The dismissal of the uncertainty of human behavior flies in the face of recent developments in areas like Quantum Neuroscience and Quantum Computing. In Quantum Computing, the faster and more complex machines are starting to do many of the odd things that humans do that are NOT LOGICAL. This is being attributed to, at least by some researchers, Quantum Effects that are not fully understood. Humans, being electrochemical and electromechanical creatures, are subject to these same effects. Predicting human behavior is not simply a "data problem." Mr. Keller has a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, but is NOT an expert at the same level as Lex Fridman. Mr. Keller's odd exuberance that leads him to suggest repeatedly that so many problems are "simple" is one of the reasons that Tesla has had many early problems with its autopilot. Musk is not some messiah. He is a man who clearly has mental health issues and whose disjointed thinking may be brilliant at times, but is often obtuse and driven by blind ambition. For those outside of science or math, his ideas sounds "revolutionary," but when you only see rare quarters of profit, and constant missing of production deadlines, the picture is a lot less "revolutionary" than troubling. Mr. Keller seems to mirror some of the same quirks of thought that are troubling in Elon Musk. Bring on the hate now. Peace out.,(reply>), "[...]are NOT LOGICAL[...]" I'm no physicist, but from my understanding of quantum physics, this isn't correct? The algorithms built into quantum computers are still algorithms, and algorithms are directly isomorphic to first degree predicate logic (and even deeper, if your argument extends to higher mathematical proofs, see "Curry-Howard Correspondence"). As far as I know, the mechanisms in a quantum computer (and q. particles in general) are probabilistic in nature, that is, there is a chance that the algorithm, will fail because the certainty of the wave collapsing into the predicted state is probabilistic. I could write the following function (in C): bool f(int x, int y) { bool ret = (x &lt;= y); if((rand() % 10000) == 0) { return !ret }; return ret; }; this function f would true if  x &lt;= y in 99999 times out of 10000 (and likewise false in 99999 times out of 10000, if not) but this wouldn't make the function not logical, just dependent on the rand() function. For the sake of clarity: I just used the rand() function for simplicity, assume that it enjoys the same level of randomness as, say a Geiger counter would.