The Future of AI: From Oscar Films to Human Enhancement

Introduction

In a recent episode of the Tom Bilyeu Show Live prep, host Tom Bilyeu alongside co-hosts Drew Brinsky and Ununice tackled several thought-provoking topics at the intersection of technology, ethics, and culture. From the Oscars' new stance on AI in filmmaking to RFK Jr.'s crusade against food dyes, and a particularly moving discussion about the value of human life sparked by a Black Mirror episode, the conversation revealed deep insights into how we navigate an increasingly technological world. The discussion wasn't just about current events but extended into philosophical territory about what it means to be human in an age of rapid technological advancement.

Key Points

• The Oscars now mandate voters watch all nominated movies, while also ruling that AI use in filmmaking neither helps nor harms nomination chances
• RFK Jr. is announcing a plan to remove artificial food dyes from American food supply through the FDA, continuing his focus on environmental toxins
• Google argues that breaking up its monopoly would harm America's competitive position in the global tech race with China
• The episode features a deep philosophical discussion about the value of human life, sparked by the Black Mirror episode 'Joan Is Awful'
• Tom discusses how technological advancement inevitably changes industries, comparing AI's impact to how 3D animation replaced traditional hand-drawn animation
• The hosts debate whether companies should have moral obligations to provide life-saving technology to those who can't afford it
• Tom predicts humans will increasingly enhance themselves with technology, suggesting that in 70 years humans may not exist in their current recognizable form

AI in the Oscars: A New Era for Filmmaking

The conversation began with a discussion about the Academy Awards' recent decision to mandate that Oscar voters actually watch all nominated films before voting—a surprisingly new requirement. More significantly, the Academy ruled that the use of generative artificial intelligence in filmmaking would neither help nor harm a film's chances for nomination.

"The Academy also ruled that the use of generative artificial intelligence tools neither help nor harm the chances of a nomination," Tom noted, highlighting how AI is already being used in Oscar-winning productions. He referenced Brady Corbett's "The Brutalist," which faced controversy after its editor revealed that AI had been used to enhance Hungarian dialogue for actors Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones.

This revelation led to a broader discussion about the inevitable adoption of technology in creative fields. Tom shared a personal anecdote about his resistance to computer animation when Toy Story first released:

"I was at film school when Toy Story came out and I was like 'I refuse to watch that' because I could feel the truth of what was coming, which was that traditional animation was going to die. And lo and behold traditional animation died. And something better replaces it."

Tom's perspective on technological advancement is pragmatic: "Anything that extends human capabilities is going to be embraced. It just is what it is." He compared the situation to historical transitions like moving from hand-cranked cars to automatic starters or from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles. The resistance to AI in creative fields may be emotionally understandable, but historically, such resistance has never stopped technological progress.

RFK Jr. and the FDA: Targeting Food Dyes

The conversation shifted to RFK Jr.'s announcement about removing artificial food dyes from the American food supply through the FDA. Both hosts expressed support for this initiative, with Tom noting:

"From a health perspective, we are just not in a good place. And given that he's got a whole history of dealing with environmental toxins, I think he's ready to go on that."

Drew added context about how many American food products contain artificial dyes that aren't present in the same products sold in other countries: "Once I started to realize that these same foods are made differently in other countries and just for America they're adding in all the dyes and stuff, it sounded easy... companies are already doing two formulas depending on what country it's going to."

The hosts acknowledged that while there are reasons companies use these additives—they make products more appealing and can be cheaper—the health trade-offs likely aren't worth it. Tom expressed optimism that AI might help identify the actual causes of various health problems, mentioning that people who have used Google's medical-focused AI have reported that "this is going to change everything."

Google's Monopoly and the Tech Race with China

The discussion then turned to Google's recent classification as a monopoly by the Department of Justice, which may require the company to break up its search and ad business, including Google Chrome and potentially parts of Android.

In response to the DOJ's proposal, Google has argued that breaking up the company would harm America's position in the global technology race with China. While Tom acknowledged this might be a convenient argument for Google to make, he also recognized there could be merit to it.

"I have a default stance that monopolies are bad for competition, and competition is exactly the thing that we need. So it's probably not a bad idea to break them up," Tom stated. However, he added, "But if you're them and you're thinking 'Hey look at all the cool things that we've done including putting a ton of money into the thing that now became Whimo'... we won't have the aggregate horsepower that we have right now."

The hosts discussed how Lee Anne Mahullen, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, claimed that the DOJ's proposal would "hamstring how we develop AI" and "hold back American innovation at a critical juncture" in the global race with China.

This led to a broader conversation about whether certain technologies like AI are so important that companies developing them should be temporarily exempt from antitrust actions. Tom expressed skepticism that any company currently has a monopoly in AI, noting how many options exist, but acknowledged the importance of energy development in this technological race:

"Energy is going to be the real problem. Right now we do not have the ability to produce the energy. China is moving a lot faster than we are. And so getting the appropriate amount of energy is going to rapidly become more important than getting the chips."

The Value of Human Life: Insights from Black Mirror

Perhaps the most profound part of the discussion centered around the first episode of Black Mirror season 7, "Joan Is Awful," which explores a scenario where a person's consciousness can be preserved through technology, but at a subscription cost. This sparked a heated debate about the value of human life and the ethical implications of monetizing life-saving technology.

The episode presents a moral dilemma: What happens when you can't afford the subscription to keep your loved one alive? The poll results from the audience revealed something surprising—60% said they would rather be "brain dead" than "ad-enabled" (having to watch advertisements as part of the subscription).

Tom expressed shock at this result: "I legitimately feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode right now. This is so crazy that people value their own lives that little." He argued passionately that being alive with some inconvenience is preferable to death: "Dead is forever, and there's no coming back from that."

Interestingly, when the poll question was flipped to ask whether people would rather have their loved ones be ad-enabled or brain dead, the results inverted—60% chose ad-enabled for their loved ones while still preferring brain death for themselves.

This led Tom to reflect on what might be driving these responses: "I think that people can more easily imagine their life being permanently bad than they can imagine solving very difficult problems... The other default assumption that I have is that consciousness is this incredibly rare and wonderful thing."

Human Enhancement and the Future

The conversation about life and death naturally evolved into a discussion about human enhancement and where technology might take our species. Tom outlined a series of questions that reveal how humans will likely embrace enhancement:

"If you could look better, do you think people will adopt a technology that allows them to look younger longer? People are already doing that... If I could cure any painful ailment that you have, do you think people would do it? Of course... If I could make your eyesight a little better as it fails, instead of bringing you back to normal with glasses, what if I can just upgrade your sight a little bit?"

Tom argued that there is no point at which humans will collectively decide to stop enhancing themselves: "You will slowly boil the frog until the humans that are alive become cybernetic in one way or another, or gene-edited into oblivion."

When asked about the endgame of human enhancement, Tom was clear: "We are a species that pursues. There is no endgame. Humans don't have an endgame... you'll never hit a point where you're like 'This is good enough.'"

A Moment of Vulnerability: The Depth of Marriage

In one of the most touching moments of the episode, Tom became emotional while discussing his marriage. He expressed how deeply he values his relationship with his wife, Lisa, and how he can't imagine who he would have become without her influence.

"I don't want to know who I would have become if I didn't meet her," Tom said, his voice breaking. This led to a surprise appearance by Lisa herself, who shared a powerful example of their commitment to each other during her health struggles:

"When we stood at the altar and said 'in sickness and in health,' I don't think we were even prepared for the realities of what that meant... Ten years ago my gut just fell apart. I couldn't stand up, I could barely breathe... For two years he didn't eat sugar because I couldn't. Imagine guys, it's his birthday and I'm like 'Let's get you a cake because I couldn't eat anything.' He's like 'No, I don't want a cake on my birthday. I want to be able to eat what you can eat and we're in it together.' That's what freaking true 'in sickness and in health' looks like."

This moment of vulnerability highlighted the human element behind the technological discussions—the deep connections that give meaning to our lives, regardless of how advanced our technology becomes.

Conclusion: Navigating the Human-Technology Interface

As the conversation wound down, the hosts circled back to the central question underlying many of their discussions: How do we balance technological advancement with human values and needs?

Tom's perspective emphasized embracing innovation while recognizing the fundamental nature of human motivation and desire. He acknowledged the difficult trade-offs involved but maintained that progress is inevitable and, on balance, beneficial—provided we approach it with clear eyes about human nature.

The discussion revealed that as we navigate an increasingly technological world, the most profound questions remain deeply human: How do we value life? What responsibilities do we have to each other? And how do we maintain our humanity as technology transforms what it means to be human?

These questions don't have easy answers, but the conversation demonstrated that engaging with them thoughtfully is essential as we shape the future of technology and society. As Tom put it, "I want that for all of you and for that reason we should all be encouraging of a sane pursuit of AI and driving energy costs to zero."

In a world of rapid technological change, perhaps our most important task is to ensure that our human values guide our technological development, rather than the other way around.

For the full conversation, watch the video here.