This is a clip from a conversation with George Hotz on the Artificial Intelligence podcast. You can watch the full conversation here: http://bit.ly/2YLIPom If you enjoy these, consider subscribing, sharing, and commenting below.

Full episode: http://bit.ly/2YLIPom
Full episodes playlist: http://bit.ly/2EcbaKf
Clips playlist: http://bit.ly/2JYkbfZ
Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/ai

George Hotz is the founder of Comma.ai, a machine learning based vehicle automation company. He is an outspoken personality in the field of AI and technology in general. He first gained recognition for being the first person to carrier-unlock an iPhone, and since then has done quite a few interesting things at the intersection of hardware and software.

Subscribe to this YouTube channel or connect on:
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman
- Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman

Do you think we're living in a simulation?

So if the simulation is designed in such a way that they did like a formal proof to show that no information can get in and out and if their hardware is designed to For the anything in the simulation to always keep the hardware in spec, it may be impossible to prove whether we're in a simulation or not.

So they've designed it such that it's a closed system you can't get outside the system.

We're either in a simulation which can be exploited, We're in a simulation which not only can't be exploited, but like the same thing's true about VMs.

A really well-designed VM, you can't even detect if you're in a VM or not.

So the simulation is running on a virtual machine.

But now in reality, all VMs have ways to detect.

I mean, is it, you've done quite a bit of hacking yourself.

And so you should know that really any complicated system will have ways in and out.

So this isn't necessarily true going forward.

It's a dependently typed, like, it's a language for writing math proofs.

And If you write code that compiles in a language like that, it is correct by definition.

So it's possible that the simulation is written in a language like this, in which case...

Yeah, but that can't be sufficiently expressive of language like that.

The simulation doesn't have to be Turing complete if it has a scheduled end date.

Looks like it does, actually, with entropy.

I mean, I don't think that a simulation that results in something as complicated as the universe would have a formal proof of correctness.

We have no idea how good their tooling is, and we have no idea how complicated the universe computer really is.

But the fundamental rules might be super simple.

Yeah, Conway's Game of Life kind of stuff.

So if you could hack, so imagine a simulation that is hackable, if you could hack it, what would you change about the universe?

Like, how would you approach hacking a simulation?

By the way, I'm not familiar with the talk you gave.

I just read that you talked about escaping the simulation or something like that.

So maybe you can tell me a little bit about the theme and the message there too.

It wasn't a very practical talk about how to actually escape a simulation.

It was more about a way of restructuring an us versus them narrative.

If we continue on the path we're going with technology, I think we're in big trouble, like, as a species, not just as a species, but even as me as an individual member of the species.

So if we could change rhetoric to be more like to think upwards, like to think about that we're in a simulation and how we could get out.

What you actually do once you do that, well I assume I would have acquired way more intelligence in the process of doing that, so I'll just ask that.

So the thinking upwards, what kind of ideas, what kind of breakthrough ideas do you think thinking in that way could inspire?

Are you thinking sort of exploration in all forms?

The space narrative that held for the modernist generation doesn't hold as well for the postmodern generation.

Like building, like Elon Musk, like we're gonna build rockets, we're gonna go to Mars, we're gonna colonize the universe.

And the narrative you're referring, I was born in the Soviet Union, you're referring to the race to space.

It doesn't seem to hold the same weight in today's culture.

I'm hoping for good postmodern narratives that replace it.

So let's think, so you work a lot with AI.

So AI is 1 formulation of that narrative.

There could be Also, I don't know how much you do in VR and AR.

That's another, I know less about it, but every time I play with it in our research, it's fascinating, that virtual world.

No, I would like to physically move there.

The apartment I can rent in the cloud is way better than the apartment I can rent in the real world.

Because others will have very nice apartments too, so you'll be inferior in the virtual world as well.

But that's not how I view the world, right?

I don't view the world, I mean, it's a very like, almost zero-sum-ish way to view the world.

Say like, my great apartment isn't great because my neighbor has 1 too.

No, my great apartment is great because like, look at this dishwasher, man.

just touch the dish and it's washed, right?

And that is great in and of itself if I have the only apartment or if everybody had the apartment.


Speaker 0: Do you think we're living in a simulation?

Speaker 1: Yes, but it may be unfalsifiable.

Speaker 0: What do you mean by unfalsifiable?

Speaker 1: So if the simulation is designed in such a way that they did like a formal proof to show that no information can get in and out and if their hardware is designed to For the anything in the simulation to always keep the hardware in spec, it may be impossible to prove whether we're in a simulation or not.

Speaker 0: So they've designed it such that it's a closed system you can't get outside the system.

Speaker 1: Well maybe it's 1 of 3 worlds. We're either in a simulation which can be exploited, We're in a simulation which not only can't be exploited, but like the same thing's true about VMs. A really well-designed VM, you can't even detect if you're in a VM or not.

Speaker 0: That's brilliant. So we're, it's, yeah. So the simulation is running on a virtual machine.

Speaker 1: But now in reality, all VMs have ways to detect.

Speaker 0: That's the point. I mean, is it, you've done quite a bit of hacking yourself. And so you should know that really any complicated system will have ways in and out.

Speaker 1: So this isn't necessarily true going forward. I spent my time away from comma. I learned a cock. It's a dependently typed, like, it's a language for writing math proofs. And If you write code that compiles in a language like that, it is correct by definition.

The types check its correctness. So it's possible that the simulation is written in a language like this, in which case...

Speaker 0: Yeah, but that can't be sufficiently expressive of language like that.

Speaker 1: Oh, it can.

Speaker 0: It can be? Oh, yeah. Okay, well, so, all right, so.

Speaker 1: The simulation doesn't have to be Turing complete if it has a scheduled end date. Looks like it does, actually, with entropy.

Speaker 0: I mean, I don't think that a simulation that results in something as complicated as the universe would have a formal proof of correctness. It's possible, of course.

Speaker 1: We have no idea how good their tooling is, and we have no idea how complicated the universe computer really is. It may be quite simple.

Speaker 0: It's just very large, right?

Speaker 1: It's very, it's definitely very large.

Speaker 0: But the fundamental rules might be super simple.

Speaker 1: Yeah, Conway's Game of Life kind of stuff. Right.

Speaker 0: So if you could hack, so imagine a simulation that is hackable, if you could hack it, what would you change about the universe? Like, how would you approach hacking a simulation?

Speaker 1: The reason I gave that talk...

Speaker 0: By the way, I'm not familiar with the talk you gave. I just read that you talked about escaping the simulation or something like that. So maybe you can tell me a little bit about the theme and the message there too.

Speaker 1: It wasn't a very practical talk about how to actually escape a simulation. It was more about a way of restructuring an us versus them narrative. If we continue on the path we're going with technology, I think we're in big trouble, like, as a species, not just as a species, but even as me as an individual member of the species. So if we could change rhetoric to be more like to think upwards, like to think about that we're in a simulation and how we could get out. Already we'd be on the right path.

What you actually do once you do that, well I assume I would have acquired way more intelligence in the process of doing that, so I'll just ask that.

Speaker 0: So the thinking upwards, what kind of ideas, what kind of breakthrough ideas do you think thinking in that way could inspire? And why did you say upwards? Upwards. Into space? Are you thinking sort of exploration in all forms?

Speaker 1: The space narrative that held for the modernist generation doesn't hold as well for the postmodern generation.

Speaker 0: What's the space narrative? Are we talking about the same space? The 3 dimensional space? No,

Speaker 1: no, space, like going on space.

Speaker 0: Literally space, yeah.

Speaker 1: Like building, like Elon Musk, like we're gonna build rockets, we're gonna go to Mars, we're gonna colonize the universe.

Speaker 0: And the narrative you're referring, I was born in the Soviet Union, you're referring to the race to space.

Speaker 1: The race to space, yes.

Speaker 0: Explore, okay.

Speaker 1: That was a great modernist narrative.

Speaker 0: Yeah.

Speaker 1: It doesn't seem to hold the same weight in today's culture. I'm hoping for good postmodern narratives that replace it.

Speaker 0: So let's think, so you work a lot with AI. So AI is 1 formulation of that narrative. There could be Also, I don't know how much you do in VR and AR. That's another, I know less about it, but every time I play with it in our research, it's fascinating, that virtual world. Are you interested in the virtual world?

Speaker 1: I would like to move to virtual reality.

Speaker 0: In terms of your work?

Speaker 1: No, I would like to physically move there. The apartment I can rent in the cloud is way better than the apartment I can rent in the real world.

Speaker 0: Well, it's all relative, isn't it? Because others will have very nice apartments too, so you'll be inferior in the virtual world as well.

Speaker 1: But that's not how I view the world, right? I don't view the world, I mean, it's a very like, almost zero-sum-ish way to view the world. Say like, my great apartment isn't great because my neighbor has 1 too. No, my great apartment is great because like, look at this dishwasher, man.

Speaker 0: You

Speaker 1: just touch the dish and it's washed, right? And that is great in and of itself if I have the only apartment or if everybody had the apartment. I don't

Speaker 0: care. So you

See all Lex Fridman transcripts on Youtube

Are We Living in a Simulation? with George Hotz and Lex Fridman | AI Podcast Clips