might say, well, you know, no robot is ever going to match the human brain because we have souls. But I would take from Ilya's comments that he's not a believer in souls or that if they exist, they don't have any impact on your actions. And that matches what I've been saying for quite a while.

So I guess all I'm doing is bragging that the guy who knows the most about AI is on the same page as I've been for quite a long time. Yeah. Free will is an illusion. Exactly.

Well, I'm going to take another victory lap here. I mentioned this before, but I don't know if I put it in the context I wanted to. So I saw a text post on X from Steve Magnus. He was talking about a meta-analysis which I've mentioned I think that had three outputs or three conclusions that process goals had larger effect on performance. Process goals. Now I take that to mean what I call a system so that your goal would be to go to the gym. Your goal would not be to lose 20 pounds. Does that make sense? Because one is a system: hey I go to the gym every day and the other is an outcome. And it said the outcome goals had a negligible effect.

So this is one of my biggest messages I've been saying for again over a decade started with my book that said almost everything and still went big and apparently there's this huge meta study which means that they looked at multiple studies and concluded that I'm right that systems are better than goals. So I didn't know that that would necessarily ever have any kind of scientific backing. To me it was just sort of obvious from life.

But now I just for to be fair I have often told you that a meta-analysis is not really science. So I won't back up on that. If you want to say, Scott, you also told us that a meta-analysis is not useful. Well, I don't want to change my mind on that. So I'm going to say it's nice that it agrees with me, but there's a meta-analysis, so be skeptical.