for a long, long time. And now all of a sudden we uproot that and throw it into a new paradigm. That's an experiment. That's not a, you know. So our our ancient biology and, you know, our, our ancient minds. They, they evolved outside of this ecosystem of technology.

13:12 They were supposed to be out on the plains using our sharp eyesight to look for, you know, collective danger. We're supposed to be out there looking for food, not having ready access to sugars and fats. You know, those things are supposed to be rarity, right? We're supposed to be. You know, we've upended the whole cycle and turned it on its head.

13:33 But you can see why we would be, we would we would we would desire that naturally. Because it's not the danger. It's not the perceived danger driven right now. It brings in with its own, hidden dangers. There we go. Like now. Now you're worried about juvenile diabetes. And, you know, the selective pressure is different. Correct. You know.

13:54 Yeah. So like this. Not that, not that we're going to have enough cycles of this to really have it, change the genome. Right. It's not natural selection because you're not dying of heart. You're procreating before your diet of the heart disease. Probably. Right. So, like, the fatty diet isn't a selector because you're it doesn't affect you. So when you're in your 20s and 30s, when you're of good breeding age as a male.

14:17 Yeah, right. Yeah. And so you're still able to pass on the genes and have a big family. Some of these, you leave your family early in your 50s from your heart attack. Guess my my argument for there being selective pressure is some of these things are severely telling and affecting these kids ability to interact with each other and get to the point where they are having sex.

14:38 Good point. Yeah. And so I think that when you do introduce certain amount, I remember reading this, I forgot what was it, maybe this book called Stuffed and Starved. Where they talked a lot about Indian, farmers in India and some of the effects. And like the population rate was exploding, so they started giving them televisions.

14:56 Oh my God. To like tamp down the I don't know if it was in that book or something else I read, but it was so they westernized the culture. Yeah, they get mesmerized and TV and they're not they're not screwing as much, so they're not having as many babies. And then other things too, like normalizing contraceptive and like but but the but one of the variables was like this amusing continuous amusement.

15:18 Yeah, right. To tamp down or slow down, engage and divert. Yeah. Right. Yeah, yeah. Look over here. Look over here. Right. You're you're preoccupied being amused. And my friend Jesse, he he was like, broke down for me one time. The difference between. Excuse me, the difference between amusement and musing. Amusing versus amusing. So, like, you go to an amusement park to be thrilled and mindlessly entertained?

15:44 Sure. Right. You go to a museum, to culture yourself, to think, to spend your time using upon things. You're thinking about it. You're immersing yourself in it. Yeah, and I never thought of those two words like that, but. But boy, what a different mental activity it is. Yeah, yeah. Because I was like, wow, maybe I should tamp down a lot more.

16:02 A lot of the amusing that I'm chasing and chase. More amusing. Yeah, yeah. Because then you think of your muse, your inspiration, that which drives you, right? Right. And edify is you. Yeah. You know, gives you a, like, a deep, rich experience. Good point. Versus a surface quick dopamine. Yeah. I mean, did I get that line of coke?

16:22 Yeah, yeah. Right, right. I'm the mouse pressing the button. Yeah. So it's like a gourmet, gourmet, nutritious meal versus a line of Coke. Damn. You know, or comparable, you know. Well, yeah. Yeah, it's it's doing the doing the rail of coke or taking your time with a multi-course meal, thinking about it, working your way through it, being mindful of the entire time as opposed to just a hit.

16:48 Right. So and then, just naturally that follows that. Is that the, the nourishment that your body is getting versus the deterioration your body's getting on the other side. Right. Good point. So, you know, I guess I guess in modern society is like, just both get both. Right? But but, you know, let's let's not both.

17:06 Right. All the above mentality, which is valid. I mean, I can see why people would go for that too, but I think that, like, the amusing will seduce you and inevitably get it to where that's the norm, right? And there's like that whole, tolerance cycle to where you just build this tolerance to where it takes so much more to amuse you, chemically or otherwise.

17:26 And then, you know, now you're just chasing, constantly chasing the music, building up the tolerance and it being like a drug and you meeting more and more of it. Wow. So then what we can do when we fail now, the young generation and, you know, everybody but, you know, particularly manifested in the young generation is you can blame, right?

17:45 You can scapegoat on this matrix of upbringing and not just scapegoat. There's some validity there. Right. I was raised on the tablet. And you know, I was raised in all these hyper video games that are 18 or above and my parents literally playing when I was six. And, you know, how can you how can you not wonder, why am I on the scattered right.

18:04 You know, and then you take this opposite effect of that. You take like the guy that made the Linux kernel, right? Apparently he made he did it like, quiet and complete quiet sterile walls, like, you know, sounds like hell the way he describes it. But, you know, even the computer itself was like low noise computer, so it wouldn't make any whirling noises.

18:22 Okay, so you can concentrate on the problem. He was trying to solve programing and created something that has transformed the computing world. Yeah. I mean, since he did as well, from what I understand, he did he the same paradigm. He took time off to Linus Torvalds, but he took time off in the midst of being the dictator of the Linux kernel, months to redo it because there was, I forget what it was called, but it was a competing platform that they were using to do source code management.

18:59 Okay. And he CV yeah. Bit something. Okay. I don't know, but they were commercial but it used the, use the versioning like. Yeah. And they were commercializing it. Gotcha. And they were going to charge them. And so he's like, well I'll just make one. And so it was like months and months of his concerted effort. And he comes back with git.

19:25 So here's someone that is like fully and really, really, narrowed into musing like musing on a problem that he's trying to solve programing. Right. So extreme gifted coder, I mean, yeah, can't deny that. But then on top of that, this this completely, you know, laser focused musing over a problem. Right. And then bringing in and through that, bringing something into the world that transformative.

19:55 I mean, that's that's that's awesome. It's incredible. And it's just something that most of his dream of, you know. And then, you know, it comes out and speaks about other things and it sounds like a nut. But that's a whole other story, you know like stay in your lane. It's like right. So I like this, this concept that, that we're, that we're unfolding here, this like scapegoating and reverse scapegoating of culpability.

20:23 So like, you know, you could say the end of the day and algorithms is an algorithm. It can't be held culpable for anything. It's how the programmers programed it. But then you can then go back, keep going back in layers, like you said, upstream. Downstream is that you can say, well, that coder wasn't aware of certain features, certain certain effects of certain types of algorithms and use because they weren't well trained in that particular area.

20:43 So then okay, it's now the humans fault again. Right. But then the algorithm or the AI, whatever that existed as a, as an agent of itself went out into the world to do some kind of function and, and did it really well in the, in 95% of the time, but then 5% it failed miserably. And you know, like AI hallucination and all this stuff.

21:02 Well, it's just like the car off the cliff. Yeah. Gemini recently has been telling people to put glue on pizza and to eat rocks, you know, because it turns out a Reddit data, right? Right, right. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah, it was a joke from Reddit from like 11 years ago. AI getting trained on fortune. It's like, you know, that was so hilarious.

21:23 Yeah. It becomes this neo-Nazi in a weekend skinhead right after. After encountering fortune. Yeah. Like, let's put that in your neural net and smoke it. Yeah. And they did. So, like, they end up putting in a broom closet or something. Yeah. Yeah. It's like the anti genie lane coming out of the bottle. Oh, man. Star Trek reference. It's like law.

21:42 You know they didn't just take him apart and we put him in the closet. Yeah yeah yeah. Just for some tool to come by and reassemble it. So thinking like, maybe it's disassembled for a reason. Right. Yeah. Right. Maybe you don't want to put all the Infinity Stones in one glove. Who's seen what happens might lead to some bad consequences, right?

22:03 So, Yeah. That's great. So then you have these layers of blame. So then, you know, the the that coder that that young coder that didn't had a knowledge gap that coded. Something's wrong. Right. Then blames the university for not completely training them. The university claims, you know, you know, the technology suite that the university uses says it's impossible to train everybody on.

22:23 You know, you just keep going back and forth on this, on this blame scapegoating. And then the finger pointing just happens in every direction and nobody could ever sort it out. It's too complex for a new brain to, you know, sort out who really is to blame. Right. And so then you just do what every company does, and you just settle this and you settle that, right?

22:41 Yeah. But then true accountability never happened. And so then we just move on to the next thing. And no accountability. No. Or limited or suppressed or reduced accountability. And this technology layer just keep allowing people to scapegoat. Yeah. You know, and avoid accountability for, for in many cases evil and intentional. It's layers of insulation. It's you know, indirection, you know, it's but oh just to go back and say it was bit keeper.

23:10 That. Yes, bit keeper was, the piece of software they were using for source control management. Gotcha. I bet. And so, then the technology layer, this is, this is a nice this I think is a beautiful one in the scapegoating conversation is that the technology layers and the technology, the level of technical complexity in all these layers.

23:30 Right. I, I've like mentioned this a bunch of times because it's it's true and relevant is that you can just say there's no human mind capable of even scratching the surface. On the total complexity of technology in modern life. True. And so what that does is it gives us a way to scapegoat our things that we thought sort of.

23:50 Right. It's like so for example, nutrition. Right. You know, you can say like just open up anyone's cabinet and look at all the preservatives and artificial sweeteners and, you know, you name it. Yeah. In that shit. Right. The high fruitless corn sirup added into everything, I mean, etcetera, etcetera, the nitrites, nitrates, everything. And then you start learning about it and you're like, Holy crap, I need a PhD just to get started.

24:14 You said what I'm saying. Yeah. And I need a chemistry degree as well to understand that how this chemical would interact with my biology and all this kind of stuff. Right. Yeah. And so it becomes so nebulous, we can then just say, oh, I'm not going to think about it. There we go. Right. And so you're scapegoating personal responsibility for your own health due to the amount of knowledge and how unapproachable it's presented.

24:35 And and it isn't. Yeah. I mean, it's, you have to just resort to the basics. Like, I know that an apple is better than cheesecake. You know, or the microwave meal or whatever, and but you can use some technology to augment or give you feedback. Like, you went ahead and for a few weeks used the continuous glucose monitor.

24:56 Right. Yeah. And then and the Yucca app. Yeah. You know, it was like that tells you, instead of this, try this, you know. Oh, okay. That's really this is not an advertisement. So this not that. Yeah. And then not only not only would you have to learn about how all this chemistry in modern, you know, big agro, you know, would interact with your physiology and human physiology, you'd have to learn specifically your physiology.

25:23 So I think maybe what we just hit upon is the path to winning through all this is gain a fairly solid intuition about these things through, like you said, continuous feedback and, you know, moderate exploration and experimentation and do the same thing with technology wins your way through the new technologies by gaining an intuition and experience of them.

25:46 There you go. So, so like, they, you know, they put some model on some something like chess or the, the go that game go right? Sure. And then they say, you know. No. For a while there, they said no computer would ever even touch a human because human has intuition and, you know, yada yada. And then they said with the game of go, since it's so complex, you know, no AI would ever crack that.

26:08 Well, you know, they've been building A's for 20 years that play the shit out of go. Yeah. No. Right. And now it's just computers compete against computers at the top level. Yeah. And then there's like the human level which is much lower. And so because the, the, the game itself is a singular focus that the AI computing engine power could, could focus on.

26:28 And a lot of times they don't give it, they just give it the rules of the game and they let it go. Right. And then it comes up with a whole new way of looking at the game because it's, it's it's now entire capacity is focused. It's musing over the rules of. Right. And so if you applied that to something like your own personal AI that was helping you with your nutrition, for example.

26:48 Right. Is that it could get the inputs of everything that you're, that you're consuming and know the ingredients of them and not know anything about nutrition, but have the biometric feedback from from your body on how your body is responding, like, hey, give it ranges. This number should be in this range. This number should be in this range, right.

27:07 You know, and then, you know, how do you feel today and give it that feedback. And so it starts. It starts just machine learning on all of your particular specifics, knowing nothing about nutrition. Right. Right. And then next thing you know, the grocery store and you put on your, your, VR glasses and the products on the shelf start lighting up that you should eat, right?

27:26 Everything turns red. The entire aisle mostly red. Right. But then it would it could be yellow and orange for the things that, you know. Yeah. Like, you know, or green and orange. Yeah. Yeah. Green, yellow and red or however they want to do. Yeah. Stop light. Yeah. Stoplight type thing. And then you say, oh, you know, few things that are, you know, in the orange.

27:45 Sure. Right. And, but but I, 70% of my car is green. And now when you consume those that your, your personal AI agent knows that. And so from your sleep, it's monitoring all these things. Exactly. And you come up with a blueprint for nutrition that's specific for you that works for you independent of all you know. Absolutely.

28:04 That's what I'm talking about. Yeah. Yeah. Like so. So then you have the ultimate level of personal accountability because, you know here's the data specific for you. Your physiology. Right. Combined with the knowledge of of of that that's outstanding. You can actually connect the, you know, all the prevailing data on nutrition and science, nutrition science, and then, your specifics.

28:28 So the, the AI can just come seeded with like basic human knowledge of understanding of nutrition. Right, right. But then it's now gets trained on your specific bio data, you know. So so so now we we bring it full circle because you're not scapegoating anything anymore. You're saying I'm a human with a particular physiology. Here's the food supply that's available to me and nearly infinite choices.

28:49 What are the best of those choices? Right. And then now I inevitably have to make that choice or not. Give me just a second. So it's a matter. Yeah. No problem. But you're 100% right. So, you know, I was thinking that there needs to be in all this, like, scapegoating and and these levels and arrays of opportunity right back and forth.

29:08 Humans scapegoating computers, computer scapegoating, humans, algorithms, you know, etc. especially when you start to apply agency to some of these sophisticated. And we can't help but apply agency and anthropomorphize. And that's also part of the shield we're giving it. It's we're we're idolizing it. We're anthropomorphizing it. We're empowering it and thereby shielding it, thereby shielding it 100%. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

29:32 And then inevitably, we're in Jonestown drinking Kool-Aid, right? Yeah. And so, you know, that that's inevitably where it can go, because we've talked about this before. It's a joke, but at the same time, it's a little eerie. It's like how it never is. Like I was wrong. Yeah, right. And I know this is how it's, you know, it's coded to, like, my mistake.

29:50 But it's never like, wow, that was. I was flat wrong, you know? Yeah. Don't trust me. The most I've heard from ChatGPT was you were absolutely right about that. I'll correct it, but never culpability. Really? Yeah. Not that culpability factor. Right. Like, Like like actually taking responsibility type, you know. Yeah. So it wants to take on the, the anthropomorphized human characteristics.

30:15 Yeah. And the way. But not the negative ones. Yeah, but not the actual. Yeah. It's it's missing, you know. Isn't that like one of the narcissism narcissistic or something of, like someone that doesn't take responsibility? Maybe we should take the 21 signs of being a malignant narcissist and apply it to ChatGPT. Yeah, because social media is, like loaded with stuff about, you know, everyone's a subject matter expert, Alan.

30:37 Narcissism or something. Yeah. And narcissists and. Yeah. So I think that, there's really a huge need. And responsibility to start to use some of these sophisticated tools to craft policies that more clearly define culpability, because you can't just say in this brave new world, like, you can't just say, you know, the companies at fault because the company is, maybe has done their due diligence up and down the board to the best of the human buildings.

31:10 And it still fell short. Right. And so much like, we use a car metaphor, all the people and all of history since the beginning of the first prototype automobile that have been died, have died or been severely injured in car accidents. Yeah. Is that the fault of automobiles? Right? Well, so nowadays we have crumple zones and airbags and all these safety features that if we didn't have that, the death toll would be extreme, right?

31:38 So we say we introduced a technology to the world that was proportionately deadly. And then we figured it out from there, but without adequate safety controls. And we can learn from that. And we can introduce the safety controls with the technology. So yeah. So I guess the lesson learned is that the new technology invariably comes with danger. Yeah.

31:56 That, you know, is, is is to be realized in the future. Yeah. We have its own quantifiable right now. You can't understand the knock on effects. You can't understand the real danger, the part of how fast the pot is going to boil. Yeah, it's a really good legislation would include provisions for those those collateral damage effects and mitigating them in society.

32:16 So like, imagine if when the car industry first got boomed, right, if the government took a certain percentage of the royalties for that as a tax write into a fund for all those injured and harmed in automobiles. So almost like a innovation tax for the inevitable harm that this new cost. That's a way to say it. Yeah. An invasion tech or an individual innovation insurance fund for the for those that will be damaged by it.

32:42 So the youth of today, in my opinion, is being irrevocably damaged by, you know, unbridled, you know, experimentation of always on internet and social media. Oh, yeah. Because the level of misinformation and disinformation is insane. Yes. Right. And the cycle of the cycle and the pace of which it's come and so but there's no provision being made to, you know, to, to undo or to assist in the, in the healing of these collateral damage effects.

33:09 So it's this big experiment. Yeah. And that's what the negative aspect of technology always is, is the experimentation aspect of it. Because we're experimenting on ourselves. The technology by its very definition, is an extension of our capabilities. It extends our reach, our, you know, and a myriad of ways. And we every time we come up with something new, we experiment on ourselves.

33:32 And so the net effect of technology as a whole is like, you know, you look at human metrics, you know, like, you know, poverty and access and nutrition and, you know, all these type of things. And you start tracking these metrics, infant mortality and lifespan and disease mitigation, on and on and on. And you're like, God damn, we're tracking great, right?

33:51 Like, humanity is doing so much better with technology because population explosion. Plus, you know, the average human experience is different than it was to 200, 500,000 years ago. Yeah, right. And so, like I said, infant mortality, all these years of diseases and all these like, human metrics are like tracking in the right direction, which furthers the seduction and the tree of the technology.

34:13 Right. It's like we're starting to see it as a savior. Right? Right, right. But it's creating this potentialities of collateral damage that are so great. Right. That the only thing that can save us from these things is new technology. Right. So it's like a moonchild by proxy on the whole entire human are affiliated with technology. Right. Really.

34:33 Like it's creating the problems that only it can then. So in essence we're where the, we're in the grip of the Stockholm syndrome, where we're being continual apologists for technology. We're being continually beholden to it and apologizing for it and making amends for it, and then blaming ourselves when we're victims of it. Yes. You know, like, yes. A propensity to blame ourselves?

34:54 Yes. Had I only made better choices, right. The information was all there. Yeah. And of course, to consider the technology infallible. The human to be fallible. There you go, there you go. When in reality, they're both valuable. Yes. And in there. And then their derivatives. And there becomes, inevitably, their strengths. Yeah. Like, you know, the variations of a genetic code a lot of times manifests and most more often than not manifest as negatives disease for the for the individual that has a mutation.

35:23 But every once in a while the mutation, you know, is a positive thing. Right. But there's a lot of suffering to get there because it's a random, you know, it's a random game. Yep. The same is happening with this unfurling of technology. This evolution of technology is creating a bunch of positive effects, but also undeniably has its collateral effects.

35:39 And so we shouldn't worship it in a way where we deny that it has the flaws. Right? And we also see it as flawless. Yeah, we shouldn't see this flawless. We should really take the time to instrument it, introspect it, and examine what's going to happen. You know what is happening when you introduce it. And like you said, an innovation tax or some fund to, you know, fix problems, but it requires a sea change of thinking if we're going to do that.

36:10 Yeah. And then the last thing I want to say is that when we put ourselves on comparison, comparative analysis, we just naturally do this as part of the anthropomorphic, anthropomorphic occasion that we that we were. I know, right, that we do. The technology is that we we we we naturally see it as a competing agent, like, so I can't entertain my son as well as a tablet.

36:32 Sure. I start thinking of it that way when I think that, first of all, that's incorrect, right? I can entertain my son way better than any electronic device out of ten. By magnitudes. Right? Right. Because I can smile and it's genuine. And the love is felt and all the all the all the dynamics that are intact isn't even close to being, you know, on the drawing board yet for these devices.

36:56 I mean, until tomorrow. Right. But but, the problem comes is where I try to compete with it for that, like, let's say amusing value. Right. So if I try to try to amuse my child in a, in a competitive manner to the tablet. Right. I'll lose if I'm competing on those kind of terms. But if I say, hey let's take these socks and do a puppet show.

37:18 Yeah. For mom. Right. Tablet. Then come close. Like not even on the in on the radar anymore. Right. And not only that, it's a memory. It's a it's a connective memory that's been persistent in that person's persona, you know, for the rest of your life. The the the analog. Right. Human experience. Yeah. And so, really, this is the final thing I want to say about that is that instead of trying to compete, instead of instead of, the anthropomorphic model and then the human beings inevitably trying to compete on some domain with the technology, with the technology be doing is is assisting the person in creating the more human experience.

37:59 Right. And I completely agree. I mean, it should augment and deepen rather than offer an alternative. It should, you know, and it's right there. That's perfect. There we go. Augment and deepen rather than try to displace or take over. Yeah, yeah. Well, so, we we're best served the whole idea behind scapegoating. Yes. In conclusion, be the say is that we're best served if we learn personally to take responsibility and then also hold our technology responsible.

38:31 When when it when is when it's, when it's due. Yes. When it's clear that that that that technology was culpable for that problem is to not give it some type of, pass there, just like, just like we hold ourselves to a higher standard. When we become responsible adults, we should force our we should we should look at our technology through that same lens and responsible adult.

38:54 It has to be a responsible adult if it wants to be part of the deal. Yeah. If it wants to exist, persist and be a part of this whole grand experiment. It has to be held accountable, just as we are. If we're going to ask for more FISA, we hold it to Saint standards. Done.