AI Run Government

AI Run Government

Show Video

This Episode is sponsored by Audible Many people worry a future controlled   by Artificial Intelligence is  one many others will not resist,   instead welcoming our machine overlords, and  perhaps they will be right to do so.   So today we will be talking about  governments run by artificial intelligence,   computer minds telling us what to do. A few  months back we did an episode called “Machine   Overlords & Post-Discontent Societies”, and since  Post-Discontent Societies are the Dark Mirror   Reflection of Utopian Post-Scarcity Societies,  it put an unfortunate negative tone on the notion   of Artificial Intelligence running things. So in that episode we looked at the darker   side of machine overlords while looking at  the darker side of advanced civilizations.  

However, the whole reason governments run by  computers show up so much in science fiction   is because the concept has a lot going for it.  At some point, we’ll have to admit to ourselves   that it’s easier to put a machine in charge than  have someone we don’t like running the show.   Ideally such a machine-run system doesn’t pick  favorites and doesn’t take bribes or have biases.   Events of the last 6000 years have called  into question our competence to self-govern.  

In many ways all the science fiction showing  that computers are bad rulers can be viewed   as anti-computer propaganda and today we’ll  demonstrate the advantages of getting rid of   our flawed human leadership and surrendering  our sovereignty to sober computer control.   The Computer Mind will give us  peace, safety, and security, at last   So I for one welcome our machine overlords  and if you haven’t already noticed the date   on the episode’s airing being April  First, Happy April Fool’s Day!   I’d keep the gag running longer but our episodes  run around half an hour and most of our viewers   don’t actually watch the episodes the day they  come out. However the other half of the gag is   that we are going to be genuinely looking at  the advantages of using artificial intelligence   in running our governments, up to and  including letting them have genuine control.   We will be playing Devil’s Advocate on the topic  at times, but fundamentally today we’ll be looking   at the potential advantages, disadvantages,  and circumstances where computerization can   help governance, even in cases of decision  making. Indeed in that respect most of all.   Like everyone else, I don’t really relish  the notion of some machine pushing me around,   and the earlier Post discontent machine  overlords episode was tied to the concept   of Post-Discontent Societies - the dark mirror  reflection of the more Utopian Post-Scarcity   Civilizations - and thus it took an  even more negative attitude over all,   so let’s explore the other side of this  AI coin so we can round out this topic.  

What is that other side? Well it is not Skynet,  and it also is not necessarily the machine-mind   making the core decisions but executing lots  of the day to day policy. Indeed it also isn’t   necessarily something singular and as we  mentioned in the Machine Overlords video,   you could potentially have dozens or hundreds  of AI running various departments or areas of   interest, rather than a singular mind, or  even all of those under human oversight.   Today we will be considering the concept from a  few directions. We’ll contemplate how AI might   be used in government, what the early entries or  slippery slopes might be, and what the challenges   are to maintaining it usefully. We also want  to look at the advantages and the two big ones,  

or perceived ones, are the impartiality and  personal disinterest of the machine. That’s nice   for things like privacy, or a loss of it, because  an impersonal entity watching your every move and   pouring over all your personal data at least  feels a little less creepy than people doing.   And both of those advantages seem legitimate  ones, but let’s contemplate that for a bit.   Is a machine really impartial? I did state earlier that a computer   is definitely impersonal and non-judgmental.  That’s a big assumption, especially given that   folks often propose using them as judges  in criminal cases in the far future.   We cannot assume an AI is  automatically dispassionate or fair.  

Critically, what they are is an artificial  intelligence, key word, ‘artificial’, so we can   make it be interested in what we think it should  be interested in and not what it should not be.   The follow up worry is that we might mess that  up, misprogramming the AI or allowing it to   mutate with time, but that’s a concern about the practicality of the concept, not its morality.   However, we have to keep in mind that  all the various negative biases and   discriminations we have are not just random  manifestations of evil in folks. They exist  

for a reason and an AI can get them too. To clarify that, let’s contemplate bias for   a moment. Biases come in a variety of forms  and some might be prevalent with an AI.   Anchoring Bias, for instance, is the bias  where someone tends to rely on the first   piece of information they were given as the  thing which everything else is compared to.   It’s an awful lot like the Mediocrity  or Copernican Principle of science,   where we assume the first example of something  we encounter is fairly normal or mediocre,   like first impressions, and it is very easy  to imagine a computer having that one pop   up given that we’re likely to program it  in. We even tend to assume that in science   fiction when we have cases of an AI mistrusting  humans because the first ones it interacted   with enslaved it or were cruel or deceptive. In a similar vein, we can establish a tendency  

toward the “Self-serving Bias”, or  an AI equivalent. This is the one   where an individual tends to mentally twist  things to maintain or enhance self-esteem,   typically by crediting themselves for successes  and blaming outside factors for failures.   Now a machine might have an ego driving it and  warping how it assesses events too, but we could   see this manifest differently as something like it  being programmed to give justice, believing to its   roots that its decisions are most just, and thus  tending to assume any side effects of its decision   that resulted in injustice were attempts at sabotage.  

Also at a fundamental level a lot of  mismanagement and waste in government   comes from every department thinking it’s the  most important one and fighting for resources.   And this is natural and needful since you want the  folks running your education, justice, elections,   or transportation departments to believe that  education, justice, elections, or transportation   are the most important things, keeps them  motivated to do their job and that’s a bias   an AI might be very likely to have, especially  given that we might program it in. And if you’re   in the Transportation department and think roads  and railways are the lifeblood of humanity, it   tends to make you less susceptible to corruption  of it too, not selling off repair and maintenance   contracts to folks who will do an inferior  job but line your own pockets in the process.   Speaking of that, contrary to my trite statements  earlier, machines are entirely capable of being   bribed. We tend to assume one wouldn’t be  subject to bribery but we have to remember   what bribery really is, asking someone to do  something for something they value more than   whatever the request was. Essentially it’s a  mercantile trade, and whether or not it will  

accept the deal is based entirely on if it thinks it's a good deal   and if its core morality allows it. Well, where is the machine getting its   morality? Possibly from its End Goal, which for  a judicial-robot might be “Minimize how many   crimes happen”, and it might have a Utilitarian  flare, in which case if it has a budget locally   of ten million dollars a year and knows an  eleven million dollar budget would let it   prevent 10% more crime, say five less  murders, ten less rapes, fifty less robberies,   then someone offering it a bribe of a million  dollars to let it off the hook for one of those   might succeed in such a bribe. Even if it is carefully programmed against   something like that, it might be happy to take a  million dollars to spray paint corporate logos on   its enforcement drones or suggest defense lawyers  to the newly arrested who paid it some money.   An end-goal like that can also result  in weird behaviors or decisions,   what in a human we might call monomania, like  it decides to minimize how many crimes happen   in its district, which it estimates to be 1000  a year, but by killing everyone in the district,   all million of them. It rationalizes that those  one million murders averaged over 1001 years,   represents a long term drop in crime. So too the machine is just as capable of   being blackmailed or coerced as we are, if it’s  in charge of making sure the trains run on time   you can threaten to blow up the tracks, or less  violently, inform it you are going to hold public   protests and you can either hold them where it  will interfere with the schedule or hold them   somewhere it won’t, in exchange for something.  Then you can arrange to blackmail it with  

exposure of that deal, or the time it ran  someone over in order to make the schedule.   An artificial intelligence might be prone  to monomania that way but even if it is,   it is still likely to be able to understand concepts like public relations.   So this illustrates ways in which an artificial  intelligence can manifest the same bad behaviors   found in humans, rather than being impartial.  However, I want to stress again that the key word  

there is ‘artificial’, we have the ability  to alter the mind involved and engineer it   and even small changes might be well worth it, indeed small changes might be better.   I’ve mentioned in previous episodes that we have  basic three routes to Artificial Intelligence:   Copied, Crafted, or Self-Created. Essentially we  can use a human – or animal – as a brain template   on a machine, copying it, or we can program every  line of code, crafting it, or we can create a   learning machine that self-creates itself. I  generally dub that last one the most dangerous   type of AI, but in truth you would probably not do  just one of these approaches but a combination of   two or more. You might copy a human mind to serve  as your basic template for a law enforcement AI,   then tweak some aspects of it to diminish the  personality of the copied mind or heighten the   desire to fairly follow the rules. You presumably  start with an exemplar of the profession as the  

source of your copied mind template and indeed we  see something like this approach with the cyborg   of the RoboCop franchise. We’re contemplating  outright uploaded minds today rather than brains   in a jar or cyborgs, but same concept. If you  want good police folks trust, you maybe take the   hundred best candidates from the existing  pool and copy them and tweak as needed.   Note I say the hundred best, let us kill the  notion of using a single mind for copying   thousands of times from the outset. Diversity  brings strength – it can bring weakness too,  

and folks do tend to use the term like a jingo  – but it prevents a lot of potential problems.   As an example if your ideal candidate to  be the AI police officer, your Robocop,   was only ideal on paper but in reality looked very  shiny because he bought a lot of polish with all   the bribe money he took, you’ve got a big problem  with a million clones of him running the show.   That’s the extreme case but not something to be  ignored. We are not saying copies are not handy   here either. It’s awesome to have a hundred  Einstein duplicates, but given the option   to have a thousand, well you would be better  off taking just 100 and getting 100 Feynmanns,   Diracs, Noethers, Sagans, and so on. Now that’s for creative fields and for more   standardized stuff like making widgets at the  factory that diversity of thought matters less   but that’s also an area where you don’t need  AI, just smart automation, and it is not the   same thing. We’re adding something of human  level intelligence, or a bit more or less,  

because we need that brain power for that work and  benefit heavily from it, but a human-intelligent   can opener or butter knife serves no purpose. It really is only for problem solving that we want   AI, and we do not want one-million copies of the  world’s greatest chess grandmaster for that job,   we want thousands of different problem solving  experts, and those copied as often as needful. The   same applies if we are building it from the ground  up, rule by rule, or letting it self-learn.   I think this multiplicity for the sake of  different perspectives is an important one   for dealing with AI fears in the future. It  is true we have to worry about our original   prototype getting out of control and wiping us  out Skynet-style but past that consideration,   of them going wonky while in use, have thousands  or million of different problem solving AI   crafted specifically with the intent  of them having different worldviews   makes all of them deciding to team up  quietly to kill us a lot less of a concern.  

We often say that in many ways AI would  be more alien to us than actual Aliens   simply because Aliens still have to evolve as  the product of natural selection and survival   of the fittest, and will share a lot of  our perspective as a result. It is worth   remembering though that AI are likely to be  as alien to each other as to us as a result.   When we’re not making them with copies of  ourselves as templates, and when we desire   a variety of perspective, they will have little  in common with each other as a whole, and are   unlikely to have a majority that see themselves as  a distinct group at odds with humanity as a group.   In truth, given that AI would likely run a  far larger spectrum of perspectives and goals   than we see among groups of humans, the notion  of a big group of them successfully teaming up   in secret to overthrow us is less likely than  a big group of humans teaming up to do so.  

You would probably have large groups  of them opposed to each other.   Speaking of humans doing stuff in secret  though, the other big advantage of AI is that   it potentially lets us maintain some privacy  while keeping us safe from groups of people   conspiring against us in secret, to make doomsday  weapons in their basement or brainwashing devices   for instance, though its other disadvantage is  that it is very good at invading our privacy.   One of our big fears about the future is that  it seems inevitable that we will be spied upon,   and an impersonal computer that’s not judging  us would seem to be better than a person.   Now we talk about the inevitability of losing a  lot of our privacy and it is decidedly unpleasant   to contemplate, especially concepts like  social credit where how many likes you get   on facebook controls what sort of options you  have for things like credit or job or travel,   but we always phrase anything to do with  privacy as some creeping violation by others.   That might be part of the problem though. Let us  ask ourselves if that notion of being spied on   is entirely fair. The biggest external threat  to a human is another human, and they are also  

our best potential friends and allies, so we look  at each other and observe each other and practice   concealing information from each other. We watch  each other like hawks because the reality is   that we have a lot more to fear from each other  than we do from hawks or any other predator.   Throughout history we have used reputation -  which is borrowing other people’s observations   of someone else - as a way to survive and  prosper. It's dark companion is malicious gossip,  

but we never say paying attention to folks to know  them better is wrong - quite to the contrary - or   that seeking to have a good reputation is wrong  or that passing along that reputation is wrong,   we praise word of mouth referrals. These all  represent an exposure of your personal life   and information and it is never implied you have  a right to control your reputation or delete it.   What’s being aimed for is accuracy and relevancy,   we frown on information being passed along that  is inaccurate or is accurate but seems like   it shouldn’t pertain to the inquiry at hand,  good or bad, though especially the latter.   If you are looking to partner up on a business  venture with someone, you want to know if they   have a history of bankruptcy or bad business  decisions but whether or not they like baseball   or hate basketball really doesn’t matter  unless the business venture is sports-related,   or if you have a shared passion that  can make for a stronger personal bond.   We have a lot of other things that are marginally  and occasionally relevant that are also hurtful   and this tends to be what we really mean by gossip  when we’re not talking about intentional lies.  

For instance, many might say it does not matter if  your business partner got divorced some years back   and many might argue otherwise but if they  got divorced because their spouse caught   them cheating on them with their previous business  partner’s spouse, then yeah it probably matters.   We also don’t generally feel that businesses  or public figures should be able to claim   privacy to avoid reviews, and at the same  time most businesses or public figures do   often feel wrongly done by some given  review or slur they feel is inaccurate.   The reality is that we tend to feel our privacy  is a right and other people’s privacy is an   inconvenience and we’re not here today to say  we’re all hypocrites or that we need to learn to   respect each other’s privacy more, though both are  probably true. What is essentially on the table is   that we all have the right to gather information  about the world around us and the folks in it and   to pass that information along. Doing it in  an agreed-to, organized and massive fashion  

doesn’t necessarily make it wrong compared to  small scale disorganized or clandestine efforts.   Admittedly this is exactly what makes  it so upsetting to a lot of us too,   big scale, organized efforts are assumed to be  very effective and we would rather they were not.   It is a bit like the examples I like to use when  discussing mind control or genetic engineering. In   the past folks often sold love potions, so someone  could buy and sneak one to someone they desired   to fall in love with them, or get a spell cast  on them to do the same. We tend to dismiss that   because we don’t believe it worked, even though  the person who did it presumably thought it did,   whereas we would be horrified by some  science-proven method being used on us.  

Some lab mass producing pills or subliminal  messages that could actually make someone fall in   love with someone else is a thousand times scarier  to us than some witch in a shack selling placebos,   or at worst maybe something with  mostly minimal effect distributed   in minor quantities and low frequency. It’s the same when we talk about whether   or not it's ethical for parents to have  designer babies with DNA picked out in a lab,   but for untold centuries folks have often sought  to influence the DNA of their offspring even   though they didn’t know what DNA was. How  successful something is at doing something   we think might be immoral probably should not  be the judge of its morality. For that matter,   while I imagine it varies from individual, I  suspect most folks find a giant corporation   spying on their purchasing habits via big data  a lot less creepy and worrisome than a lone   individual spying on us by talking to our friends  and family and digging through our garbage cans.   It doesn’t make the idea of massive  organizations spying on you feel any better,   but when we ask ourselves not what right we have  to privacy but what right we have to prevent   folks making observations about their world,  including us, and sharing those with others,   well then it does make it seem a little less  morally certain, and maybe a lot less legally   so. Such being the case a dispassionate machine  sorting our personal data might be preferable,   especially since it can be forced to  follow known rules that we programmed in.  

Organized surveillance then is maybe something  that should be focused on ensuring the data   gathered is only available when it’s  pertinent and maximized for accuracy.   Credit scores are probably a decent example  of this, regardless of one’s opinion on debt.   Various companies make their business  monitoring how folks have borrowed and   repaid debt and various companies who lend  money report the performance of those loans,   and we get a credit score for an individual  those companies make available on request.   We often have strict rules on who can access this  information, like a potential lender or employer   can request a person give them permission to see  that score. A person has a right to say no, and   that entity has a right to say “Fine, but we’re  not doing business with you if you won’t let us   check out how you have previously done business,  we’ve a right to protect ourselves too”.   We also know that this process is virtually  entirely automated by machines these days and one   might argue it's the sort of thing we would like  entirely automated, barring the occasional human   audit. This is an example of an AI run system, not  actually a government but the next best thing.  

We would tend to feel the same about something  like diseases. It enhances our ability to   protect folks from the spread of a disease if  we know who got it, when they got it, who from,   and where they have been since and into contact  with who. I don’t think many of us like the idea   of having investigators poke and prod our daily  dealings much, and folks are likely to lie about   things they’d consider embarrassing, like how  they got an STD. If it's a machine gathering and  

sorting that data though, like your positional  GPS data from your phone and your health data   from your fitbit, and comparing to other people’s  - anonymously - maybe it's less of a problem. The   same applies for many other personal matters. The machine doesn’t care and we mostly don’t   care if our data is used in a way that won’t hurt  us, and the concern then is not about the machine   knowing and producing anonymous data from it, or  only letting those with a right to know find out,   but of making sure no one else does. This tends  to feel impossible because at a minimum someone   needs to be able to check the data being  gathered isn’t nonsense and verify that   the right data is going to the right place  without getting messed up or misdirected.   What’s potentially neat about an AI running such  things is that it can be human-accurate without   being human-interested. It’s not so bad if the  AI is programmed to ignore certain traits that  

humans would gossip about, such as who is sleeping  with whom and whether someone picks their nose.   So, provided the AI only focuses on the important  data, it watching us isn’t really a problem.   We also want to remember that life is not science  fiction, we are not idiots and we do prototype   and proof systems before using them. In scifi  some civilization turns on the Justice-tron-3000   to impartially judge all their cases and give it  utter power without restraint or recourse on day   1, so that it’s inevitable flaw that makes it  pervert justice never gets handled until some   hero shows up and blows up the machine  or talks it into committing suicide.   We have certainly implemented plenty of things  before they should have been out of Beta-testing   but even at our most reckless I can't imagine us  doing that, or turning control of all our nuclear   missiles over to some robot that was the first and  only of its kind and still smelled factory-fresh.  

Again humanity has a history of making stupid  decisions but we’re not drooling idiots and   we are actually very good at survival.  We’re also very paranoid about survival,   which is not necessarily the same thing as being  good at it, but generally makes folks think twice   about investing total power in something  untested and not including an off switch.   Again today we are not necessarily talking  about turning all government over to an AI   but ways AI can help run government, and  what some of them will be in the future.   We just got done with a Census in the  United States, we do one every decade,   and we increasingly try to automate our  counting methods and estimation techniques,   both to save money and improve accuracy. One of the things we do with that data  

is draw up state and federal districts for  elected representatives and it is easy to   forget that until relatively recently,  there were no computers involved in this.   While UNIVAC-1, the Upgrade of ENIAC that we  usually consider the first computer, was built for   use in the 1950 Census, redistricting was mostly  done fairly manually until the last few times.   Folks often talk about using computers to  assist in doing this fairly and neutrally   but since it only gets done every decade we do not  get a lot of opportunities for testing plans out.  

It's been a topic of interest of  mine for the last couple censuses,   how we would automate that better, and in my  household too since my wife’s district here in   northeast Ohio for the House of Representatives  will doubtless change this year and it gives a   bit of different perspective I never had when  contemplating it in the past, particularly   as to what factors can or should matter. Now a computer won’t draw you the ‘most fair   map’ anyway, it will just take various human value  judgements turned into algorithms and produce a   near infinity of possible maps but an AI is in a  better position to be fed more abstract factors.   As an example while there are always  worries about gerrymandering of districts,   we often tend to find the districts that  look like tentacle monsters most egregious.   Which may or may not be so for a given district  but ignores that in the US, if you’re trying to   keep something like a city intact, as a concept,  and adding folks who feel connected to that city,   that those connections are by roads in a very  literal sense and folks often build their homes   along the major pipelines to the city, especially  those who are economically or culturally linked   to that city and thus might be viewed as more  appropriate to share representation with them.   As a result you can get something  that looks like a tentacular monster.   An AI might be better at noticing pertinent  trends we would never even think to raise though,   districts have to be built to a certain  population size and you often need to pick   which of a couple border towns should fall  into which of the two bordering districts.  

And there are a ton of factors folks can include.  A tendency to shop in one district over another,   or send kids to the college in the one, or the  factory in another one that employs tons of folks   for that town, or that the majority of the town  are fans of a sports team in the one district,   not the other, or that the dioceses of that town  is in the one district not the other, or a hundred   or a hundred thousand other minor factors we  would not note or might note but not be willing to   acknowledge as relevant but an AI might. And even  better, that one AI might notice where ten others   with different perspective did not, again using AI  doesn’t mean abandoning the value of diversity of   thought and perspective, quite to the contrary. Same sort of thing applies to governance at large.   A computer sorting through huge amounts  of apparently irrelevant data can note   that unexpected things are causing unexpected  effects, like crime rising in an area because   of the weather, and hot weather is  often correlated to violent crime.   It is very hard to assess how effective various  approaches to punishment or rehabilitation are   simply because we can’t pull all the factors  out and see what was or wasn’t relevant,   especially in a case by case basis, and  the same is true for a lot of programs.   Even if you can remove people’s personal  bias for their preferred program or approach,   it is just too much data to sort through. Now how does this creep into becoming an AI  

actually running our governments and not  just being a tool of the government?   Well we see the value and the problems but  again that main value is problem solving   and decision making and people fight for the  privilege and responsibility of doing those,   which is ironic in that decision-making is  documented as one of the biggest causes of   personal stress. So while we might put AI in there  at some point and in some way, it would be with   resistance. Picking who makes decision for the  government is a decision of the government and   the folks currently running it are not likely to  actively embrace being replaced by a machine.  

However the value of AI is not really in big  decisions as it is in a million minor decisions.   Consider an AI that has the authority to  alter how long traffic lights run inside a   set of parameters, say 15-45 seconds, and can  correlate data to decide that ten in a given   town set universally to 30 seconds can be adjusted  each individually by traffic data to 29 seconds,   34.2 seconds, and so on, and can be  re-adjusted every day as data changes.   Something everyone might agree was a good idea  but took too much time and attention from a human.   The machine that can look intelligently can  decide which order roads need plowed in the snow   not just by raw traffic usage patterns or  least-distance calculations but by actually   knowing when residents on a given road left their  homes. Maybe by analyzing each resident’s personal   work departure time over a year, maybe by  guessing off when house lights turned on,   maybe simply being able to talk to the AI running  someone’s Smart House that just can flat out say   “Dave is leaving at 4:57 AM this morning to  get to the airport for a trip, please plow   our road before then, not the usual 8 AM”. It may be that one day we will let Artificial   Intelligence make the big decisions for us, or  consult and advise on them, but for now, I think   the pathway to AI Run Government is not in turning  over the big decisions, but the trillion minor   decisions we lose out on from not having the time  to even think about them, let alone make them.  

Not only does that offer us a lot of gain and the  loss of a lot of waste, but helps with stress too,   again decision-making is usually ranked as one of  the most stressful activities almost regardless   of how important that decision actually is. So it really isn’t about welcoming our new Machine   Overlords who will help guide us from above, but  rather the AI handling all the trivial problems we   do not want to handle and all the personal  data we don’t want anyone else to handle.   Machine Minds running things is usually  portrayed pretty negatively in science fiction   but not always, and we see some good examples in  classics like Isaac Asimov’s Robot novels or Iain   M. Banks Culture series, but we also see a  wonderful example of AI in Marc E. Cooper’s   Merkiarri war series, where in one case we have  an AI who was the planetary governor of a colony,   given explicit authority to intervene for  constitutional violations by the elected human   rulers. The AI is a very interesting character,  both human and alien, and Cooper does an amazing   job with not-quite-human characters like AI,  aliens, and many of the main characters who   are transhuman soldiers. We’ll be looking at  Transhumanism and Post-humans later this month,   and Cooper does a great job with  their abilities and perspective too,   and along with David Weber he’s one  of my favorite military scifi authors,   so I’m glad to give the Audible Audiobook  of the month award to his novel,   “Hard Duty”, book 1 of his excellent Merkiaari  Wars series, which is available on Audible.  

Audible has the largest collection of Audiobooks  out there, indeed it is so large you could hit the   play button and still be listening to new titles a  few centuries from now, and as an Audible member,   you will get (1) credit every month good for  any title in their entire premium selection—that   means the latest best-seller, the buzziest  new release, the hottest celebrity memoir or   that bucket list title you’ve been meaning  to pick-up. Those titles are yours to keep   forever in your Audible library. You will also  get full access to their popular Plus Catalog.   It’s filled with thousands and thousands of  audiobooks, original entertainment, guided   fitness and meditation, sleep tracks for better  rest and podcasts—including ad-free versions of   your favorite shows and exclusive series. All are  included with your membership so you can download  

and stream all you want—no credits needed. And you can seamlessly listen to all of those on   any device, picking up where you left off, and as  always, new members can try Audible for 30 days,   for free, just visit Audible dot com  slash isaac or text isaac to 500-500.   So we’re into spring and April is underway,  and we’ll return next Thursday to the Fermi   Paradox series for a long requested topic,  a detailed look at Drake’s Equation.  

Then we’ll shift to look at advanced human  civilizations in terms of Longer Lifespans,   Post-Humans, Post-Scarcity, and Purpose, before  switching back to the Fermi Paradox again   to look at how Multiverses alters the equation. If you want alerts when those and other episodes   come out, make sure to subscribe to the channel,  and if you’d like to help support future episodes,   you can donate to us on Patreon, or our website,, which are linked in the episode   description below, along with all of our various  social media forums where you can get updates   and chat with others about the concepts in the  episodes and many other futuristic ideas. You can   also follow us itunes, Soundcloud, or Spotify  to get our audio-only versions of the show.   Until next time, thanks for  watching, and have a great week!

2021-04-05 07:29

Show Video

Other news