YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Александр Пушной: достоверные знания (KujiPodcast 234)

Александр Пушной: достоверные знания (KujiPodcast 234) — Transcript

by kuji podcast · 14,771 words · 2,429 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00And you drag people in, Galileo and all
0:02that, saying let's get into science,
0:04let's go, but for what? To understand
0:06this world? It's impossible. Just
0:07impossible. Everything there is beyond
0:09comprehension. You can only get a feel
0:12for it and make some assumptions. And
0:15maybe, based on those assumptions, it’ll
0:16work somehow. And don't touch anything.
0:19What is an electron? Who the hell knows
0:21. It turns on for you, it works,
0:22everything is fine. Your phone works.
0:25>> Magnificently. Magnificently. Pushnoy
0:28has joined us in crisis.
0:31>> Oh, hello everyone. This is the Kuji
0:32Podcast. Subscribe to our channel or
0:34don't subscribe to our channel. Take
0:36control of your own life.
0:45So, hello everyone. How are you doing?
0:47We are live. Another episode of our
0:50podcast. An interesting conversation
0:52awaits with our guest.
0:54Two years later, I think, some time
0:56later.
0:57>> Some time later.
0:59>> Some time later, welcome back Alexander
1:02Pushnoy in the flesh.
1:04>> Hello, friends. Hello, Andrey. Hello,
1:06Timur.
1:06>> Hello. Hi, hi.
1:08>> Yeah, last time I was being such a bore
1:10. Saying science is...now I'll try to do
1:13the opposite.
1:14>> Last time it was Solar Pushnoy, and
1:16today it’s Lunar Pushnoy. Oh, the dark
1:19side of Alexander. Now Alexander Pushnoy
1:22will dispel our perception of science
1:25and explain that we don't know anything
1:27, and so on and so forth. Someone great
1:29once said, "I know that I know nothing.
1:31" I think that was either Andrey or
1:32Timur, one of you.
1:33>> I said the wise man is the one who knows
1:35he knows nothing. Well, I read that
1:37somewhere too. It happened,
1:39>> anyway. When I was studying at
1:41university, in the physics department,
1:43we had this specialized psychology
1:45course, and you had to attend to get
1:47credit.
1:49And so, in one of the classes, we were
1:51told: "Now we’re going to play an
1:52interesting game."
1:54By the way, you can do this with your
1:56friends, too.
1:57It's best if it's a group of 5-7 people
1:59, not three, but I'll tell you about it
2:01and let's play.
2:03So the point is, 7 to 15 people gather,
2:05it doesn't matter, they are given a task
2:08. You’ve all been shipwrecked, you’re on
2:10a raft, and you have 10 minutes to reach
2:13an agreement. Not in the sense of "to
2:15hell with it, do whatever," but actually
2:16reach an agreement. Find a consensus on
2:18which three items to take with you.
2:20There are three items. The first item is
2:23a system that can determine your
2:25location by the stars. The second thing
2:27is a shark repellent. And the third is
2:30just, well, a huge number of life
2:32jackets, right?
2:34Okay, time has started, 10 minutes,
2:35let's reach an agreement.
2:37In 99%of cases, people can't reach an
2:40agreement. I mean, they start arguing.
2:43Damn it. If they don't perform a very
2:45important action in the first half-hour
2:47, well, in the first half-minute to be
2:49precise, they will never agree.
2:51>> What action?
2:52>> Well, let's try to guess.
2:53>> Let's try to guess. So, let's start from
2:55the end. You guess in the meantime.
2:57Let's start from the end. So, we are
2:59>> that's how it starts on a raft. Right.
3:01>> No, look, well, okay, let's, okay, let
3:03you two, you can, well, two people find
3:05it easier to agree. Well, come on, agree
3:08.
3:08>> And I can tell you what the problem is
3:10here.
3:11Let's have enough items for, like,
3:14actual rational survival.
3:17>> Well, okay, let's accept that as some
3:19kind of rules.
3:19>> Some kind of rules. Well
3:21>> your task, you see, we're not here to
3:23actually survive, we're here to reach an
3:24agreement. You have to agree with Andrey
3:26right now on what to take.
3:28>> Well, I'm probably basing my decision on
3:30the greatest danger.
3:32That would probably be the shark one,
3:34I'd take,
3:35>> shark repellent. And I would like to ask
3:38a question. Do we want us all to survive
3:40or die together, or are we okay with a
3:42scenario where some of us survive and
3:44some of us are more likely to die?
3:46>> Your task is to reach an agreement. Well
3:48, like, this is, I understand, this is
3:50the basics, because look, if we are all
3:52floating in life jackets, then, for
3:54example, if sharks arrive, they'll eat
3:56someone, but not others, because sharks
3:58>> no, you're like on a raft, so life
4:00jackets might be there, might not, look
4:02, I'm basing it on the fact that the
4:04star navigation, well, day will come
4:06>> basics,
4:06>> day day day,
4:08>> day is longer than night,
4:10>> so we find out where we are stuck for
4:12the rest of our lives. Yes. So we
4:14>> agree. Agree, yes.
4:20So, we have a Tochka Bank ad integration
4:22. Timur,
4:23>> Tochka Bank is the one with Kolokolnikov
4:25and the platypus.
4:26>> Yes, we did have a platypus. It's no
4:29secret that many people skip ads in
4:32videos.
4:32>> It's no secret, Andrey.
4:34>> Yes, the bank believes that viewers can
4:37do anything, even skip this ad.
4:39>> Wow. But,
4:40>> but,
4:42>> but if you skip it, you won't know that
4:44it's Black Friday at Tochka Bank, which
4:46means a 70%discount on the "Everything
4:49is Possible" plan for six months.
4:52As well as free medical insurance
4:54including dentistry. With dentistry, yes
4:57. Transfers to individuals up to 2
4:59million rubles.
5:01Plus 2%to the deposit rate, 200 payments
5:03per month to other banks for 0 rubles.
5:06Payments to employees without commission
5:08. Hurry to catch these great terms until
5:11November 30th using the link in the
5:13description. Let's go.
5:14>> Well, Andrei, you certainly took quite a
5:18turn there.
5:19>> Took a turn, you can
5:20>> you can skip it, but then you won't find
5:24out.
5:24>> But here is one of the Madmen.
5:33>> Look, it turns out to be very simple.
5:35Try playing with children. Children will
5:37never reach an agreement. And adults
5:38won't reach an agreement either for one
5:40simple reason.
5:41If you haven't painted a common picture
5:43in the first 30 seconds, you will never
5:45agree, because, well, let's say we had a
5:47case where a girl was screaming: "We
5:50need shark repellent."
5:52Because in her picture, there's a raft.
5:54Sharks are circling like this, and shark
5:56repellent is needed. Another person says
5:58: "Are you crazy? He has a raft, he has
6:00no sharks, it's calm, and the stars are
6:02visible." And he says to her: "What
6:04sharks?" Stars. The stars are visible in
6:05his picture of the world, right? That is
6:07, a third person is sitting on that raft
6:09; he has no stars, it's daytime, as you
6:11correctly say, and there are waves like
6:13this, and he needs life vests to save
6:15himself. Everyone sees their own picture
6:17, no one synchronized it, yet they are
6:19trying to reach an agreement.
6:21>> Well, since those are the exact
6:23conditions to ensure you don't agree,
6:25>> right? Therefore, when you are given
6:27such a task, you must say: "Guys, let's
6:29quickly make sure everyone has the same
6:31picture."
6:32Once we all have the same picture, we
6:34will agree easily because everyone is
6:36looking at the same thing, right?
6:38But as soon as your picture is different
6:39, well, you physically cannot reach an
6:41agreement. You end up with different
6:43initial conditions, you see?
6:45And in this sense, I always thought that
6:47people, well, simple non-scientists,
6:49right, they all live in these amazing
6:51worlds.
6:52For example, I know that there are no
6:55bacteria and no viruses at all. If I
6:58can't see it, then it doesn't exist. Yes
7:00, something, it doesn't matter what.
7:01Uh-huh.
7:09A flat-earther sees it that way. That's
7:11his perspective. Everything concerning
7:13people who are not engaged in science,
7:16perhaps you invented some kind of world
7:18for yourself, you believe it's the truth
7:20, and you live in it. But if we go to
7:23the scientists, right, we understand
7:25that these guys must, well, really
7:27understand the subject, right?
7:30I mean, they made this somehow, they
7:32made that somehow, all this was done by
7:34people, starting with this table.
7:37So, accordingly, there must be some kind
7:39of understanding, and all scientists
7:42must synchronize among themselves, right
7:44, the object they are talking about.
7:47I actually studied at the physics
7:48department. I remember back in school
7:50they told me: "Look, Sasha, there is,
7:52well, hydrogen, there is such an element
7:54, right, in Mendeleev's table.""It's the
7:55simplest one.""It has a proton inside,
7:58and an electron rotating here."
8:00I wrote it down in my notebook, right,
8:01and then I went off to university to
8:03study.
8:04They told me: "Yes, there's a proton and
8:05an electron rotating there." Then I
8:07arrive, and the scientists tell me: "
8:09Well, it doesn't rotate there."
8:12I say, they told me in school that this
8:15is called the planetary model of the
8:18atom. Atom, electron. They say: "Well,
8:21if it were rotating, it would be
8:22emitting radiation." In short, it’s
8:24actually just a model.
8:26There's some kind of negative cloud, and
8:28you have a proton in the middle, and
8:30then you apply some kind of electrical
8:32influence, and bam, that cloud collapses
8:34into a point and flies off.
8:37It's called, here it acts as a particle
8:38, and then it acts as a wave. Also
8:40diffraction, interference.
8:42I say: "And we'll give it a nice name,
8:45wave-particle duality."
8:48People just wrote it like that, right?
8:49That is, they get some results from
8:52experiments and stretch an absolutely
8:55unrealistic model over them.
8:58Meaning this doesn't exist in real life
8:59, it doesn't exist in nature.
9:02And you start looking and realizing that
9:04everything—after the digging stick that
9:06we once picked up and started doing
9:08something with—everything else people
9:10have done, they imagined some model (
9:12including scientists, yes), and they are
9:14really moving forward by touch.
9:17Moreover, they simply, well, it seems to
9:20me, take and stretch some formula over
9:23reality, yes, just so that everything
9:26adds up.
9:27That is, we just need everything to add
9:29up.
9:29Again, in school they told us, yes, here
9:32we have Earth, we have, well, the Sun,
9:34the planet, Earth, yes, and our Earth
9:36orbits around the Sun. And there is
9:38gravity there. What kind of gravity?
9:40Let's see how we write it down. So, mass
9:42times mass divided by the distance
9:44squared, plus some other gravitational
9:46force there. Yes, cool. Cool. So, the
9:49inverse, that is, the inverse square of
9:51the distance. You're like, "That's it,
9:52that's it." You took it and wrote it
9:54down. Then they say, "No, well, not
9:55quite." When they looked at how Mercury
9:58flies around the Sun, it flies according
10:00to a different law for some reason. Wait
10:02a second. Laws in the universe should be
10:04the same. Why does it fly differently?
10:06Because the gravity there is stronger.
10:07So, Einstein calculated it. It turned
10:09out that when gravity is strong, then
10:11everything is a little bit different
10:13there. And you have to take that into
10:14account.
10:15And time slows down there.
10:18Time slows down. Gravity. Let's measure
10:20it. They measured that if a person lives
10:22on the first floor, time moves a little
10:25slower than for someone living on the
10:27twentieth. They measured it. It's some
10:29microscopic fraction of a second over
10:321,000 years, but it adds up. And that's
10:35it. Then look, we have some stars flying
10:37, heavens, everything happening there.
10:39What is all that? Oh, look, it doesn't
10:41add up. We have stars flying around the
10:43galaxy, well, around the galactic center
10:46, and there isn't enough mass to fly at
10:48such a speed. There must be some other
10:50mass there. Well, our formula just
10:52doesn't add up. Let's write it down
10:53there. They write dark matter, mass.
10:57Our entire galaxy is flying apart with
10:59acceleration. How can something fly
11:00apart with acceleration? It means there
11:02is universal energy.
11:03>> So, there is, let's write it down. Dark
11:05mass, dark energy. That's exactly what
11:08they named it.
11:11I have a full sense, I’ve gotten the
11:13impression, that when you talk to people
11:15who deal with liberal arts, everything
11:16is much more logical for them, yes,
11:19>> a fact,
11:19>> than for those who deal with science.
11:21Because in science, it feels like
11:23everyone is, you know, there’s that game
11:26where you put your hands in and you try
11:28to feel something out by touch and then
11:31try to, well, use it.
11:33>> But can I disagree with you here,
11:34specifically on this point? Well, go
11:37ahead. No, just look, look, it's a
11:39simple option. And
11:41>> we all, one way or another, use the
11:43fruits of this groping around, don't we
11:45? I’m saying again, we have microphones
11:47here, we have cameras, we have phones,
11:49we have connectivity, and so on.
11:51>> It all works on the level of, you know,
11:54just—forget about it.
11:56I’ll never understand, why is it that
11:58even now, what actually is an electron?
12:00Do you know what an electron is? Do you
12:01know what an electron is? But we all
12:02talk in these languages, in this
12:04language.
12:04>> An electron, what is an electron? An
12:06electron is that thing that, you know,
12:07carries stuff through wires, it doesn't
12:09matter. If you ask any scientist: "And
12:11what is an electron made of?" No one
12:13will ever tell you, because they don’t
12:14know. And they don’t have to.
12:17But there are laws, there are some
12:19experimental results that allow us to
12:21build things, but we don't penetrate the
12:24core essence at all.
12:26It’s very similar to how a human is made
12:29. You had Konstantin Severinov here,
12:31right?
12:31>> Yes, we did.
12:33Well, he confirms that a human is just a
12:35random collection of poorly made, just
12:37horribly crooked—well, in short, it’s
12:39like some drunk engineer assembled
12:41something very crooked, but for some
12:43reason it works, even though it’s made
12:45disgustingly.
12:47Disgustingly made. What do you think is
12:50the most common cause of death for
12:52single people, a healthy single person?
12:54>> Choking.
12:55>> Choking, they choke on something. Why?
12:56Because we use the same hole for both
12:58food and breathing. I mean, damn it, who
12:59designs things like that? And it turns
13:01out it all comes from our chordate
13:02ancestors. Back when we were chordates,
13:03we had one hole, and that’s how it
13:05worked. Then we became a bit more
13:06complex, and now there’s this little
13:07cartilage that flips back and forth, you
13:09understand? It’s just a poorly made
13:11thing. Redo it. It doesn’t work, you
13:14know? And when I sit there, I think: "
13:16And you’re pulling people in, talking
13:18about Galileo and all that, let’s go
13:20into science, come on." For what? To
13:22understand this world? It’s impossible.
13:24It’s just impossible. Everything there
13:26is just thrown together somehow. You can
13:28only poke around and make some guesses.
13:31Perhaps, based on these guesses, it will
13:33somehow work. And don’t touch anything.
13:36What is an electron? Hell if I know. It
13:38turns on for you, it works, everything
13:39is fine. Your phone works
13:41>> magnificently. Magnificently. Pushnoy
13:45came to us in a crisis. I mean, you
13:49understand, the guy is at a crossroads,
13:51the guy is getting disillusioned with
13:53science, with popularization—it’s
13:54perfect. They do it to themselves all
13:56the time.
13:57Because, because, I’m telling you again
13:59, you just start to dig a little.
14:02The great Alexei Mikhailovich Semikhatov
14:05, he says: "Here are three, uh, three
14:08components of a proton, uh, three quarks
14:11."
14:12He explains to me how it works. He says
14:14: "We take one, add some energy to it,
14:16and one quark starts to get pulled away
14:18, it starts to get pulled from here,
14:19pulled, and here it’s like a spring or
14:21rubber band, yes, of energy. And when
14:23the energy equals 2 mc², two quarks
14:26appear in that spot, one attaches right
14:29here, and the other flies off as a pair
14:32."
14:33He says: "It just appears out of what?
14:36Just out of stretched energy. Something
14:39appears out of energy. Conservation laws
14:41, well, the law of conservation of
14:42energy works, but out of nowhere, from
14:44the energy, two some-kind-of things are
14:45born. One stuck here, because there
14:47can't be three here." And the other one
14:49flew off there.
14:50And you're just like: "Well, okay, I'll
14:53write that down."
14:55Words, why?
14:56Words are illogical, words just don't
14:58work.
14:59You’re just an observer of the fact that
15:02someone or something designed this world
15:05this way. And then you think: "Damn,
15:08maybe theologians actually feel more
15:11confident than everyone else?" How? Well
15:14, God created it that way. And here's
15:15another thing, you know, it looks
15:17similar.
15:18>> Look.
15:19>> Yes. Excellent, let's go. Now, now let's
15:22analyze your arguments.
15:23>> Let's summarize the crisis of science
15:26popularization.
15:28>> No, look, we're talking about the fact
15:30that science knows nothing, yes, we're
15:31discussing a very simple thing.
15:34So, what is the main problem of
15:36popularization as a phenomenon, the
15:38thing you do? In the end, you are
15:40selling ignorance.
15:42In the end, you are selling a sense of
15:44participation in the truth.
15:47That is your only product. You came,
15:50told people how it is structured.
15:54The problems start somewhere in the 17th
15:56century, because in the 17th century,
15:58the question of how nature is structured
16:00had already begun to crack at the seams
16:02.
16:03Newton, when he invented his
16:04differential calculus, he looked at how
16:06it all orbits, and he understood—he was
16:08, after all, a man who understood
16:10mathematics—he says: "Orbits are
16:12unstable, orbits need to be..." he says
16:13: "Well, God corrects it there, when it
16:15drifts a little to the side, he—zap—
16:17pushes it back," like: "Op-op, no need,
16:19op-op." No, that's wrong. If you, if you
16:21take God by the hand and say: "In case
16:22of anything, you'll fix it," then you're
16:23already, in principle, not here.
16:25>> It’s like that. Look, and it was already
16:26like that back then. Next one is very
16:29good.
16:31And then, you have the breakdown of this
16:33idea of science as a provider of truth,
16:35you know, in the world.
16:37And the further you go, the faster and
16:40more extensive this breakdown becomes.
16:42This is linked to two processes. The
16:45first process. We had a wonderful
16:47philosopher come visit us. Right. And,
16:50uh, the first problem there is simply
16:52the disappointment on the part of the
16:54people. Because in order to...
16:56>> Wait, wait, people used to ride horses
16:59here before.
17:00>> Wait, look, you have a very clear point
17:01here. You have a social component.
17:04People—people like science. They want to
17:06believe that science is the truth.
17:08>> People—science, peo—people like
17:09convenience. So, they—they want there to
17:11be a connection.
17:12>> You're thinking right now about a
17:14pampered person from 2026. But I'm
17:16telling you, don't think about a
17:17pampered person from 2026. Think about a
17:19person from 1944,
17:21>> who sees this science and it's bombing
17:24him. Regularly destroying, burning, and
17:26all that. He, accordingly, is going
17:28through this crisis. After that, he’s
17:30like, "I don't know," and then comes the
17:32nuclear bombing. He’s like, "I don't
17:34know what all your stuff is made of."
17:36>> Well,
17:37>> but, like, nothing good is coming out of
17:40what you’re doing.
17:41>> For the first time in my life,
17:43>> my note from Michel Houellebecq's novel
17:47*Atomized*has come in handy. Go ahead.
17:51Listen, what have I written down?
17:54>> Well, I...
17:55>> What is the power of science? A few
17:57hundred people on the planet, no more,
18:00work on something terrifyingly complex,
18:02terrifyingly abstract, and completely
18:05incomprehensible to the uninitiated. The
18:07rest of the population is unaware of
18:09their existence. Power, wealth, and
18:12honors are not their lot. It is hard to
18:14understand what the joy is in doing this
18:16at all. And yet, they are the most
18:18powerful force in this world. For the
18:21simple reason that they hold the keys to
18:24reliable, rational knowledge.
18:26>> No,
18:27>> everything they declare to be truth is
18:29sooner or later accepted as such by the
18:32entire population.
18:35No economic, political, social, or
18:38religious force can resist indisputable
18:41, reliable knowledge.
18:44I agree with absolutely everything. But
18:48"indisputable, reliable knowledge" is an
18:51oxymoron. It cannot exist.
18:54>> No, we are speaking into a microphone.
18:55>> No, look,
18:56>> this is the result of indisputable,
18:58reliable knowledge.
19:00>> I know, I’m telling you again what
19:01science is.
19:02Science is a set of experiments, the sum
19:05of which gives us the ability to make
19:07certain predictions and successfully use
19:09these patterns to build something.
19:13Of course, here we have an electric
19:14field, here we have a coil, here we have
19:16a coil moving in a magnetic field, and
19:18an electric current arises there. We’ve
19:20measured all this, we’ve done it. I'm
19:21talking to you about something else. I'm
19:22talking about when you suddenly start,
19:24for example, asking people: "Well, what
19:26is the nature of some field, right? Like
19:28, there's an electromagnetic wave, it
19:30exists, we've measured it, we can even
19:32use this electromagnetic wave to talk on
19:34the phone. That's great.
19:36Okay, let's assume so, but we can't even
19:38explain what an electron, which
19:40participates in this, actually is.
19:43Meaning, roughly speaking, what is it
19:44when you say the last few words, those
19:46two or three words,
19:47>> that no economic...yeah, yeah, yeah. So
19:51,
19:51>> everything they declare and everything
19:53they declare to be the truth is sooner
19:55or later accepted as such by the entire
19:57population.
19:58>> No, no, no, the last part, that"
19:59knowledge, knowledge, knowledge.
20:01"Oh, well I'm saying, no economic,
20:02political, or social power can hold
20:04knowledge like tradition.
20:06Well, read it, let's just use that
20:08phrase, that phrase, that phrase,
20:10>> indisputable, reliable knowledge.
20:12>> Indisputable, reliable,
20:13>> look, it works,
20:14>> it works,
20:14>> it works. There are electrons there.
20:16>> Well, they are there, they're running
20:18around. What is an electron?
20:19>> An electron.
20:20>> Oh. Uh-huh.
20:22>> You know, you know, sometimes it happens
20:23like this.
20:23>> No, wait, this is indisputable, reliable
20:25knowledge.
20:25>> No, look, an electron is an electron.
20:28Well,
20:29>> well, understood. No, well then, yes.
20:31Look, here's another answer to a
20:33question. Why does a magnetic field
20:36exist? A magnetic field exists because a
20:39magnetic field exists. No, no, no.
20:41>> From the very beginning, you've been
20:43sticking to this tactic, right?
20:45>> And, well, isn't that how it is?
20:47>> No, wait, what kind of terms do you want
20:49to get an answer in?
20:51You understand, in all these things when
20:54>> once, let me explain, once we thought
20:56this was wood and there is nothing but
20:58wood here.
20:59>> Then we realized that it's not wood, but
21:01cells,
21:02>> yes,
21:03>> of a living plant that are fastened
21:05together. Once we thought that when I
21:07touch this stand like this, right, I
21:09feel that it is a piece of iron. Now we
21:11know that in reality, well, I am not
21:13touching this piece of iron; these are
21:15my cells, they are just hanging there
21:17and barely touching that iron structure
21:19. And I'm not actually feeling anything
21:21here. Signals are just going here to my
21:24brain that it's cold and hard.
21:27>> Do you understand?
21:28So, we’re moving in this direction, but
21:30every time we hit some uncharted
21:32territory, we’re like," Screw it, we
21:35won't study that because we don't know
21:37how to study it. "
21:39>> Look, you...No, that's wrong. You ask,"
21:41What is an electron? "Good question.
21:44What terms do you want the answer in?
21:47>> Right. Look, I'm telling you again,
21:49those three words. God, why...wait, how
21:52did that comparison fit in? Awesome.
21:55Like what?
21:56>> Like a god.
21:58>> Agreed. Elementary particles. Great
22:00novel.
22:01>> See, reliable, indisputable knowledge
22:04implies that you can ask me any leading
22:07questions like a teacher, and I, as the
22:10straight-A student, must answer all your
22:13questions.
22:14>> Yes.
22:16Well, the problem is that if you want to
22:19know the answer to a question, you must
22:22have the tools to understand that answer
22:24.
22:25Do you understand? I can formulate many
22:28questions for you, the answers to which
22:30require certain knowledge.
22:32Like, I can take a child and ask them,"
22:35Is SL2 a simple algebra or not? "
22:39>> Wait,
22:39>> wait, wait, wait. He doesn't know
22:41anything about it, and he can't answer
22:44that question because he lacks the tools
22:46to answer it. That’s the first thing.
22:48>> Okay. Fine. Look, I know these stories.
22:51We’ve talked to philosophers many times
22:52, too. They come over from the
22:54philosophy department.
22:55>> Sorry, just a second. We’ll get back to
22:56our main topic in a moment. Who hurt you
22:59? Did all this come to you when Semikhat
23:00came to see you, or how did it happen?
23:02>> No, it just gathered, it accumulated.
23:05Accumulated. Let’s get back to it.
23:06Philosophers, go on.
23:07>> Philosophers. They come and say—well, we
23:09tell them:" Listen, you’re philosophers
23:11, you have definitions for everything,
23:12you like to, well, after all, it’s a
23:14science: what is justice?
23:15"They say," No, that’s exactly why we’ve
23:17gathered here, to understand what
23:19justice is. "There’s no definition for
23:21this word,
23:21>> is there?
23:22>> Well, there’s no definition, so justice
23:24is—okay, great, those are the humanities
23:26folks for you. We write it like this.
23:27There. Those are the humanities people
23:29with their endless discussions about
23:30justice, we can't do that. What is it?
23:32Well, of course, she is to them. Let’s
23:34talk about that topic. But this here is
23:36for us techies. This is what actually
23:37works for us. So, accordingly, there can
23:39be no such answers here. Everything here
23:43must be deterministic.
23:45>> You want to get an answer within the
23:47framework of natural language.
23:49>> Natural language. Yes. Let's do it.
23:52>> Don't you think that science is just an
23:54endless marathon?
23:56>> Is it an infinite process?
23:59Look, it's not just an endless marathon
24:01.
24:01Everything you do, it seems to me, is
24:04reaching some level of a black, uh,
24:06black what do you call it, black box,
24:08right?
24:09>> Well, where you have an input and an
24:11output.
24:11>> Input and output. Here you have the
24:12input, and here the output. How is that
24:14? You can understand how you change the
24:17input, understand how it changes at the
24:20output, and then, based on these known
24:23patterns, build some device, and it will
24:26work.
24:27We are currently, right now in 2026,
24:30approaching a scary thing.
24:32A programmer comes to us and says:" A
24:34year ago I looked at artificial
24:36intelligence, which is essentially the
24:38same black box, right, where there is an
24:40input and output.
24:42"And it wrote code roughly like, well,
24:44maybe slightly worse, but I understood
24:46that I am a human, I've been programming
24:48for 50 years, right, I teach, I've
24:49learned, I know a bunch of programming
24:51languages.
24:53But half a year later I realized that it
24:56writes better than I do.
24:58And a month ago I just came to work, and
25:00previously I would write:" Fix this here
25:01, fix this here, fix this here. "It
25:03would fix them, but now I just write:"
25:05Fix it. "And it fixes everything.
25:09My next time coming to work, I have the
25:11distinct feeling that I should write:"
25:12Make me happy. "
25:14>> Or they won't let him into work.
25:16>> Or they won't let him into work because
25:17he's no longer needed, you see?
25:19That is, a person doesn't just lose
25:21their profession, they lose the meaning
25:22of life.
25:24>> And this box is still the same, you
25:25understand? We don't go inside, we don't
25:27know how it works. You can come today
25:30and say:" Dear artificial intelligence,
25:33well, all those agents, right, make me a
25:36banking app, and it will make you a
25:38banking app. "And you will ask it:" Did
25:40you include security in this banking app
25:43?
25:43"" Of course, nobody will be able to
25:46hack this banking app.
25:49"Of course not, the artificial
25:50intelligence will answer you.
25:51>> But the artificial intelligence will do
25:53the following. Dear artificial
25:54intelligence. Now, please coordinate my
25:57banking app with the presidential
25:58administration.
26:00>> If there is artificial intelligence in
26:01the presidential administration, it will
26:02coordinate it for you, it seems. Look,
26:03how about this? Let’s create an app that
26:06, for example, manages strategic nuclear
26:08weapons.
26:09>> Great idea. An app that does it all:"
26:13>> Let's just say everything is protected
26:15in there. I swear.
26:17>> Do you realize that this approach—as you
26:19say, we keep researching things, right—
26:21we've gone in the opposite direction:
26:22we're now grouping these black boxes,
26:24because since we haven't learned some
26:26things in science yet, well, never mind
26:27, we'll learn them later, somehow.
26:29But now, we are actually making the
26:31boxes bigger.
26:31>> Now, now I understand you.
26:33>> Like artificial intelligence, which we
26:36just plug in and out. What is it doing
26:38in there? How does it write that, how
26:40does it do that, how does it make these
26:41decisions, how does it handle all of
26:42that? Nobody understands that. Moreover
26:45, they don't even try. I mean, why
26:47bother doing that? Right.
26:49>> Mm-hmm. Sure. Breaking in. Yeah. Yes.
26:52Breaking in. So, step one. Step one.
26:55Let’s return to the question: what is an
26:58electron?
26:58>> One could try to get the answer to that
27:01in natural language. What is the problem
27:04with natural language?
27:06Natural language has a number of
27:08limitations whose existence we don't
27:09fully grasp yet, right?
27:12There’s the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Its
27:14strong version claims that our thinking
27:16, the way we think, is entirely
27:18determined by language. It’s likely
27:20incorrect, but the weak version is what
27:21Tyutchev meant when he said, "A thought
27:23uttered is a lie."
27:24>> There. Because you have a head, you have
27:26words, and they transcribe poorly
27:28between each other. In reality, a
27:30thought cannot be transcribed into words
27:32. Right. Excellent. So we have this
27:34obvious thing. Therefore, the first
27:36answer is purely formal. An answer to
27:39this question cannot be given in the
27:42form of natural language. Let me give
27:44you an example. Let’s play this
27:46>> Wait, wait a second. But what if I say
27:48that an electron in this experiment is a
27:50wave, and in this experiment, it’s a
27:53particle with mass and velocity?
27:55>> Yes. Yes,
27:56>> I said that in words. I built a device
27:58based on that. Yes, you built a device
28:00based on it, but that didn't add to your
28:01—you see, the question of
28:03>> understanding the depth of the issue,
28:05>> it didn't allow you—you know, let's put
28:07it this way. You know what an apple is;
28:09you can imagine it.
28:11Oh, man, Timur really came prepared.
28:14>> This is an Almaty apple variety.
28:16>> So,
28:17>> look at what they look like.
28:18>> Yes. If an apple like that had fallen on
28:20Newton, there wouldn't be any debate now
28:21, because there wouldn't be any
28:22Newtonian
28:23>> mechanics. The legend that something
28:25fell on him, of course. Well, okay. Well
28:27, many people believe it. But then again
28:28, everyone has their own "rafts," right
28:30, with their own "rafts," of course.
28:32Look,
28:34>> let's say, let's do a thought experiment
28:37.
28:38There are things you can easily imagine
28:40. An apple, a table, a chair.
28:44When you can imagine something, your
28:45consciousness sort of says: "I
28:47understand this because I can reproduce
28:49it within my mind."
28:52Understanding is exactly this, like a
28:54kettle, it heats up and starts boiling.
28:57>> Come on, no, let's go back to the apple
28:59. What? Let's take an apple, like this.
29:02You see the apple, you feel the apple,
29:04you can bite it, taste it, you can smell
29:06it, and you can listen to it to hear it
29:09doesn't rattle.
29:10That's it.
29:11>> Absolutely. Yes, I have studied the
29:12apple.
29:13>> Well, how have you studied it?
29:14>> Yes, I have understood some of its
29:15properties.
29:15>> We know the composition of the apple. We
29:17know the composition.
29:17>> Look, I can make this image of the apple
29:19more complex in my head. Then even more
29:21complex, but at some point, you're right
29:23. I won't have enough imagination.
29:27I have no tools in my head to represent
29:30the properties of the object that are
29:32needed.
29:34When you say: "It's a corpuscle, you
29:36have a particle, this particle doesn't
29:37care about you,
29:39>> about anyone.
29:40>> It's a wave to everyone,
29:42>> a particle, it's doing just fine." The
29:44fact that you can't imagine it...Now
29:46look, I'll give you an example. There is
29:48a very good example.
29:50Attempts to imagine some other kind of
29:53mathematics, right, never work. I mean,
29:56you try, you take mathematics, and you
29:58say: "Now I'm going to invent a new math
30:00that doesn't exist." And you end up
30:01inventing math that already exists. I
30:03mean, you say: "Let's assume you can
30:05divide by zero."
30:05>> Fine. Want a counterexample?
30:07>> Easy. Go ahead.
30:08>> Do you know there is physics that
30:10doesn't exist?
30:10>> Yes, of course, that's easy. Yeah.
30:12>> No, well, a black hole. I've asked these
30:14guys so many times, I say: "Listen, what
30:15is a black hole?" They say: "Well,
30:17everything is very, very dense there.""
30:18It's crazy, it's like a sun, light
30:19doesn't escape from there." I say: "
30:21Wait, what's there?" They all say: "
30:23Well, there's a singularity."
30:24I say, "Well, a singularity is this and
30:26that, we have the periodic table, we
30:28have a proton, and the electron is
30:30pressed right up against the proton."
30:33They say, "There is different physics in
30:36a black hole."
30:40We based our work on the fact that all
30:42physical laws in the universe are the
30:44same.
30:45Yes.
30:47In our solar system, there is a black
30:50hole.
30:50>> No, thank God we don't have a black hole
30:52, brother, in our solar system, in our
30:54galaxy. In our galaxy, yes, sorry. In
30:57our galaxy, at the center, yes, there is
30:58a black hole. In that black hole, there
31:01are different laws,
31:03>> yes, which are described by the same
31:05mathematics.
31:06>> I don't know. Mathematicians certainly
31:07hang around here. No, you've immediately
31:09invented a virtual reality for yourself
31:12, of course, look, you have, why can't
31:14you invent a different mathematics? Why
31:17does a person try to invent mathematics
31:19and everything comes down to taking some
31:21axioms and changing them to the opposite
31:23? A person can't manage to invent
31:25anything else. Inventing a different
31:27mathematics that would differ from ours
31:29doesn't work for a very simple reason.
31:32Kant gave the answer to this in his time
31:34, clearly showing us how we think.
31:37We think in a very, very specific way.
31:40Look, when I tell you one statement, and
31:44can use logic to derive another
31:47statement from it, that is linear
31:49thinking.
31:51So, I mean, Kant believed that,
31:54>> well, just don't forget that you guys in
31:56math are cool, but at your foundation
31:57lie axioms that cannot be proven. No,
32:00I'm telling you that at the foundation
32:02of mathematics, the reason it's
32:04intuitive to humans, lies the perception
32:06of two things. First, that one thing
32:09follows another. Time flows for us. We
32:12understand that one object follows
32:15another.
32:16>> Wait, everything in math relies on them
32:18.
32:18>> The second perception.
32:20The second perception that allows you to
32:22think logically at all, because logic is
32:23separate from axioms.
32:25You can take a person, and they begin to
32:28reason logically with you. Different
32:30things will result from different axioms
32:31. The second perception we have, besides
32:33the fact that we know how to compare
32:35things. We know what is long, short, big
32:39, small,
32:40>> yes.
32:42>> And thanks to this, our logic is formed
32:44, which says that reasonings go one
32:46after another, one after another.
32:48We perceive the world linearly. We
32:50cannot think two thoughts, three
32:52thoughts in parallel.
32:53We actually think in sequences, and for
32:56physicists, all this boils down to the
32:58fact that physics in a black hole is
33:00anyone's guess; it can't possibly be
33:03unrelated to our reality. Some even talk
33:05about transitioning into another
33:07universe. What is an electron to
33:09mathematicians? This electron is...it's
33:12black—it's those very same fundamental
33:15axioms of yours. If you state in an
33:17axiom that parallel lines in Euclidean
33:20space do not intersect. The question is
33:22: why? Because it's an axiom. We aren't
33:25going to prove that.
33:26>> And based on these axioms, you naturally
33:28have a whole bunch of proofs. But
33:30>> you can insult my mathematics all you
33:31want, you won't stop me in my logical
33:33reasoning, because I'm a mathematician,
33:35bro, I'm impossible to stop.
33:36So, look, where am I leading with this?
33:38>> You—you, I say,
33:39>> imagine consciousness. Just imagine
33:42consciousness. Consciousness as some
33:44kind of thinking that doesn't possess
33:47our linearity.
33:48Imagine a consciousness that sees all
33:51possible probabilities of events
33:53simultaneously.
33:54Imagine I threw a ball; it bounced this
33:57way, or with some probability, that way
33:59. And this field of all probabilities is
34:02what this consciousness is able to see.
34:04>> Well,
34:05>> for this consciousness, an experiment
34:08has no result.
34:09>> Yes, of course. Because everything
34:11happened.
34:12>> So, this consciousness sees the world as
34:14it truly is. It is incapable of logical
34:16thinking because it sees everything at
34:18once, meaning there is no sequence for
34:20it. From an infinite variety of
34:23consequences, it doesn't have to choose
34:25.
34:27It doesn't live in a paradigm where B
34:28follows A. For it, anything can follow A
34:30, and after each of those "anythings,"
34:32even more things follow.
34:35And because of that, there is no logic.
34:37Therefore, a consciousness capable of
34:39knowing the world in the form it should
34:42be—all these probabilities existing in
34:44this room simultaneously, here and now,
34:47an infinite number of variants—is
34:49incapable of logical thinking. You have
34:52a [half-baked]...what for? Well, you
34:54described it,
34:54>> I...you want to...this consciousness
34:56understands what an electron is. To it,
34:59it's as natural as an apple. It felt it
35:02, it threw it, you see? It’s a dichotomy
35:05. You either have logic, or an
35:07understanding of the world. Logic limits
35:09you. It gives you a certain tool with
35:12which you can scrape together a little
35:13piece of knowledge. But are you capable
35:16of scraping together the same knowledge
35:17as this mega-consciousness that sees all
35:19these probabilities simultaneously? No.
35:22>> Well, look. Well, you said it, you said
35:25it. Alright. You can—you can, well,
35:28>> where is the logic in a platypus?
35:31>> Whoa.
35:32>> So, a platypus is a creature. It exists
35:34on planet Earth, yes. And we’ve talked a
35:37bunch of times about the giraffe, that
35:39>> when a giraffe is just standing there,
35:40do you know what its natural blood
35:41pressure is?
35:42>> Ours is,
35:42>> I think, about
35:43>> 120, and for them, yeah, 400. We have
35:45120 over 80. They have 400 over 80,
35:47because they have to pump all that stuff
35:49way up there. And when it wants a drink
35:51, it tips its head down, and all that
35:52blood rushes here; it would get a stroke
35:54immediately. That's why it has valves
35:57right here in these things, in the main
35:59arteries, to shut off the blood.
36:02It drinks, then pop, and they open up
36:05again.
36:06Well, I mean, we're talking about some
36:08kind of logic, but all of this, starting
36:11from the platypus and ending with the
36:13giraffe, and us included, it all came
36:15about thanks to chaos,
36:17>> of course, but that's not it.
36:19>> But, but look, it turns out that you're
36:21saying: "If everything exists in the
36:23world, then all of it should exist
36:25within this super, super consciousness.
36:28"
36:29But we aren't a bunch of different
36:31options at all. Only one version of us
36:34survived. We and this giraffe, it's just
36:36one like that, with such an idiotic
36:37structure. And this, for example, the
36:39platypus—it’s not clear at all why the
36:40hell it’s needed on this planet. It has
36:41a penis in the shape of, you know, that
36:43thing, right? It has it in the shape of
36:44>> classic,
36:46>> in the shape of a corkscrew, yes. And,
36:47accordingly, the female has a corkscrew
36:50too, only they have to match the thread
36:52pitch correctly. Well, that would have
36:54been impossible to design logically,
36:57right? You're trying to put yourself in
37:00a position where you're responsible for
37:02the project called "giraffe."
37:04You're not exactly an engineer in this
37:07matter.
37:08It turned out the way it turned out. We
37:10were discussing that you have, look, you
37:12have
37:13>> No, just look,
37:14>> life, life is endless optimization.
37:16That's what Severinov talks about. And
37:18endless optimization isn't obligated to
37:21lead to something good.
37:22>> Evolution doesn't create perfection, it
37:24creates a working model.
37:26I'm talking about this working model,
37:27that we, as a civilization, are actually
37:29interacting with this world.
37:31We can gather a huge number of
37:33experiments, derive some patterns from
37:35these experiments, create something
37:37based on these patterns, but we will
37:39never know the essence of things.
37:41So, I'm telling you that it's quite
37:44possible the moment of the birth of
37:46human consciousness was when you have
37:48this diversity of options, which can be
37:50imagined as a cloud, denser in some
37:52places because it's more likely to fly
37:55there, and somewhere else it rarely
37:57flies, with a low probability.
37:59And so, perhaps, the emergence of human
38:02consciousness is an act of great quantum
38:04censorship, where your cells kept
38:06gathering and gathering, there was no
38:09consciousness, and then they aligned,
38:11and your consciousness says: "That's it
38:13, you're the observer, you're the
38:15quantum censor, you're choosing, not on
38:18purpose."
38:19>> And then, according to your theory,
38:20should this happen with artificial
38:21intelligence the day after tomorrow?
38:23>> Quite possibly. Artificial intelligence
38:25is a separate, good question. What is it
38:27demonstrating to us?
38:29It demonstrates that our cognition, in
38:32fact, our cognition is detached from the
38:34world.
38:35We spent our whole lives thinking, we
38:38spent our whole lives thinking that we
38:40do certain things, and, strictly
38:42speaking, say, in mathematics, that we
38:45are guided by our own ideas, but it
38:47turned out that the number of ideas that
38:50seem like ideas to us is much smaller.
38:54That is, artificial intelligence shows
38:56that a huge number of things that seem
38:58complex, incomprehensible, and
39:00mysterious to us, we simply don't have
39:03enough time or enough brainpower to
39:05solve.
39:07>> I don't like the word "complex" because
39:09it's impossible for me to memorize, say
39:11, 20,000 digits after the decimal point
39:13of pi, but I don't need to, right?
39:16My brain would probably break from that
39:18, but a machine does it easily. So, the
39:20concept of "complex" here is incorrect.
39:24If we are talking about the fact that,
39:27um, we are, as it were, observers, then
39:29the task is not set for a human, or for
39:32a human creature, to understand this
39:34reality around us, it is not set.
39:37>> No, we aren't capable due to how we
39:40gained consciousness, but we are still
39:42moving along this path, because 100
39:44years ago we didn't know squat, and now
39:47we already know.
39:48And we are moving along this path,
39:50returning exclusively to what you said.
39:53This is a case where we need to remember
39:55the person from 2026. Convenient.
39:57>> Can I ask you a question? Do you think
39:59artificial intelligence knows more than
40:01a human?
40:02>> I think that artificial intelligence is
40:04not consciousness, but it, it...well,
40:06and not yet.
40:07Even if it does become consciousness,
40:09returning to what I said, we won't be
40:10able to communicate with it. I mean,
40:12like...
40:13>> How so, we are already communicating
40:13with it. You aren't communicating with
40:15artificial intelligence. You ask a
40:16function a question, the function gives
40:18you a value. Perhaps, from the
40:19perspective of artificial intelligence,
40:20it will become consciousness. It's just
40:22like you're poking it in the ass,
40:23>> and it just shits on you. But it itself
40:26is off somewhere else.
40:28Look, so, let's say we have already
40:30tossed out, right, this profession
40:32called programmer, it is no longer
40:34needed. People just come and say what
40:36they want done, and artificial
40:37intelligence does it for them.
40:39We’re waiting for it to start writing
40:42poetry tomorrow, then music—it already
40:45writes it perfectly—and you’ll realize
40:49that everything you listen to,
40:51everything you read, and all the
40:54audiovisual content you consume, wasn't
40:57made by you or a human, but by AI to
41:00keep you, the human, happy. That’s why
41:03I’m saying that a person might come
41:05along and say, "I should just go and
41:06type: 'Make me happy.'"
41:08And that’s it, I’ll be happy. And for
41:10now, it sounds like a challenge, like: "
41:12Come on, that's nonsense."
41:14A robot can't just make a person happy,
41:16when people have spent their whole lives
41:18struggling to define what happiness even
41:21is.
41:21But then, all of a sudden, you have your
41:24favorite reels tailored just for you,
41:27the ones you like. For some it’s more
41:29complex, for others simpler. Here’s the
41:31music you like, here’s the text you like
41:34.
41:35Here’s the plot you like. And none of it
41:38was made by a human.
41:39>> We don't believe that, do we? We’re
41:41talking specifically about creativity.
41:43We don’t believe that
41:44>> No, we don't believe it, but it’s
41:45already here.
41:45>> No. Who was saying recently that they
41:47were at a mall, or somewhere, and all
41:50the music there was made by AI? Was that
41:52one of you?
41:53>> Well, someone mentioned that you were
41:55ice skating and the same thing kept
41:56playing over and over. That’s the one,
41:58yes. And it was annoying.
41:59>> Yes, and it’s very, very annoying. Yes.
42:01Yeah, yeah. Have you ever tried writing
42:03jokes with artificial intelligence?
42:05Jokes are harder, because artificial
42:07intelligence has one big problem: it
42:09doesn't understand context.
42:11So for now, again, well
42:12>> You always say "for now." I tried doing
42:15this two years ago, a year ago, and just
42:18last week, and it’s all in the same
42:21place. The word "for now" doesn't fit.
42:24Well, you see, everything that can be
42:25formalized is already working.
42:27I mean, at least with people who read
42:29books like that and learned Java for
42:30some reason, they come in saying, "I
42:32know the language."
42:34And they’re told, "We don't need you and
42:35your language, go home." Everything,
42:37everything that these guys are doing for
42:39us here. To be more precise, not guys,
42:40but non-humans. Look, we’re just afraid
42:44of that. Let’s be honest, we are afraid
42:46of it. Because when I say: "Timur, look
42:48what a cool joke, you'll laugh and roar
42:50at it." And I say: "Guess what, you
42:52didn't come up with it, artificial
42:53intelligence did." And you're
42:54immediately like: "Oh, well, that's just
42:55okay then." No,
42:57>> no, no, because we—with Semikhatov, for
43:00the third or fourth time already,
43:02telling this story—they were wondering
43:05if artificial intelligence could
43:07discover quantum mechanics.
43:11>> Well, it's impossible to do, because
43:12somehow they came up with a way—they
43:14came up with a way to load a separate
43:16quantum computer specifically.
43:18>> No, not a quantum one, it’s just that we
43:19had to come up with a very expensive way
43:21to verify it.
43:21>> A very expensive way to verify, yes. Yes
43:23.
43:24And the conclusion is, as we've said
43:26many times, but it's like a super
43:28example, that it thinks very logically.
43:31All music created by artificial
43:32intelligence is very logical.
43:34>> But quantum mechanics is illogical.
43:35>> And quantum mechanics is illogical. Yes
43:37.
43:38>> Well, that's why you need an experiment
43:39. You discovered quantum mechanics
43:40thanks to an experiment. Not because you
43:42figured it out on your own.
43:43>> That's how it is. Look, this is coming
43:45back to your own argument. So, when a
43:47person looked at quantum mechanics,
43:50looked at that, what’s it called,
43:52>> yes,
43:53>> the ultraviolet catastrophe, they were
43:55like: "Damn, this needs to be fixed."
43:58Meaning, you see, they aren't just
44:00moving by touch, they're doing something
44:02heretical.
44:03They say: "Everything works, but let it
44:06be like this here: I’ll just replace the
44:08integral with a sum,"
44:10"
44:10>> just an infinite sum." And you’re like:
44:13"Well, why the hell would you?""And
44:14they're like:" Yes, look, "
44:15>> it’s the same thing, the same thing with
44:17scripts. When you were talking about
44:19lyrical poets, call me by my first name
44:20.
44:21Why do you keep calling me formal" you,
44:23"forgive me, please, forgive me.
44:25Anyway, when you were talking about
44:27lyrical poets,
44:28>> oh, younger one. Wait, what year were
44:30you born?
44:31>> I'm from '84.
44:32>> Ah, no, I am older, but not by much.
44:35>> And you? And what year are you?
44:36>> '75.
44:37>> '75, yes.
44:38>> Peers,
44:39>> right?
44:39>> So there is such a concept.
44:42Once we were writing a script, and it
44:43was being edited by one of the best
44:45editors, a brilliant person, and he
44:47reads the script and says," Well, look,
44:48it’s written in such a way,
44:53that it’s obvious the writers need this
44:56to happen. "
44:58>> Uh-huh.
44:58>> You see,
44:59>> it’s very logical. Meaning we write
45:01scripts like:" Well, we need this to
45:03happen, we need all this to happen. "
45:05>> Yeah.
45:05>> But it doesn't evoke any viewer interest
45:07. That is what I think artificial
45:09intelligence does to creativity. Well
45:12>> tell that to the writers of Pretty Woman
45:15, which is such utter nonsense.
45:19Not at all, not at all.
45:21>> Oh, right. Come on, let's talk about
45:23Pretty Woman.
45:24>> Listen, well, that
45:26>> that is the most banal, over-banal
45:28script that could possibly exist. It’s a
45:31classic Cinderella story. And the
45:33coolest thing is, they actually had a
45:35different ending for the movie.
45:37By the way, I haven't seen Pretty Woman
45:39, so let's talk about Anora.
45:41>> Okay, well, anyway, it’s a simple plot:
45:44a hooker and a billionaire, damn it.
45:46Well, obviously. And in the end, he
45:48comes to her, with this nonsense in his
45:50mouth, like, I want to spend my whole
45:52life with you. Oh, happy ending.
45:53>> Wait, wait, but the story itself isn't
45:56logical. How so?
45:57>> It’s absolutely logical.
45:58>> Absolutely not.
45:59>> A prostitute meets the one she loves.
46:01Yes, this loved one turns out to be a
46:03millionaire. And she isn't quite a
46:04prostitute anymore. And he doesn't love
46:06her because she's a prostitute, but
46:07because she is his beloved—pressure.
46:09Social pressure. Yes, social pressure,
46:12all that—well, it's all just like Crime
46:14and Punishment. Marmeladov's schemes. Oh
46:17, for heaven's sake.
46:19Well, I don't know much about this, but
46:20they say, all the literary types told me
46:22, that there are about twelve, I think,
46:24of these plots,
46:27>> which were all invented by William
46:28Shakespeare. And others say that
46:29everything was invented by Homer—just
46:32four. There are only four of them.
46:33>> Simpson.
46:34>> Simpson, yes. So
46:35>> about artificial intelligence. There is
46:36a very good example. There is a very
46:37good example. We are sort of used to
46:39thinking—again, returning to our
46:41thinking—the essence, the nature of our
46:43thinking, it’s unclear to us ourselves,
46:45and its limitations are unclear to us.
46:47Most people think that they are thinking
46:49. That’s the main thing. I also think
46:51that I am thinking.
46:53But in reality, it turns out that I
46:55think mostly in patterns, most of the
46:57time.
46:58>> Artificial intelligence says that, in
47:00fact, by using patterns, you can produce
47:02a lot of things.
47:04You think you are experiencing a moment
47:06of inspiration, but that inspiration is
47:08not real.
47:09>> Well, what’s the difference, what are
47:11you feeling?
47:12>> Now let's get back to your question.
47:14Perhaps that is exactly the end.
47:17I mean, maybe the victory of AI over
47:20humans—that is, all 8 billion of us.
47:23That’s 8 billion individual scenarios.
47:27Meaning everyone lives in a matrix,
47:29where some are in a perfect one.
47:32Some are fighting AI, traveling back in
47:35time to change things.
47:38That’s for those who watched the movie
47:40>> Back to the Future?
47:41>> No,
47:43>> wait, guys, what’s it called?
47:45Have fun, don't die. Uh, how is it, it
47:48has a first line.
47:50Well, anyway, it’s really about this
47:53movie where a guy travels to the past to
47:55stop the arrival of an AI that takes
47:57over everything, and at the end of the
48:00movie you realize that it was all just
48:02for him, like he was there...
48:05>> the AI sent him, so that he would, well
48:07, in short.
48:07>> No, not sent.
48:09He’s just in this virtual machine,
48:11playing out a different scenario.
48:13Someone plays out something like that,
48:14and he's like,
48:14>> yes, he's like, yeah, he thinks he rules
48:16the world.
48:18And today's person—I never tire of
48:20giving this example—once, when I was
48:23riding with a taxi driver, he was
48:25worried about robots, too.
48:27And he was like,
48:28>> this won't happen soon, by the way.
48:29>> No, no, he’s like, people say robots,
48:31robots, but nothing, robots will never
48:33...I personally think a robot can’t
48:35control a human.
48:37At that moment, the GPS says:" Turn
48:39right. "And he turns right.
48:43Look, so you understand today how much
48:47time you spend interacting with AI.
48:53Everyone thinks that it's only when I
48:55sit down to program, and it gives me
48:57something, or I go to a scientific lab
48:59and they show me these language models.
49:01Everything you watch on social media is
49:04curated for you by AI. One.
49:08The news you read, the news you read, is
49:11curated for you by AI. The goal, the
49:14only task, is for you to feel good.
49:17Artificial intelligence is created by
49:19humans so that humans feel good. You
49:21shouldn't leave this social network, so
49:23I have to keep you there, and the only
49:25way is to make sure you're having a
49:26great time, right? And if it's not
49:28interesting to you, you'll leave. What
49:29is" interesting "? And that's where pure
49:32narcotics come in. Narcotics, I mean
49:34dopamine-based brain narcotics, right?
49:38So you have to stay here, and I will
49:40keep feeding you things that hook you.
49:43When you stop being hooked, I’ll
49:44increase the dosage. I’ll do something
49:46else. I’ll do something else. The end
49:48that you're talking about, where we'll
49:50all live in our own little worlds, right
49:52, and these worlds will be comfortable
49:54for us, yeah, we're already living there
49:56,
49:57>> it's a fact. Well,
49:58>> we're already living there. And that's
50:00why today, when kids—that's why people
50:01say, you have to take phones away from
50:03kids, they're falling into this crap,
50:05and they can't stop because it's so hard
50:06.
50:08For me, for example, someone who grew up
50:10without a computer in my childhood, it's
50:12hard for me to tear myself away from
50:15this junk, and I realize that the force
50:17drawing me to these objects will only
50:19keep growing, you know?
50:21See, we've perfectly explained the Fermi
50:25paradox,
50:26>> about why,
50:26>> why we don't observe any intelligent
50:29civilizations? They're busy with their
50:30phones,
50:31>> because all of us—you see, we think that
50:34our thinking is some kind of individual
50:37process. We possess this thinking. We
50:40hold it in our hands, and it's our own,
50:42individual property. But perhaps it's a
50:45global process. It started right here.
50:48Each individual thought is just a
50:50fluctuation; it has a beginning, a
50:52moment when this quantum censorship
50:54happened, and it has an end—thinking
50:57exists because what a fantasy it was.
51:00>> Wait, hold on. Did people in caves not
51:02think at all, then?
51:04>> I mean, you're talking about Homo
51:06sapiens, but there's a specific moment
51:08when, say, speech appeared or they began
51:11to think—there are animals and there are
51:13humans. And that process where thinking
51:16began in the form we understand it,
51:18that's an unclear question.
51:20>> No, you can't just point to a moment and
51:21say," It's like this. "I mean, when
51:23people were painting in caves, they were
51:25already thinking,
51:26>> right?
51:27>> But when they still looked like apes,
51:29walking through the prairies, running
51:30away from all those things, were they
51:32thinking then or not yet?
51:34Does a bird think? Is a bird a quantum
51:36observer?
51:37>> A bird doesn't think, and a cat doesn't
51:39think, but a cat still has some kind of
51:40personality, or maybe we just project
51:42personality onto it.
51:43You know, if I sat a bird down and asked
51:46it to watch the double-slit experiment.
51:49Would it see what I see,
51:51>> yeah?
51:52>> Or something else?
51:53>> It just wouldn't understand.
51:54>> Or maybe that's exactly it, maybe it
51:55would understand. Maybe it's like," Yeah
51:57, I see everything. "
51:58>> Perhaps she will even have some
52:00questions, after all, the progress we
52:02have today has actually started to go in
52:05the opposite direction.
52:06I mean, if we used to dig deeper and
52:08deeper into things—we got down to the
52:10electron, we don't know what it consists
52:12of, but we don't need to yet—now, once
52:14again, we are going backward. These
52:16black boxes, which this example
52:19represents—I'm sure you've been told—
52:22that we see 14 billion years, meaning
52:26what was there 14 billion years ago,
52:29like the boundary of the very Big Bang
52:32that wasn't a Big Bang.
52:35If everything is flying apart, and with
52:37acceleration at that, one can imagine
52:38that if you run time backward, it all
52:39compresses. So the whole universe
52:41compressed to the size of an orange like
52:44this. And what is beyond the orange?
52:47Where was the orange at that moment? In
52:48what kind of space? We don't know,
52:50because it's not physically visible,
52:53because we can't see what we cannot see
52:55. Yes, it compressed and now it's flying
52:59apart.
53:00Duly noted. You know what the scariest
53:02part is? That I say:" Why did you decide
53:04that the universe is expanding? "
53:05Everyone says:" Well, red shift.
53:08"We have, for instance, a certain
53:11frequency of atoms.
53:13And, accordingly, we see those same
53:15atoms out there, just shifted toward the
53:17red side. So, they are flying away from
53:19us—the Doppler effect.
53:21A fact.
53:23>> And I say:" What if those are just
53:25different atoms?
53:27"Just different atoms, slightly shifted
53:30toward the red side. That’s the same
53:32experiment, isn't it?
53:33>> Or are the constants slightly different
53:36there?
53:36>> I mean, yes, it’s just that we decided
53:39the law applies to everything. And so,
53:41red shift means red shift. But we
53:44haven't run an experiment there, we
53:45didn't check the speed at which a galaxy
53:47is moving away.
53:48>> We haven't checked.
53:49>> We just draw that conclusion because of
53:51the red shift.
53:52>> This could also be a matrix.
53:54>> It could be.
53:55>> I mean, maybe we really are under a dome
53:56, damn it. They give us this red shift
53:58so we’ll think it’s infinite.
53:59>> They’re probably laughing, like, imagine
54:02these idiots thinking the universe is
54:03expanding with acceleration, just, like
54:05, dumbasses.
54:06>> Yeah, they messed with us, and look, now
54:07they've measured everything. Let's apply
54:09it everywhere, have them measure
54:10everything, because they get good
54:11results. Exactly.
54:12>> Is it true that a language model
54:18>> actually solved something major?
54:19>> It did, yes, one of the most mysterious
54:21ones. In language. Look, we lost at
54:23checkers a long time ago. In chess and
54:25Go, well, humans lost to the systems.
54:29Language models don't just write reports
54:32perfectly now—writing reports isn't that
54:35hard, what it writes is great: essays,
54:38it writes excellent scientific papers,
54:41artificial intelligence is penetrating
54:44everything.
54:46It's just a little bit off, though it’s
54:48getting there with poems.
54:50But if not today, tomorrow there will be
54:53poems that...
54:54>> Timur was likely asking about the
54:55Navier-Stokes equations.
54:56>> Yes, I was asking about solving one of
54:58the most unsolved mathematical problems
55:00.
55:01>> First, it became one of the most
55:02unsolved because the Clay Institute
55:04wanted to draw public attention to
55:06mathematics, so they chose seven
55:07problems and called them the Millennium
55:09Prize Problems. Are they truly that
55:11critical? That is a debatable question,
55:13especially if you work in mathematics.
55:15That's the first thing. Second, it was
55:17indeed successful. There are equations,
55:20the Navier-Stokes equations, which
55:22describe fluid dynamics. Many good
55:24theorems have been proven for these
55:26equations, such as convergence of
55:27methods and so on.
55:30The task was to present initial
55:31conditions under which a solution with
55:34singularities occurs, meaning it breaks
55:36down.
55:38From a physics perspective, this means
55:39the solution is not physical, but purely
55:41mathematical. Right. Because, roughly
55:44speaking, all physical scenarios that
55:46are more or less possible are already
55:48accounted for. Exactly. And second, to
55:51prove that such a thing does not exist
55:53under normal initial conditions.
55:56There are four variants of the proof,
55:58and it handled variants three and four.
56:01It generated a long, long text by
56:03stealing ideas from other mathematicians
56:06.
56:07Nobody is even trying to hide it anymore
56:09; they’ve more or less stopped denying
56:12it. By stealing the idea and pushing it
56:13to completion. There was an idea
56:15proposed by two brilliant mathematicians
56:18. Two other mathematicians worked on it
56:20for several years.
56:22And eventually, word got out that they
56:25used these logs and pushed the task to
56:28completion.
56:30They didn't solve it; they solved a
56:32similar problem, but it turns out you
56:33can do this kind of thing with
56:35artificial intelligence.
56:36Here is a good, a wonderful example of
56:39how language models work for you,
56:41showing that many tasks you think are
56:43complex, you just don't have enough
56:46context for.
56:48It turns out, if you take a lot of money
56:50—they spent something like tens of
56:52millions on these computing resource
56:54tokens.
56:55I mean, if I wanted to do the same thing
56:57, I would have to shell out a couple
56:59dozen million.
57:00>> Dollars.
57:00>> Dollars.
57:01>> Uh-huh. Look,
57:03>> that’s it. And that’s the story.
57:04>> Well, they just proved it, right? So it
57:05already works just like that.
57:06>> No, no, they didn’t present it; they
57:07presented an example. Well, yeah, of
57:09course. But all of this needs to be
57:11verified, because you know, if there’s
57:14an error somewhere in a 600-page
57:16document, then...
57:17>> Wait, hold on, Perelman’s proofs haven’t
57:19even all been verified yet.
57:21>> Why? By the way, they tried to find an
57:25error in the proof of the hypothesis—oh
57:27, the theorem, sorry. M, that is
57:29precisely Perelman.
57:31>> Uh-huh.
57:32Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Theorem.
57:36They made a machine do it, and it wrote
57:39millions of lines of code. Everything is
57:41correct, of course. I believe, you know
57:43, if we talk about the future, I’m not
57:45that scared for one simple reason. I’m a
57:48fan of the Grammys; I’ve been watching
57:49for 20 years, maybe more. And I watched
57:51the Grammys in '26, this year.
57:54And suddenly, Bieber walks out onto the
57:56stage, covered in tattoos—in a good way
57:58.
57:59Justin, in his boxer shorts. And there’s
58:03some kind of mirror on stage, like he’s
58:05at home. He grabs a guitar, plays three
58:08very banal chords, records them all into
58:10a looper, it all plays back, he adds
58:13some bass lines, then grabs the mic and
58:16starts singing about unrequited love and
58:18so on.
58:20I thought from an AI perspective about a
58:22song regarding the Communists of Russia
58:24, if the Communists of Russia are
58:25getting things done.
58:27Ah, naturally, yes, Bieber already wrote
58:29it.
58:29And so he’s singing.
58:32And I realize that from an AI
58:34perspective, well, this isn't a song
58:36worth tackling because I can just press
58:38a button now, and there will be a
58:40million such songs. A million exactly
58:42like that song. Identical. Why do people
58:45sit and listen to Bieber? But if I write
58:47the same song and release it into the
58:50world tomorrow, into that musical ocean
58:52, nobody will really notice, because
58:54people aren't listening to the song.
58:58People need people, at least for now—a
59:00living person needs a living person—and
59:03they look at Bieber and listen to his
59:05story.
59:06The song here is just a form of
59:08storytelling, nothing more.
59:11Accordingly, if we remain humans in the
59:13future who need other people, who will
59:15reach out to people, look at people, and
59:17listen to people, then perhaps even if
59:19artificial intelligence creates
59:21mountains of cool content around you,
59:23you won't be interested because there's
59:25no personality behind it.
59:27>> But there is a danger, I think, that
59:28this is all built on sexual attraction.
59:30If artificial intelligence,
59:32>> well, it will design beautiful systems
59:33for you.
59:35I mean, if it suppresses human sexual
59:36attraction, then, of course, that’s the
59:38end of it all.
59:40>> Well, suppressing human sexual
59:41attraction is difficult because it is
59:43such a powerful biological force that,
59:45well, without it, we wouldn't be sitting
59:47here together, right?
59:49The question is different: what if
59:52artificial intelligence takes away
59:55everyone's tasks, yes, and we have to
59:58think about what to do with ourselves,
1:00:01then, I think, in the future, meeting
1:00:03people in person, talking to each other
1:00:07in person, going to a concert, seeing
1:00:09someone standing right there in front of
1:00:13you playing—that will be a very
1:00:15expensive currency.
1:00:18That is, it will be valued more and more
1:00:20and more. Because when you're sitting,
1:00:23say, on that banned app, and you're just
1:00:25looking at a huge amount of content, you
1:00:28suddenly realize that maybe half, if not
1:00:30more of it, is just generated garbage.
1:00:33And there could be entire, truly
1:00:35generated personas there. You could
1:00:37subscribe to some poet who writes cool
1:00:40poems, and you'll like them, but it
1:00:42won't be a person. Or you could
1:00:43subscribe to some girl, who is, by the
1:00:45way, very sexually attractive. Yes,
1:00:47she'll be shaking her body there. So
1:00:49that it's, in principle,
1:00:50indistinguishable from a normal one. But
1:00:51it’s not a living person.
1:00:53And as soon as you realize it's not a
1:00:54living person, it will still turn into
1:00:56some kind of, well, the purpose and
1:00:57tasks will disappear, you see?
1:01:00I mean, if the need for social
1:01:02interaction between people is cut off—
1:01:03they say this problem exists in Japan
1:01:05right now—Japanese people practically
1:01:07don't communicate with each other.
1:01:10That is, in fact, why their birth rate
1:01:11is falling; they don't physically make
1:01:12contact.
1:01:13I recently read a very good book on the
1:01:15history of Japan's demography. They have
1:01:17always had this problem. It’s amazing. I
1:01:19recommend it to everyone.
1:01:20>> But somehow they’ve survived until now,
1:01:21yes.
1:01:21>> Oh, there
1:01:22>> 120 million, for a second.
1:01:24>> You know, like in the 15th century, the
1:01:26emperor issues a decree to limit the
1:01:28sale of masturbation devices.
1:01:31From this we learn that in 15 th-century
1:01:33Japan, there were devices for
1:01:35masturbation.
1:01:35>> First, there was masturbation.
1:01:37>> And second, that they created problems
1:01:39with the birth rate. And you're like,"
1:01:41My God, does nothing ever change for you
1:01:42guys? "
1:01:43>> Nothing changes, but one way or another
1:01:45, it's still 120 million, and there are
1:01:48countries with much, much smaller
1:01:49populations.
1:01:51So, if this remains, then that's it,
1:01:53we'll survive, we won't have any
1:01:55problems. If it disappears, then I'll
1:01:58say it again, this simulator with these
1:02:01reels or whatever you call them, all of
1:02:05that will remain. And then we started
1:02:08talking about science, finishing up the
1:02:10wrap-up, yes, regarding the future. And
1:02:13in science, too, it's like, you know, a
1:02:16phone; a new phone comes out today, and
1:02:19you're like," It's not even two
1:02:21generations older. "Yes, and it
1:02:24basically isn't that different. That's
1:02:25how science is basically, too, which
1:02:27today is also growing, growing, growing
1:02:28. Well, maybe in the field of medicine,
1:02:30yes, because everyone wants to live
1:02:32longer and be sick less.
1:02:34But otherwise, the screen already has
1:02:38clarity and resolution greater than the
1:02:41human retina.
1:02:43That's it, we don't need any more.
1:02:46I mean, why do you need sound quality
1:02:48where you put on headphones and you have
1:02:51everything from 20 to 20,000 Hz, maybe
1:02:53up to 40, you already have it.
1:02:56So we have completely surrounded
1:02:57ourselves with this story, related to
1:03:00the fact that where do we go from here?
1:03:02Where to next? What? Why?
1:03:05>> Well, I think medicine. Medicine is the
1:03:07most, most, most important thing.
1:03:09>> And they came to you and said," Guys, we
1:03:11live for 500 years. "
1:03:12"
1:03:13>> We live for 500 years and you look good
1:03:15. "
1:03:16>> Yes, we look good. We live for 500 years
1:03:18. And everyone is like," So, what am I
1:03:20supposed to do? "" There's nothing for
1:03:22me to do. "" I don't need to work. "
1:03:25>> Well, and we organize the Hunger Games.
1:03:27No. And we, and we, and we sit for 500
1:03:29years scrolling through my favorite news
1:03:32feed or meme feed, and that's it. I just
1:03:35walk around and laugh at it. Well, I
1:03:37still meet people sometimes, so as not
1:03:38to forget that I'm a human.
1:03:42But what I want to say is that in all
1:03:44this feed with artificial intelligence
1:03:46and so on, AI and all these technologies
1:03:48don't deliver the most important thing,
1:03:50what people are interested in; they
1:03:52don't deliver gossip,
1:03:54>> tabloid trash, relationships. Because
1:03:57the Justin Bieber example is a great
1:03:59example.
1:04:00>> because for us, as you say, it's very
1:04:02important to keep track of other people
1:04:04. Very important. And when someone
1:04:06quarrels, gets divorced, someone cheats
1:04:09on someone,
1:04:10>> yeah, that's the stuff,
1:04:11>> these are completely different emotions
1:04:14that no technology can provide. You
1:04:17can't really gossip with artificial
1:04:18intelligence. Well, no, well, no.
1:04:21>> Have you tried gossiping with Alice?
1:04:23>> No, of course not. What’s the point?
1:04:25>> Exactly. She’s still like," Hey man,
1:04:27let’s not do that. "
1:04:29>> It’s for tasks, for writing code. That’s
1:04:31all well and good, but it’s all gossip;
1:04:34gossip is what drives us, sitting down
1:04:36and really dragging someone through the
1:04:39mud behind their back.
1:04:40>> There was the Turing test, and modern
1:04:42artificial intelligence passes it, but
1:04:44now we have the Karginov test.
1:04:46I mean, artificial intelligence can
1:04:48solve math, can write code.
1:04:50>> Can it gossip? Only when it can do that
1:04:53, then we'll talk.
1:04:54>> Well, yeah. Well, because, look at
1:04:56Justin Bieber in those sweatpants. And
1:04:59everyone is like," Is he using
1:05:01>> drugs? "" What’s going on there? "
1:05:03What’s his wife’s name again? What?
1:05:05She’s someone...Ah
1:05:06>> Hailey.
1:05:07>> Hailey Bieber. What’s up with Hailey?
1:05:09Where is Hailey now? And why does he
1:05:11look like that?
1:05:11>> Did he say something about her, or what
1:05:13?
1:05:13>> Well, of course, yeah. Yeah, yeah.
1:05:14>> Like," Remember we used to be in a
1:05:16convertible, "and now I’m...yeah, yeah,
1:05:18yeah. I mean, I scroll past any video,
1:05:21any, except for" caught my husband
1:05:23cheating. "Oh, that’s going to be a
1:05:27classic.
1:05:29And how she walks into the apartment
1:05:31with her phone recording, that, we watch
1:05:33.
1:05:34It won't give us that.
1:05:35>> I’ll tell you even more. What Timur says
1:05:37about gossip is actually what has always
1:05:40been the main driver of science. Because
1:05:43what was the idea of science? We gather
1:05:46...Imagine the Solvay Conference, right
1:05:48?
1:05:49>> No, we gathered and we’re just telling
1:05:50each other stories." I made a discovery
1:05:52. "Actually, I made a discovery, if you
1:05:55read Ulbeck. Ulbeck. It seems like I
1:05:58made a discovery because I am driven by
1:06:01some great, great purpose. Yeah, science
1:06:03has this great purpose, and I am its
1:06:06slave.
1:06:07I see this building on a hill, where I
1:06:09am heading, trudging along and dragging
1:06:11people behind me.
1:06:13But in reality, I saw a funny meme about
1:06:16motivation: personal motivation, the
1:06:18desire not to starve to death. And this
1:06:21huge guy, and it says:" the desire to
1:06:22prove to someone that they are wrong. "
1:06:24See, do you understand?
1:06:26>> And in reality you're like, you make a
1:06:28discovery just to come and say:" You,
1:06:31>> yes,
1:06:32>> you and you
1:06:33>> are wrong. "Yes,
1:06:35>> well, it's just
1:06:36>> you, and you're a total loser,
1:06:38>> right? Yes. Self-affirmation at the
1:06:41expense of another person.
1:06:43Another person. Mhm.
1:06:46Mhm,
1:06:47>> remember what Penny said in that
1:06:48wonderful show, she said:" Let's just be
1:06:49friends, the two of us. "She says:" Well
1:06:51, we can't be friends, just the two of
1:06:52us, we need a third. "He says:" What do
1:06:53you mean? "Well, who are we going to be
1:06:54friends against?" Yes,
1:06:55>> who are we going to be friends against?
1:06:56Yes, of course,
1:06:57>> The Big Bang Theory,
1:06:57>> yes. And so you have this wonderful,
1:07:00absolutely wonderful human story. There
1:07:02is something about dark enlightenment.
1:07:03There is a modern philosophical concept
1:07:05of enlightenment. We touched on it, it's
1:07:07also very good.
1:07:09It argues, I told you, it's about
1:07:11consciousness that isn't capable of
1:07:13understanding the world due to its
1:07:14limitations, and a side effect of this
1:07:17limitation is the existence of logic.
1:07:20It's a slightly different approach. It's
1:07:22such a, you know, Lovecraftian kind of
1:07:24approach, right? I mean, we are used to
1:07:27thinking that the world is something
1:07:29that lies there waiting for us to
1:07:31understand it. We are like learning,
1:07:33enjoying ourselves.
1:07:34>> No, no, no, wait. We don't learn about
1:07:36the world for no reason. We must have
1:07:37some motivation for learning,
1:07:39>> right? Well, it isn't...
1:07:41>> Your general idea of moving forward, of
1:07:44the goal of science, is bright, it's
1:07:46positive.
1:07:47Like you have the searchlight of science
1:07:50shining forward, plucking these
1:07:51electrons out of the void of ignorance.
1:07:54And we're like: "That's it, we've
1:07:55understood everything." But in reality,
1:07:57>> how much was made as weapons first, and
1:07:59then this?
1:08:00>> Well, that's always how it is.
1:08:01>> No, well that is, by the way, one of my
1:08:04unpleasant stories too. Related to the
1:08:07fact that, well, recently some wonderful
1:08:09geologists told us about the Ediacaran
1:08:11biota. I think I told you? No.
1:08:13>> No, no.
1:08:14>> That there was, it turns out, such a "
1:08:15boring billion" on Earth, as they call
1:08:17it,
1:08:17>> right? There was.
1:08:20>> When everything that grew, and these
1:08:22were already multicellular, in principle
1:08:25even plants, it grew on some very
1:08:27nutritious silt, ate everything beneath
1:08:30it, and then happily died, you know, of
1:08:33old age.
1:08:34That's it. And no one ate anyone.
1:08:38There were no predators and no prey.
1:08:40Or however you're supposed to say it,
1:08:42predator and it doesn't matter,
1:08:44>> prey,
1:08:45>> it doesn't matter.
1:08:46>> And then, for that billion years,
1:08:48absolutely nothing happened on Earth. I
1:08:50mean, basically, there were just these
1:08:51same old species. They grew like that,
1:08:53and then, well, the silt beneath them
1:08:54started running out. And one of them
1:08:55decided, like, why am I here? There’s
1:08:57nothing here, I’ll crawl over. I’ll
1:08:58start crawling over to my neighbor. And
1:09:00it starts eating its neighbor.
1:09:02And the neighbor starts, accordingly,
1:09:04well, this one grows teeth, this one
1:09:06grows a shell, and then this explosion
1:09:08of evolution happens.
1:09:11>> Just incredible.
1:09:14>> Shells appear, teeth appear, legs appear
1:09:16, faster legs appear, a way to attack
1:09:19appears, a way to defend appears.
1:09:21And it just blows up, that boring
1:09:24billion years turns into, damn it, the
1:09:26fun billion years we live in now.
1:09:28>> No, the fun 10 million years.
1:09:32Yeah, and the nightmare is precisely
1:09:34that you look at it and think: "God, why
1:09:36is everything the way it is?" Well, hell
1:09:39, it turns out paradise on Earth already
1:09:41existed.
1:09:42>> There was a moment when your planet
1:09:44looked like that.
1:09:45You had these algae floating on top,
1:09:47they were there, they were purple, and
1:09:49you had a slightly purple sky.
1:09:52You had a wonderful planet, a pretty one
1:09:54, and then.
1:09:54>> Well no, there was life there, right?
1:09:56Yeah. But it was so stagnant, it
1:09:58couldn't move or develop anywhere.
1:10:01That’s the horror of it. And you think:
1:10:03"Is it really like that, is there no
1:10:05other way?"
1:10:07>> Yes, of course, there isn't,
1:10:10>> damn.
1:10:10>> There is only the path, you see, between
1:10:12the past and the future.
1:10:13>> I think artificial intelligence was
1:10:14originally invented by the military.
1:10:16>> Actually, I think everything was. Well,
1:10:19the internet, at the very least,
1:10:20definitely.
1:10:21>> Yeah, guys, don't worry. We won't perish
1:10:24from artificial intelligence, but from
1:10:26natural one. So, anyway, this idea that
1:10:28you sort of imagine the world and
1:10:31learning about it as a more or less
1:10:33positive thing, you actually fail to
1:10:35realize that the world is dark and, most
1:10:38importantly, unknowable. That is, what
1:10:41was the beauty of Lovecraft, why do I
1:10:43like him so much?
1:10:44Because he very, very carefully
1:10:46describes things that happen beyond in
1:10:49space.
1:10:49He describes them in a way where he says
1:10:51: "Well, how can I describe it to you?
1:10:52Human consciousness is not capable of
1:10:54grasping this." Do you understand? How
1:10:55can I describe to you what human
1:10:57consciousness cannot understand?
1:10:59And this idea that the world is actually
1:11:01alien, strange, or, for example, that
1:11:03life, yes, life is, like you say, what
1:11:05follows from your, from your conclusion
1:11:08, from what you said.
1:11:10It follows that there was equilibrium,
1:11:12this equilibrium was disrupted, and
1:11:14everything we observe is the result of
1:11:16that disruption. So it is,
1:11:18>> yes, an endless struggle, and it’s
1:11:19unclear with what.
1:11:20>> A screw-up, that is, it's a mistake.
1:11:22Like, a mistake occurred. And this is
1:11:24the result of that mistake. Several
1:11:25billion years and they've populated the
1:11:27entire planet. Some even [
1:11:28>> became] platypuses. And the platypus
1:11:30also, for some reason, has a system
1:11:33where it can use electrical signals to
1:11:36sense something, like a fish swimming
1:11:39nearby, to eat it. Well, I mean, roughly
1:11:41speaking,
1:11:41>> I don’t know why you love the platypus
1:11:43so much.
1:11:43>> I adore its design. I
1:11:44>> think an echidna is way cooler.
1:11:47>> No, no, no, the platypus, damn, it has a
1:11:49USB port in its ass, what are you even
1:11:51telling me.
1:11:54spines and
1:11:57it's like someone asked, "What kind of
1:11:59hero do you want to build for your RPG?
1:12:01""I want it to have everything.""Go
1:12:03ahead, build it."
1:12:05You're telling all this, but there's the
1:12:06crocodile.
1:12:07>> The simplest story.
1:12:10>> A crocodile is an old-timer. A crocodile
1:12:13is an ancient one.
1:12:14>> I know. That is, like, what a person
1:12:17wanted to say, a person whose jaw
1:12:19muscles are basically so pathetic for
1:12:22opening its mouth, but incredible for
1:12:24closing it. And at the same time, to
1:12:26defeat a crocodile, you just need to
1:12:28stand on its nose.
1:12:29>> That's it, it will never open it in its
1:12:31life.
1:12:31>> Do you understand, do you get it?
1:12:32>> So,
1:12:33>> no, give us that crocodile over there.
1:12:36>> No, it’s clear that if suddenly
1:12:38something goes wrong, you have zero
1:12:40chances.
1:12:40>> I’m just saying
1:12:41>> fine, an electric ray. Well, no, the
1:12:43crocodile found happiness. It found it.
1:12:46We reached artificial intelligence, but
1:12:47it stopped somewhere before that. It’s
1:12:49like saying, "Everything's fine, I'm
1:12:51staying right here." Further
1:12:52>> is what you were actually describing
1:12:54before.
1:12:55>> The most terrible thing is that
1:12:59again, everyone, you know, asks: "What
1:13:01is this for?"
1:13:02Here we are sitting, discussing this,
1:13:04but did no one else think of anything
1:13:06else?
1:13:07After all, it could be put together
1:13:08differently. You look and realize what
1:13:10the appeal of the crocodile is.
1:13:13It has absolutely no problems at all.
1:13:15Even if someone eats it, I don't think
1:13:17it would even feel it. There. Well, I’m
1:13:20not even mentioning that bacteria also
1:13:21live like this, and they’ll be around
1:13:23here long after we’re gone for God knows
1:13:24how long. And as soon as you get this
1:13:26consciousness, you start messing with it
1:13:28, engaging in this mental masturbation.
1:13:30But what about this whole electron thing
1:13:31, what’s the point of it?
1:13:33See, all of this that you're describing
1:13:35—this thinking, suffering, creativity—
1:13:37is a byproduct of excessive cell growth
1:13:40that happened in one branch of primates
1:13:42about 4 million years ago.
1:13:44So, a human is a primate with brain
1:13:46cancer.
1:13:47>> Well, cancer of consciousness, let's say
1:13:49.
1:13:49>> A kind of cancer of consciousness, but a
1:13:51benign one, since it doesn't kill you,
1:13:53but it still has all this extra info, I
1:13:55don't know.
1:13:57I, for some reason, got worried about
1:13:59science, not because things are so sad
1:14:01there, but because the more you learn,
1:14:03the further you move, the more seriously
1:14:06you realize that nobody knows a damn
1:14:08thing.
1:14:09And maybe, of course, there are huge
1:14:12factories that will make these cars.
1:14:15Maybe there are, of course, all these
1:14:17factories that will produce these
1:14:19processors that everything runs on. But
1:14:21artificial intelligence is slowly taking
1:14:23that over too. Why should we sit here
1:14:25and have some human, you know, draw
1:14:27these complex diagrams? You see,
1:14:29artificial intelligence already drew it
1:14:30. And little by little, slowly, you
1:14:33return to the state of a crocodile. You
1:14:35just sit there and do nothing, and when
1:14:37someone comes along, you snatch them up
1:14:38.
1:14:39Eat them and keep on going.
1:14:42See, the main problem in human history
1:14:44is that as soon as we have a path that
1:14:47could lead to an endless, paradisiacal
1:14:49life (and what you're describing—you
1:14:52have a wonderful, paradisiacal life),
1:14:54people blow it.
1:14:57So don't worry: somewhere along the way
1:15:00, there's greed, stupidity, a pointless
1:15:02desire to be the most popular, and a
1:15:05desire to name your company after a
1:15:07stone from The Lord of the Rings.
1:15:11Yes.
1:15:12And all of this will lead to something
1:15:14that forces us to start inventing
1:15:16everything all over again.
1:15:18>> That last part. What is that a reference
1:15:19to?
1:15:19>> Palantir.
1:15:20>> Aha.
1:15:21>> The Palantir is the stone that was in
1:15:23The Lord of the Rings, which—what
1:15:25company?
1:15:26>> Sam Altman’s. The most famous company.
1:15:29Palantir, which works on all sorts of
1:15:31military developments.
1:15:33>> Okay, I get it now. Yes.
1:15:34>> And there's another theory that, well,
1:15:36we go to the gym, right, and work out.
1:15:38Why? Because we lack natural physical
1:15:41activity. We need to make up for it
1:15:43somehow.
1:15:44>> And, accordingly, if artificial
1:15:45intelligence takes over all our thought
1:15:47processes, then we will have mental
1:15:49fitness.
1:15:50>> Yes,
1:15:50>> you will have to go somewhere twice a
1:15:53week and strain your brain.
1:15:56I mean, there will be coaches like, "
1:15:57Come on, come on, try to read this whole
1:15:59thing right now, just read it."
1:16:01>> And you're like, "Okay, here's the first
1:16:03set."
1:16:04I can't do more than one sentence.
1:16:06>> Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well,
1:16:07that's if you exclude all relationships
1:16:09between people entirely. Listen, I'm
1:16:10telling you,
1:16:11>> and another thing, okay, let's recall,
1:16:12Nadya, what example should I give.
1:16:14>> Don't worry, nothing good from, well,
1:16:16like, you are describing the situation
1:16:18too positively.
1:16:19>> No, it's actually bad,
1:16:20>> right? Wonderful. Everyone is living, no
1:16:22one is fighting, everything is fine for
1:16:23everyone.
1:16:24>> That's unrealistic,
1:16:26>> of course. So, that's why it will all
1:16:28result in something like that.
1:16:29>> Oh, by the way, your Kant, I think,
1:16:31remember, he once, you know? I remember
1:16:34yours said that he assumed that when
1:16:37humanity reached such a level of
1:16:39development of reason, all 8 billion of
1:16:43us—well, maybe fewer at that time—would
1:16:46gather and agree on everything.
1:16:49And these agreements would be so
1:16:51understandable and clear, because
1:16:53everyone is very smart, you see, that
1:16:55all hardships would end, and the
1:16:57Ediacaran biota would begin. I mean, the
1:16:59man believed in humanity and in reason
1:17:02so much, and it was so much more
1:17:03important than anything else, that once
1:17:05we all reached it, people would gather
1:17:08and agree on everything. Not just three
1:17:10people, who usually can't even agree,
1:17:13but exactly 8 billion. I've always been
1:17:16amazed by these people who aren't stupid
1:17:18, supposedly, right, well, Kant, to put
1:17:20it mildly.
1:17:20>> Look, that's also a good
1:17:22>> way of how one should believe in
1:17:23humanity.
1:17:24>> No, not believe. That is a very good
1:17:26question. How do we think? Like when you
1:17:28, for example, are living your life, you
1:17:29have certain things, you think about
1:17:31them, you make assumptions about how the
1:17:33situation will develop, and then you
1:17:34turn out to be wrong. Performing a
1:17:36retrospective analysis of why you turned
1:17:38out to be wrong is a rather specific
1:17:40thing. The worst thing you can do is
1:17:43when you realize that all the facts were
1:17:45right in front of you, but you chose to
1:17:48believe otherwise. I mean, when you are
1:17:50doing an analysis because you have
1:17:52limited time, what do you often rely on
1:17:54? Intuition. Intuition is good when it
1:17:56works; you know, people say, you know,
1:17:58they're in the flow. Meaning when it's
1:18:00intuitive knowledge, you don't feel any
1:18:02emotion, it just happens like: "Okay,
1:18:04I'm in." Well, it's also some kind of
1:18:05accumulated neural network,
1:18:06>> right? Yes. A neural network, when you
1:18:08actually listen to it, not when you
1:18:10start tweaking it and wishing for things
1:18:12to be true. Human emotions are the main
1:18:14enemy of analysis. Analysis can only be
1:18:16conducted when you are as devoid
1:18:18>> as possible of emotion; emotion is
1:18:20always above reason. That is,
1:18:22essentially, why I made a mistake. Kant
1:18:23,
1:18:23>> of course, absolutely everything. You
1:18:25know how it's easily proven? It's a very
1:18:27cool story,
1:18:27>> isn't it?
1:18:28>> And how to prove that emotions are read
1:18:30better than information?
1:18:33>> Well, just now I said, there's Timur,
1:18:35that friend of yours came by; what
1:18:37information did you read just now?
1:18:40That
1:18:41>> some wrong kind of guy arrived, but I
1:18:44>> spoke words
1:18:46>> that said your friend arrived, but you
1:18:48read the emotion and prioritized that.
1:18:50You didn't ask—wait, you told me my
1:18:52friend arrived, but emotionally you made
1:18:54it sound like he's not my friend at all
1:18:55. I mean,
1:18:56>> there is even a deviation where a person
1:18:58doesn't read that.
1:18:59>> No, it's impossible not to read it.
1:19:00>> No, no, no. There is a deviation where
1:19:02>> Well, we start calling that a deviation
1:19:04.
1:19:04>> No, because it shows, as you usually say
1:19:06, how to prove that this actually works
1:19:09. You need to take a person for whom
1:19:10this doesn't work and look at their
1:19:12brain, how it differs from the brain of
1:19:13a person for whom it does.
1:19:15You compare and say: "Yes, indeed, this
1:19:16is really
1:19:18>> no, it's just that we prioritize emotion
1:19:20so much over content that we don't even
1:19:22double-check: 'Wait, you just gave me
1:19:24two different pieces of information
1:19:26through the emotional channel.
1:19:29You said this guy is so-so, but without
1:19:30the emotional channel, strictly by text
1:19:32, you're saying this is all a normal
1:19:33story.'" See, you didn't think that you
1:19:35had to choose between these two pieces
1:19:37of information, you automatically chose
1:19:38the emotion.
1:19:40And so, if the emotion goes off the
1:19:41charts, if emotion is more important
1:19:43than content, that's it, we have no
1:19:44problems, we will definitely mess
1:19:46everything up.
1:19:47>> And there you go, see, perfect.
1:19:49>> Well, that's good. And we talked. Agreed
1:19:52. Everything, everything is good. People
1:19:53will ruin everything.
1:19:54>> That's it, yes, people will ruin
1:19:55everything.
1:19:56>> Done.
1:19:57>> Thank you very much. It was incredibly
1:19:59interesting. Alexander, we look forward
1:20:02to having you back here an infinite
1:20:04number of times. Thank you. I like it, I
1:20:06like it. So you show up, and you jump
1:20:09right into it,
1:20:11>> yeah,
1:20:12>> without—we have Alexander Pu as our
1:20:13guest.
1:20:14So, listen, so listen, guys, and the
1:20:16story is, first off, thank you so much,
1:20:18I am very, very, very happy to see you.
1:20:21>> So what, you just show up like that?
1:20:22Well, I showed up, and I don't know,
1:20:23what,
1:20:24>> what, how are things?
1:20:26Fine.
1:20:28Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you so much. It
1:20:30was very interesting and very curious
1:20:32and informative.
1:20:33>> Thank you. Hey

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Александр Пушной: достоверные знания (KujiPodcast 234) by kuji podcast, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 14,771 words across 2,429 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.