This transcript is generated with the help of AI and is lightly edited for clarity.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I am really struck by: What do we most want to be? And that’s not alone. And then loneliness is a disease, and it’s a modern disease. I hope the show has been, that the show has been sort of a third space for people. It’s that something they can come at the end of the day and say, “Oh, Stephen is going to share basically the whole show’s reaction to the same day I experience.” It’s really important that I don’t break news to the audience. What I’m really having with them is an emotional experience. I mean, it takes intellectual sweat to do it, but I’m sharing the emotional reaction to everything during the day. And that gives a sense that we’re really communicating with each other.
REID:
Hi, I’m Reid Hoffman.
ARIA:
And I’m Aria Finger.
REID:
We want to know how, together, we can use technology like AI to help us shape the best possible future.
ARIA:
We ask technologists, ambitious builders, and deep thinkers to help us sketch out the brightest version of the future—and we learn what it’ll take to get there.
REID:
This is Possible.
REID:
In J.R.R. Tolkien’s legendarium, the elves were the first to awaken under the stars—masters of language, song, and memory. They believed that storytelling was a form of stewardship: that to tell the world’s tales was to help preserve its soul.
ARIA:
In our world, we don’t have elves. But we do have comedians, satirists, and storytellers. And some of them, like our guest today, wield their craft like a mirror — reflecting the contradictions, the absurdities, and sometimes the quiet beauty of being human.
REID:
Stephen Colbert is one of the most influential comedic voices of our time. Best known for hosting The Colbert Report and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, he combines razor-sharp satire with a sincere curiosity about the world. He’s spent decades exploring what it means to live truthfully in an age of performance.
ARIA:
In this episode, we talk with Stephen about how our storytelling might evolve in an era of AI, what speculative fiction teaches us about hope and fear, and why creativity is more than just a spark — it’s a discipline, a responsibility, and, sometimes, a kind of prayer.
REID:
Here’s our conversation with Stephen Colbert.
REID:
All right, well, Stephen, we’ve been looking forward to this for months. Welcome to Possible.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
It is a pleasure. It is a pleasure.
REID:
I thought the funnest way to start was that you and I are both deep Dungeon & Dragons fans, and we both started playing at a young age. So if you were to assign a character class to humanity in the 21st century—you know, Bard, Rogue, Wizard, Barbarian—what are we right now?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Wait, humanity? So the entirety of humanity has to be a single character class?
REID:
Or it could be a blend. [Laugh]
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Well, oh. I mean, because there are—God, okay, so Fighter. Then you have Ranger or Paladin. Okay. I mean, there are some Paladins out there. There are people who are picking up what they believe to be the sort of justice and enforcing the law and the goodness as they see it. I mean, Paladins are very narrow-minded.
REID:
[Laugh] Well, they’re lawful good.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
And Paladins have a tunnel vision. Lawful good is a tunnel vision, and lawful good can cause a lot of chaos and evil by being completely unbending. So I’ve always been very suspicious of lawful good characters. I mean, I think of like, what is the alignment of humanity? That’s an interesting thing. So, I mean, there’s fighters. Okay. Then there’s Thief. There’s Thief, which also has the subcategory of Assassin. At least back in my day. I’m talking originally AD&D. I mean, some of us are Thieves. I think there are very few Assassins. I think some of us are clearly Thieves.
REID:
Yes. [Laughs]
STEPHEN COLBERT:
And some people sincerely believe in crypto.
REID:
Yes.
REID:
And that is an excellent opening for a techno-optimist podcast. And then just a quick follow-up before I hand it over to Aria. And then, if you were to assign yourself a character class for your role in terms of what you do, what would your character class be?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Oh, I mean, I guess—I mean, I don’t think I have the skills for it—but I guess Bard. Do you know what I mean? Because Bard has to be—Bard, you have to be like a Thief and a Monk, or something. You have to be a Cleric, a Cleric Monk? And then you also have to be like a Thief. And then you also have to have, like, a high intelligence. And then you can spellbind people or something like that. I’m just trying to think of, like, “What’s the job of like a clown, what’s the job of a clown on camera?” I guess that’s Bard, you know?
REID:
Although, it’s also the most elegant forms of clown, which is speaking some—through humor—speaking some truth.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
All right, I’m going to let you—I’m going to stop on that one right there. [Laugh]
ARIA:
All right. I’m not even going to try to compete on the sci-fi level that is here—or the D&D level—but to give some street cred, I did, I read all three Lord of the Rings. I saw all three movies. Last year, I read The Hobbit to my kids. So I have some Tolkien. And so, before we get into philosophy and the future of entertainment, if you had to be on a desert island, Stephen, just with one Tolkien character to keep you company, who would it be and why?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
On a desert island? So not in Middle-earth. Okay. So, golly, I think probably Gandalf because he would call the eagles, and we would get off the desert island. [Laugh]
ARIA:
He would save you.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Something like that. Yeah. Or Gollum, he’s a good swimmer. Maybe he could get us fish because he’s good at catching fish. He’d catch fish for us.
REID:
Gollum might eat you.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
That’s true. I’m gamey. Pretty gamey.
ARIA:
Gollum would be too annoying. I think Gandalf’s a great answer.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I think Gandalf would be the key. Yeah.
REID:
So, not surprising, with that kind of start, our episode’s about creativity, empathy, agency, human beings. So let’s start there. What do you think is essential about who we are as human beings, and how creativity and empathy relate into them? And how does that inform what you do?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
When I was offered this gig ten years, ten plus, years ago, I had to think about it. I wasn’t sure if I wanted it. And then I had to do the—I had to do the math on it. I had to kind of Dutch uncle myself about this and go, “Okay, what is it? What would be good about it?” And high on the list was live audience, because there are a lot of other things, a lot of opportunities to do other things. I had a whole television show—all set, pilot, ready to go—that I wanted to do. But when I got this, I went, “Oh, well, gosh, I do love being in front of a live audience.” Because you know what’s working, and you can’t make somebody find something funny any more than you can make them love you.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
It just happens or it doesn’t happen. And the sense, as you’re working on a joke, or when you’re thinking about telling a joke, or even the moment, if it just occurs to you in that moment, you’re about to tell it. You’ve already got all your empathetic mirror neurons firing in you to go, “Oh, how would I receive this joke? How might this play out in the mind of another person?” It’s kind of like fishing. Creativity and imagination is an integral part of fishing. Because you throw that line down into the water, and you know what the hook is, and you know what the bait is, and hopefully you get some sense of what the movement of the water is. And in your mind, you have to imagine what’s happening?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
What is that hook doing down there? And then if you get a strike, you have to think, “Was that a little nibble from a big fish, or was that a big nibble from a little fish? And is that fish on? And should I set the hook?” And through that little line…You know, I have a friend—I don’t know if this is his term—but he and I have this thing we always say to each other, which is, “The tug is the drug.” That’s what fishing is about—that tug. The tug is the drug. And it’s intermittent reinforcement, much like joke telling. You get addicted to that feeling of, “Will this time I read the water, the fish, the location? What the bottom is like? What kind of hook I should use? How I should weight it? How should I troll? Should I bob? Am I working on the surface here? What am I doing in this area with these fish?”
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Okay, so that takes a lot of imagination, which is associated with empathy. I have to imagine. And empathy’s even beyond imagination, because like imagination, which is imagination. Like, really, that term, you’re actually picturing this thing. And I think imagination is a big part of leadership, too. You have to express to the other people literally what your vision is. And that’s not a metaphor. How do you actually see this happening? And then you have to take the time to accurately describe to the people who are eager to do the thing necessary to achieve it. But if you’re not clear to them, you can’t be mad if they don’t achieve it. Because you didn’t say what the goal was.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
You didn’t say how you imagined this thing happening. And if you’ve got the answers—I mean, sometimes you don’t—but creating something for me is always about What is the effect that this is going to have on the audience? And a lot of that is imagining how this is going to play out in the mind of another person. And empathy goes beyond imagination because there’s also, what is the feeling that this elicits? And then, what is the physical response that this elicits? It’s a lot that goes into empathy. Empathy and imagination are completely, completely inseparable. And I think that’s what empathy has to do with creativity, is that you have to have imagination on what it is the effect of this on an audience. And that’s why I like a live audience. And it’s one of the big reasons I took this show. It’s because 450 people and an actual theatrical experience, where not only do I get to perform to them and hear their laughter, but in a theatrical atmosphere, I also get this very specific bounceback of energy from the audience. Because the building is built to give me that. It’s curved. I’m at the focal point of this ellipse when I perform. And I get that feeling back from them. And hopefully, if it’s really working, they also feel how that felt for me. And then we amplify each other’s feelings. That’s when it’s really working.
ARIA:
I love that answer so much because it didn’t occur to me. Because most people experience you through a screen. Whether they’re watching the show on TV, or they’re seeing your social media clips. And so just to hear that the live portion is the reason you did it.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
It’s funny you should say that it’s news to you that the room is so important to me as a performer. Because I had to adjust the way I did my show when I came from Colbert Report to here. And one of the significant ways that I changed it was because of the model of that show—that was in a television studio, not a theater—and it was based upon a news punditry model where there is no audience on that show, I performed for the camera, and the live audience got to witness me doing the show for the camera. I didn’t play to the room. Here, I’m doing a show for the room, and the camera captures me doing that for a theater. It’s a totally different way. It might seem subtle from the outside, but for me—in terms of my intention performing every night—it’s a very, very… And it took me a while to make that adjustment to play to the room. Even though I started my career playing to the room, in doing improv.
ARIA:
I think it speaks to the importance of live and in-person, which we will certainly get to.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Yeah, I’m very interested. Especially how it relates to AI, man. I’ve got theories about that.
ARIA:
So you bring humor…
STEPHEN COLBERT:
God, I hope so.
ARIA:
We try to give people a sense that they have agency over their lives, but you bring creativity, empathy. What do you think is the thing that’s missing? What do you try to bring most to humanity right now? Because we’re missing it?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I just try to bring it to the show, I don’t know about humanity.
ARIA:
Sure, sure.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
My responsibility is, I’ve got 41 minutes—40, 41-and a-half minutes? I forgot how many minutes we have to deliver every night to the network. We’ve got like 41 minutes to deliver every night. And the sense of obligation, or the sense of responsibility, is not something that actually sparks the creative flame. But because it’s actually just good for the show, and it’s good for the jokes, and it helps you build on a joke, is to be accurate. We have good fact-checkers here. We stole Anderson Cooper’s fact checker for our show. And, great guy, his name is Brandon Marianacci. We got great researchers, but he’s our head researcher, and he is a really lovely guy. And, we just think that if you’re making a joke off the actual news story, with the actual data point, and then really have a jaundiced eye for garbage news sites—even if they give you the setup that you want—we just don’t use them on air. Because we know probably that’s going to get fact-checked into the grave by this time tomorrow.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
And then we won’t be able to build on the story that we’re telling day to day. In terms of, “What do I want from the show? What’s the thing that I’m always shooting for?” I’m really struck by, “What do we most want to be.” And that’s not alone. And even people who are—like, I’m essentially an introvert when I’m not in front of an audience. And some of my dearest friends are deep introverts, but I know they don’t want to be alone. It’s not the same thing. And then loneliness is a disease, and it’s a modern disease. And so I hope the show has been—it’s a term, it’s not my term, I don’t know who came up with the term, it’s probably an old term that just is salient now—but that the show has been sort of a “third space” for people.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
It’s that something that they can come at the end of the day and say, “Oh, Stephen is going to share basically the whole show’s reaction to the same day I experienced.” And it’s really important that I don’t break news to the audience. Because I’m not here to inform them. I’m here to curate. I’m curating my experience of the day, which is really their experience of the day. I also don’t want to reframe the news. There are a lot of great comedians out there—a lot of guys who do late night very good—who reframe the argument, or they reframe what the discussion was today. And I do not do that. I want to approach it in the exact same frame that my audience experienced it. Because what I’m really having with them is an emotional experience. I mean, it takes intellectual sweat to do it, but I’m sharing the emotional reaction to everything during the day. And that gives a sense that we’re really communicating with each other. And if you can do that right, it can get out over the camera. And so, to have some sense of community like that, I think that’s it. That’s mostly what I’m there for. Ultimately, we’re hanging out. I’m just the friend who won’t shut up.
REID:F
Now, you were earlier gestured at, in the interactive environment, that you’ve been thinking about AI in that context. And I’m very curious what your thoughts are, because that is an unusual bridge to AI.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
About, like, what it means to community?
REID:
Yes. Community, and what it means to the parasocial, the theatrical experience, the interactivity. So what are some of the ways that you’ve been musing about AI in this context?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
A million years ago, when I was in New York, and I guess I’d come here to work for the Dana Carvey Show, and we had been canceled that summer. I just, though hook or by crook, I ended up being involved with News Corp’s digital side. Because I had a friend who worked for News Corp—worked for Uncle Rupey. They were trying to create something—oh God, MindSpring, remember? They owned, remember MindSpring.com? And I just had dinner with this guy one night and he said, “We’re trying to figure out a way to turn this into like, I don’t know, like some sort of performance space where people could get together, and there could be some sort of literally little town he go to, there’d be venues.” And I started talking about how improvisation would—because I was an improviser and I’d been in Second City for years—and how those things would interact nicely with interactive technology.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Because we used to do this thing on stage at Second City—we did it a few times—called Global Village. Where we would get online and we would get suggestions from people all around the world about what their day had been like. And then we would perform, we would be those people in common scenes together on stage. Like somebody from Sub-Saharan Africa. Someone from South America. Someone from Asia. Someone from Europe—whatever. And we would be those people on stage. And then we would get other suggestions from them as we told them how the scene was going. It never really worked. But I really loved the idea of using improvisation to create common performance spaces online. The technology wasn’t there at the time. This was like in 1998. So that’s 27 years ago, I was thinking about doing that, how to do that.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Now, when I look at the ability of AI to create a sense of an experience for you online, like that you’re looking at a real human, that you’re hearing actual laughter, that you’re interacting with an AI human—all of that. It’s a logical extension of the capability of in a digital environment. My question—I don’t have an answer—the question is, is that ever not going to have some sense of an uncanny valley in it? Is it because art is by humans, for humans, about being human? It’s not about ideas. Because ideas are constructs, and humans are not a construct. They experience ideas, and they have emotional responses to them. And I think art is that combination of an idea that elicits an emotional response. I just don’t know if that’s ever not going to feel alien to us if it’s not presented to us by a human.
REID:
I mean, the interesting question there is, there is one question about sometimes people feel that they’re more able to express themselves, for example, talking to a chatbot because they don’t feel as potentially threatened by it as they would be another human being. I literally had a friend of mine a couple months ago say, “Claude is my best friend.” And I’m like, “Nope. Claude is not your friend. ‘Friend’ is a two-directional relationship.” But the notion where AI can be in a way that helps you navigate your own space, and also navigate even a parasocial space. For example, one of the things I think is a very easy extension is that when you’re doing meetings or discussions or other kinds of things, having AI listen and suggest things or interpret it.
REID:
I mean, one of the funny things that I didn’t anticipate with the AI assistant Pi—that my co-founded Inflection does—is people actually use it for facilitating even marital conversations. They’ll have Pi sitting there saying, “Oh, when Reid said X, maybe he was thinking about Y, or maybe this is the question,” you know, that kind of thing. And so that kind of facilitation strikes me as very possible within AI. And it complicates this space of emotional connection. It’s not disagreeing with what you just said as much as it’s a multi-threaded tapestry.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
And by the way, I just want to be clear, I did say it, but I say it as a question: Will it ever be able to get beyond? And I mean beyond uncanny valley. I really mean, in the same way that modern food—nutritionism, as Michael Pollan calls it—modern food has ostensibly everything you need. Manufactured, processed food has everything you need to be healthy. And yet there is a growing suspicion that there are micronutrients, of which we are not aware, that we are robbed of. Which is why even nutritionism, like, “This is vitamin fortified,” whatever, doesn’t matter because that is actually not the natural state of your consumption that you evolved for. So, it might get to a level that there is an ‘unidentifiable.’
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I cannot tell the difference between you and the AI you. For instance, your AI you could be you, because I’ve seen your AI you, and it looks very much like this. But there’s a micronutrient of another human being. And it might be the disappointment of the inability of the other human to help you, if you know what I mean. There might be a nutrient in the failure of the human to help you. The flawed nature of human interactions, the fact that emotion will become a part of it, because that is inextricable from our experience of the world. That might be the micronutrient that is actually excised. Because it’s the part that makes you uncomfortable when you go to talk to someone, because you fear judgment. Judgment might just be part of our experience. And I’m not saying that that’s not a good thing for you to take as a first step, but it’s like saying that the be-all end-all of sex is masturbation. Yes, it’s very freeing. There’s no judgment. You don’t feel [bad] about how you look, or how the other person might feel, or anything like that. But you are missing something essential and intimate with that.
ARIA:
A question for me would be, you talked about the parasocial relationship and, again, the love of human interaction. And I’m with you so much about the loneliness crisis and lack of community that people feel. When you think of where entertainment is going, it’s actually heading towards these parasocial relationships. It’s creators—it’s unmediated by the television shows. It’s one-on-one. It’s your Twitter feed is for you, so you get exactly what you want.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Right? I mean, some of it’s literally one-on-one. Like OnlyFans is one-on-one.
ARIA:
Absolutely. Is that good? Is that bad? When you think about the future of that…
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I think that’s fine.
ARIA:
It’s fine.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I think that’s fine. I mean, I think what entertainment starts off with, your parents making you laugh. And that makes you feel good and more comforted. And then you do it back to them and you make them laugh, and then end up finding out, “Oh, I like singing and I can sing.” And you sing for your friends, and they want to hear you sing, and then you sing at school. Like, it all starts off in little ways. I love the modern forms of entertainment that are destroying my business. I do. I had to remove Instagram from my phone because I got the reports of how much of my day I was on it. And I thought, “I got shit to do. I can’t be doing this.”
STEPHEN COLBERT:
But I find I could spend one hour on Instagram, and I could find—from random people who I’ll never even see again, I’ll never even come across their feed again—I bet in an hour I would come across 15 things that I would save in my folder and go, “Wow, that’s great.” And it’s only 90 seconds—they’re like sonnets. Or there was Barry Yourgrau—you know who Barry Yourgrau is? He’s a great author. He wrote A Man Jumps Out of an Airplane—is the first collection of short stories that made him famous in the eighties. And they’re one page long. All the short stories are one page long. And I love them. A Man Jumps Out of an Airplane. I highly recommend it. They feel like these are like Barry Yourgrau. They’re almost like, they’re great little blackout scenes.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
They’re so good. I would kill to be able to write some of these jokes, or to say whatever the thing is that succinctly and that visually. I think it’s beautiful. Now, they don’t assemble into much bigger ideas. They don’t assemble into larger emotional events. And so therefore they’re very digestible and excretable, very quickly. I can’t give you an example because of that. But I love this “new form” of entertainment. And I don’t even know if it’s new. It’s just using a very specific time restriction to be incredibly pithy. If you could have that level of entertainment for a feature-length movie, God, that would be fantastic. I think this might be finger exercises for a whole new form that we haven’t seen yet.
ARIA:
Couldn’t agree more. I actually find great joy of going on social media. I’m like, “People are hilarious! This is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen!”
STEPHEN COLBERT:
They are. And awful.
ARIA:
Sure, that too.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
And awful. Your blood feels slightly carbonated if you spend too much time on it.
REID:
One of the things we started with is talking a little bit about you have fact checkers on your show. And one of the things, obviously, you know, Instagram doesn’t. But one of the things that obviously is the huge discourse around the difference between “traditional media” and “new media” is this notion of responsibility. Responsibility of fact-checking, responsibility of standing for when you make a claim to something in the world that you’ve done something substantive to try to make that claim accurate.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
And who bears that responsibility?
REID:
Well, that’s part of the question for you, actually. And how do you think about this?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Not me. No, that’s really never been… We choose—that’s why I was talking about fact-checking—we choose to do it because it actually is good for the joke. Do you know what I mean? That’s because these shows, generally speaking—we all do them a little bit differently. But these shows, generally speaking, are about whatever the national conversation was today. We’re talking about our country, back to the country. And to the world, based on the English-speaking world, because we’re in a bunch of different countries too. But we talk about America back to America, and it really helps to try to be factually accurate. Now I’m going to give you my emotional reaction to what we believe is a factually accurate chunk of today’s story. I only have a responsibility to the work that I do. Now, the work that I do is served by being factual about it because that makes it easier to write the second joke.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Because if you make up something for your first joke, you’ve got to make up something for your second joke. You know what I mean? But one joke can build on another, and the universe will conspire to give you the next part of the story if you’re accurate about the first part of the story. It’s almost like essay writing. When you get to the end of an essay and you can’t finish your essay, it’s probably because you didn’t state your thesis very well at the top. So you have to go back at the top and go, “What was the thesis of this?” And so by being factually accurate, that is only thematically useful to us in talking about whatever that subject is. Because then there’s probably another data point you can dig and find that supports the first joke that you made. But we don’t even think about it that way.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
It’s just that “Don’t make shit up,” and you probably have a more successful set of jokes. That’s all. I mean, you can always lie to get a laugh, but that’s probably the last laugh you get on that subject. That’s all. So I feel no responsibility in that regard. People say like, “Oh, people get their news…” I’m sorry about that. I’m sorry that you get your news from me. Because I’m not trying to give you news. That’s why I never want to break news for the audience. I want it to be things that they generally know about, or I only have to explain a little bit. Because it’s all about, “Here’s my experience of the thing you experienced today.” And also, if you’re factually accurate about it, you’re more likely to hook up your jumper cables with the audience. because they heard that same fact too.
ARIA:
Well, so my question is like, I feel the humanness—you like Taylor Swift’s songs, it has a great hook, but you also like it because Taylor Swift created it. There’s something again about the human creation. When people think about AI—in addition to the reason I’m so excited about it is medical assistant, and breakthroughs, and breast cancer, and all of these other things. But when you think about it in the context of entertainment, people talk about how it can be so personalized. So people could create for you a personalized whatever, next Lord of the Rings that has Stephen Colbert’s sensibilities. And people could write jokes that just don’t break news for you because your level of news is X, Y, Z, or someone else’s is, they read the Times today, and this person read this. And so the personalization is one of the things that AI does best. Is that interesting to you? Or are you like, “Eh, I’m not moved by that. That’s not the future we want to see of entertainment.”
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I mean, what you described was sort of theoretical. So I don’t know whether I would like it, because I haven’t had that experience. I mean, it may already exist. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I just haven’t had that experience. So maybe I would love it, but I generally don’t go to even the things that I go to the most to have my experience reflected back at me. I want to delve into something that’s a discovery. There’s discovery and there’s invention. And what you’re talking about, I think, is invention. Something gets invented just for your needs, as opposed to discovery, which is always going to be greater than you could have thought of. And so, as somebody who started off as improvisation, the way I used to think about why you didn’t want to go in with pat material.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Why you didn’t want to go in with what we call trunk. You didn’t want to go with the same old, same old every time. Because that was invention. You can only invent what’s inside of yourself. The thing that you want and the thing that you achieve through creative engineering—if you know what I mean. Which is craft. And there’s nothing wrong with craft. But discovery is superior because discovery is outside of yourself. Discovery is something that you couldn’t have thought of. Discovery is a whole new world. And even for things—like let’s say the Lord of the Rings, which I go back to over, and over, and over again. And one of my writers this morning pitched and said, “I think that if I gave myself six months, I could beat you in a Lord of the Rings quiz.” And I said, “I mean, if you wanted to have nothing in your life for six months, but this.” But that’s what it would require is to have nothing in your life.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Because I read those books when I was 12, and there were times when I had nothing in my life but those books. And I lost track of reading them at 50—the number of times I read Lord of the Rings. And I spend all my time listening to Lord of the Rings. I spent all of my time, still to this day, listening to lecture series. I’m listening to Corey Olsen’s lecture series on Lord of the Rings right now called “Exploring the Lord of the Rings.” It’s the fourth or fifth lecture series I’ve listened to from him. We’re on episode 344. Every episode is at least an hour and a half long, and maybe covers a page. Maybe covers a page. We’re not even done with the first book. And we’re on episode 344, and he’s talking about, let’s take these four lines, and what is implied by those four lines. So the only reason I tell you all that is not to brag about what a chemo psychosis I fall into when it comes to Lord of the Rings, or how dependent I am upon it. I tell you that because I don’t go to do that because I know everything. Or I don’t go in to do that because I wanted just what I believe fed back to me. I want to know more about something.
REID:
Obviously, there’s that infinite depth of story, and creativity, and expression. Because I was also, by the way, a Lord of the Rings geek. I think if we were to do a quiz show, I think you would knock me out in round one. But what does Lord of the Rings—in addition to this rich creativity, storytelling, narrative universe—what does it mean for you? And does it inform at all how you look around at the world today?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Yes. Okay. What does ‘mean’ mean in this instance? And I don’t mean to talk about what your definition of ‘is,’ is. What is the tendency of the story? What is the arithmetic mean? Not the average, but what is the tendency of the experiences of the book? And they tend to be about a lot of it’s about the natural world. A lot of it is in suspicion of abstracting from the natural world. In other words, secondary creation. Or sub-creation. Tolkien talks a lot about sub-creation. And that sub-creation was a natural tendency of human beings. And that we are made, by definition, by a creator—in his worldview. And that we have that in us, and in the likeness of that creator, we wish to sub-create as well.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Sub-creation is a big part of his work. And also a big pitfall is to love too well the work of your own hands is a great sin. And that your sub-creation should be in accord with creation and not in domination of that. That’s the pitfall I believe that Professor would have with AI: is that you love too well the work of your own hand, and that you replace the experience of the creation with your own sub-creation. Sauron is an illusionist. When he’s Annatar, the bringer of gifts, he says, “Ah, he clothes himself in beauty.” But it’s false. Because his heart is dark, and there’s nothing he can create that doesn’t have the darkness in it. But even people with the best of intentions in Tolkien’s world fall too in love with the thing that they’ve created. Fëanor creates the Silmarils, which is the ultimate sin.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
The original sin in the entire cosmology, the entire mythos, is there’s the greatest alpha of all time Fëanor—whom his name means spirit of fire. Fëanor wants the light of the two trees, Telperion and Laurelin, which was the light of the world. They weren’t the first light; they were the second or third lights of the world. But these are the two trees that light the world along with the stars. And he captures the light of the two trees in these three gems called the Silmarils. And then the two trees get killed—by Morgoth and Ungoliant, the great spider mother of Shelob. And Morgoth, the boss of Sauron. And Yavanna, who is basically the mother of the trees, goes, “If you give me the light, I can bring these trees back, and there’ll be light in the world again. Give me the gems.” And he goes, “Well, what’s going to happen to the gems?” She goes, “Well, I’d have to break them and release the light to bring the two trees back.” And he goes, “No, you don’t understand what I have done to create these. I can only do, once. It took everything I know. And there was a specific moment essentially that allowed me to do this. A moment of inspiration that allowed me to create this thing. And I would die if these things were to die. And so I would rather the world be in darkness and I have the only light, rather than to help anyone else.” That is loving too much the work of your own hand, even though he loves the light of heaven—essentially—in them. So those are themes. Another theme is, well, sacrifice. What is Fëanor not willing to do?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
He’s not willing to sacrifice something he loves. What is the great sacrifice of Galadriel? Frodo offers her the ring. And she says, “I confess that I’ve long desired this, and if I took this, I would be a queen. And beautiful and terrible, and all would look up at me, and all would love me in despair.” Because she wants to be the queen of all Middle-earth. That’s in her, that’s why she’s there. She’s not an unalloyed good character. But she passes on that. And then she says this great line, which is, “I pass the test. I will diminish and pass into the west and remain Galadriel.” Because that’s about the acceptance of the world as it is, not seizing power to manipulate into the world that you want it to be. Which isn’t to say you can’t improve conditions. But seeking power in Tolkien’s world is rejecting the world that was created for you. I mean, all those things, come on. All those things. Anyway, that’s a short answer.
REID:
[Laugh]
STEPHEN COLBERT:
[Laugh]
REID:
That’s an excellent answer. And there it draws parallels to some of the ways that I think about Lord of the Rings, which is the role of power in human life and society, which is the craft of remaking nature, and so forth. And the potential that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is part of the Sauron versus Galadriel. And you can look at the two towers as Saruman and Galadriel—two different, so-called warriors for the good, making different decisions on power. And of course, that’s emphasized by your nature comments by Saruman’s destruction of the Ent forest around him. Anyways, there’s very parallel points of view there.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
And there’s a great letter—I think it’s letter 144—by Tolkien. And he says, “The story is cast in terms of a good side and a bad side. Beauty against ruthless ugliness. Tyranny against kingship.” Which is interesting dichotomy in Tolkien’s mind. Because we would see kingship as tyranny. But, “Tyranny against kingship. Moderated freedom with consent.” In other words, we’re free. There have to be moderations on freedom so we can live within society. And that has to be done with consent. “Moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object, save mere power.” And I think that is a big struggle going on right now, is that can we accept moderated freedom with consent, or are we going to end up ruled by those who have lost any object, save mere power. And I think that’s the great danger of our moment.
REID:
So this might be a good moment to come back on, kind of, AI. [Laugh]
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Sure.
REID:
What I’ve been trying to try to help reform a lens on how we think of ourselves as less Homo sapiens, more Homo techne. The way that we express ourselves as human beings through technology. I think language is a form of technology. I think that the question about like, how we evolve, because obviously, genetic is very slow.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Could get way faster with your help from your friend AI.
REID:
Yes, exactly. But AI is, I think, that form of that technological journey of homo techne. And I think that doesn’t mean that all technology is inherently good and useful. Like, if we end up creating a nuclear tarball of a planet, we will have seriously fucked up. But the question is it also creates a lot of what is, I think, the ability to do more human things. It’s the broad-based middle-class, and education, and literacy, and ability to have leisure, to have a theater, and have a stage. And I think technology is the enablement of that path. And I think AI is that. And so it will naturally be that most likely.
REID:
And we have to shape it some, but there’s everything from the utility of it—like a medical assistant that’s there 24/7 in every pocket. It isn’t just getting new drug molecules, but the vast majority of the eight plus billion people on the planet do not have easy access to a doctor, so a medical assistant. But also, I think to the learning path, AI is the best learning technology—learning being part of how we elevate as human beings—that has been invented, even including the book. Now builds on the book as a way of doing it. And so that’s part of the humanness of AI that I think is actually in fact really important and part of the reason why I keep trying to pitch you. And I know that you’re not an AI skeptic, but actually, that we can see a lens to a more human future with AI.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
That could very well be the case. I’m not just not an AI skeptic, I’m an AI ignorant. I am speaking about what I perceive from the outside, and I kind of like being on the outside. I kind of like—like show me the evidence of what it’s done. Don’t get me hooked on my excitement of the possibility. I’ll invest a lot in my excitement about the possibility. I know that. Because the same reason why I don’t have my tarot read is that I don’t actually believe the tarot is right, but those images are so powerful that I’ll invest them with my excitement and my belief in them. And I’ll do this with AI too. I’m just hanging fire here and going, “Show me the thing that couldn’t happen before. What is the thing that could not happen before?” That may have moved beyond potentiality. You might be able to give me ten right now. I just don’t know what they are.
REID:
I think AI is already good enough that consulting it for a second opinion, that’s important and different than a first opinion, is actually in fact really useful.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I don’t mean to be obdurate but every example I get, I always want to go, “Okay, well, at the base of this argument is: Why should this be coming? Why should I get this from AI, not from a human? Why is this better than this being a human doing this?”
ARIA:
I think access is huge. I think that you and I can get a second opinion, costlessly. But I think so many people can’t. So that is actually what’s exciting to me. So much technology centralizes. But the idea that, of course, a human is better—yeah, I’d love to go to a human therapist, but I can’t afford a human therapist because I don’t have $200 a week. So even if it’s actually inferior to humans, the access that more people get—it is better than nothing. You might not be there, but…
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I’m a hundred percent on board with you. You’re absolutely right. Therapy is not the best example.
ARIA:
Forget that I said that. Rewind.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Just medical, medical. You’re absolutely right. That’s very narrow-sided of me. You’re absolutely right. And as you say, in many parts of the world, there is no access to any medical care anywhere. And you could have a medical station manned by AI, someplace else. Therapy, that’s about, “What is being alive?” I would find that—I mean, I have trouble trusting a therapist about knowing what [it is like] being alive, let alone… I mean, it took me a long time to go, “You might understand what I’m saying.” Listen, I love my job, but I can’t do it forever. I’m just curious, if I was going to have another career after this, and involve AI in it, what would it be? What would you recommend? What am I, 61? Let’s say 62. Let’s say 63, let’s say 65. Let’s give me four more years of this show.
REID:
Well, I do think people are already finding that it amplifies writers. I find that the second opinion thing, like I start with anytime that—like for example, Aria is familiar with this, is—anytime I start thinking about something, I’ll actually do an AI research query. And Aria knows my thinking well enough, I could just send over the query to her, and she goes, “Oh, this is what he’s elaborating and thinking on.” And it creates a faster move between us as a way of creating things. So, if I have a hobby, it’s like creating board games. I’ve been thinking about different patterns that you could make with these battle card games. And so I did a prompt, and I just sent it over to Aria, and she’s like, “Oh, I see where he is thinking.”
REID:
Because I was thinking, “Give me an index of all the different rule sets, and line that up to these themes that I’m thinking about,” and da, da, da, da. And that creates a, “Hey, this could be a fun project to create.” And it’s more of a question of how do you use AI to extend your creativity, your gestures. And I think that those exist now. It isn’t, per se, I think, even now, a particularly good joke writer. I mean, we talked about this on your show.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Sure, there’s very serviceable jokes.
REID:
Yeah. It’s dad jokes and other kinds of things. It’s fine. It’s, you know, “How many Reid Hoffman does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but he has to bring his whole network,” you know, that kind of thing. That’s a ChatGPT-written light bulb joke. But you directing it and using it as a set of orchestral tools, that becomes very possible, very real.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Is it presently being used—it must be, right—presently being used in video game development?
REID:
Yes.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Because, I mean, one of the great struggles of video game development has always been randomization of the experience.
REID:
So that’s totally doable. A lot of the earliest things in AI for video game is making it much faster and quicker to develop a bunch of different assets—the picture of the scenario, the characters, and all the rest. There’s NPC characters that are now much more intelligent because they’re backed by AI. But that’s just obviously the very beginning of what becomes possible.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I feel like I’ve been way too tough on AI in this conversation when I really am excited for whatever it brings. I just have a natural skepticism of technology. Well, this technology specifically because how much science fiction I’ve read. And also my love of how much I love humans and how bad humans are at things.
REID:
And now to rapid fire. Is there a movie, song, or book that fills you with optimism for the future?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Well, I mean, when you think about optimism for the future and you think about books, my mind often goes to science fiction, of course. And I would say some of the most optimistic visions of the future are—even in his darker stories—are Asimov because he believes in the power of technology. And Asimov, as you know, wrote in—every section of the Dewey Decimal system has an Asimov book in it. And so he was this polymath who believed in knowledge and was really a product of enlightenment thinking. And what makes me hopeful for the future is that kind of science fiction. And not that there aren’t going to be dark times, not that there aren’t going to be great falls of civilization, but that really, toward the scientific and the rational is the right way to go. Without losing sight of the human experience.
ARIA:
Alright, rapid fire number two.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Oh God.
ARIA:
Yeah, you’re good. You’re good. What is a question that you wish you got asked more often?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Can I get you something to drink?
ARIA:
Great. Done.
REID:
So, where do you see progress or momentum, outside of comedy, that inspires you?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
José Andrés inspires me. World Central Kitchen. The simplicity of the—simplicity of their message. “We feed people.” That’s their motto. We feed people. And it’s a complex organization. Now, because it’s so big. But their mission has not changed. Something terrible happens, they go try to feed people with whatever they’ve got. It’s very improvisational. They just go like, “Do you have any pans?” “We have sheet metal.” “Fine, we’ll bang them into pans.” You know what I mean? Like, whatever they got. Because it’s, you know, it’s going to be paella at the end of the day.
REID:
Or pasta.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
Yeah. Yeah, exactly.
ARIA:
Can you leave us with a final thought on what you think is possible to achieve if everything breaks humanity’s way in the next 15 years? And what’s our first step to get in that direction?
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I think I don’t even know if these are good goals, but some of them are just goals that I would like. And I think they would be inspirational. I mean, I think going back to the moon would be good. I think people walking on the moon would be good. I think there is something sinister with the fact that we haven’t done it. Because I think that is a unifying moment for someone. I don’t care if it’s us. Let the Chinese do it. Let the Russians do it. Let the Indians do it. Let the Kiwis do it for Pete’s sake—they’ve got a space program. And I don’t know, just get back up there. Get back up there. You know, this is too small of a basket, as Heinlein says. Earth is too small of a basket for humanity to keep all its eggs.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
And I’m not even saying that—like, boy, living on other planets is going to be very difficult, I don’t know if terraforming is a possibility. But just to know that that kind of achievement is possible, I think, would have a unifying psychological effect for mankind. If anybody would believe that it was happening, because another conspiracy would come up. “That’s not even the moon anymore. That was actually papier-mache.” But I think that would be interesting thing. I don’t know if it’s possible, but I think if you give me 15 years to dream—if I’m allowed to dream over technological advances, especially with our friend AI joining in the fight here—hey, I’ve lost too many friends to cancer. I think wrangling the most difficult cancers to the ground. A lot of progress over some of the more common cancers, but some of the most terrible—pancreatic cancer, or brain cancer, those things—that are very difficult to treat. That would be great. I would take a smart pill. If someone could give me a pill—like one of those Limitless pills—I would take one of those. Those have got to be coming, right? There’s no downside to that, possibly, is there?
REID:
[Laugh] No.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
I’m just hoping in the next 15 years that someone could paint a picture of me that I could keep in my attic. That it would grow old and I would stay young forever.
ARIA:
I’ve heard about this…
REID:
Dorian Colbert.
STEPHEN COLBERT:
There you go.
REID:
[Laugh]
REID:
Possible is produced by Wonder Media Network. It’s hosted by Aria Finger and me, Reid Hoffman. Our showrunner is Shaun Young. Possible is produced by Katie Sanders, Edie Allard, Thanasi Dilos, Sara Schleede, Vanessa Handy, Alyia Yates, Paloma Moreno Jimenez, and Melia Agudelo. Jenny Kaplan is our executive producer and editor.
ARIA:
Special thanks to Surya Yalamanchili, Saida Sapieva, Ian Alas, Greg Beato, Parth Patil, and Ben Relles. And a big thanks to Steve Bodow, Bette Hald, Dan Bodansky, and Anna Steinmetz.