“I think they know it to some extent. And that's why they push the inevitability narrative so hard. Because if it was really inevitable, why do you need to convince anybody?”

…generally. And it's like very hard. It's like Coming like opting out of using a smartphone. And it also means that you don't understand how capable the technology is getting. And so we should get organized and go for policy changes here. And again, it's like an education question in a lot of ways.

…or AGI not being inevitable. But from a lot of what I hear, sort of, at least again, in the San Francisco scene, it's almost as if AGI has already happened. That's how the talk is, right? And if it hasn't happened, maybe it will happen in three years. Why is it not inevitable that we develop ADI?

Now, as a species or humanity, we have stopped some technologies. We have sort of not gone down some technological paths. But have we ever not gone for a general purpose technology? For example, I mean, can we imagine that we discover electricity and then we do not deploy it? Because it seems to me…

Yeah, it's a good question. I can't think of something off the top of my head, but I think my argument is that AI is different from past technologies. And that difference, if recognized by enough people, could be the force for mobilizing against it. And I think we just have to try. The way the…

As you say, it matters a lot whether we develop AGI by 2030 or by 2050 or by 2100. So in some sense, technological determinism can be true on very long time scales, but it's still, our actions can still matter in the sense that whether we have decades to prepare our political and economic systems…