Transcript: Garry Kasparov and Eric Weinstein on The Portal podcast episode 13
The Portal podcast transcription series
- Peter Thiel
- What is The Portal?
- Werner Herzog
- Timur Kuran
- Rabbi David Wolpe
- Jocko Willink
- Bret Easton Ellis
- Andrew Yang
- Bryan Callen
- Julie Lindahl
- Sam Harris
- Vitalik Buterin
- Garry Kasparov
- London Tsai
- Garrett Lisi
- Tyler Cowen
- Anna Khachiyan
- Eric Weinstein – State of the Portal 2020
- Bret Weinstein
- Sir Roger Penrose
- Ashley Mathews (Riley Reid)
- Ben Greenfield
- Agnes Callard
- Kai Lenny
- The Construct: Jeffrey Epstein
Geometric Unity – a First Look
- James O’Keefe
- Daniel Schmachtenberger
- Eric Lewis
- Jamie Metzl
- Ross Douthat
- Ryan Holiday
The following transcript was generated by a machine and not edited by any human – so it’s full of of errors. I’m posting the transcript because the podcast is excellent and a crappy transcript is better than no transcript. Questions/comments: get me on Twitter @mgmobrien.
Eric Weinstein 0:11
It’s a huge honor to welcome you to the portal.
Garry Kasparov 0:36
Thank you very much. So Gary Kasparov, just very good. Let’s make sure so, so, my name was changed night 75 because my father died tragically when I was seven. So it just it’s, he was just 39 and it was just leukemia and they couldn’t save him and I grew up with my mother and her pet And in 1975 so there was a family decision that you know, I, I could change my name and to carry my name of the name of my my mother, my grandpa, my grandfather. So that’s, that’s that’s a story. So since 1975 I’m known for the world of chess as Garry Kasparov.
Eric Weinstein 1:20
I know that you’re Garry Kasparov. In fact, there are very few people who need no introduction. You are one of them. And I was tempted to give you almost no interest. Yeah.
Garry Kasparov 1:28
Awesome. Perfect Russia. So that’s very kind. Yes.
Eric Weinstein 1:34
Gary, you’re known for many things. We could talk about your dominance of the world of chess as world number one for many years, famous from top level play, a sort of a streak of dominance, like we’ve never seen, but if anything, it’s been really remarkable to watch your career after chess where you’ve taken on this incredible role in a Very confusing age as a champion of human rights, and I’m not sure, really, which of the topics I want to hit most, whether it’s talking about automation and your famous interaction with deep blue. But I think that the thing I want to do is I want to try to avoid some of the questions you get asked over and over again, like, who is the greatest chess player of all time? Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:21
Yeah, very grateful.
Eric Weinstein 2:23
So, so let’s try to figure out what that might have crowded out. And let’s let’s move on to the next sorts of things. So to begin with, one of the things that I’d like to talk to you about is something that I’m very confused by when you played Deep Blue back in the late 1990s, and the world 96 and 97.
Garry Kasparov 2:44
Right, precisely right,
Eric Weinstein 2:46
mid mid to late 90s.
The world watched in a way that it probably hadn’t watched a chess match since Fisher versus Spassky. Is that a fair statement?
Garry Kasparov 2:58
Yes. It’s a first They’d been I think that as was the most visible chess event in history, right? Because it was not just chess event it it was the pinnacle of this human versus machine competition that was so fascinating for general public for decades. This match was and is still surrounded by a very sick form of mythology. And get what what to expect it was a machine and as people think, Oh, it was unique accomplishment because it’s the dawn It was a dawn of AI. Look, the blue was not intelligent at all. Its was not more intelligent than your alarm clock, a very expensive 110 million dollars apiece, but, but the truth is that the machine that played chess in 1997 did not have to be intelligent at all. Because at the end of the day, it’s not about being intelligent. It’s not about replicating this human process, you know, just it’s the following the way we’re making our decisions, but it’s about making fewer mistakes. And that’s it. That’s something that is so it is actually the most relevant lesson of 1997 match. And also remind people I won in 1996. Right, and IBM then chickened out. They didn’t want to play the shirt match, because prove that at that time, I was still strong those purses. Yeah, no, but look, it’s good business decision. As I explained in my book, deep thinking it was a good business decision, because they look the new that in 1997, the blue was a very powerful force, but compared to you know, just to two machines today, it was just you know, it was it was just a novice. I mean, it is today. Do you understand what’s happened over the last 20 years? Yes, it’s the it’s the blue 1997 was the unique project of IBM was millions and millions of dollars invested in one of the largest Corporations on this planet today you can buy a chess engine online and download on your laptop and this computer this chess device right will be much stronger than Magnus Carlsen the current world chess champion right. So and if you have specialized hardware for the same you know, engines like stockfish, Houdini, Komodo, Komodo, Komodo, the difference in strength between these devices, right specialized hardware, and Magnus Carlsen, right, it’s about the same as between Usain Bolt and Ferrari. And so deeble in 1997 was not
Eric Weinstein 5:45
that good so we just what do we know if we if we took that exact software? And you guys keep track of in some sense how good something is by the ELO ratings? Yes. So what would its Elo rating today be relative The topic I think we can just add,
Garry Kasparov 6:01
yeah, I thank you very much for just bringing these numbers because audience always likes numbers. So my highest rating my peak rating with a 5128 2851. Now Bob officials highest rating was 2785. But in 1972, so you always have to remember that, you know, it’s the inflation was and still is a
Eric Weinstein 6:21
it’s a relative system. It has nothing to do with chess itself. No,
Garry Kasparov 6:26
no, no, no, I just basically do you know, you you perform well, you add points you don’t perform well, you lose points. And the point value predicts how likely
Eric Weinstein 6:33
you are to beat so you
Garry Kasparov 6:35
know, even if we play against each other, we have the same rating. So that’s why you know, and I do, let’s say, beat you six to four. So that means I add 10 points. So take away a little 10 points if we’re this. Now, if you know, if the gambit was 200 points, right, I think it’s 230 points. It’s I should score 80%. I think that’s just from the top of my memory God. So it’s pretty Based on the difference in our in our rating, right and then so I knew better than predicted so add points was a lose points. So go back to this to my absolute before absolute record was 2228 51 Fisher was 2785. But remember that when Fisher reached this this phenomenal height right there will no place in 2700 ran there were very few players 2600 so this it was a huge gap. So this is 2785 in 1972 probably was over 2900 today, so they’ll probably make 2851 in 1999 as well. Magnus Carlsen highest rating was 2882 now he’s about 2840. So he’s still you know traversing this 2800 category right there only few players actually cross 2800 these days and they’re at the range of 2028 1020 20 so so and it’s when I played the blue so I was tweeting hundred plus, the blues objective strengths was probably true What is 700 Plus, but it’s not about objective strength. It’s about how you play in this very game and how many mistakes you make. Now, today, the if you have these chess engines on the specialized hardware, right, that we probably should have 400 It’s amazing. 400 is amazing. Yeah, it’s it’s again, it’s not because there,
Eric Weinstein 8:21
but I want to ask this different question, which is, if we took the exact machine and the software and we took it out of mothballs from 1997 what do we think it’s a low rating would be today? The blue
Garry Kasparov 8:35
yes the old the blue like all the blue I said it’s this 20 maybe 2800 but not more, because it’s so Magnus Carlsen would be expected the reason I asked if it will be competition, I mean, this is the blue again, I could have beaten the blue if when the shirt match Yes, I will be a favorite because I really learned a lot about
Eric Weinstein 8:54
this. The thing is that I that I thought was so inspiring is that you talked about how we learn From these computers that the humans are getting smarter, but
Garry Kasparov 9:02
it’s machines make huge progress for us. It’s these machines today. They are so much I, I’m not sure I can say smarter. But is this more advanced right? And because Don’t forget Deep Blue was it was not just a chess project. It was a project of parallel processors. So they had 256 processors, each of them was a mini computer that could make 1.5 million positions per second. So combined, they could reach phenomenal speed of 200 million positions per second 200 million, which again, today it’s not it’s not it’s not. It’s not that impressive. But these are the these chess devices which we just discussed on your laptop, they will not be faster than five 6 million positions per second. So they’re not as fast but they are far more advanced because they don’t have to be that fast. It’s not about calculating, calculating, because chess is some people don’t recognize just as mathematically infinite or almost infinite game functionally infinite. First functionally infinite. According to Claude Shannon, you know, one of the founding fathers of computer science, the number of legal moves in the game of 40 something and 246 power. Okay. 1046 power. That’s again, that’s that’s it’s just this number is just as it’s kills imagination, right? Exactly. Yeah. So it’s not about calculating only but it’s also about coding, what understanding and the programs today. They there’s so much that sorry, but there’s no, there’s no, there’s no questions. You cannot even touch them. So just because even the strongest players, you know, they will, they will be badly beaten. Now, if you have a free chess app on your mobile phone, yes, that’s probably as good as the blu ray thanks to the Moore’s law,
Eric Weinstein 10:43
which is very impressive. But what I really want to get at is the reason that chess matters to us and the reason that we all thrilled to it has to do with its legacy, the way it’s interwoven with our society, our culture, our storytelling, even our language. We are constantly searching For chess metaphor, and one of the things that animates us is the poetry of chess that when, when fathers and sons, for example would pull out, you know, games of Morphe or something, and to try to show something really graceful and beautiful, we would look to the Evergreen game or the immortal game or something like that, and it lifts our spirits. And sometimes we were really focused not on who won who lost. But on the concept of brilliancy is when does somebody do something so unexpected and so daring, that they put themselves at great risk and then manage to somehow extricate themselves? What I want to know is, are we in a position to program computers for brilliance ease and poetry’s rather than simply brute force?
Garry Kasparov 11:46
Okay, let’s start with your assumptions.
Eric Weinstein 11:50
You can unweave them if not
Garry Kasparov 11:51
assumption now that’s actually an assertion of an earlier concept of us. Because you said you times us Okay, yeah, it’s the now The era of globalization we should recognize that you know us you know look different in different quarters the game of chess that you mentioned it’s the it’s not the only game of chess that does exist Sure.
Eric Weinstein 12:13
So and one that came from India through Persian
Garry Kasparov 12:16
it’s a one of one of the versions right whether it’s India again we don’t have any records about India we definitely have few records about the game played in it. It’s the records come actually from the Arab world. Okay, so what do we know about European chess? Let me call it European chess is that the the game traveled from you know, from the Arab world to Iberian Peninsula, and the first book that that
presented the completion of chess studies
played by you know, in old Ouroboros sutra and you know, much slower game because the game have just always reflected some sort of it’s it’s a military knowledge of its time, right was it and it was King allegedly written by King Alfonso the wise it’s originally kept in his in his coral in in Spain in 20 1283. And and then you know, the the the current version of chess has been shaped by the end of the 15th, sixth century six, early 16th century in Spain, with a few extra additions in Italy and in France in the next couple hundred years. That’s European chess, that’s international chess got it. But there is also Chinese gesture. There’s Thai chess, and some variation of touches. That is, by the way, close to original Arabic short runs. So this is very soul game game and is a totally separate game called shrugging Japanese just by far the most popular game in Japan, far more popular than golf. So and the way it is Japanese jazz is please blade is probably reflects the way you know the military operations have been conducted over centuries. They’re one of the key elements there that says you always can bring a piece that you took From your opponent back with a parachute move and most of the pieces they just move fast so and straight so this is it’s it’s it’s it’s it the game doesn’t doesn’t have an end game the way we have it in chess, it’s all about attacking the king. It’s, it’s it’s like a slow motion game but then it’s the moment it’s the it’s the both sides they, they like to meet each other the battlefield. It’s like a samurai samurai. They’re just it’s a bloodshed.
Eric Weinstein 14:28
Okay, there’s like a metaphoric aspect of which kind of chess Exactly,
Garry Kasparov 14:30
exactly. No, but it’s this but you said exactly in the in the Western European, right? Eurocentric world, right? chess as been viewed for centuries as the as, as like a nexus of of human intelligence. So this is this. It’s, it’s saying, oh, he or she played chess. Wow, what is it? It’s It’s It’s because it was like a mystery. It’s not surprising that Alfred Binet, the father of IQ test, right, so At the end of the 19th century, he was fascinated by the way the chess players mind was working. So he believed that if he could study the minds of the chess players to be the brains of the chess players, he could reveal the golden secrets of human intelligence. By the way, it’s not true. It says it’s very flattering to me to say that but yeah, that’s that’s the great greatest minds. Always look at chess as sort of you always
Eric Weinstein 15:26
test Have you always been self critical as your being right
Garry Kasparov 15:28
is so critical. I’m objective is the the aptitude, aptitude for playing chess is nothing else an aptitude for playing chess, you can, it’s like, you know, your capital, you know, you have intellectual capital, so you can invest it wisely. You can invest it poorly.
Eric Weinstein 15:41
Well, I like the idea that even IQ of course, is not intelligence. It’s a particular measure of something. I don’t know if you happen to know him, but I went to graduate school in the same year as a guy named Noah alkies. Who, you know, is
Garry Kasparov 15:55
is the it’s the main he’s the Israeli chairman. Yes, yes, yes, yes. I just because I, I had a book you know just you know the bet it’s that of of the best is rally test studies yeah and and just that’s that’s why I recognize him but
Eric Weinstein 16:12
yeah, but he was like the youngest full professor at Harvard.
Garry Kasparov 16:16
Yeah, he’s a CT it’s waving was a hobby. But that’s one of the great study comments
Eric Weinstein 16:20
on the fact that he can only achieve the level of chess master even though he’s a grandmaster in problem solving and saw and composing. And so there’s even there there’s like something very mysterious because this is a sort of like a john von Neumann like level of intelligence. And he’s commenting on the fact that he’s merely a chess master. And so I found that to be quite shocking and surprising because I know how some how amazing gnome is.
Garry Kasparov 16:46
Look, it’s it’s, you know,
it’s so yeah, but yeah, absolutely valid, because it’s also about competition. You have to you have to compete. I mean, he’s, he’s great. Mine feels probably more more at home by composing Whereas you know, it’s just easy come comfortably study, you can think about it so he can, it’ll get there’s no time pressure, there’s no opponent just you know, across the board you know, no intimidation.
Eric Weinstein 17:11
Exactly. So getting back to brilliancy which I don’t want you to avoid it
Garry Kasparov 17:15
no no I’m not avoiding it because I you know, I have a straightforward answer Do you
Eric Weinstein 17:20
want to say what a brilliancy is in your own language so that you know
Garry Kasparov 17:23
it’s there, before we move to the to to to my definition of brilliancy? Sure, yes, I think that’s the answer is no straightforward. No machines can not do it for simple reason. Because you’re talking about brilliancy and about creativity. Those are things that do that versus brute force right the way machines operate. They have been operating ever since and they will be operating for you know indefinite period of time. It’s based on odds, they know odds, they know patterns, they can do, they can operate within you know, within this like an known universe and something that they know within the rules. That day they either they’ve decided they have been told about those rules or the information that had been provided for them. But they’re always looking for the best move. So brilliancy based on on creativity and it means that yes, I can play a very risky adventurous game maybe it could the Berlin game maybe could the failure you have to accept the the chance sometimes significant chance of failure to create a masterpiece machines cannot operate in in this in this pattern
Eric Weinstein 18:32
how to encode the concept of masterpiece.
Garry Kasparov 18:35
Okay, now it’s masterpieces it’s it’s it’s something that’s you know,
Eric Weinstein 18:39
is it still subjective? Is
Garry Kasparov 18:40
it it’s still subjective because, you know, some people you know, it’s it’s about taste, ya know, it’s some games, you know, people say Wow, it’s amazing. Most likely, these games are just you know, they include some kind of sacrifices because people always enjoy seeing that spirit tribes or material. So what do you sacrifice pieces, you know, here on there? Right? Right. 11 cent and eventually made opponents King that’s the that’s the most popular concept masterpiece, but you can have a very slow motion position a masterpiece you know by just adding you know disadvantage micro advantage after one after another and strike strangling your opponent. It could be a mixture of that. So, but you For example, described the current number one, Magnus Carlsen is a mixture of Karpov and Fisher
Eric Weinstein 19:25
Yes. And he in Fisher was the obvious sort of virtuoso at the level of masterpiece, but you pointed out the Karpov was a master of maximum efficiency of the power of an individual piece to do the most with the least.
Garry Kasparov 19:40
Yes, absolutely. And Magnus is is is this lethal combination of two because Fischer reading is just it was it was a rough but it’s I mean, sheer energy now he could play until the last poem, you know, this is basically squeezing you know, water out of stone. Now, carpal was good at it just in case in getting the maximum effect out of the minimum, you know, resources he had available, but he was not as consistent especially not so pushy. He, you know, it’s it’s it was more relaxed. So Magnus brings them together. And that’s, you know, he has corporals ability to to to maximize the effect of his pieces, but also he will play to the very last point the very last move as Vishal did,
Eric Weinstein 20:24
right. And, okay, so I think what you’re telling me is, is that we are not yet able to figure out how to encode the concept of brilliancy so that we may lose to these machines, but that the poetry to be extracted from chess at one level belongs to this positional brute force aspect and another belongs to something that’s inevitable that we can’t quite touch.
Garry Kasparov 20:48
Yes, it’s the
Eric Weinstein 20:50
and I took your point about the sacrifices that that’s a sort of an obvious version of a risk. The
Garry Kasparov 20:55
interesting thing is it’s the it’s the the latest chess Computer prodigy growth alpha zero. That’s the program run by Demis Hassabis and his team. It’s the deep mind team that is working for Google. They succeeded in beating the best ballplayers then they just they came up with this concept of alpha zero which is you know starting from scratch so the machine knows only the rules where these go where these chairs what is a Starcraft any game and then you know plays against itself it learns from which all experience no human contamination which
Eric Weinstein 21:35
is very funny because that one definition of genius is the fire that lights itself
Garry Kasparov 21:39
Yeah, but it’s but but yes and and it it we played against stockfish against is one of the strongest chess engines and it beat it convincingly number of times.
Unknown Speaker 21:51
But then stockfish got better.
Garry Kasparov 21:53
Yeah, but it’s still alpha zero still dominates the game now. Okay. When we’re looking at games, you know, as a first time when I thought oh, I can learn something from this machine’s alpha zero, played chess more aggressively, contrary to our expectations that stronger machines will play dollar games more, you know, just it’s the slower more games because they every sacrifice can can be refuted. So that’s why machines they don’t take too much risk. But alpha zero, contrary to our beliefs, you know, played very aggressive just sacrificing material. And and and being building stockfish machine not humans, it’s by just you know, always being one or two moves ahead in anticipating what’s coming next. Now, it’s I use Word sacrifice Yeah, but for deep for for machine for alpha zero, it wasn’t a sacrifice. Alpha zero thanks to its massive experience through these 660 million games six zero 60 million gates play against itself. So it generated the Bank of data data sources which provided its you know, better understanding of patterns. So when alpha zero sacrifice quote unquote is we saw it as a sacrifice it for alpha zero it was the transformation of a material pawns or pieces into other factors that were more
Eric Weinstein 23:21
position or moment. Exactly.
Garry Kasparov 23:22
So and it’s it’s, it’s, it’s and it’s amazing that it’s alpha zero that that had, you know, just looked at the fuel positions, it’s about 1% of what you know, when you look at the at the at the number of positions analyzed, versus stockfish. It was far more prescient in understanding what’s coming next. Again, playing without the material stock fish, you know, it took, you know, one or two moves to actually understand what’s coming because it looked at it again, it’s not that it’s the combination was winning it when alpha zero made sacrifices. Yeah, it was not a forced win because stockfish would have seen it as well. Okay, but it was you know, it was getting a deeper understanding of the game based on On on it’s it’s a pattern that it was able to design out of these 60 million games.
Eric Weinstein 24:10
But in general, I would think about brilliant you can imagine me telling you what a brilliance is. It’s ridiculous. I don’t know,
Unknown Speaker 24:16
I don’t know, exactly engaged but
Eric Weinstein 24:18
it’s but one thing I might define it as is anything that where there would be a body of conventional wisdom, and then there’s a move that is deeply weird relative to that expectation. So for example, a move that doesn’t seem to develop anything. It’s like almost a waste. throwaway move could also be a brilliancy if it turned out that that unlocked something nobody could
Garry Kasparov 24:39
see. Yeah, yes. Anything that surprises people, right? It’s brilliant. So you know, maybe one of the most brilliant moves based on your definition I ever made was game 24. I bled onto the carpet. It’s It was a unique moment. When you just you know, it’s I had to survive this game and carpet win the game to to do retaining steidel right one point ahead, and it was the last game of the match. And Copperhead, very new, potentially very strong attack. And I found a move that was totally illogical by the way ever since this game this this this idea became the part of the defensive concept for for black. But at that time, you know, it was just it looked so ugly because you don’t put this rocks you know just in just in a position where it has no other moves around the by by your own pieces. But it was not about you know, it’s not about attacking basically it was a very good prophylactic moves because it prevented big threats from from from why and it had to force corporates are looking for other plans. So it’s and I was very happy when I just remember I don’t know why I made this move. Because I just didn’t understand how else to defend it. This was so much against you know what I learned but as it made the move, and I remember when it just you know, it’s this is when Harper came to stage, he looked at this and then it’s great, another good great He realized that these move basically killed he’s attacking, you know, structure. And it’s and he had to actually start regrouping pieces wasting time. And he just i think it’s it’s definitely the it’s not as a strong move but it was so unusual move looking weird, but it’s it should come with confidence and and and he quickly made mistake and lost the game that’s fantastic.
Eric Weinstein 26:25
Okay, here’s a question that I’ve never been able to ask and maybe if it doesn’t make sense you help me formulate a better one. I guess when we lost I mean checkers was solved. Yeah. Chess we lost with you in
Garry Kasparov 26:39
it. So golf, so. Okay, okay.
Eric Weinstein 26:42
But the question is, after go, I sort of expected something to happen. That didn’t happen. I expected someone to start trying to create a new game, which, in which humans would still have an advantage that had the deterministic characteristics and Everyone seems so demotivated by this experience. Like, what’s the point? Why are we why race it’s like trying to continue to be a better number multiplier. In an age of computers, there’s no point have we become demotivated is anyone searching for things that show off and accentuate what humans still do better than any, any machine?
Garry Kasparov 27:24
It’s a very important question. And it’s just it’s, I think you just so it’s like a homerun because it’s, that’s that’s a question that’s in different modifications. I hear all the time since I now speak three times a month. At the conferences, it’s about AI. It’s about cybersecurity and about, you know, human machine collaboration. And about vanity. Yeah, it’s the The answer is that it’s a we’re not demotivated. I think we’re more pragmatic. We seem to understand that it doesn’t make any sense. Because it’s not just chess or God. It’s a Starcraft. It’s Texas Hold’em poker, it’s in you name games, you know. And it’s, it’s at the end of the day, machines will always prevail. So to make it easier for my audience to understand, I always tell them that every game can be described as a closed system. And if we have, if you build a closed system,
Eric Weinstein 28:29
eventually a computer will always win. Exactly.
Garry Kasparov 28:32
Yeah, that’s it. So the human strengths is not you know, is not trying to compete with machines in the closed systems. Because if we know how to do it, machines will do better well, and not because they perfect again, that’s important. They will never reach 100% perfection. It doesn’t exist in in the universe, but they will make fewer mistakes. So machines will always you know, outperform humans by you know, by minimizing number of mistakes, or it’s not just a number of mistakes, machines. Do not make blunders. So they get into gravity of machines mistakes or inaccuracy, right? It’s not as you know, sometimes he was could do something really stupid.
Eric Weinstein 29:08
If you ever looked at the history of electric guitar, no. So you have these very weird players, I’m just gonna riff off of your open versus closed, the games were probably the first great electric guitarist was a guy named Charlie Christian, but he was really playing the guitar, and it happened to be electrified. By the time we get to people like Jimi Hendrix and Eddie Van Halen. Whatever we thought the vocabulary was that we were restricted to in the instrument, they showed us that the dimensionality of play was so much greater than we’d ever considered, for example, by bringing the amplification into the instrument and making it part of the instrument or with Les Paul creating the instrument as the recording studio, not just as the instrument and so eventually these become closed games, but there is something about just fit with the theme of this series, The search for a portal out of the closed game into a higher dimensional space where something else is available. Like people talk about hearing Eddie Van Halen for the first time, and their guitarist and they’re thinking, I have no idea what I’m listening to how do those noises come from that man? Are there any sort of innovations like that, that you think where computers can start looking for ways out of the closed systems into higher dimensions?
Garry Kasparov 30:32
I don’t think so. I think machines will not be able, in the foreseeable future, if not indefinitely, to understand how to transfer knowledge from one closed system to another. Can machine ask questions? Yes. They just don’t know what questions are relevant.
Eric Weinstein 30:51
Well, so I give this example quite a bit. But there’s a very powerful concept in pure mathematics of taking square roots of various objects where, like with with real numbers, it’s quite clear what a square root should be. But even when you get to the negative numbers, you end up having to go outside of the real numbers to answer a question about the square root of negative seven. And you can take the square roots of rotations, you can take the square root of determinants of matrices, and you find these structures that nobody knew were hiding there. So one of the things we’ve learned in pure mathematics is that there is a way of going from a closed system into a larger closed system and that one moment, the closed system reveals itself to be open. Is that something that you imagined?
Garry Kasparov 31:40
No, again, as I am not sure it’s the it’s it’s a legitimate comparison. Because again, it’s it’s here’s its decision making. It’s in math, you know, there’s the there are answers or math, you know, just it’s it’s one way or another, you know, you have an answer and it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s it’s not a straightforward it could be you know, just crude but at the end of the day, you know, That’s this this is a solution. game of chess is not or any other game. It’s not math. It’s not you know, there’s no prophets lahardee disagreed with you gh hardy wrote that chess is real mathematics, but of a trivial kind in the sense that he didn’t mean trivial that it was easy, or that wasn’t beautiful. He meant that it didn’t connect to anything else, because they were the rules were artificial. And so what it told you about was simply internal to the world. But But again, is in math, you have perfect solutions in chess, sometimes profit solutions, but in most cases, it’s based on your assumption. So is this and it’s, you know, the machines will always win not because they see the perfect solution. Again, 10 to the 46 power, right number of legal moves, but because they make fewer mistakes, right visors, so there will be closer to perfection than humans, right. So it’s the weather it’s much closer, just close, it doesn’t matter. So there will be always ahead. So same with every other game. So all you need is to Provide machine with the rules and machines will start operating, you know, just on their own by by creating the data. Though I have to say that it’s today alpha zero is still quite an exception most of the machines today 99% if not 99.9% they are doing not transformation, but optimization can still you know, operating with human generated data, but the future I have no doubt it’s for alpha zero type computers, you know, they will be it’s like a new computer with AI algorithms. And the, the, it’s they will require some form of human guidance. It’s I always call these you know, the future computer experts shepherds, so they will be nudging the flocks of intelligent algorithms one way or another. But it’s it’s still you know, there will still need to be nudged. So it’s it’s, it’s, it’s yet moving from one system to another. It’s one closed system to another closed system will require human guidance. What is very important for us to recognize is that our role percentage wise, is shrink. Yeah. But it doesn’t mean that we become expendable. So actually, I think it’s we’re getting we could become even more important in this human collaboration, because we will be deciding how these massive brute force Yeah, I worry that will be moved, we know right or left or whatever, up and down. Well, if I’m
Eric Weinstein 34:26
honest about that, the way in which I receive what you just said is that in the short term, I think we become more important because the least interesting things are taken over by the computers. And then if we’re smart, we invest in what it is that we do best, which is often this act of brilliance induction, opening a closed system into a larger one, which temporarily opening it up. And that’s exciting. However, I do feel that this is a short term win for humanity on
Garry Kasparov 34:59
short. Or to be
Eric Weinstein 35:00
well, I worry that this is on the order of decades, not centuries,
Garry Kasparov 35:06
for your needs probably not a very short target.
Yeah, it’s Look, why do we go too far? So this is again, we, you know, the strength of humanity was always to to respond to the challenges that we are that are here now. Yeah, table, right. I don’t want us to spend time I would say waste our time debating what what can or may may happen may not happen 30 4050 years from now, we have challenges that we should address right now. And I think that the it’s time for us to understand how we can maximize the the benefits out of human machine collaboration.
Eric Weinstein 35:51
Okay. So I had a very funny interaction preparing for my interview with you today, which is that I spoke to two brilliant Young women, one of whom just released 25,000 new stock photos of people who don’t exist generated by her AI. She’s a PhD from Berkeley, the other of which is a brilliant musician, but arguably also one of the world’s most stunningly beautiful women as a supermodel. And I noticed that the ELO system that you use for chess can be used in any situation where if like, if you asked, well, who would who would people find more beautiful person a or Person B, and then you have a prediction. So you could use an ELO system and I asked my friend, the supermodel. And in Charlotte camel, would you be willing to subject yourself to a Casper versus the machine type competition where my other friend will attempt to generate photographs that are even more beautiful than any human being who has ever been? And we could try to figure out what the Elo rating is for simply feminine beauty That’s a very different thing than a computational problem. On the surface, it may be a computational problem under the hood. But what happened when I started looking through the friend’s catalogue of stock photos, is that I could see that you could very easily fall in love with the images that she generated even though they correspond to no human being they were filled with emotion. You know, Grace, whatever you whatever it is that you associate most with being human. And yet she knew exactly how they’d been generated from her neural nets. That’s pretty disturbing in some ways, would you not say so? Look,
Garry Kasparov 37:38
that’s you talking about images, right? Still even still images, still images? Now? You need just for proper relations. You need more than still images?
Eric Weinstein 37:47
Well, that’s true. But the idea that she’s able to animate a lot of these first of all into value
Garry Kasparov 37:52
that’s that’s that’s that’s becomes interesting The moment you start animating
Eric Weinstein 37:56
rises. That’s it. And then a couple of our friends Jordan Peterson Joe Rogan have done have put so many hours of data of their voice into the world, that we can now generate their voice so that they can’t tell the difference between what they’ve said and what the machines. So we’re, we’re starting to get to the point. We also have programs that write sports stories simply from the statistics that come off the games in incredible fashion.
Garry Kasparov 38:20
It’s a data. So right, what’s the week? But look, do you know
Eric Weinstein 38:24
what you know, what’s here is that we’ve associated various things with our humanity. And I think your point about chess, which I just think is great, is don’t make the mistake of holding those associations too tightly, because the machines will let you know that some of this is not having to do with being human at all.
Garry Kasparov 38:44
Yes, it’s the decision making process is not you know, it’s not just human prerogative forever, right. So it’s Yes, we used to think that you know, it’s these machines could do all sorts of work, but not to know not to challenge our cognitive skills right? The end of the day it’s what’s the difference? So is this it’s the, it’s again, it’s machines could could help us in just making progress in whether it’s in the field of physical exercises or mental exercises, though again, this is it’s if you look at the statistics is that is this, I think is the McKinsey’s report of 2016 us job market showed that, you know, it’s the only 4% of working activities. Yes. Required medium human creativity. Wow. 4% Yeah. So it means that for over decades, we have been trained people to work like machine like machine and know that we’re shocked that many of these jobs they they are just, you know, they do like Ruby jobs. They already dead. They just don’t know every repetitive job has
Eric Weinstein 39:54
Garry Kasparov 39:54
I didn’t see but it could be it repetitive jobs does not necessarily you know, it’s It’s, it’s a physical one. If you don’t know, like, I never wrote repetitive jobs, you know, it’s
Eric Weinstein 40:06
go race radiology with the easy ones
Garry Kasparov 40:08
intellectual, right? And when people say, Oh yeah, but this many of these jobs, they are just in grave danger, right. But you know what, it’s thank you for mentioning radiology. Sure. So this is yes. You know, we know that human machine collaboration, right, you know, shows better results than either one or either one individually. So that means that you know, you will have some experts, and from my experience in our own chairs in combination of human plus machines, right, you don’t need the strongest minds. So the most talented players working with machine but someone who knows enough to give machines sodas, it’s like it’s a to guide machine, not interference, memory, superior knowledge. So that’s why you may not need a top professor, but maybe you know, an assistant professor maybe even experienced nurse right to work with this machine. Oh, but I hear you know, Time again. thousands of jobs, you know, there will be at grave risk, maybe there’ll be lost and it’s the world pay jobs. Yes, but what is the what is the other side of this of this coin? The jobs will be lost, but the cost goes down. More people could have access to that and when you look at the number of lives that can be saved, yes, in this country or especially in the third world countries developing countries Yeah. So then all of a sudden you understand that it’s it’s while certain groups of people could be in danger because their computation or and machines they bring in you know, and I have in our in our professional routine, but as a humanity will always win
Eric Weinstein 41:42
twice. But isn’t it weird? How many of us are seeking drudgery that we wish, like you watch what happens when you liberate people and you find that they go back to these games on their computers that they play repetitively? You know, that there’s a way in which humans we had always thought we wanted to be liberated to do creativity, but there’s something terrifying about creativity and Many of us actually seek repetitive activity which anesthetized us and arguably, we’re happiest when we start behaving in a way that is machine life
Garry Kasparov 42:12
again, but it’s, it’s it brings us back to us. That brings us back to human. Yes, he goes, you know, it’s the you know, it’s instead of talking about killer robots, the terminators, metrics and other horrors produced by Hollywood, so just as your neighbors here, so brainwashing, yeah, generations of
Unknown Speaker 42:31
pay no attention to Boston dynamic. Yeah.
Garry Kasparov 42:33
Look, it’s it’s, it’s a mess. It’s quite primitive. Yeah, but it’s it. Why don’t we talk about you know, about humans using modern technology? Yes. Are the humans because humans still have monopoly for evil, right. Yeah. And it’s and I think it’s far more important now to understand how this modern technology that has been designed Yes, in theory to make our lives better have been have been more used. Right to undermine the very foundation of the free world.
Eric Weinstein 43:03
So what I, it’s a great opportunity to transition because if there’s anything that I’m more interested in than talking about computers and poetry and all of these things, it’s this bizarre moment that we find ourselves in. In the free world, where I’ve never seen anything like this in my life, it appears that there are almost no adults left in the system. It appears to me that there’s almost no institution that really cares about ground truth. And it appears to me that we are right now in the process of sort of abandoning everything we’d built up for the most trivial of reasons. And I don’t know whether you subscribe to this, but the transformation of our country intellectually to me, since slightly before the election of Donald Trump to the present moment is been the most unexpected singularity in terms of the ability to hold conversations to analyze what it is that we in fact, hold in common. Since making apparatus appears to have been broken down, and a large number of people don’t even seem to be aware of this, and I don’t know how to explain how many different clusters of beliefs have now cropped up, which appear to be incapable of communicating with each other. You seen the same thing?
Garry Kasparov 44:18
Yes, yes. And I’ve been worrying about it for quite a while. So I wrote the book, winter’s coming, just you know, before the presidential elections in 2016. And unfortunately, it is worrying.
Eric Weinstein 44:35
Nobody understood it.
Garry Kasparov 44:36
Nobody wanted to hear this because it seemed that is like being so far away. I got the book didn’t mention Trump or Syria, but you could read between the lines. That is this because I already talked about Putin and about his his threat to the to the free world. So his war in the free world. That is just it was just a matter of time before the techniques that have been developed in Russia and tested in neighboring countries and in other European countries, that these techniques would be used to undermine American democracy. And also, I talked about the growing vacuum in the world that was a result of the free world led by the United States to depart from its leadership role after the end of the Cold War. So it’s Yeah, it’s easy to say it’s everything is about Donald Trump, but when you look at the Donald Trump phenomena, it has roots. Well, it’s it’s a symptom. It’s a symptom that somehow Trump you know, just demonstrated that the system was already so weak that is that it could it could have persons so unqualified to win elections by the rules I mean, that’s it’s Yes. Was foreign interference with other thing bigger exactly, or the adaptive landscape if you want to take the evolutionary metaphor was created and then suddenly, there was a creature that’s
Eric Weinstein 45:53
Garry Kasparov 45:55
Before we go to Trump, we should understand why the system was so You know, it was weak enough susceptible, susceptible, yeah. Just to, to, to succumb to Trump’s it’s not an evil genius. I mean, just it’s just intellectually it’s always insulting to hear what he said. But it’s but you know, the man So, you know, just it’s so enormous unqualified but it’s just it’s if you asked, you know, people to describe a potential threat to us democracy Yeah, you know, 20 years ago so what what would be this the image of these you know of these villain that would be threatening do the very foundation of America Republic you could come up with somebody very intelligent you know, very slick, you know, just it’s more likely to have somebody like Bill Clinton, so that’s his type, you know, very intelligent, well spoken, charming, charming, but Trump, so but so now let’s
Eric Weinstein 46:45
go back No, no, just Just so you know, I did write I think it was in 2013 and essay warning about what I thought was going to come up based on my understanding of professional wrestling, and professional wrestling is in some sense, something that mirrors some of the techniques that may have been developed in Russia because the propensity to suspend disbelief is not well understood by many people who have a rational, enlightenment oriented bent.
Garry Kasparov 47:11
But it’s easy. I still want to go back to 1992 sure, because it was the end of the Cold War. It was a moment of the greatest triumph of the free world. So in PI collapse Soviet Union cease to exist,
Eric Weinstein 47:23
and relatively peacefully No, perfect. Yes,
Garry Kasparov 47:25
yes. It’s just an amazingly amazingly a, there were a few wars, you know, on the end, the pyramids use a lot of Yes, there was a very bloody war in the former Yugoslavia, but still, you know, the cost, you know, the human cost for for collapse of the evil empire was insignificant compared to what people expected, you know, would be would be the outcome exactly now. And in 1992, one of the most popular books best selling book was the end of history by Francis Fukuyama and I have to say I share the same essence potations about, you know, the triumphant continuation of, of the history of the free world and instance, liberal democracies while and, and the rest would be just, you know, get us doing some great things but never never never to worry again about about threat to the free world coming from dictators and other read Oh wow, that’s that’s what we expected 9192
Eric Weinstein 48:26
now what I expected but okay 9192 No, no, no no no I was I was terrified by the fact that this is what was claimed because I had thought it’s how is it that a country like the US, which is needed counterweights in order for it to like, you know, you and I both have a Jewish component and in our background, there’s a weird way in which anti semitism if it’s at the it’s too low, we stopped being very Jewish. If it’s too high, we’re an incredible threat. You have to separate ethnic heritage is which show you how vulnerable and precarious life can be. Somehow what I what terrified me was the idea that we were going to take a bipolar system, which represented the Cold War and suddenly remove one part of it without any plan as to how to manage this.
Garry Kasparov 49:13
Yes. Okay. That’s a good point. Now, first of all, removing, you know, evil component of this dichotomy was a good idea. I grew up on the Soviet Union. That was bad, right, is that, you know, it required a new plan. It did. He did. And nobody wanted to talk about that’s the weird part. Now, I understand now being Monday, Monday morning, quarterback, okay. I you know, I know exactly. So what was wrong? Actually, I knew about it or a few years ago. So in 1991 1992, it was America’s role to start reconsidering, you know, its global participation. No Soviet Union’s what’s the plan, and one of the most important things was to address the reform of United Nations, because the United Nations was built in 1945 as a successful failed League of Nations to prevent it. war over military conflict between USSR and USA. two superpowers. It’s about it was all about freezing conflicts and it managed the conflicts but it’s thanks God. You know, there’s been very it’s
Eric Weinstein 50:11
been ridiculously successful
Garry Kasparov 50:13
in 1962. It can close it was it was a Korean crisis, but it was basically basically for a couple of weeks. It was there was no real threat of world war three and goblins been amazingly
Eric Weinstein 50:24
Garry Kasparov 50:28
yes, you look around the world. So this is you know, they’re all the wars that remove from Europe. Yeah. other continents. Yes. Well, but there was a korean war there was a Chinese Civil War. You know, this is then we look, I
Eric Weinstein 50:40
hate to say it this way, but Europe is Vietnam. Europe is one of the world’s most dangerous places. And we don’t think about it that way. Because we’ve had this period of stability. That has been a normal
Garry Kasparov 50:51
European Oh, that had wars for centuries, right, you know, was pacified. So thanks to these United Nations calm have, you know, finding compromise to systems? Yes, they were fighting each other, but mostly proxy wars, right around the world. Yes. That’s why we had this James Bond movie scenario and sometimes even James Bond cooperated with KGB officers to fight global evil. So it’s the, it’s it, we knew how to live in this world now 99 to one you, right? So it’s just, you know, the Soviet Union is gone. So what’s next? It’s the it’s the idea that evil you know, disappears. It was dead wrong, because evil can be buried for a while under the rubble of the Berlin Wall. But the moment we lose our vigilance, it sprouts out. So United Nations that was built to freeze conflicts, right was not was not there to solve solve problems, and we need it we need to start looking for you know, solving problems. We needed I believe, an organization that would be rather called legal democracies you know, just it’s actually it’s it’s the late Senator McCain used it but I have to say us separately. It’s an organization worthy Members will not be just paying lip service. Okay, democracy So, America had to come up with a plan like in 1946, rebuilding Europe, right global plan of, of spreading democracy and freedom and and and and
Eric Weinstein 52:12
we almost instantly got stupid,
Garry Kasparov 52:14
but it’s the it’s the then it’s But again, it’s human nature it’s very difficult to tell people that you know that that recognize that for nearly half a century there was an existential threat, you know, potential threat of nuclear war and those who remember 1962 crisis and Vietnam War so Oh, wow, it’s all over. So why don’t we just you know, celebrate Why don’t we get rich? Why don’t we just do other things? Stop worrying to other parts of the world? It’s sometimes I think that is if the Soviet Union collapsed a year later Yeah, probably bush 41 reelected because I think one of the reasons Clinton you know, won the elections is not just ross perot which was important factor. But but but the republicans laws that be caught, so yeah, whole war was over. So why do we need bush and then the Economy stupid motto, right? In one day we turned inward. Exactly. Now, it’s, it’s basically America was still there because it was the only superpower. But it lost its, you know, its role as the you know, as the stabilizing factor because Clinton 1992 you know, you won the elections in 2000 you know, you 2001 generally you walked away 1992 America was basically in a position to do whatever is make, you know, make any, any any suggestions that others had no choice but to accept, in 2001, early Altai was ready to strike. So that’s it’s, we missed, you know, we missed this this years. And also something else happened in eight years, Russia moved from a very fragile female democracy into the first, you know, into the next stage, that that that would be eventually dominated by KGB. In the year 2000. Vladimir Putin became Russian president. The fact is that you know, you Nine years after the statue of Felix divinsky, the founder of KGB has been removed from the bank of square. In less than nine years, Vladimir Putin became the president of Russia, KGB Lieutenant Colonel, who immediately said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, who immediately returned solid anthem to make a symbolic gesture, who proudly said that they will no former KGB officers once KGB always KGB quote, unquote. So that was already a warning sign that things changing.
Eric Weinstein 54:33
This was another confusion that I had my model for Russia as two separate things we Americans often during set one, it’s a barbell culture, it’s got the highest of the high culture and the lowest of the low. And to because of this, in some sense, there’s a fractal nature to the Putin’s. It’s like Putin’s all the way down. There’s always sort of a look for strength and leadership have a kind of uncomfortable way. Not just at the very top, it’s the but it’s
Garry Kasparov 55:02
Yes. But the uniqueness of putting he put the Nizam of Okay, who does regime was that it was not based on any ideology. Traditionally Russia always, you know followed some sort of the grand idea well, Empire communism,
Eric Weinstein 55:16
can I try one and then you tell me why it doesn’t work D humiliation?
Garry Kasparov 55:20
No absolutely humiliate absolutely no absolute nonsense it says they used it. They used it they used it for you know, it was a propaganda stick, but it’s just it’s not
Eric Weinstein 55:28
you don’t think that there was a need to restore some kind of sense of identity. I remember people talking fondly about Stalin, I thought it was very confused, because
Garry Kasparov 55:36
in the last year of yeltsin, you know, they started, you know, just, you know, playing was this little soldier, right, because KGB was playing a bigger and bigger role, you know, going back to the early 90s, in Russia, after yeltsin shut down the Russian parliament in 1993. Joe had no think was the Russian parliament and I felt Yeltsin was right because they were full of communists and nationalists, but he ruined just, you know, the balance of power that was just building up in Russia. And it was again since 1993. It was all part of executives and the Russian constitution that in theory in a w 993, was a good document gave, you know, enormous power to the President, if he wanted to abuse it, it was just it was on paper to look good, but it almost it almost eliminated, you know, the key key elements of checks and balances of the control of the, of the executive power, which is in Russia, traditionally was just, you know, was was dominant force. And in 1994, the first Chechen War where they showed that the country was moving in the wrong direction. And 1996 elections was already it was free but not fair. And then then selecting his successor, which by itself is not democratic process selecting phrase nominating him. yeltsin came up with a Nielsen’s family, not just immediate family, but family as the as the group of advisors, closes oligarchs, the circle oligarchs. They came up with a KGB Lieutenant Colonel. So it was more about preserving the enormous wealth that it concentrated at time. The the humiliation was just you know, it’s for the for the general public, but it’s, it’s the Russia and the Putin, you know, the strengths of Putin’s regime is that they don’t care about ideology Putin. Putin could become nationalists could become a sort of the populist could be imperialist identity. He doesn’t care what what is power and well, exactly, it’s all it’s more like a mafia state. That’s why I say that every country has its own mafia in Russia. Math has its own country. So that’s that’s it’s something quite unique. And their Putin believes in only in power of money. And he just discovered at the point quite early in his presidency, that money can buy anyone anything and and that’s the problem for this was a free world losing Russia, also losing room Soviet Union as an existential enemy, right. So the free world lost its sense of danger. So it is its own. Now lets you know that Let’s make deal so who cares? We are you know we are invincible. Well, we keep looking for a new Soviet Union we whether it’s China the environment, Islamic terror, we’re trying to find it. Yes but in free well, Tino is much weaker. You know, I remember it’s, it’s few years ago, I spoke to one of my friends in New York and we talked about it after my book was published winter’s coming. And we talked about challenges in the free world. And I said, in 1948 Joseph Stalin wanted to take over West Berlin it was he he announced a blockade run Harry Truman said you know, how we defend was Berlin. It was a biggest you know, a bold his decision that American president could make. And for 11 months, US and British planes supplied was Berlin was everything needed to survive, and Stalin decided against shooting shooting this plane, so he knew that Harry Truman was not a manager. To do exactly so and I said, Look, Harry Truman faced Joseph Stalin and this is Russia today, not putting Joseph Stalin, Russia today in 2015 is a pale shadow of Stalin’s Soviet Union, and militarily, economically, and you know what he said? Quite sadly, you know, sign and said, Yes, but America today is also pale shadow this America
Eric Weinstein 59:26
of hair. This is the horrible truth, which is that in a weird way, Putin appears to be relatively in my way of thinking, one of the most skilled players left on the chessboard.
Garry Kasparov 59:38
No, I just I do I have to disagree. I have to defend the integrity of my game. So Putin is not a chess player.
Eric Weinstein 59:44
No, sir. Sorry. Sorry. He’s
Garry Kasparov 59:46
an important is. No, it is. It’s the Putin Putin doesn’t create these opportunities. He uses them so he’s, he grabs that Okay, let me say it differently. Putin strengths is is is a weakness of the free world. Yes,
Eric Weinstein 1:00:00
but the KGB had a tremendous amount of know how it was resident within that.
Garry Kasparov 1:00:06
Yeah but no he was fine but KGB and it has enormous amount of cash now Yes, well, I’m gonna put in controls more money than any other individual in history richest richest human. It’s it’s got his when people say oh how rich is putting yeah who does put in is mega rich but it’s not you know it’s not the same kind of wealth that you know that’s like a black gay or Carlos Slim or Bezos or whoever, because it all depends on him staying in power. But when you look at the amount of money Vladimir Putin can move directly or indirectly, you probably talking about something like a $1 trillion a step $1 trillion. Yeah, it just you you add Russian annual budget you add Russian, Russian hard currency reserves the the fortunes of some of the top Russian oligarchs
Eric Weinstein 1:00:54
okay to the Putin, but he’s skilled. He’s ruthless. He’s a single decision. maker and he has this level of control over resources. Yes, there’s no no equal to that. Unless it’s the Chinese
Garry Kasparov 1:01:07
No, no, it’s a is he has more power probably than seeds in a relatively to can to to do the country because seeds and beans resources are just incompatible. The e commerce such as China is much stronger than and I think 17 and Chinese communists are very happy to see Putin creating these problems because it you know, it helps them to shift their attention. China is a strategic threat if you using jet lag, right, a long term strategic threat. Okay, so Putin is more of a tactical threat. But right now this is no, that’s this is a real threat, because if your king is under threat of being mated, you guys think about long term consequences of the end game. All right,
Eric Weinstein 1:01:45
well, so let’s hit another just term, and then I’ll pull the ripcord if it doesn’t work. There’s a concept which not everyone knows called zugzwang. Yes, where where you are in a situation where you prefer not to have to move because anything you do put you in a word I don’t you have to move. Why do we keep acting as if we’re in zugzwang?
Garry Kasparov 1:02:04
No. But that’s let me go back to what I said a few few moments ago. Putin’s strengths is our weakness. Yes, Putin is good at looking at opportunities like and, and then and he strikes. He doesn’t create them. But the moment he says weakness, it’s animal instinct, you know, he goes for kill, right? So why Vladimir Putin is in Syria because America walked away because I’m a great vacuum there. So when you look at the Global Map, why put in zero there because the free world, you know, blinked didn’t want to interfere? And that’s what we learned, I hope actually I was wrong, had to learn from the 1930s is the if we see rising dictatorship, yes. And and, and dictatorship that is is is is is is challenging, the very foundation of our of our world. And we know we have a choice of confronting it early or postponing the decision trying to appease a dictator. Every day, every week, every month every year of adult Lay, pushing the price up. Well,
Eric Weinstein 1:03:02
this is what’s very scary to me about Tulsi Gabbard candidacy, which is that she’s pushing this concept of regime change wars. And she’s trying.
Garry Kasparov 1:03:10
Yeah. after us. I’m you know, is the moment you mentioned the name so I almost jumped on my chair, although I don’t I don’t understand. This is Yeah, I it is the democrats will not allow any, any any climate change deniers, right? rightly so, how they allow a genocide denier on stage. I mean, she’s just, you know, she acts like, like, I don’t want I don’t know all the details of your relations with Assad or Putin, but she’s supporting the most brutal dictators on the planet. And she What do you think she thinks she’s doing? I don’t know what she’s doing, you know, and I’m not hearing another business of analyzing you know, what is the reason the payroll or not I don’t care. What is she saying? And by the way, she has some falling look at it. You know, she has presented here and there but you know, what stage and it’s and she’s not confronted. She’s defending Bashar Al Assad. One of the one of the worst dictator who use chemical weapons, she’s denying it. I didn’t hear any democrat taking care or not. So take expensive What? How are you doing here? And is it and that’s in this report is is is
Eric Weinstein 1:04:13
very what’s going on in some sense is just as you were saying in 1991 92, we started it’s the economy stupid, as if the rest of the world went away. We were going to just abandon all of our opportunities, obligations, what have you. We’re now not capable of formulating an America that makes sense as a continuation of our previous
Garry Kasparov 1:04:33
visit. You said yes, it’s the it’s America from 1946 to 1991. Was that thing? Well, no, it is. It has certainly no policy that it followed. You had Harry Truman set up certain rules and institutions. And then you had Republicans, Democrats, Republicans following the plan. And it led to a victory in the example because the strength of democracy Yeah, it’s it’s a strategy against using gestures because you can rely on conscience. In UT, you can change administration’s and but but you still have the plan. It could be Yeah, it could be some deviations, you know, there could be you know, just you know, one way or another, you know, somebody could be more aggressive, more, you know, more defensive but at the end of the day we were we’re trying to become captains of the same team now it looks like we’re wanting to be captains going back to 91. And yeah, American foreign policy game, you know, more like a pendulum shifting, you know, one side from one side to another based on who is in the Oval Office. There’s no, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, this it’s this is the rest of the world to the rest of the world is watching. And it’s just it’s an it’s paralyzed in fear. You’re looking at a car that’s
Eric Weinstein 1:05:39
Garry Kasparov 1:05:40
in the leg, but people used to know that the Americans there whether it’s, you know, no, it’s Eisenhower or Kennedy or Johnson, Nixon 40 when reagan Carter so Bush, America was there, okay, so now all of a sudden, it’s you can no longer live in America, but it’s you have mastered If
Eric Weinstein 1:06:01
it’s vacuum holes, right, and you’re, you know, Millennials have any intuition of where our passion is coming? No, no, no, I’m saying something has broken in terms of our collective understanding of ourselves. We are having the most irrelevant, bizarre, non fact based non theory based conversations.
Garry Kasparov 1:06:26
Like children, but you said No, in fact, based, that’s one of the problems. That’s what Putin’s of this world want us to forget history. So it is now now you talking about World War Two, and so who cares? It’s not relevant, it is relevant,
Eric Weinstein 1:06:38
oh, my God,
Garry Kasparov 1:06:38
because, you know, we, we could see, you know, this is how, you know, Putin is basically, you know, just it’s, it’s conquering the, not territories, but you know, but it’s, it’s actually it’s a congressional minds by conducting very successful Congress.
Eric Weinstein 1:06:51
So let’s go to that. What is it that the Soviet Union and then Russia understands about the human mind That the US needs to understand ASAP but cannot figure out how to teach its own people.
Garry Kasparov 1:07:06
Look, I don’t think that we can compare Sony propaganda and Putin’s Putin’s machine propaganda machine. For simple reason Soviet Union had a had
Eric Weinstein 1:07:16
an idea and I you all yeah, it’s all right. I took your point it’s
Garry Kasparov 1:07:18
ideology. It’s a again, my mother, she’s, she’s 82 she was born on the stall in 1977. So she still lives in Moscow. She heard it all style in crucial Brezhnev and drop of Gorbachev and others. And she’s, she’s watching this television and then she keeps telling me that as Gary, it’s much worse than ever, because
Eric Weinstein 1:07:43
it’s much worse than anything
Garry Kasparov 1:07:44
is because before we had some ideals Yeah, they were false ideals. But is it the it was it was all about bright future. Every ideology has its future. It could be horrible idea even like, like Nazism, but again, they try to sell you image of the future, okay, Putin doesn’t care about the future. It’s the Putin’s ideology in Russia. It’s more like a cult of death. It was surrounded by enemies and you have to rely on
Eric Weinstein 1:08:09
confusion. Everything is can use it. Yeah.
Garry Kasparov 1:08:13
And they discovered that, you know, instead of selling an ideology, which is always vulnerable, right, because the moment I give you the idea is not so sure it is. It says, No, you can’t tell
Eric Weinstein 1:08:21
what the ideas are. Everything slips through your fingers. I think Quicksilver
Garry Kasparov 1:08:24
so it’s, it’s in 2004 2005. Yeah. So, you know, it’s they had to make a decision. Yeah. How to fight Russian oppositional internet. Yeah, I just had the time where I just was about to stop my just career and as I tried to help Russian opposition to your early mornings, yes, yeah. My early 40s in 2004 2005. And they made an called ingenious decision that’s based on the KGB experience, instead of following Chinese model, firewall, clothes, you know, just, you know, make people starve information. Traditional dictatorships. They said, How about doing it’s exactly the opposite. You know, it’s, it’s, instead of, you know, closed it closing every No. So what about the flock of Yeah, flooding this information by just you know creating so much information here and there so for people just to get lost and you can have prop the newspaper from page one story that everyone must follow nine o’clock news or you can start you know just you know dividing this this this story in into many poisonous elements and start spreading them in the true stories okay so
Eric Weinstein 1:09:32
this is that’s you know it’s what this is now all through our countries they’re coming from Russia
Garry Kasparov 1:09:36
Yes. Is this in 2005
Eric Weinstein 1:09:39
the transmission mechanism 2014
Garry Kasparov 1:09:43
this is gonna get super
Eric Weinstein 1:09:44
depressing. I want to get on to this.
Garry Kasparov 1:09:46
They they, they decided just that they’ll start creating these fake websites, right when I say fake websites or real websites, sure, but they looked like you know, very liberal websites. They talked about certain things. They could even criticize Putin. Yeah, some of them he noticed They always carried a little bit of piece of story here and there. But
Eric Weinstein 1:10:03
you and I have been talking very critically about Trump and the republican phenomena as inhabiting this landscape. Part of the problem we’ve had is that the Democratic Party went kleptocratic in the center and started pursuing policies that started like, let’s say, widening the Gini coefficients, so that we had greater inequality. And we started experimenting with our own American style of nonsense. So right now we have a situation in which let me give you my feelings. I’ve been a lifelong Democrat, I don’t trust my party as far as I can throw them. I don’t trust the New York Times, Washington Post. I don’t trust Fox News and the republicans obviously, because that’s transparently wrong. There is no ground truth. There’s no place to go. And people are tuning into this podcast. And by the way, I’m going to force you to come back to this podcast because we need more time. Right now. We’re mostly talking to millennials and the millennials are hungry because they have an idea of we came in on This game we have no idea what we missed. Everything makes no sense. Where can I find some concept of overarching continuity to make sense of a world that is disintegrating? This is the toilet
Garry Kasparov 1:11:14
paper. Okay? It says this just just let’s finish you know, this is this story about fake news and troll factories. That’s what Putin created. That’s what KGB created and they recognize it’s far more effective and let’s say they have to deal with Garry Kasparov and his followers yeah you can go after Gary saying oh is this American agent he’s just you know he’s a bad guy isn’t working for CIA for Mossad whatever. Some people who believe something knows doesn’t look
Eric Weinstein 1:11:38
sells drugs. He says he read
Garry Kasparov 1:11:40
many many many intelligent bills and now is he was a great you know, so rich, I’m burning. This is probably the most decorated solid rationality history. I know. So for them, it’s a different story. You know, this they managed to create you know, this it’s a fake, you know, debates you have a whole page Yeah, that is totally you know, just designed you know, elsewhere, but it’s It comes to its own on social media. Somebody says, Gary Kasparov is a bad guy and then someone who’s coming No, no, no, no, he’s a great guy. He’s, but you know, I’m not so sure. And it says and then you have a
Eric Weinstein 1:12:12
whole drinking problem.
Garry Kasparov 1:12:14
None of me I wish he paid is no it’s just it’s the most typical one was Gary was a greatest champion, but unfortunately he got it you know,
Eric Weinstein 1:12:21
he went to his head. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:24
Eric Weinstein 1:12:25
you understand that people heard of me?
Unknown Speaker 1:12:27
Right. But I could see right
Eric Weinstein 1:12:29
like as if I could possibly be the or the level of nonsense
Garry Kasparov 1:12:33
but level of nonsense because people again, this is there’s no gravitas This is it’s you know, for us to understand what is it what is right is this unique? Nobody what is ground zero where
Eric Weinstein 1:12:42
nobody has been kept aside like, you keep a fire extinguisher under glass in case of emergencies. There’s no adult that’s ready to go when things get bad.
Garry Kasparov 1:12:53
They recognize that is the the new social media could offer them enormous opportunities to Spread this fake news, because there’s one way to tell the truth many ways to lie. So it’s that typical story was was me it was mid 17, the the Malaysian boyfriend was shot by Russian missile, right? And it’s they, you know, they didn’t care to provide, you know, a one one narrative that could could refute the at the the widespread conviction of Russia what they did they spread all sorts of news and one day on Russian television on two different channels. Yeah, there are two competing stories, right, which is and with experts diagrams, again, who cares if it’s if it’s a 10 different lies people say I don’t know just you know, it’s
Eric Weinstein 1:13:41
it’s a needle in a haystack and they always give you a haystack
Garry Kasparov 1:13:43
you know, in 2015 Yeah. I said that if to Facebook that your business model Yeah. Is the honeypot for Russian bear no kidding. Yeah. Because it was so obvious. You know this, it was a huge opportunity. So this is how to use it. Use choose to do to affect people Mine was information that could be most sensitive.
Eric Weinstein 1:14:04
Well, this is the this is a very strange thing is that I know these guys in Silicon Valley, they’re very smart in a very limited way. And they are so childlike but they they
Garry Kasparov 1:14:14
have no idea it’s the this understand that if they didn’t already have the machine it before he attacked America was this huge news industry right so he already had 10 times his own Russia, then Russian speaking minorities in the neighboring countries right then Europe. So the attacking America was just a matter of time. And I don’t think Putin will expect it to be so successful because the way the Russian propaganda handle it. I think they expected Trump to lose elections narrowly. Yeah, that’s what expectations and that’s why Trump already repeated the the the Russian narrative rigged elections. How many times from recollect was
Eric Weinstein 1:14:49
the thing that you did, which was very interesting. You said, Look, all you need to know to impeach Trump is one thing, which is how he handled Ukraine now whether I agree with you or I don’t agree with You, your point was, look, it’s very important not to get caught up in very complicated stories. Let’s keep it super simple so that you can just stay on one point. Is that fair representation of your
Garry Kasparov 1:15:12
correctly? I think that’s By the way, I think he he had other impeachable offenses.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:18
Yes. So but but your point was,
Garry Kasparov 1:15:20
but if you stay in this battle, because right now, the moment you you accuse Trump of numerous crimes that I believe he committed, it will be very, very easy for we can see the for that for for Trump’s defenders to sort of to to to sort of dilute it is I couldn’t carry that
Eric Weinstein 1:15:38
has that has to do with the corruption in the in the Democratic side, because you can see that the New York Times and The Washington Post are not behaving as honest actors. And it’s very clear at the moment that they’re not. You have this different problem, which is I can’t like I spent almost all my time criticizing the left, not the right not because I think the Right is okay. It absolutely isn’t. But because if the left continues to pursue these petty, transparent, ridiculous mini propaganda operations, we’ve undercut our own credibility in any place that connects all the sudden what
Garry Kasparov 1:16:15
I hate Moses hypocrisy. And is this now, you know in the next developer debates, I will hit one question. Yeah, every every every deputy hopeful on stage if it was a simple yes or no. Will you will you authorize sell of lethal weapons to Ukraine? Yes or No. Because you Trump was on Trump was on trial for that. Will You’re not? I’m afraid most of them will say no. And that shows the hypocrisy. That is careless at the end of the day, Trump’s foreign policy, just don’t kill me for that. Not so different from Obama’s Trump. The motivation is different. But Obama retreated because of his beliefs. It’s like ideological retreat. Trump doing these things for profit, but But unfortunately, you know the the outcome you
Eric Weinstein 1:17:02
don’t believe that Trump is under direct control, or does it matter?
Garry Kasparov 1:17:06
But that’s okay. That’s it’s I said for profit. You know, Trump is a Russian asset. I said it many times. Yeah. And whether you understand it or not, it’s not the story. Trump is Russian acid. I don’t even have to know all the details. Your point
Eric Weinstein 1:17:17
is that the incentive structures at all. I grew up in the Soviet Union,
Garry Kasparov 1:17:21
and I just I can I can repeat it time and again. I met enough KGB colonels. Yeah. And I know how these people look at you. Yeah. So the way we put in looks at Trump is the way KGB handler looks at these assets. He looks at NorCal at McCrone with a contempt it’s a contempt because he, he believes he can by anyone on this planet, unfortunately, they fail to realize but the way he looks at Trump the way they act, there is this it’s this this this, you know, this wry smile and this is snort, snort. Trump is an acid. He believes that Trump for some reasons will do whatever he wants. And by the way, it’s the Trump now It’s when people say how can you say that now? Okay, I
Eric Weinstein 1:18:03
don’t even know when the Democratic Party asserts that Donald Trump would win somebody inside of the traditional left of center, media or political apparatus starts to assert that Donald Trump is under the direct control as opposed to the incentive control. Like
Garry Kasparov 1:18:19
even to admit, at the end of the day, this Trump’s Look,
Eric Weinstein 1:18:22
you’re not my point, Gary, what I’m trying to say is, there’s a problem right now, with, we can’t form a sense making, we can’t form a story that enough of us can participate in to start actually dealing with our real problems. We’re just in freefall, and whether or not I sign on to everything that you say about Trump or not. I know that if you and I have enough time, we can at least figure out what we agree on what you guys agree on what the theories are, though I can’t.
Garry Kasparov 1:18:52
We haven’t have a common denominator. So that’s as clear this is from our compensation may disagree on many things, but at the end of the day, we know where we are where we stand. So our disagreements would be more of a tactical Modus strategical character.
Eric Weinstein 1:19:03
Yes. So what what I’m concerned about is that right now we’re sitting duck, because we’re not actually be there. There are no adults that I can find anywhere on the stage.
Garry Kasparov 1:19:13
Because again, it’s just it’s the it’s, it’s the, again, America has to reinvent itself. It has to reconsider what is America’s role, and this is, and again, it says, you go back to the democratic debates, they told me about things that they they might be very important. Again, as I understand, you know, you should talk about health care, you should talk about other issues that are important, you know, for America long term, but right now, you have the foundation the Republic is in jeopardy. You have Trump who is I don’t I don’t want to repeat it he’s Russian acid but it’s let’s say he’s not but it’s it doesn’t matter your
Eric Weinstein 1:19:46
your assertion is but it’s a
Garry Kasparov 1:19:48
good way to look at what he what he has been doing because you know, if he were Russian acid what they could do differently. So this is it’s the it’s even even he’s you know, he’s famous betrayal of course. infamous quotes. So he spoke to around October 6, October 7 Putin’s birthday he announced the greatest American retreat. And it’s for next couple of days Russian television was celebrating this the pictures of Americans camps was food on the table saying Americans were running away because our great leader you know, pushed him out. So that’s the so in other incidents I always say I believe in coincidences but I also believe in KGB Yeah, and when this every time you know, we dealt with cases and Trump it ends up was Russia
Eric Weinstein 1:20:31
Gary, why are you still alive?
Garry Kasparov 1:20:34
It’s a good question. Yeah, so So
Eric Weinstein 1:20:35
are you here because you’re still useful to him?
Garry Kasparov 1:20:40
Look I you know it’s it’s it’s everything you know, has its price so I can I try don’t to be just an easy target. I don’t go to Gary. I don’t believe this for a second. If he wants you gone. He’s cutting Have you gone? Thank you very much. So my wife will be there happy to hear that. No, not look. So but this is the
Eric Weinstein 1:20:56
we’re having a grown up conversation.
Garry Kasparov 1:20:57
I know growing up. Yeah, I know that. So what you know, I See what I say at the end of the day? Again, this is the it’s it’s voice.
Eric Weinstein 1:21:05
Garry Kasparov 1:21:06
look, if they won’t be gone, I’m sure you know they could they can do it. So it doesn’t change anything my behavior. Yeah, I noticed that. Yeah. So that’s the,
Unknown Speaker 1:21:14
but by the way, I just want to say how much I admire that.
Garry Kasparov 1:21:17
Okay. Again, it’s just it’s what did help so people don’t think
Eric Weinstein 1:21:19
you could do anything else.
Garry Kasparov 1:21:20
No, but it’s I have to do just, you know, do what you must. So be that’s what I learned, you know, as a kid from Soviet dissidents. Yeah. Because it was, yeah, it’s the and, and again, just going back to this, it’s not, you know, Trump was a symptom. Okay, let me, um, shows how, you know, falling you’re pointing right. That’s how this society how this great country lost its way and it’s, and that’s why Trump Trump Trump is you know, he’s still there.
Eric Weinstein 1:21:42
So you and I have a mutual friend and Peter teal. We’re very surprised that Peter back to Trump
Garry Kasparov 1:21:47
disappointed. Yeah, very. But look, he’s a businessman. I understand why he did it. I think it’s just it’s a wrong decision. It’s bad for the concrete. So maybe good for his business. But it’s the I mean, from day one, when I heard about it, I was unpleasantly surprised because I, you know, it’s not again, not just saying things now, you know, from the first day of Trump’s campaign you have been is one of the most vocal critics. Yeah. By the way, speaking about the media, please. One of the reasons Trump was there is because New York Times in the Washington Post and CNN, they liked him. From what you were sensitive with their business model, not only business model for 16 years. Yeah. The Democratic Party. Right, as served as the political branch of Clinton Foundation. Right was one goal to let unelectable woman to to the president united states. In 2000. He lost Obama that had to be eat, but they tried again, any I mean, Joe Biden would have trashed Trump in 2016. So Hillary Clinton was the only chance for Trump but they wanted Trump because they knew Trump was the only person she could beat. She would have said no chance against the it’s more than Republican. So they want to Trump right. So this is it’s it’s it’s and that’s why Trump got all this free publicity in hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars of free publicity, and they could have killed Trump when he attacked john mccain. If the CNN of this world wanted to go after Trump in summer 2015 they could have they could I agree that immediate would have sank these sheep, you know, just before it left harbor.
Eric Weinstein 1:23:20
Question Jeffrey Epstein died under bizarre circumstances and the the amount of follow on on this story. The entire world wants to know, is there a tie to the intelligence community? I don’t see papers getting the denials from an intelligence communities. I don’t see any very significant attempt to talk about whether or not like all you need is to get somebody to say this person was never an asset they were never under under us or foreign protection. What do we learn when things that are supposed to happen because they would sell papers, they’re of interest to everybody and they’re the natural thing to do simply don’t happen in full view of the world. Look, it’s the you evidence you have an explanation. Do you think this is interesting
Garry Kasparov 1:24:04
or not? It? lets you know it’s it’s, it’s always happened
before but we didn’t have the same knowledge. So that’s the only difference is now there’s this people died in people that have that type of reps that they used to die in prisons under suspicious circumstances for decades if not centuries, but only now we know about it. But at the end of the day, who cares? Because it look public, you know, it’s attention,
Eric Weinstein 1:24:33
murder, suicide or whatever, it doesn’t interest me that much. That’s not the issue. The issue is, is that it’s like dark matter, you don’t detect it directly. You see all sorts of other things behaving bizarrely around it. And so you know, that there’s something there.
Garry Kasparov 1:24:48
I look we know it’s something’s there because again, it’s just it’s the wild wild. We have so much information available yet our attention spans are so short that you move from just one one thing to another. So is this I wonder how many you know how many listeners you will immediately pick up Jeffrey Epstein. There was so many scandals and that’s what Trump knows. You know, he knows that you know if he’s tried for one, you know, one treason i think it’s it’s it’s bad, but it’s but if he’s tried for 10 years, we have a better let me just tell you we have an amazing audience. We have the people who are attracted to the show.
Eric Weinstein 1:25:20
But but it’s amazing how many things people forget because you have a new scandal You know, that’s no I understand that. But I’m what I’m trying to say is that the people who are tuning into this are people who are they’re sick of being in the matrix they just they want out and that’s why it’s called the portal because the people looking for an exit from the confusion. So I’m going to tell you this, you are coming back to the show because I am so not finished with you. It’s been a fantastic
Garry Kasparov 1:25:46
when you say it’s not finished, you know, that’s
me warning. You And
Eric Weinstein 1:25:55
is there anything you want to talk about about RDI before I let you go and send you along You
Garry Kasparov 1:26:00
know, it’s the it’s the Trump election. So with some of my friends, you know, I call them you know, refugees from the Wall Street Journal like Bret Stevens max booth Now, of course, well, so those who just couldn’t, you know, couldn’t stand from so let’s say, and few model democrats in New York. So we got together and we decided to come up with an organization we call it renew democracy initiative. Okay, so are the i.org now has a website on invite me, I’d be delighted, you know, justice, this the and the idea was that, you know, this is it’s an it’s a US buying experience that democracy is under you know, it’s it’s, it’s it’s a great danger. It’s a great threat when it’s attacked from both sides from radicals. People, sometimes they think that Oh, Hitler won elections in Germany. He never won elections, either. It is not the majority, the best result of Nazi Party 1932 was just over 37%. But at the same elections, communists made nearly 16 Yeah, which means half of the job more than half of German politician rejected rejected a democracy. So it’s what we saw is as you know, it’s a Trump’s brutal assault on on liberal democracy and our freedoms. But at the same time, we saw the growing power of the far left so called progressive wing attacking the very foundation of the of the free market. And these two forces they are just you’re threatening to dilute the very foundation of American
Eric Weinstein 1:27:22
society. This is why it’s important to get rid of the kleptocracy in our center because you need a center that is
Garry Kasparov 1:27:28
actually have been shouting full fold for years. Yeah, for more than a decade are too big to fail against the very principle of capitalism. I you know, I said it as many times one thing it’s, it was the case I used to do miss Miller Britain award for let’s say Volta Region 2013, I did a keynote. Yeah. And I said that it’s if a small business in North Carolina is bankrupt is it goes belly up so much Goldman Sachs. So it’s, it’s, it’s, I mean, the whole idea that you know, you can use taxpayers money supporting supporting big corporations, because they are, you know, indispensable, but they grew up on bigger now. So does that extend for Harvard? Should Harvard be allowed to fail should for example the Democratic Party be allowed to fail financially as you know, Donna Brazil was asserting that Hillary Clinton was essentially the only thing propping up the Democratic Party. I don’t know this is it’s the it’s this is the good we, for people who say capitalism failed as I say it, capitalism failed us, we failed capitalism, okay. violating fundamental principles of free market, which is you know, you bankrupt, right, you fail, right, you’re out of business, somebody else will replace you. That’s what’s the whole idea. And right now we just it’s all about your connections to the government. It’s all connections to to those who have money and power and you could see that money and power they just you know, they are getting closer and closer. It’s it’s almost you know, which organizations are you put other than RDI What are you putting your faith in? nobody’s looking Oh, do you think Soros is a positive force? soul is a partisan force. That’s a problem, you know, yeah. idea was already I was trying to bring people on both sides. So we have a board now that brings people from both sides. Two former senators Heidi heitkamp. and I both came from Alaska. So okay, both democrat Blue Dog Democrats, right. The idea is this and we’re working with donors, many of them are just you know, are former Republicans, the republicans are looking for building something in the center, because it’s the problem of the United States but also you look at the United Kingdom look at Europe. The problem is that the radicals on both sides they gaining more and more power by dragging people out of the center. It’s what I call the phenomenon of Spanish Civil War when you have you know, it’s the social communists on one side and fastest on the side, and somebody wants to stay in the middle. No, no rule but you think you must take like an A frame roof.
Eric Weinstein 1:29:45
Yeah. And the a frame is getting more and more peaked. It’s so the idea is that only the most agile people can dance on
Garry Kasparov 1:29:52
American American the two party system in America always, you know, served as the shield against radical is right one party went too far like right a landslide. Right, McGovern left landslide, right? So right now you’re having elections potentially. Likewise, what do you have three radicals? Yeah. And this is and there’s so much room in the center. Now,
Eric Weinstein 1:30:11
do you have anyone that you like on the Democratic side?
Garry Kasparov 1:30:13
Look, again, this is I it’s the way I look at this this elections is that it’s all about defeating Donald Trump. So you have to make this election about Donald Trump. You have to look for the best candidate who can win, you know, a win against Trump is
Eric Weinstein 1:30:25
that one thing who would that be? The best chance
Garry Kasparov 1:30:28
of winning statistically, Amy Klobuchar is very clear, because she’s she’s exactly from the era where the elections will be decided in the Midwest. She wanted Minnesota 2018 re election by by by caring many districts that Trump won in 2000. All right, again, it’s about winning elections. What do you think about if we get these candidates away from the typical CNN, MSNBC and PR groups, it’s Look, I’m you know, I used to be a chess player. And it’s and it’s the selection, but but I always, you know, knew that learn from a mother. It’s not just about winning. about making the difference. But this election is about winning and saving the republic if Trump is reelected. Yeah, it’s the I mean, the consequences cannot be any. I can’t even predict them. Neda will go bust. Trump will withdraw from Europe. And he will he will destroy every foundation. Well, the game theory of him not worrying about re election, we’d have no idea what that looks like.
Absolutely. So it’s the
Eric Weinstein 1:31:20
show that by the way, you have to know that a lot of my my audience is split. A lot of them put up with my anti Trump stuff. Because they believe that I’m at least trying in good faith. Right. I don’t always understand how they look at this. And they say that this is normal. I don’t get
Garry Kasparov 1:31:38
it. I just see. It’s just you know, the Trump’s ability to corrupt others. You know, this. I mean, look at the Attorney General. Yeah. Attorney General. Now it sounds like ideological warrior, right. when when when Attorney General uses words the left or right, he talks about left in other words, violating the law. That’s it, you know, that’s, it’s Trump succeeded already in three years, you know, boys by the Destroying, you know, what was left of American image abroad and also in the country, but we
Eric Weinstein 1:32:05
don’t have a shared idea of what where we are what’s going on and what’s relevant. We just don’t
Garry Kasparov 1:32:10
that’s why Yes, it’s about restoration. And that’s why you need to make sure that Trump is defeated and this idea and you cannot have a candidate that coming up was it? Was it Gary
Eric Weinstein 1:32:21
Vee? Yeah, but it can’t only be defeating Trump I’ve just be honest with you. If the if the left of the United States does not stop with its propaganda stick bullshit, there’s no way we’re going to be able to put things back
Garry Kasparov 1:32:34
together again, not you cannot come up with a big socialist ideas because that’s right. That’s Trump’s only hope. No kids praying you know for Sonos. One more is
Eric Weinstein 1:32:43
also the question of denying things like if somebody shoots up
Garry Kasparov 1:32:48
a parade route or something and chats Allah who Akbar at the end, there will be a democratic attempt to not talk about what is the basis once we get this this going back to the question, so I won’t be here. I won’t be here. what they say about foreign policy, because Trump is Trump was on trial now he will be impeached in the house for his, you know, for his crimes, you know, for foreign policy related crimes, right. And they don’t talk about it. This is they talked about something else. So the country, they want the country to believe that Trump was guilty, but we don’t hear what would be what would they do different, right. But if
Eric Weinstein 1:33:21
the democrats, for example, pursue things with Trump actually isn’t guilty, somebody is both guilty and not guilty of things that he’s accused of any attempt to prosecute things frivolously, which we will see right is going to result in this loss of trust. We have to do something about trust. And if we don’t have some,
Garry Kasparov 1:33:40
yeah, bingo. I mean, it’s a must trust. Trust is important.
Eric Weinstein 1:33:43
Gary, you got to come back to Los Angeles. Thank you so much for coming.
Garry Kasparov 1:33:46
It is it is there’s more to talk about, you know, capitalism, social and the rest of the world experience.
Eric Weinstein 1:33:51
my bladder can go on forever. It is now 530 which is your status. So I’m just trying to take care of you. You’ll come back to the portals, I guess. Absolutely fantastic. Okay, that’s throws need various activity. You’ve been through the portal with the inimitable Garry Kasparov. It’s been an incredible journey. Gary, thank you for visiting us. Take care of your Sunday well, please subscribe to the podcast wherever you listen to podcasts on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, what have you and go over to YouTube and make sure you find our channel, click the subscribe button and the bell to be notified when our next episode drops. Thank you very much.
The Portal podcast transcription series
- Peter Thiel
- What is The Portal?
- Werner Herzog
- Timur Kuran
- Rabbi David Wolpe
- Jocko Willink
- Bret Easton Ellis
- Andrew Yang
- Bryan Callen
- Julie Lindahl
- Sam Harris
- Vitalik Buterin
- Garry Kasparov
- London Tsai
- Garrett Lisi
- Tyler Cowen
- Anna Khachiyan
- Eric Weinstein – State of the Portal 2020
- Bret Weinstein
- Sir Roger Penrose
- Ashley Mathews (Riley Reid)
- Ben Greenfield
- Agnes Callard
- Kai Lenny
- The Construct: Jeffrey Epstein
Geometric Unity – a First Look
- James O’Keefe
- Daniel Schmachtenberger
- Eric Lewis
- Jamie Metzl
- Ross Douthat
- Ryan Holiday