How Steve Bannon and a Chinese Billionaire Created a Right-Wing Coronavirus Media Sensation nyti.ms/38YmuMV
Sent from my U.S.Cellular© Smartphone
Author: Jim
Watch – Yuval Noah Harari on the Rise of Homo Deus
Yuval Noah Harari on the Rise of Homo Deus
“Studying history aims to loosen the grip of the past… It will not tell us what to choose, but at least it gives us more options.” – Yuval Noah Harari
Yuval Noah Harari is the star historian who shot to fame with his international bestseller ‘Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind’. In that book Harari explained how human values have been continually shifting since our earliest beginnings: once we placed gods at the centre of the universe; then came the Enlightenment, and from then on human feelings have been the authority from which we derive meaning and values. Now, using his trademark blend of science, history, philosophy and every discipline in between, Harari argues in his new book ‘Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow’, our values may be about to shift again – away from humans, as we transfer our faith to the almighty power of data and the algorithm.
In conversation with Kamal Ahmed, the BBC’s economics editor, Harari examined the political and economic revolutions that look set to transform society, as technology continues its exponential advance. What will happen when artificial intelligence takes over most of the jobs that people do? Will our liberal values of equality and universal human rights survive the creation of a massive new class of individuals who are economically useless? And when Google and Facebook know our political preferences better than we do ourselves, will democratic elections become redundant? As the 21st century progresses, not only our society and economy but our bodies and minds could be revolutionised by new technologies such as genetic engineering, nanotechnology and brain-computer interfaces. After a few countries master the enhancement of bodies and brains, will they conquer the planet while the rest of humankind is driven to extinction?
As AI develops engineers and software developers will be forced to employ philosophers in their product development as they are already doing with biological experts.
https://youtu.be/JJ1yS9JIJKs?t=1597
Watch – How Thomas Friedman and Yuval Noah Harari Think About The Future of Humanity
How Thomas Friedman and Yuval Noah Harari Think About The Future of Humanity
Two of the greatest thought leaders of the 21st century– Yuval Noah Harari and Thomas L. Friedman – discuss the Future of Humanity on March 19, 2018, with moderator Rachel Dry, The New York Times. “How To Understand Our Times” is an event series collaboration between The New York Times and how to: Academy bringing together New York Times journalists and leading figures in diverse fields to examine pressing issues in a changing world, including gender equality, artificial intelligence, and alternatives to fossil fuels, among others. For upcoming events, visit timesevents.nytimes.com.
From the beginning: https://youtu.be/5chp-PRYq-w
From here https://youtu.be/5chp-PRYq-w?t=1883
… Mom Dad never asked your kids today
31:26
what you want to be when you grow up
31:28
because whatever it is not
31:29
be here unless it’s policemen or firemen
31:32
okay only ask your kid today how you
31:36
want to be when you grow up. Will you
31:38
have an agile learning mindset will you
31:39
be predisposed to be a lifelong learner
31:42
long after you’ve left home and mom and
31:44
dad are not there to say Yuval all have
31:46
you done your homework and that leads to
31:49
what I think is really roiling societies
31:51
today and and and you’ve all touched on
31:53
this with these people might be out of
31:55
work which is something I learned from
31:57
marina gorebyss who runs the institute
Full Transcript
Yuval Noah Harari of course is a
00:01
best-selling author and thinker whose
00:04
work engages us in the history of
00:07
humanity and where we’re heading
00:10
Thomas Friedman is also a best-selling
00:12
author and columnist who for decades has
00:15
been a guide to the world for readers of
00:18
his columns and his books were in very
00:21
good hands for the evening without
00:23
further ado please welcome to the stage
00:25
you’ve all her Aria and Thomas Friedman
00:30
[Applause]
00:43
so you’ve all we’re gonna begin with you
00:46
obviously we think about the future we
00:48
think about what’s happening in the
00:49
world and what is setting the global
00:52
agenda and if you could speak about the
00:54
global agenda yeah I think the first
00:58
thing to say about the global agenda is
01:00
that it exists there is a global agenda
01:04
which is not self-evident these days
01:07
because with all the talk at least about
01:11
the rise of nationalism and tribalism
01:14
and the clash of civilizations and so
01:16
forth we sometimes tend to forget that
01:19
in a very deep sense all of humanity
01:22
today constitutes a single civilization
01:26
yes we have a lot of conflicts but every
01:29
civilization every community every
01:31
family has a lot of conflicts the people
01:35
you fight most with are your family
01:38
members not with strangers because they
01:40
are there so the fact that the world is
01:44
full of conflict doesn’t mean that we
01:47
are not a single community or a single
01:50
civilization and I think in a deep sense
01:55
almost all humans today or at least
01:58
almost all countries today understand
02:01
the fundamentals of reality in the same
02:05
way they understand politics in the same
02:09
way if you think about China the USA
02:12
Iran or Israel they understand the
02:15
basics of politics in the same way the
02:18
basics of economics in the same way and
02:21
the basics of nature in the same way
02:24
they argue about a lot of things but
02:27
when it comes time to build a hospital
02:31
or an economy or a nuclear bomb they do
02:36
it in the same way and just as we have a
02:40
set of similar ideas and practices we
02:45
also all of humanity we have a set of
02:50
common problems global problems
02:54
can only be solved on a global level and
02:57
of these global problems the three most
03:01
important of nuclear war climate change
03:04
and technological disruption now the
03:07
first two are quite familiar by now the
03:11
third technological disruption is the
03:15
most mysterious most people don’t really
03:20
understand what’s coming even most
03:23
experts cannot really say what kinds of
03:27
threats what kind of dangers the new
03:30
technologies especially AI artificial
03:33
intelligence and bioengineering will
03:37
create there are a lot of scenarios
03:41
scary scenarios like if you think about
03:44
artificial intelligence so one scary
03:46
scenario is that it will lead to the
03:49
emergence to the rise of a global
03:52
useless class just as the Industrial
03:56
Revolution of the 19th century created
03:59
the urban working class so the
04:02
automation revolution of the 21st
04:05
century might create the useless class
04:08
and much of the political and social
04:11
history of the coming decades might
04:14
revolve around the problems and the
04:16
hopes and the fears of this new class
04:19
another danger is that new technologies
04:24
might lead to the collapse of liberal
04:27
democracy especially if you think about
04:31
the combination the merger of biotech
04:35
and Infotech they might very soon reach
04:40
the point when they create systems they
04:45
create algorithms that understand us
04:48
better than we understand ourselves and
04:52
once you have an external algorithm that
04:56
understands you better than you
04:58
understand yourself liberal democracy as
05:01
we have known it for the last century or
05:04
so is
05:05
doomed it will have to adapt to the new
05:09
conditions it will have to reinvent
05:11
itself in a radical new form or it will
05:14
collapse because you can say that the
05:18
Achilles heel of liberal democracy is
05:21
the heart liberal democracy trusts in
05:26
the feelings of human beings and that
05:29
worked as long as nobody could
05:33
understand your feelings better than you
05:35
yourself or your mother but if there is
05:41
an algorithm out there that understands
05:44
your feelings better than your mother
05:46
and can press your emotional buttons
05:49
better than your mother and you won’t
05:51
even understand that this is happening
05:54
then liberal democracy will become an
05:57
emotional puppet show and we have these
06:00
you know these slogans of listen to your
06:04
heart follow your heart but what happens
06:07
if your heart is a foreign agent is a
06:10
double agent serving somebody else who
06:14
knows how to press your emotional
06:17
buttons who knows how to make you angry
06:20
how to make you bold how to make you
06:24
joyful this is the kind of threat that
06:27
we are already beginning to see emerging
06:30
today for example elections and
06:33
referendums so really I would say that
06:38
the three big challenges the three top
06:41
items on our global agenda is how to
06:45
prevent nuclear war how to prevent
06:49
climate change and how to learn to
06:53
control the new technology before it
06:57
learns to control us thank you we think
07:03
about the future we are the future of
07:05
humanity we obviously have to think
07:06
about our understanding
07:08
of the world I wondered if you could
07:09
talk a little bit about how you
07:11
understand the world today
07:13
well first of all Rachel’s great to be
07:14
with you and devolopment thank you all
07:16
for coming out this is a real treat so
07:20
in my last you know as a columnist one
07:23
of the things I’m always asking myself
07:24
is um how does the Machine work what are
07:26
the biggest gears employees shaping or
07:29
reshaping the world today and in my last
07:32
book thank you for being late I picking
07:34
up really on some of the themes you’ve
07:35
all spoke about I argued that what is
07:37
shaping more things in more places in
07:39
more ways on more days is that we’re in
07:41
the middle three nonlinear accelerations
07:44
with the three largest forces on the
07:45
planet which I call the market mother
07:48
nature and Moore’s law so a mother
07:51
nature for me is climate change
07:52
biodiversity loss and population growth
07:55
in the developing world if you put that
07:58
on a graph it actually looks like a
07:59
giant hockey stick the market for me is
08:02
globalization but not your grandfather’s
08:05
globalization that was containers on
08:07
ships and planes that’s actually flat to
08:09
going down right now but digital
08:11
globalization so everything’s being
08:12
digitized and globalized put that on a
08:14
graph whether it’s measuring data
08:16
consumed per month or cellphones it
08:18
looks like a hockey stick and lastly
08:21
Moore’s Law coined by Gordon Moore in
08:23
1965 the co-founder of Intel argued that
08:26
the speed and power of microchips will
08:28
double every 24 months it’s closer to 30
08:30
months now but never mind Moore’s law
08:32
has held up for 53 years put it on a
08:36
graph it looks like a giant hockey stick
08:39
so we’re actually in the middle of three
08:41
hockey stick accelerations all at the
08:44
same time and I believe it’s the
08:45
interaction between them that really is
08:48
not just changing our world it’s it’s
08:50
reshaping our world and it’s reshaping
08:51
five realms in particular politics
08:54
geopolitics ethics the community in the
08:58
workplace so as I think about politics
09:02
right now that some of these on
09:04
everybody’s mind you know one of the
09:06
things you really see is that political
09:08
parties all over the world here in the
09:10
UK in the United States they’re blowing
09:11
up some are in power so they think
09:14
they’re alive but they’re all basically
09:15
dead and that’s because they in my view
09:20
they were all
09:21
warned of an industrial age model that
09:24
the central theme was capitalism versus
09:27
labor or big government versus small
09:30
government and the axis of politics was
09:32
left to right and right to left um what
09:35
I would argue and this is gets to how I
09:37
think about the world today is that um
09:40
that model is no longer relevant
09:42
I think the way to think about politics
09:45
today is through the model of climate
09:46
change but I think we’re in the middle
09:48
of three climate changes at once a first
09:51
friend the change of the climate of the
09:52
climate we’re going from what I call
09:54
later to now so when I was growing up in
09:57
Minnesota in the 50s and 60s later was
10:00
when I could clean that Lake repair that
10:02
River
10:02
save that for us rescue that orangutan I
10:05
could do it now or I could do it later
10:07
well today later is officially over
10:10
later will now be too late so whatever
10:13
you’re gonna save please save it now
10:15
that’s a climate change we’re going
10:17
through a change in the climate of
10:18
globalization I think we’re going from
10:20
an interconnected world to an
10:22
interdependent world and an
10:24
interdependent world you get a kind of
10:26
geopolitical invert inversion where
10:29
you’re first of all your friends your
10:31
friends start to be able to kill you
10:32
faster than your enemies um you have
10:35
Greek and Italian banks go under tonight
10:37
this room is half-full a Greece Italy
10:40
wait a min NATO there in the EU in an
10:42
interdependent world they can kill us
10:44
and an interdependent world your rivals
10:47
falling is actually more dangerous than
10:49
your rivals rising so if China take six
10:52
more islands in the South China Sea
10:53
tonight don’t quote me on this couldn’t
10:56
care less
10:56
um if China loses 6% growth tonight this
11:01
room is empty
11:02
that’s a climate change and lastly we’re
11:05
going through a change in the climate of
11:07
business and technology I’m a big
11:09
believer that um one reason I focus on
11:12
technology so much I’m a big believer
11:14
that whatever can be done will be done
11:16
the only question in business is will it
11:18
be done by you or to you but just don’t
11:21
think it won’t be done so I’m going to
11:23
ask you what can be done and when you
11:24
look at AI and some of the themes that
11:27
you’ve all talked about I think every
11:29
company they can therefore must analyze
11:32
optimize
11:33
sighs customize socialize and digitize /
11:37
autumn Atty virtually any job product or
11:39
service so they can analyze now thanks
11:42
to big data they can find the needle in
11:44
the haystack of their data as the norm
11:46
not the exception they can optimize I
11:49
flew here on British Airways rolls-royce
11:51
engines those engines actually connected
11:53
by sensor to rolls-royce and they could
11:55
tell ba exactly what altitude to fly
11:57
every mile to optimize their energy
11:59
efficiency they can prophesize you may
12:02
have seen the IBM Watson ad where the
12:04
IBM Watson repairman comes to a
12:06
high-rise building says I’m here to fix
12:07
the elevator and the doorman says the
12:10
elevators not broken and he says I know
12:11
but it will be in six weeks two three
12:13
days okay you can do predictive
12:15
analytics on anything now you can
12:17
socialize that is you could connect now
12:19
to your customers your suppliers your
12:21
employees on a horizontal way like never
12:23
before
12:24
you can customize just for guys from
12:26
Minnesota with brown eyes and a mustache
12:28
and you can digitize / autumn Atty
12:31
virtually any job product or service you
12:33
put all those together and every
12:36
business today finds himself in the
12:38
middle of the climate change so as I
12:40
thought about that I thought well what
12:42
do you want when the climate changes I
12:44
think you want two things you want
12:45
resilience maybe I’ll take a blow
12:47
because you get disruptive behavior when
12:48
the climate changes but you also want
12:50
propulsion you want to be able to move
12:51
ahead you don’t be curled up in a ball
12:53
under your bed waiting for the climate
12:55
change to pass so as I thought about
12:57
that I said who do I go to to find how
13:01
you get resilience and propulsion when
13:03
the climate changes then I realize I
13:05
knew this woman she was 3.8 billion
13:07
years old
13:08
her name was Mother Nature and she dealt
13:09
with more climate changes than anybody
13:11
so I called her up made an appointment
13:13
went out to see her um and I sat down I
13:17
said mother nature how do you produce
13:19
resilience in propulsion and when the
13:22
climate changes she said well Tom
13:24
everything I do I have to tell you I do
13:26
unconsciously but um these are my
13:28
strategies um first of all she said I’m
13:31
incredibly adaptive in my world it’s not
13:33
the smartest that survive it’s not the
13:34
strongest it’s actually the most
13:36
adaptive that that bet survived and I do
13:39
what she said through a rather brutal
13:40
mechanism I call natural selection
13:43
second she said I’m incredibly
13:45
entrepreneurial where
13:46
I see an opening in nature a blank space
13:48
I fill it with a planter animal
13:50
perfectly adapted for that niche third
13:53
she said I’m incredibly pluralistic Oh
13:55
Tom she said I’m the most pluralistic
13:58
person you’ve ever met
13:59
I tried 20 different species of
14:00
everything see who wins and she did tell
14:03
me something interesting she told me her
14:04
most diverse ecosystems are her most
14:06
resilient and propulsive ecosystems of
14:10
course she told me she’s totally
14:12
sustainable in a circular way everything
14:14
is food eat food poop seed eat food poop
14:17
seed nothing is wasted um v she said I’m
14:20
incredibly high bred and heterodox in my
14:22
thinking nothing dogmatic about me I’ll
14:25
try any trees with any soils any bees
14:27
with any flowers and lastly she did
14:29
mention that she does believe in the
14:31
laws of bankruptcy she told me she kills
14:34
all her failures returns them to the
14:35
great manufacturer in the sky and takes
14:38
their energy to nourish her successes
14:40
well my argument is that the community
14:42
the country the government and the
14:46
business that most closely mirrors
14:48
mother nature strategies for building
14:50
resilience and propulsion when the
14:52
climate changes is the one that will
14:54
thrive in this age of acceleration and
14:55
since when I was writing my book it was
14:58
the 216 election I actually imagine what
15:00
if Mother Nature was running against
15:02
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016
15:04
and so I created mother nature’s
15:06
political party based on these
15:08
strategies I won’t go into it I’m just
15:11
close by saying that on some issues
15:13
Mother Nature she’s out there on the
15:15
left with Bernie Sanders um because she
15:18
believes in universal health care and
15:19
making lifelong learning completely tax
15:22
free cuz she understands in this world
15:25
that you vols describing it’s gonna be
15:28
too damn fast for a lot of people so she
15:30
wants to strengthen our safety nets to
15:31
bounce people back into the game
15:33
and protect him but at the same time
15:34
mother nature would be out there on the
15:37
right with the Wall Street Journal
15:38
editorial page she’d actually be for
15:40
abolishing all corporate taxes only
15:42
unlike our Republican Party she’d
15:44
replaced them with a carbon tax a tax on
15:47
sugar attacks on bullets and a small
15:49
financial transaction tax she would get
15:52
radically entrepreneurial over here to
15:54
pay for our safety nets over here
15:56
unfortunately in our old industrial age
15:58
model of politics if you’re
16:00
for stronger safety nets he almost never
16:03
for radical entrepreneurship if your for
16:05
radical entrepreneurship you’re almost
16:07
never for stronger safety nets what
16:09
would mother nature call that stupid
16:12
that’s what she’d call it because she
16:14
would understand you will never produce
16:17
resilience
16:18
unless you’re a hybrid of these two and
16:20
because our current political parties
16:22
are not built on that model I think
16:25
they’re all struggling now to find a way
16:27
to talk about politics we’d also be
16:33
hearing from mother nature this evening
16:35
so there’s the three of us on stage and
16:37
a variety of perspective problems also
16:44
not our problems as you mentioned she is
16:49
quite keen on extinction and she does
16:54
believe in that and she wouldn’t care if
16:58
we are unable to cope with our problems
17:02
and go extinct also she wouldn’t care
17:05
very much if humankind splits and say a
17:10
small percentage becomes a new species
17:13
better adapted to the new conditions and
17:17
a couple of billions just go in the way
17:20
of the Neanderthals and the mammoths and
17:23
all that so it’s very good to learn from
17:27
mother nature but copying her methods
17:31
too closely would be I think very bad
17:34
news for a lot of people my you’ve
17:37
always get the best out of her and
17:39
cushion the worst because and I I do
17:42
agree with you your mother nature my one
17:45
of my science teachers talked about this
17:50
that she just chemistry biology and
17:52
physics that’s all she is
17:54
you can’t talk her up you can’t talk her
17:56
down can’t say mother nature were we’re
17:59
having a recession this year could we
18:01
take a year off on the climate um she’s
18:03
gonna actually do whatever chemistry
18:05
biology and physics dictate and to put
18:07
it in American baseball terms mother
18:09
nature always bats last
18:11
and she always bats a thousand so do not
18:14
mess with mother nature which is exactly
18:16
what we’re doing
18:17
I wonder where obviously I’m talking on
18:21
a long-term framework here but of course
18:27
I imagine many of you came here tonight
18:29
thinking about you know what’s
18:31
immediately in front of you
18:32
what news alerts are on your phones what
18:36
what tom I believe you’ve referred to
18:41
the American president as a brain-eating
18:43
disease perhaps what he might be up to
18:46
what else is going on both speak to how
18:50
we deal with what is unrelenting in
18:54
front of us while thinking about the
18:57
broader challenges that you’ve outlined
18:58
how do we do both at once how do we
19:00
adapt to do both at once first of all
19:05
can we have a bit more light on the
19:07
audience because it’s very difficult to
19:09
see who I’m talking to
19:10
it’s just a sea of darkness and it’s
19:13
nice to see some faces after all it’s
19:16
really about you not about us you will
19:20
have to deal with the future also yeah
19:24
it’s it’s very difficult for for people
19:27
I mean humans have proven throughout
19:29
history that they are very good when it
19:32
comes to short-term problems and
19:35
solutions but it’s extremely difficult
19:37
to foresee the long-term consequences
19:40
and one of the things that happened if
19:42
we talk about then various climate
19:45
changes is that time is accelerating so
19:49
thousands of years ago something like
19:52
the Agricultural Revolution takes
19:54
centuries even thousands of years and
19:57
the consequences of our decision today
20:01
to start growing wheat we will see or
20:06
not we somebody our descendants will see
20:09
the consequences of these this decision
20:12
in a couple of centuries maybe even in
20:15
thousands of years but now time is
20:18
accelerating so the long term is not
20:21
2,000 years or 200 years the long
20:24
term is 20 years we are really in an
20:28
unprecedented situation in history when
20:31
nobody knows the basics about how the
20:35
world would look like in 20 or 30 years
20:38
not just the basics of geopolitics who
20:41
would be the big superpowers in 20 or 30
20:44
years or what will be the major
20:46
alliances in the world in 20 30 years we
20:50
don’t know much more basic stuff such as
20:53
what the job market would look like what
20:56
kind of skills people will need what
20:59
family structure would look like what
21:01
general relations would look like so
21:04
it’s really the first time in history
21:05
when we have no idea how human society
21:10
will be like in a couple of decades and
21:13
this means among other things that for
21:16
the first time in history we have no
21:18
idea what to teach in schools and so we
21:25
focus on the short term and not just on
21:28
the short term but actually we should
21:30
then go back and focus on the past
21:33
connecting to what you said about the
21:35
crisis of most political parties that
21:39
still think in terms of the 20th century
21:41
and right versus left and capitalism
21:44
versus socialism and all that I think
21:47
that politics and government in most of
21:49
the world today they are doing a far
21:51
better job than ever before in running
21:55
the day-to-day business of the of the
21:57
country it may not look like this but
21:59
I’m a medievalist so I constantly
22:02
compare the government of today to the
22:05
government of a doll the third or low
22:07
st. Louis or something like that and
22:09
it’s wonderful the world we’re living in
22:13
is really wonderful
22:14
so they are doing an excellent job in in
22:17
in the day to day business of the
22:19
country but what they have almost lost
22:22
completely is the ability to have a long
22:26
term plan for the future because they
22:30
can’t see they have no realistic vision
22:35
of against base
22:37
things like the job market in 30 years
22:39
so what you see in more and more
22:42
countries is that they look to the Past
22:45
instead of to the future and instead of
22:49
formulating meaningful visions for the
22:53
word humankind will be in 2050 they
22:57
repackage nostalgic fantasies about the
23:01
past and there is a kind of competition
23:04
who can look back farthest so you have
23:08
Donald Trump wanting to go back to the
23:11
1950s or something like that and you
23:14
have put in basically wanting to go back
23:17
to the Tsarist Empire a century after
23:20
the Bolshevik Revolution and you have
23:22
Isis that wants to go back to the
23:25
seventh century Arabia and in my country
23:27
in Israel they beat everybody they want
23:30
to go back 2500 years to the age of the
23:34
Bible so we win we have the Bell the
23:37
longest term vision backwards and this
23:43
is a as a historian I can tell you two
23:47
things about the past the past wasn’t a
23:50
very good time you don’t really want to
23:52
go back there and secondly it is not
23:56
coming back no matter what you do you
23:59
can’t bring it back and so we are facing
24:03
really a crisis of the inability of the
24:07
political system to produce meaningful
24:09
visions for the future maybe the only
24:12
place in the world where there is
24:15
serious work on producing a meaningful
24:18
vision for the future is in China
24:20
whether it’s a good vision or a bad
24:22
vision it’s a different question but
24:24
this is the one place I think where the
24:27
government is seriously thinking in
24:30
future terms and in long terms of
24:32
decades and not in terms of one or two
24:36
years and certainly not in terms of
24:38
going back decades and centuries so just
24:43
to pick up on what you’ve all said
24:45
Richie that we’re starting with Trump I
24:47
described Trump as a brain-eating
24:49
disease
24:50
because as a columnist you’re always in
24:53
this position everyday where he says or
24:56
does something so outrageous you feel if
24:58
you don’t write about it you’re
25:00
normalizing him but if you do write
25:02
about it he stoled your brains for a day
25:04
now if you do that twice a week four
25:07
times or eight times a month you’ll wake
25:09
up after a year and discover all you’ve
25:11
written about is that knucklehead and um
25:13
and he’s actually sucked your brains out
25:16
so it’s a real it’s a real challenge um
25:19
so you know my the subtitle of my book
25:22
is is an optimist guide to thriving in
25:24
the age of acceleration so everything’s
25:27
sped up and the reason it’s called thank
25:30
you for being late as the title comes
25:32
from meeting people in Washington DC for
25:34
breakfast over the years and every once
25:36
in a while someone would come 15 20
25:39
minutes late they say Tom I’m really
25:40
sorry it was the weather the traffic the
25:42
subway the dog ate my homework and um
25:44
one day three and a half years ago an
25:46
Energy entrepreneur Peter Carr cell came
25:48
three enough minutes 15 minutes late and
25:51
said I’m really sorry whether the
25:52
traffic the subway the dog ate my
25:53
homework
25:54
and I just spontaneously said to him
25:56
actually Peter thank you for being late
26:00
because you were late I’ve been
26:04
eavesdropping on their conversation
26:07
fascinating I’ve been people watching
26:10
the lobby fantastic and best of all best
26:15
of all I just connected to ideas I’ve
26:17
been struggling with for a month so
26:20
thank you for being late people started
26:24
to get into it they’d say well you’re
26:27
welcome because they understood I was
26:32
actually giving them permission to pause
26:33
to slow down in fact my favorite quote
26:35
from the front of the book is from my
26:36
teacher and friend of Simon who says you
26:38
know when you press the pause button on
26:40
a computer it stops but when you press
26:44
the pause button on a human being
26:45
it starts that’s when it starts to
26:49
reflect rethink and reimagine and boy
26:52
don’t we need to do a lot of that right
26:54
now now to pick up on you Vols point
26:58
about leadership when the world is fast
27:01
small errors in navigation
27:03
can have huge consequences when we just
27:06
needed to go fifty miles at five miles
27:09
an hour well if you had a bad president
27:11
or prime minister for governor or mayor
27:13
you’d get off track but the pain of
27:15
getting back on track was fairly
27:17
tolerable but when you need to feel like
27:20
you’re going fifty thousand miles at
27:22
five thousand miles an hour when you
27:24
have a bad leader now you can get so far
27:26
off track it’s like a 747 pilot just
27:29
changing two digits as he enters the
27:32
navigation of his jet and suddenly
27:34
you’re halfway across the world in the
27:36
wrong direction and so leadership really
27:40
matters more right now now I you know I
27:46
I think I would agree with with what
27:48
you’ve all said about China in this
27:50
sense I think China’s leaders do wake up
27:53
every day more than the average leader
27:55
in the world and start the day by asking
27:57
what world am i living in what are the
27:59
biggest trends in this world and how do
28:01
i align myself with those trends unlike
28:04
I think a lot of leaders in the world
28:05
but I would find I would tell you I’m
28:07
seeing amazing leadership in America
28:10
today in two places you’ve a one is at
28:13
the corporate level and the other is at
28:16
the local level so at the corporate
28:20
level as I think about the workplace
28:24
challenge the way I put it I think our
28:26
central challenge is how do we turn a I
28:27
into ia how do we take artificial
28:31
intelligence and turn it into
28:32
intelligent assistance ance intelligent
28:36
assistance a NTS and intelligent
28:39
algorithms so more people can learn
28:42
faster and govern smarter so I’ll give
28:45
you example of intelligent assistance um
28:47
that I use it’s the HR department
28:50
resources department at AT&T are giant
28:52
telecom so you know what’s interesting
28:55
on AT&T three hundred thirty thousand
28:57
employees in one of the most competitive
28:59
businesses and world global telecom
29:01
pretty good chance that whatever is
29:03
going on in their HR department is
29:05
coming to a neighborhood near you so
29:07
what’s going on in HR at AT&T well they
29:10
begin their year now where their leader
29:11
Randall Stephenson he starts the year
29:13
with a pretty radically transparent
29:14
speech about where the companies
29:16
going what businesses they’re gonna be
29:17
in and what skills you need as a worker
29:20
at 80 that year filters down through the
29:24
company then they put all their managers
29:26
a hundred ten thousand people on their
29:28
own in-house LinkedIn system so I’m
29:31
there it’s Tom Friedman you know and it
29:33
has my academic background and the jobs
29:35
I’ve had in the company then they match
29:37
that up with the skill sets I’m making
29:40
up the number cuz I don’t remember it
29:41
exactly but it’s probably ten skill sets
29:43
you need that year to be a rising
29:45
employee at AT&T they’ve got my CV
29:47
they’re on LinkedIn and they realize
29:49
I’ve got seven of the ten but I’m
29:51
missing three then they partnered with
29:53
Sebastian Thrun from Udacity the online
29:55
learning University and he created
29:57
nanodegrees for all ten skill sets then
30:00
they came to me and said Tom here’s the
30:03
deal um we will give you up to eight
30:06
thousand dollars a year to take the Nano
30:08
degrees for the skill sets you’re
30:09
missing that we heard that you’re
30:11
interested in computer science we just
30:13
created an online computer science
30:15
degree for six thousand dollars a year
30:16
with Georgia Tech fact we heard you’re
30:18
interested in history you can take an
30:21
online course from that guy yeah you’ve
30:22
all Hariri will pay for that as well
30:24
yeah just one condition mr. Tom you have
30:28
to take these courses at home at night
30:30
on your own time not on company time now
30:34
if I say to them you know what mr. AT&T
30:36
I’ve actually climbed up one too many
30:38
telephone poles I’m just not into this
30:39
anymore
30:40
um they now have a wonderful severance
30:43
package for me okay but I will not be
30:46
working there much longer
30:47
so they flush out now about thirty
30:49
thousand people they take in about
30:51
thirty thousand people they advance
30:52
about ten thousand every year
30:53
what is AT&T social contract today with
30:56
their employees it’s a you can be a
30:59
lifelong employee still today if you’re
31:01
at AT&T but now only if you’re a
31:03
lifelong learner
31:04
if you are not ready to be a lifelong
31:07
learner you can no longer be a lifelong
31:09
employee at AT&T and that is the social
31:12
contract coming to a neighborhood near
31:14
you and that’s why one of my teacher is
31:17
Heather McGowan there’s an education
31:19
expert and this picks up on something
31:21
that you’ve all said Heather likes to
31:23
say mom dad never asked your kids today
31:26
what you want to be when you grow up
31:28
because whatever it is not
31:29
be here unless it’s policemen or firemen
31:32
okay only ask your kid today how you
31:36
want to be when you grow up will you
31:38
have an agile learning mindset will you
31:39
be predisposed to be a lifelong learner
31:42
long after you’ve left home and mom and
31:44
dad are not there to say you’ve all have
31:46
you done your homework and that leads to
31:49
what I think is really roiling societies
31:51
today and and and you’ve all touched on
31:53
this with these people might be out of
31:55
work which is something I learned from
31:57
marina gorebyss who runs the institute
31:58
of the future if we were having this
32:00
conversation 15 years ago one of the
32:02
themes we’d be talking about is the
32:04
digital divide
32:05
you know London’s got Internet
32:06
Manchester dozen Europe’s got it Africa
32:09
doesn’t digital divide it was huge um I
32:11
believe that digital byte is rapidly
32:13
disappearing I don’t know when it’ll be
32:14
gone but I’m sure in a decade it’ll be
32:17
gone and when it is the most important
32:18
divide in the world is going to be the
32:21
self-motivation divide whose kids have
32:23
the self-motivation to be a lifelong
32:25
learner long after they’ve left home and
32:28
mom and dad are not there to ask them to
32:30
do their homework is what you learned in
32:31
your first year now could be outdated by
32:34
your fourth year of college the idea
32:36
that you can get a four-year degree
32:38
Undine out on that for 30 years is like
32:40
so 1950s and that that has a lot of
32:44
people really unnerved because a lot of
32:47
people were actually born and bred to do
32:49
what they were told and God bless and
32:51
they built your country in mind and you
32:52
Falls but just doing what you’re told
32:54
now will not bring you average income
32:57
and an average lifestyle and I think
32:58
that has a lot of people really
33:00
frightened I think what you’re
33:03
describing is extremely stressful I mean
33:07
I just hear you and you know there is so
33:11
much stress and reinventing yourself
33:16
again and again throughout your life
33:19
sounds terrible to most people because
33:24
you know when you’re 15 you’re 16 then
33:26
you’re inventing yourself and it’s still
33:29
stressful when you’re 15 but it’s still
33:31
doable when you reach 4050 you don’t
33:35
want to change yes I want to keep on
33:37
learning new things and to gain
33:39
experience and to go into new places and
33:42
so forth but
33:43
really change the deep structures of my
33:47
personalities of my professional skills
33:50
to learn things afresh it sounds you
33:54
know very exciting and then very like
33:56
good but it’s actually extremely
33:58
difficult and if this is what we are
34:02
heading and we are heading in the
34:04
direction we will be facing a stress
34:06
epidemic even far worse than then today
34:10
and then other things with all these
34:13
algorithms that again are watching us
34:15
all the time in our learning our
34:18
abilities and our problems and whether
34:20
we are self-motivated or not once the
34:23
algorithms reached the conclusion that
34:26
you are not going to make it you will
34:29
not go you will not be able to make it I
34:31
mean we are used to this problem of
34:35
discrimination against people based on
34:38
wrong statistics like in the 20th
34:41
century discrimination against people
34:44
usually took the form of discriminating
34:47
against entire groups based either on
34:51
faulty statistics or based on just
34:54
religious biases and racism and so forth
34:58
so as the world if you were gay you had
35:00
discrimination against all gays if
35:02
you’re a woman then all all women and
35:05
one of the things about it is that you
35:08
could actually do something about it
35:10
because most of the time the biases were
35:13
not true and because many people
35:16
suffered from them they could join
35:19
together and have some a political
35:21
action against the discrimination now in
35:25
the coming years in the coming decades
35:27
we will face individual discrimination
35:30
and it might actually be based on a good
35:33
assessment of who you are I mean if 88
35:36
NT if the algorithms and the big data
35:39
algorithms of AT&T they follow you
35:42
around they look up your Facebook
35:44
profile your DNA your records from
35:47
kindergarten until today they will be
35:51
able to figure out quite accurately who
35:53
you are and if they for example find out
35:56
that I lack
35:57
motivation on the on the X scale on the
36:00
Harare scale of the Freedmen’s scale of
36:02
motif of of self-motivation 0 to 10
36:05
he is just 7.1 and we don’t want to
36:09
accept to our company
36:11
people of less than 8.2 and we know from
36:16
experience that yes we can give you a
36:18
little push but you just lack what we
36:21
need and you will not be able to do
36:25
anything or almost anything about this
36:27
discrimination first of all because it’s
36:30
just you they don’t discriminate against
36:33
your me because you’re Jewish or gay or
36:35
black or whatever because you are you
36:37
and the worst thing is there will be it
36:41
will be true I mean they got me i I
36:45
really lack self motivation they really
36:50
got me so what do I do about it and it
36:54
sounds funny in a way but if you think
36:56
about it deeply it’s terrible everybody
36:59
on what everybody has something and you
37:04
will not be able to do much about it so
37:07
let me give you the flip side of that
37:09
because everything about these systems
37:11
you’ve all is everything and it’s
37:13
opposite so you you just described the
37:16
downside of that but let me talk about
37:19
intelligent assistant for a second
37:22
example I give him the book so the
37:23
example I use is on the janitorial staff
37:26
at Qualcomm big American tech company in
37:30
San Diego they have 64 billion building
37:33
campus they they built the inside your
37:35
iPhone not Apple that’s why Apple is
37:36
always suing them over patents and um
37:39
they three years ago they took six of
37:43
their buildings they put sensors on
37:44
everything every door window light pipe
37:47
faucet drain computer and they beamed
37:49
all that data up to the cloud and now
37:50
they beam it down onto an iPad with this
37:52
incredibly user-friendly interface for
37:55
their janitorial staff so if you leave
37:57
your computer on or a pipe bursts above
37:58
my head
37:59
the janitor knows it before you or I do
38:01
and they just swipe down to see who to
38:03
call or how to fix it themselves
38:05
they’ve actually turned their janitors
38:07
into
38:08
it’s technologists they’re janitors now
38:10
give tours to foreign visitors what do
38:13
you think that does for the dignity of a
38:14
janitor because he or she now has an
38:16
intelligent assistant enabling them to
38:18
learn you know faster and work smarter I
38:20
will give you another example
38:23
intelligent algorithm so um those of you
38:27
American students here know that an 11th
38:29
grade way to take the PSAT exam the
38:31
practice SAT exam to take the SAT exam
38:34
to measure our math and verbal skills to
38:36
get into the college of our choice so we
38:40
also know in America that a lot of
38:41
parents go out in 11th grade and hire a
38:43
tutor for $200 an hour to Goose your
38:45
scores in math and verbal a completely
38:48
rigged game because if you come from a
38:50
family or neighborhood where you can’t
38:52
afford that you’re really at a
38:53
disadvantage so three years ago
38:55
the College Board that administers the
38:57
PSAT and SAT exam your a-levels and
38:59
o-levels partnered with Khan Academy the
39:02
online learning platform to create free
39:05
PSAT and SAT prep so the way it works
39:08
now is I take my PSAT and 11th grade I
39:10
get the results back I did really well
39:13
in verbal it says Tom you you could be a
39:15
journalist actually um but um but it
39:18
says I have a problem with math it
39:20
actually says I Tom Friedman personally
39:23
because it knows me have a problem with
39:25
fractions and right angles then it takes
39:28
me to a practice site just for fractions
39:30
and right angles doesn’t waste any time
39:32
on my weaknesses if I do well there
39:35
takes me to another site that says Tom
39:36
you could be an AP math Wow you need to
39:39
be met I mean no one in my family is an
39:42
AP math no one in my neighborhood
39:43
yeah you could be an AP math if I do
39:45
well there text me another site with 180
39:47
college scholarships last year 3 million
39:51
American kids got free PSAT and SAT prep
39:54
on this intelligent algorithm and I’ll
39:57
give you another one that’s very
39:58
relevant to the point you raised
39:59
we have about 32 million people who
40:01
start a college but never finished they
40:04
go one year two years two and a half
40:05
three three and a half years they drop
40:06
out go to bite get a job or do it online
40:09
the algorithm says you have no BA no job
40:12
so a whole new set of intelligent
40:15
algorithms have emerged one eye profiles
40:17
opportunity at work so what they do now
40:19
is you can go to them with your
40:21
year two year two and a half of
40:22
knowledge they will badge what you
40:24
actually know and what you can do with
40:26
what you know and they partner with
40:28
companies to slot you in without a BA so
40:31
I profiled a young african-american
40:32
woman LaShonda Lewis
40:33
she went to Michigan Tech for three and
40:35
a half years studied computer science
40:37
had to drop out for family reasons she
40:40
went back home was driving a school bus
40:42
to and from a computer school couldn’t
40:44
make that up and working at a law firm
40:46
on the helpdesk helping lawyers
40:48
rediscover their lost passwords okay she
40:51
was discovered by opportunity at work
40:53
they partnered with MasterCard slotted
40:56
her in as a stay measured her knowledge
40:57
slotted her in as a systems engineer at
41:00
MasterCard she’s now a senior systems
41:02
engineer at MasterCard and as she says
41:05
in the last line of her interview and
41:07
mr. Friedman I still don’t have a BA so
41:11
that’s an intelligent help that’s the
41:13
other side of this and and what I found
41:16
is there is enormous innovation going on
41:20
on the other side of this you’re
41:22
absolutely right on the downside but for
41:24
every downside of this somebody’s
41:27
invented an upside I would just add one
41:30
other point you know what was the
41:32
fastest growing restaurant chain in
41:34
America according to Entrepreneur
41:35
Magazine in 2015 and you never guess it
41:38
it’s actually called paint nite fastest
41:41
burn restaurant chain in America what is
41:42
paint nite it’s paint by numbers for
41:44
adults and bars
41:46
turns out idols like to get together in
41:48
a bar have an artist draw a design for
41:50
them and they paint by numbers together
41:53
according to that design and have a
41:55
drink it’s amazing how many adults like
41:58
to paint by numbers in bars okay who
42:00
knew okay that is there all these jobs
42:04
out there and that’s why I would close
42:06
by saying if you really want to blow
42:08
your mind
42:09
go to Airbnb x’ website you’ll notice
42:12
now there are two icons on the front
42:13
page ones homes that’s because I’m
42:17
coming to London like my sister did this
42:19
week and I want to get an apartment here
42:21
you know we all know that but now the
42:22
other ones called experiences and click
42:26
if you want to have some fun
42:27
click experiences it’s people monetizing
42:31
their passions I will give you a tour of
42:35
three man basketball games in Havana at
42:37
night with a mojito at the end read that
42:40
one the American mother who said I send
42:41
my 18 year old on this he didn’t come
42:43
back till 2:00 in the morning he was
42:44
having so much fun I’ll teach you how to
42:46
make falafel you know in job I’ll teach
42:48
you how to make it you know this is it
42:50
full time employment maybe maybe not
42:52
it’s the fastest growing part of Airbnb
42:55
is website and I predict in five years
42:57
it’ll be the biggest job site in the
43:00
world people monetizing their passions
43:03
sticking with this theme we’ve been
43:05
talking a lot about individuality we’ll
43:07
be able to learn individually just how
43:10
unmotivated we are again perhaps
43:13
motivated to go paint plates by numbers
43:16
so we’ll know so much more about
43:19
ourselves as individuals how is that
43:21
going to affect how we all live together
43:24
Tom you’ve written about I believe you
43:26
called yourself a pluralism supremacist
43:28
how does increase knowledge it’s
43:31
increased knowledge of our individuality
43:33
exactly just how
43:35
well-suited we are for a job or poorly
43:38
suited for any job what does that mean
43:41
and how we all live together and and are
43:43
we moving more inward in this moment or
43:46
where do you see floral ISM going it’s
43:50
very hard to say I mean of course as you
43:52
said I mean every technology has good
43:55
potential and in bad potential this is
43:58
what is different about disruptive
44:00
technologies compared to nuclear war and
44:03
climate change nuclear war is this is
44:05
obviously terrible nobody nobody wants
44:08
it the question is just how to prevent
44:10
it with disruptive technology the danger
44:13
in a way is far greater because it has
44:16
some wonderful potential so there are a
44:18
lot of forces that for some very good
44:21
reasons are pushing us faster and faster
44:24
to develop and adopt these disruptive
44:28
technologies and it’s very difficult to
44:31
know in advance what the consequences
44:34
will be in terms of community in terms
44:38
of relations between people in terms of
44:40
politics 20 years ago in the high days
44:43
of internet optimism
44:45
you had all this extremely optimistic
44:48
and today we say naive dreams and
44:53
visions that the internet will bring
44:56
everybody closer together you could have
44:58
friends from all over the world in the
45:00
end there will be freedom of expression
45:02
and all the dictators will fall and the
45:05
world will turn into one big happy and
45:08
peaceful community and this didn’t
45:11
happen and we look back today and we say
45:14
oh this was extremely naive I mean if
45:17
people forget about human nature did we
45:19
learn nothing from history and the
45:22
answer is yes we learn very little from
45:24
history does it mean that every new
45:27
technology will just make things worse
45:30
no obviously not but it extremely
45:33
difficult to know which way it will go I
45:39
think that history is just not
45:41
deterministic and again when you look to
45:45
the past when you look at the 20th
45:46
century and what people could do with
45:50
new technologies and you could build you
45:53
can use the trains and radio to build
45:55
Nazi Germany or you could use the same
45:58
technology to build liberal democracy
45:59
and it’s it’s kind of touching goal who
46:04
wins I don’t think there is any
46:07
predetermined or preordained winner in
46:12
these competitions so again with AI we
46:16
can sit here all evening and a couple of
46:19
more evenings and spin all kinds of
46:22
likely scenarios which are all possible
46:25
what will happen some very good and some
46:28
very bad and some in between and we just
46:32
don’t know I think as a story in the the
46:37
best thing the most important thing we
46:40
need to realize is that there is no
46:43
predetermined
46:44
story which is in a way very frightening
46:47
and you know we are now living with the
46:53
collapse of the last story of
46:57
inevitability
46:59
and in the 1990s in the same era of the
47:04
extremely optimistic vision of the
47:07
internet we also had this story this
47:12
idea that history is over that we know
47:16
who won the great ideological battle of
47:20
the 20th century liberal democracy and
47:22
in free-market capitalism came out on
47:25
out on top and now it’s just a question
47:28
of time until it will spread and take
47:31
over the whole world and again this now
47:34
seems extremely naive and the moment we
47:39
are at now is a moment of extreme
47:45
disillusionment and bewilderment because
47:48
we have no idea where things will will
47:53
go from here this is why I think it’s
47:56
it’s very important to be aware of the
47:59
of the downside of the dangerous
48:02
scenarios of the new technologies I mean
48:06
obviously the the corporation’s the
48:09
engineers the people in the laboratories
48:11
they naturally focus on all the enormous
48:16
benefits that these technologies might
48:20
bring us and it folds to historians and
48:24
to philosophers and to social scientists
48:27
to think about all the ways in which
48:29
things can go wrong so when Frank
48:33
Okayama wrote the end of history I at
48:36
the same time wrote a book called Lexus
48:38
and the olive tree and the argument of
48:40
the book was that I think what is going
48:42
to shape the future is a tension between
48:44
all of these things that are old faith
48:47
community religion sect tribe all things
48:50
that anchor us in the world olive trees
48:52
and the interaction between them and
48:54
technology and I still believe that that
48:57
is that’s certainly for me a helpful
48:59
framework that it’s a because what we do
49:01
with those passions how we govern them
49:03
how we mobilize them it can be for good
49:05
or for ill and that for it for me
49:09
you know it’s a good segue to talk about
49:11
the ethics question and one you wrote a
49:14
whole book about Homo dias
49:16
you know so uh III just did a little
49:18
chapter on it and and let me give mine
49:21
and then you give yours because I think
49:23
to be an interesting contrast between
49:25
the two so my version of the argument
49:29
you made the chapter on it is called is
49:33
God in cyberspace he’s God in cyberspace
49:37
best question ever got on book tour 1990
49:41
I was selling Lexus the Ala tree in
49:42
Portland Oregon question time came young
49:44
man stood up in the balcony said mr.
49:46
Friedman I have a question he is god in
49:48
cyberspace I said I have no idea
49:59
I felt like an idiot so I got home I
50:03
called my spiritual teacher he was a
50:05
rabbi I got to know at the Hartman
50:06
Institute in Jerusalem when I was the
50:08
New York Times correspondent there great
50:09
tome u2 scholar three marks
50:11
now there’s an Amsterdam married to a
50:12
Dutch priest interesting character and
50:14
um I called him up in Amsterdam I said
50:19
see I got a question I’ve never had
50:20
before is God in cyberspace
50:23
what should I said and I he said well
50:26
Tom in our faith tradition we actually
50:28
have two concepts of the Almighty a
50:29
biblical concept and a post biblical
50:31
concept so the biblical concept is that
50:33
the almighty is almighty he smites evil
50:37
and rewards good and if that’s your view
50:39
of God he sure isn’t in cyberspace which
50:43
is full of pornography gambling cheating
50:44
lying people smearing one another and
50:46
Twitter and now we know fake news so um
50:49
fortunately though he said we have a
50:51
post biblical view of God and the post
50:54
biblical view of God is that God
50:55
manifests himself by how we behave so if
50:58
we want God to be in cyberspace we have
51:00
to bring him there by how we behave
51:02
there I really like this answer I put it
51:04
into the paperback edition of Lexus the
51:06
olive tree in 2000 where none of you saw
51:08
it and it sat there for 16 years
51:09
anyways I started working on this book
51:11
and I found myself
51:13
spontaneously retelling that story I
51:15
said why are you retelling that story
51:17
and it became obvious to me for two
51:18
reasons and one just happened I think in
51:21
the last couple of years in the
51:23
developed world we began living 51
51:25
scent of our lives in cyberspace it’s
51:28
not where you go to find a date find us
51:29
out spouse buy a house buy a car write a
51:31
book buy a book get a mortgage give
51:34
alone get your news generate your news
51:36
we’re now living do your banking your
51:38
brokerage we’re now living 51% of our
51:41
lives in cyberspace and my definition of
51:44
cyberspace is that it’s a realm where
51:45
we’re all connected and no one’s in
51:47
charge so there are no courts in
51:50
cyberspace no lovely ceman no stoplights
51:52
no no 1-800 please stop Putin from
51:56
hacking my election but that’s where
51:59
we’re living our lives another way to
52:01
describe it we’re living 51% of our
52:03
lives in a realm that is fundamentally
52:06
God free at the same time because of
52:09
these accelerations you and I both have
52:11
talked about I think we’re standing at a
52:13
moral intersection we have never stood
52:15
at before as a species in 1945 we
52:18
entered the world where one country
52:20
could kill all of us possi regime and
52:23
that was the United States I’m glad it
52:25
had to be one country but it was the
52:26
United States I think we’re entering a
52:29
world where one person can kill all of
52:30
us and at the same time at the same time
52:33
where all of us could actually fix
52:36
everything because these accelerated
52:38
powers for the first time are creating
52:40
world where one of us could kill all of
52:41
us and all of us now if we actually put
52:43
our minds to it we have the tools to
52:45
feed house clothe and educate every
52:48
person on the planet we have never been
52:50
to this intersection before where one of
52:53
us can kill all of us and all of us
52:54
could fix everything and what does that
52:57
mean means we’ve never been more godlike
52:59
as a species than we are today well put
53:02
those two together we’ve never lived
53:03
more of our lives in a realm that’s
53:05
Godfrey and we have never been more
53:08
godlike and what that means is that what
53:11
every person thinks feels and believes
53:13
really matters it means everyone needs
53:17
to be in the grip of sustainable values
53:18
it means at a minimum everyone needs to
53:22
be in the embrace of the Golden Rule and
53:24
every faith and culture has their
53:25
version of it doing to others as you
53:27
wish them to do unto you because you now
53:28
live in a world where more people can do
53:30
unto you farther faster deeper cheaper
53:33
than ever before Putin did unto us in
53:35
our election and we can do unto others
53:37
farther faster deeper cheaper than ever
53:39
for everyone needs to be in the embrace
53:42
of the golden rule I know what you’re
53:45
thinking actually gave this thing as a
53:48
commencement address at Olin College of
53:50
Engineering two years ago and I said to
53:52
the parents there I know what you’re
53:55
thinking
53:55
you paid two hundred thousand dollars
53:58
for your kid to get an engineering
54:00
degree and who do they bring us the
54:02
commencement speaker but a knucklehead
54:05
promoting the golden rule is there
54:08
anything more naive and what I told them
54:12
is what I would say again tonight I
54:14
think in this age of acceleration
54:16
naivete is the new realism because
54:19
what’s really naive is thinking we’re
54:21
gonna be okay in a world that is this
54:24
interdependent we’re men women and
54:26
machines get this super empowered if
54:29
everyone is not in the embrace of the
54:32
golden rule where does the golden rule
54:34
come from I think two places primarily
54:36
strong families and healthy communities
54:39
and that’s why my focus and my work
54:42
today is so much on healthy communities
54:45
but I would say that maybe the big
54:49
problem is not so much morality as it is
54:52
causality that we just cause a little I
54:57
mean the ability to understand the
54:58
change of causes and effects in the
55:00
world I think there is no lack of values
55:03
today in the world but to really act
55:07
well it’s not enough to have good values
55:09
you need to have a good understanding of
55:12
the chains of causes and effects like if
55:15
you think about the commandment like
55:17
don’t steal so okay let’s everybody
55:20
agree it’s not good to steal but the big
55:23
problem today is not that somebody says
55:25
hey I want to steal what will you do to
55:27
me
55:27
the big problem is that stealing has
55:30
become so complicated that I’m steaming
55:33
all the time and I’m not even aware of
55:35
it the commandment don’t steal was
55:39
formalized in an era when stealing meant
55:42
meant breaking myself I’m breaking into
55:45
somebody’s house and snatching some gold
55:48
coins or a goat or whatever and it was
55:51
easy – at least honest
55:52
what I’m doing and what the potential
55:55
consequences are for the owner of the
55:58
gold coins of the gold but how do I
56:01
still today well I put like ten thousand
56:04
and I have a pension fund and ten
56:07
thousand dollars out of my pension fund
56:10
are invested in some big oil corporation
56:14
or chemical corporation that brings
56:16
profits of say four or five percent
56:19
every years with a very good investment
56:20
and how does the corporation makes such
56:24
huge profits for example by dumping
56:27
toxic waste into a river and polluting
56:31
the entire water resources of the area
56:34
and hurting the health of the local
56:36
population and the wildlife and so forth
56:39
but the cooperation is so rich that it
56:43
can retain an army of lawyers that
56:46
protects it against all lawsuits and
56:49
also a small brigade of people in the
56:55
capital that block any attempt to have
56:59
stronger environmental regulations now
57:02
am i guilty of stealing a river I’m not
57:06
even a word that part of my pension fund
57:09
is invested in this cooperation and even
57:12
if I am aware I don’t know how the
57:15
cooperation makes its money it will take
57:18
me months maybe years to find out where
57:22
my money
57:23
what my money is doing and during that
57:26
time I will be guilty of so many other
57:29
crimes which I know nothing about and
57:32
the really the problem is that our sense
57:36
of morality our sense of justice like
57:39
our other senses was evolved in the
57:45
ancient African savanna when your
57:48
pension funds you had just one pension
57:50
funds which was your kids and you knew
57:53
what your pension fund was you was doing
57:56
it was playing in the mud or something
57:59
and so the entire the ability that the
58:04
problem is no
58:05
agreeing on basic morality the problem
58:10
is on understanding the extremely
58:12
complicated change of cause and effect
58:14
in the world and again my fear is that
58:18
maybe Homo sapiens is just not up to it
58:21
we have created such a complicated world
58:23
that we have no longer able to make
58:26
sense of what is happening and if I
58:30
looked at politics in the u.s. again
58:33
from the vantage point of a medievalist
58:36
Republicans and Democrats seems almost
58:39
identical I just don’t understand what’s
58:41
the difference
58:42
if you can enlighten me on this what’s
58:44
the big difference between them in
58:47
ethical in their ethical view in their
58:50
view of the world they have a big
58:52
difference in their understanding of
58:54
cause-and-effect relations but when it
58:56
comes down to two basic values I think
58:59
the difference is is not big but again
59:01
the problem is that maybe we are no
59:03
longer able like the engineers you gave
59:06
the talk to so they could all agree yes
59:10
we should keep the Golden Rule but then
59:13
when they go to design some I don’t know
59:15
bridge of software they don’t understand
59:19
what they are what are the consequences
59:22
of what they are doing so how can they
59:24
act morally without this understanding
59:27
well you just described why we need a
59:30
free press um I think that’s one roll
59:33
the free press really plays today and
59:37
again what’s the upside of this age of
59:39
acceleration is now an individual can go
59:42
take a picture of that waste dumping by
59:44
that factory put it up on the internet
59:47
and it’ll go around the world in in 30
59:49
minutes competing against funny cat
59:51
videos ah no actually if you’re in my
59:54
business you’ll find that if I take a
59:56
picture of General Electric doing that
59:58
and put it up on the New York Times a
60:00
General Electric will stop doing that I
60:02
can assure you that will not compete
60:03
with cat videos so there’s an upside to
60:06
all of these I think you’ve all that
60:08
that I’m gonna we’re playing a very
60:11
useful function here I’ll do the outside
60:12
and but but but what I your people ask
60:16
me what I do for a living
60:18
tell them I am a translator from English
60:19
to English that’s what I do I try to
60:22
take complex things and break them down
60:24
first so I can understand them and then
60:25
hopefully explain them to others and I
60:28
am really my motto I’ve adopted from
60:31
Marie Curie who once said now is the
60:33
time to understand more so we may fear
60:36
less and now it’s truly I this is never
60:40
good journalism I think that practice by
60:43
the New York Times and many others has
60:46
never been more important to understand
60:49
more so people will fear less because we
60:51
now have a president who is actually in
60:53
the fear business backed up by a Pravda
60:56
like Network called Fox television
60:58
that’s in the business of making people
61:00
stupid and you put those two together
61:03
you know it’s really dangerous and and
61:06
the good news is we are finding at the
61:09
New York Times more people that we know
61:11
Donald Trump toys clients are failing
61:13
New York Times I assure you we are
61:15
anything but that today because so many
61:17
people are coming to not just the New
61:19
York Times but to trusted new sites
61:22
because they want to understand more so
61:23
they may fear less and and so many
61:27
individuals now can go out and actually
61:30
you know be citizen journalists like
61:33
never before and I would say this the
61:37
political side of that is that you know
61:40
so which like if you want to be an
61:45
optimist about America today I tell
61:47
people stand on your head because the
61:49
country looks so much better from the
61:51
bottom up than the top down okay so I
61:54
think that as we go into this age of
61:56
acceleration national governments with a
61:59
few exceptions are really too slow
62:02
certainly the big democracies are
62:04
because we’re too tribal eyes partisan
62:05
eyes now they they can’t move at the
62:07
pace of change because government moves
62:09
at the pace of trust and there’s no
62:10
trust the single individual single
62:13
family way too weak against these forces
62:16
so I think it’s the healthy community
62:19
that is going to be the proper of
62:21
governing unit of the 21st century and
62:23
if you want to know what makes me an
62:25
optimist in America is that our country
62:28
you know the cliche about America is
62:30
that we’re divided by two
62:32
so these two coasts everyone is
62:34
pluralizing diversifying globalizing and
62:36
modernizing and in between them is
62:38
flyover for America where everyone’s
62:40
high on opioids voted for Trump and
62:43
waiting for 1950 okay that’s kind of the
62:45
cliché so um well you only have to be
62:48
from Minnesota you only have to be from
62:49
flyover America – no that is not true
62:51
America is actually a checkerboard today
62:54
of communities that are collapsing from
62:57
the bottom down and communities that are
62:59
rising from the bottom up so I did a
63:02
trip a year ago to um I was invited to
63:05
give a talk at our national lab at Oak
63:07
Ridge Tennessee so I got the map out Oak
63:08
Ridge Tennessee
63:09
hey it’s down here southern tip of
63:11
Appalachia haven’t been to Appalachia I
63:13
think I’ll do a car trip across
63:15
Appalachia reading about all these
63:16
people voted for drum so I started the
63:19
trip in Austin Indiana so it’s a
63:21
southern Indiana northern tip of
63:23
Appalachian I went to excite read about
63:25
the town 4400 people and a 5% of the
63:28
town is HIV positive which is just the
63:33
worst possible levels of epidemic you
63:35
can imagine what was the story two
63:36
factories in the town one closed the
63:38
other got automated a lot of white
63:40
working-class men and women got
63:41
unemployed very quickly um
63:44
the they couldn’t adapt and I fell into
63:46
drug use and you had son father
63:49
grandfather all shooting up together
63:51
it’s a terrible store and I went there
63:53
to interview the one doctor in the town
63:54
then I got on my car and drove 40
63:57
minutes south on i-70 to Louisville
63:59
Kentucky Louisville Kentucky has 30,000
64:02
open jobs anybody looking for a job
64:04
Louisville Kentucky so what’s going on
64:07
there so which organisms thrive when the
64:10
climate changes they call complex
64:12
adaptive organisms what’s happening at
64:15
the community level the commutes that
64:16
are rising they’re creating complex
64:18
adaptive coalition’s and what you see in
64:21
Louisville and I can show you
64:23
communities all over the country these
64:25
complex adaptive coalition’s you have
64:27
the business community you’re not
64:28
plugging directly into the public school
64:31
system k12 community college four-year
64:33
college translating in real-time their
64:36
skills needs and demands okay not
64:38
waiting for the schools to figure it out
64:40
then you have the philanthropic
64:41
community
64:42
coming in supplementing it with
64:44
scholarships after-school programs
64:46
supplemental learning opportunities then
64:48
you have the local government catalyzing
64:51
at all and hiring global recruiters to
64:53
go into the world and find global
64:55
investors for their local attributes so
64:58
in the case of Louisville Louisville
64:59
happens to be the capital of Bourbon
65:01
tourism so Louisville is de Bourbon what
65:04
Napa Valley is – red wine and they’re
65:06
now distilleries and bed-and-breakfast
65:07
you go you know across just they’ve
65:10
created a tourism industry Louisville
65:12
happens to be the headquarters of ups so
65:14
you fly into Louisville Airport all you
65:16
see are factories everywhere because
65:18
when Jeff Bezos of Amazon com says
65:21
you’ve all get to that product in 24
65:23
hours it’s because he’s doing end of
65:24
runway assembly and manufacturing now in
65:27
Louisville and Louisville is a
65:29
headquarters of Humana wellness company
65:31
so the mayor’s equipped any young person
65:33
in the town who wants with a web
65:35
neighbor cloud connected breathalyzer
65:37
and kids got in the morning trying to
65:39
create citizen scientists and they map
65:41
the air quality in their neighborhood
65:43
and they feed it all into a website in
65:44
the city they’ve created a complex
65:46
adaptive coalition and this is happening
65:49
all over the country and so we’ve got
65:53
communities like Austin that opioid
65:55
crisis is real they’re collapsing but
65:57
those were you get this leadership
65:59
together are creating complex adaptive
66:01
coalition’s come to my hometown of
66:03
Minneapolis two and a half percent
66:05
unemployment I mean really thriving
66:07
they’re not waiting for Washington DC
66:09
because there’s a much higher trust
66:11
there and my my teacher Duff Seidman
66:14
always says you know Trust is the only
66:16
legal performance-enhancing drug okay so
66:19
where there’s trust in the room you can
66:21
go really fast you can go at the speed
66:23
of visits and when there’s no trust like
66:25
in Washington DC right now you can’t
66:27
move two inches so how do you make sense
66:30
of this extremely complex and checkered
66:34
reality I mean my job is much easier
66:36
than yours because as a historian who
66:39
looks mainly the past and also at long
66:41
periods of centuries and thousands of
66:44
years so the like that the main trains
66:47
jumps jump at you yeah but how do you
66:50
manage to make sense of such a
66:53
complicated and contradictory
66:55
reality and how do you know that you’re
66:58
not just you know following your biases
67:01
and seeing what you want to see so it’s
67:04
a combination it’s a very good question
67:05
of data I mean I can show you the
67:11
employment statistics you know the
67:13
economies of these towns and I can show
67:15
you the proliferation of them and then
67:19
obviously reporting and then anything is
67:22
going to be a guess you know but if I
67:24
look at the country I see the National
67:26
Statistics what’s going on to me the
67:29
question is and this I can’t do I can
67:32
only report on what’s going on is what
67:36
is the balance between these two trends
67:38
but as I’m not a historian I’m a
67:41
journalist what I’m trying to do is by
67:42
highlighting the positive trend because
67:45
I think one good example is worth a
67:47
thousand theories that people will
67:49
follow examples when they see people
67:51
like them doing it so my idealism is to
67:55
say here’s what’s working you know and
67:58
these people are just like you so you
68:00
can do it just like them I Israeli
68:03
general loozy Diane you know once said
68:05
to me Tom I know why you’re an optimist
68:08
I said why he said it’s because you’re
68:11
short and I said I’m not that sure he
68:15
said you can only see the part of the
68:17
glass that’s half-full okay so um I’m
68:20
actually not that short but I I do
68:24
believe in the Emil Evans the physicists
68:29
who helped me with all the physics in my
68:30
book you vote he likes to say when
68:33
people say Aimee are you an optimist or
68:35
a pessimist says I’m neither because
68:37
they’re just two different forms of
68:38
fatalism everything will be great
68:40
everything will be awful he said I
68:41
believe in applied hope don’t know if
68:45
it’s gonna work but I believe in applied
68:46
hope yeah I’m very interested in how you
68:49
ball has interrogated your optimism and
68:51
optimism of course it’d be the natural
68:53
note to end on but I want to care a tiny
68:55
bit more about your pessimism and
68:58
hopefully we can all think about how to
69:01
walk out of here holding both of those
69:03
ideas in our mind you wrote in sapience
69:05
I believe that there’s no
69:07
that I’m sorry I have no proof human
69:09
well-being inevitably improves as
69:12
history rolls along just a cheery
69:14
thought for all of us as we wind down
69:16
our time together
69:18
I wonder if you could help us think
69:21
about that what you’ve discussed this
69:22
evening and and Tom’s very convincing
69:26
data rich argument that when you’re
69:29
doing yoga and standing on your head you
69:31
really can see roots of communities
69:33
pulling together even in this
69:35
disorienting moment so help us leave
69:37
here both pessimists and optimists well
69:43
I try not to think in terms of pessimism
69:46
and optimism
69:49
it’s just that history just doesn’t
69:52
unfold in such a way usually you have
69:56
terrible things and wonderful things
69:58
happening at the same time maybe in
70:00
different places but happening at the
70:01
same time usually the same revolution
70:04
the same development it’s very rare when
70:07
you have a big revolution in history
70:09
which is doing only good or which is
70:11
doing only bad and of course you have
70:13
the added problem that those who lose
70:17
who lose the most and those who get
70:20
extinct and those who disappear they are
70:23
not there to tell their story
70:25
so in history there is always a certain
70:27
a certain bias towards the optimistic
70:30
side here we are here so it couldn’t
70:32
have been that bad the people for whom
70:36
it was very bad they are just not here
70:41
but you know so and also is as somebody
70:52
who tries to see the big picture and
70:55
look at the global picture there is
70:57
always the danger that you’re always
71:01
going to notice the agenda and the
71:06
opinions and the interests of the of the
71:10
hegemonic powers of the more powerful
71:12
people and societies and in classes and
71:15
whatever because they dominate
71:18
the conversation so even if you oppose
71:21
them even if you think you’re they’re
71:23
wrong you’re not going to miss their
71:26
ideas you might object their ideas you
71:30
might fight against them but you’re not
71:32
going to ignore them the problem of the
71:36
people who are like push to the side or
71:38
push down is that they are very often
71:42
just ignored not that you don’t agree
71:45
with what they say not that you think
71:47
their interests don’t count you just
71:50
don’t remember to even notice their
71:55
point of view or there are other
71:58
interests so also the question of of
72:01
pessimism and optimism it’s always a
72:04
question of who are you talking about I
72:07
think one of the main problems in
72:11
talking about the global agenda or the
72:15
problems of humanity or and the kind of
72:17
things that are that I try to doom is
72:20
that maybe there is no single future for
72:25
the whole of humankind
72:26
maybe the basic understanding of the
72:31
world is just that different groups are
72:34
going to have very different futures
72:37
maybe I mentioned earlier the question
72:40
of what to teach your kids so if you
72:43
live in one place and belong to a
72:46
particular community or to a particular
72:48
group so you teach your kids to be
72:51
resilient and you teach your kids
72:53
computer code and you teach your kids to
72:56
play the violin and you live in another
72:59
place maybe not very far away and the
73:01
best thing to teach your kids is how to
73:04
shoot a Kalashnikov and it’s happening
73:08
on the same on the same planet at the
73:10
same time and what’s more true or what’s
73:14
more important it’s it’s it’s kind of an
73:17
empty question it really boils down to
73:20
the question of perspective so this I
73:26
think is kind of a historical low or an
73:28
historical truth that there
73:31
never just a single story going around
73:35
and part of the responsibility part of
73:39
the difficulty I think of being a
73:42
journalist or being a historian is how
73:45
do you bring at least some justice to
73:49
this situation and how do you give at
73:52
least some attention to all the
73:55
different viewpoints and not just to the
73:57
to the dominant one um before you go
74:01
close you will just talk a little bit
74:04
about your next book and give us a
74:05
little tease I want to hear I’m gonna be
74:07
very sad for a second and then I’ll do
74:10
my so my next book is coming in August
74:15
September
74:16
it’s called 21 lessons for the 21st
74:19
century but it’s not really a book of
74:22
concrete lessons like do this go there
74:24
whatever it’s more an invitation to take
74:30
part in the major debates and
74:33
discussions of the world of the current
74:36
moment continuing what I said earlier I
74:40
think one of the problem problems that
74:43
most people today face is that they just
74:49
don’t have the time and the energy to be
74:52
part of the global debate of the debate
74:56
about the future of humanity there are
74:58
all these big questions of climate
75:02
change and artificial intelligence and
75:04
bioengineering and it’s going to have an
75:07
impact on the life of every single
75:10
individual on the planet but most people
75:13
they’re too busy going to work and
75:17
feeding their kids and taking care of
75:21
elderly parents and so forth they just
75:23
don’t have it’s a luxury to be able to
75:27
think about these issues to investigate
75:30
them to engage in the debate and the
75:34
problem was in one of the problems again
75:36
with history is that history never makes
75:40
any concessions and never gives any
75:43
discounts
75:44
just because you’re in difficulty oh
75:47
just because you’re poor or just because
75:50
you’re too busy taking care of your kids
75:53
if you don’t have the time and the
75:56
energy and the really the luxury to be
75:59
part of the debate it doesn’t mean that
76:03
you won’t suffer from the consequences
76:07
because in in this sense history’s
76:09
completely unfair and I see my job as a
76:15
historian as trying to help at least a
76:19
few more people take part in the debate
76:23
and this is the main purpose of the
76:27
coming book so I guess I see my job is
76:31
obviously you know reporting whatever
76:34
situation I’m assigned to report to but
76:36
I am always looking for examples of
76:39
what’s working and sharing them with
76:41
people so so because I think there’s a
76:44
power in that and that’s my version of
76:46
idealism it’s why I went into journalism
76:48
young people often come to me say I want
76:50
to do what you do you know what do I
76:53
need to know and you know I say you
76:57
build a type fast I can type real fast
76:59
um actually went to London secretarial
77:01
school to learn how to type back in on
77:03
my day here but I think that the most
77:06
important thing you need is a journalist
77:10
today is that you have to be a good
77:16
listener and for two reasons and the
77:18
second reason is more important than the
77:20
first the first is what you learn when
77:23
you listen you know but the second
77:26
reason is what you say when you listen
77:28
listening is a sign of respect and my
77:31
method to my madness if you travel with
77:34
me is I really do try to listen to
77:36
people whether on you know a little
77:39
Jewish guy from Minnesota in the Arab
77:40
world or I’m in Russia or I’m here
77:43
because I find that if you just listen
77:47
to people it’s amazing what they’ll let
77:50
you say back and if you don’t listen to
77:52
them it’s amazing you cannot tell them
77:55
it’s dark outside
77:56
and that’s why I’ve often said um before
77:59
I retire I’m gonna change my business
78:01
card it now says Thomas L Friedman New
78:03
York Times Foreign Affairs columnist and
78:05
I want to change it to Thomas L Friedman
78:07
New York Times humiliation and dignity
78:10
correspondent because I basically spent
78:12
my whole career covering people acting
78:14
out on their humiliation whether it’s in
78:16
the Middle East you know we all know the
78:19
stories they’re Russians feeling
78:20
committable Chinese you know and
78:21
questing for for dignity but I may add
78:26
also diversity correspondent and that’s
78:29
where I would end you know Rachel too
78:35
you know as a columnist sometimes you’re
78:37
in the right place at the right time and
78:39
sometimes you’re in the wrong place at
78:42
the wrong time especially when you’re a
78:44
once a week columnist as I am now
78:46
so less summer the head of the US Air
78:48
Force invited me to join him on a tour
78:50
of all America’s air bases in the Middle
78:53
East it’s a great opportunity to see
78:56
this perspective of the world in the
78:58
military and I found myself an Altoid
79:01
aid air base in Qatar the night Donald
79:05
Trump was giving his press conference
79:07
about the charlottesville disturbances
79:11
and talking about how there were good
79:13
white supremacist and bad white
79:15
supremacist and like that’s all the
79:18
world or in America was talking about
79:20
and I was in a load eight airbase at
79:23
Qatar and my column was due in a few
79:25
hours so I staring at a blank blank
79:28
screen thinking about what do I write
79:32
and then it just popped into my head I
79:35
looked around at my traveling party the
79:39
head of the US Air Force Dave goal find
79:41
his Jewish we are traveling with the Air
79:43
Force US Air Force secretary she’s a
79:45
woman Heather Wilson her chief executive
79:48
officer is an African American woman Air
79:51
Force lieutenant colonel there guards
79:53
name was one the head of the air base
79:56
and it was in Armenian American his
79:58
deputy was a lebanese american and our
80:00
intelligence briefers name was yang mr.
80:04
trump which part of this sentence don’t
80:07
you understand
80:08
okay that that is the real strength of
80:12
America our ability to make out of many
80:15
one you know and in a world where we’re
80:19
all getting so mixed up now I believe
80:23
that virtue that strength is so
80:24
important for every society now it’s
80:27
more important than ever and so I pray
80:31
this man will be a one-term president
80:33
because we can take four years of him we
80:37
cannot take eight years of him he will
80:39
destroy institutions in eight years but
80:42
I know that underneath you know there’s
80:47
still a really powerful idea of America
80:50
and diversity out there that I think
80:54
even Donald Trump cannot crush and
80:56
that’s why I is it shared also by the
80:59
average Trump voter I mean are you able
81:02
also to listen to them and I don’t think
81:05
there is an average Trump voter and I
81:07
think that because I think people came
81:09
to him for so many reasons
81:10
some people came because they were
81:12
humiliated Hillary Clinton said you’re
81:14
deplorable
81:14
I’m deplorable that I’m gonna wear a
81:16
t-shirt that says I’m a deplorable okay
81:18
some came because things you’ve talked
81:20
about you’ve all they want a wall to
81:22
stop the pace of change some came for
81:25
many reasons but my way of approaching
81:27
them because I’m a Wednesday columnist
81:29
it means I write Tuesday for Wednesday
81:31
means I have the first column after
81:32
every election hmm so I had the column
81:36
then I from one and I’m sorry the week
81:40
before he won I wrote my last column and
81:43
it was addressed to Trump voters and it
81:46
began dear fellow Americans treat people
81:49
with respect it’s amazing you know if
81:52
you start there how much you can peel
81:56
peel back you know just listen to people
81:59
and we have so many people broadcasting
82:01
now you know and not listening
82:04
particularly in politics that I think
82:09
that that’s truly the
82:12
optimism so I don’t feel we should go
82:13
too deep into the 26 women yes well to
82:19
comment actually about it one I think
82:21
that I mean the the Trump voters of
82:25
still the future of America I mean if
82:27
you don’t have them then America is
82:30
going nowhere so if you need to be
82:33
optimistic about something then you need
82:35
to be optimistic about about them as
82:37
well that I think they’re they’re all
82:40
people that you could take somewhere
82:42
with a different message not all but
82:44
many of them and secondly I would say
82:49
about about journalism I agree that it
82:55
is immensely important especially today
82:59
especially for the viability of liberal
83:02
democracies because you know democracy
83:06
is to some extent based on Lincoln’s
83:09
maxim that you can fool some people some
83:13
of the time all the time and you can
83:14
fool all the people some of the time but
83:16
not all the people all the time and this
83:19
is really just wishful thinking you can
83:22
fool people I mean not for eternity
83:24
nothing is for eternity but you can fool
83:27
all the people for a very very long time
83:29
and the the way to do it is to control
83:34
the information they get with the basic
83:37
idea of democracy is ok we elect a bunch
83:39
of people to govern the country and if
83:42
they do a bad job if they fail then
83:45
sooner or later enough people will
83:48
realize it and they will change the
83:50
government and this works fine as long
83:54
as you have free press and free
83:56
journalism if the government controls in
83:59
some way or the other
84:00
directly or indirectly if it controls
84:03
the media if it controls journalism then
84:06
it can always blame somebody else for
84:09
its failures it can always direct the
84:12
attention towards all kinds of enemies
84:15
either real or imaginary and there will
84:19
never be a day of reckoning so in in
84:23
this
84:23
there is no future to democracy without
84:27
a strong and free journalism I think yes
84:33
journalism
84:44
I was gonna say on behalf of the New
84:47
York Times a rousing defense of a strong
84:50
and free press works in very nicely to
84:53
remind you that we were here heard this
84:56
evening putting on this event
84:57
what a luxury called it to engage in
85:00
this debate and and to listen as Tom
85:03
described is so important as we do
85:05
figure out and make our way toward the
85:07
future we are going to call in an
85:10
evening here I want to thank all of you
85:12
for joining us thank the New York Times
85:14
and how to academy for putting a loss
85:16
event and please of course thank you of
85:18
all Harare and Thomas Friedman
85:21
[Applause]
85:23
[Music]
85:24
[Applause]
English (auto-generated)
Watch – Why fascism is so tempting — and how your data could power it | Yuval Noah Harari
Why fascism is so tempting — and how your data could power it | Yuval Noah Harari
Politics becomes the struggle to control the flows of data.
And dictatorship now means that too much data is being concentrated in the hands of the government or of a small elite.
The greatest danger that now faces liberal democracy is that the revolution in information technology will make dictatorships more efficient than democracies.
In the 20th century, democracy and capitalism defeated fascism and communism because democracy was better at processing data and making decisions. Given 20th-century technology, it was simply inefficient to try and concentrate too much data and too much power in one place.
But it is not a law of nature that centralized data processing is always less efficient than distributed data processing. With the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning, it might become feasible to process enormous amounts of information very efficiently in one place, to take all the decisions in one place, and then centralized data processing will be more efficient
than distributed data processing.
09:55
And then the main handicap of authoritarian regimes
09:58
in the 20th century —
10:00
their attempt to concentrate all the information in one place —
10:05
it will become their greatest advantage.
10:10
Another technological danger that threatens the future of democracy
10:15
is the merger of information technology with biotechnology,
10:20
which might result in the creation of algorithms
10:24
that know me better than I know myself.
10:29
And once you have such algorithms,
10:31
an external system, like the government,
10:34
cannot just predict my decisions,
10:38
it can also manipulate my feelings, my emotions.
10:42
A dictator may not be able to provide me with good health care,
10:47
but he will be able to make me love him
10:51
and to make me hate the opposition.
10:55
Democracy will find it difficult to survive such a development
11:00
because, in the end,
11:02
democracy is not based on human rationality;
11:06
it’s based on human feelings.
11:10
During elections and referendums,
11:12
you’re not being asked, “What do you think?”
11:15
You’re actually being asked, “How do you feel?”
11:20
And if somebody can manipulate your emotions effectively,
11:24
democracy will become an emotional puppet show.
11:30
So what can we do to prevent the return of fascism
11:34
and the rise of new dictatorships?
11:37
The number one question that we face is: Who controls the data?
11:44
If you are an engineer,
11:46
then find ways to prevent too much data
11:50
from being concentrated in too few hands.
11:53
And find ways to make sure
11:56
the distributed data processing is at least as efficient
12:01
as centralized data processing.
12:04
This will be the best safeguard for democracy.
12:07
As for the rest of us who are not engineers,
12:11
the number one question facing us
12:14
is how not to allow ourselves to be manipulated
12:19
by those who control the data.
12:23
The enemies of liberal democracy, they have a method.
12:27
They hack our feelings.
12:30
Not our emails, not our bank accounts —
12:32
they hack our feelings of fear and hate and vanity,
12:38
and then use these feelings
12:40
to polarize and destroy democracy from within.
12:44
This is actually a method
12:46
that Silicon Valley pioneered in order to sell us products.
12:52
But now, the enemies of democracy are using this very method
12:57
to sell us fear and hate and vanity.
13:01
They cannot create these feelings out of nothing.
13:06
So they get to know our own preexisting weaknesses.
13:10
And then use them against us.
13:13
And it is therefore the responsibility of all of us
13:17
to get to know our weaknesses
13:19
and make sure that they do not become a weapon
13:23
in the hands of the enemies of democracy.
Entire Transcript
Hello, everyone.00:15
It’s a bit funny, because I did write that humans will become digital,
00:20
but I didn’t think it will happen so fast
00:23
and that it will happen to me.
00:25
But here I am, as a digital avatar,
00:28
and here you are, so let’s start.
00:32
And let’s start with a question.
00:34
How many fascists are there in the audience today?
00:38
(Laughter)
00:39
Well, it’s a bit difficult to say,
00:42
because we’ve forgotten what fascism is.
00:46
People now use the term “fascist”
00:49
as a kind of general-purpose abuse.
00:52
Or they confuse fascism with nationalism.
00:56
So let’s take a few minutes to clarify what fascism actually is,
01:02
and how it is different from nationalism.
01:05
The milder forms of nationalism have been among the most benevolent
01:10
of human creations.
01:12
Nations are communities of millions of strangers
01:17
who don’t really know each other.
01:19
For example, I don’t know the eight million people
01:22
who share my Israeli citizenship.
01:26
But thanks to nationalism,
01:28
we can all care about one another and cooperate effectively.
01:32
This is very good.
01:34
Some people, like John Lennon, imagine that without nationalism,
01:39
the world will be a peaceful paradise.
01:44
But far more likely,
01:45
without nationalism, we would have been living in tribal chaos.
01:50
If you look today at the most prosperous and peaceful countries in the world,
01:55
countries like Sweden and Switzerland and Japan,
02:00
you will see that they have a very strong sense of nationalism.
02:05
In contrast, countries that lack a strong sense of nationalism,
02:09
like Congo and Somalia and Afghanistan,
02:13
tend to be violent and poor.
02:16
So what is fascism, and how is it different from nationalism?
02:21
Well, nationalism tells me that my nation is unique,
02:27
and that I have special obligations towards my nation.
02:31
Fascism, in contrast, tells me that my nation is supreme,
02:37
and that I have exclusive obligations towards it.
02:42
I don’t need to care about anybody or anything other than my nation.
02:48
Usually, of course, people have many identities
02:52
and loyalties to different groups.
02:55
For example, I can be a good patriot, loyal to my country,
02:59
and at the same time, be loyal to my family,
03:03
my neighborhood, my profession,
03:05
humankind as a whole,
03:06
truth and beauty.
03:09
Of course, when I have different identities and loyalties,
03:13
it sometimes creates conflicts and complications.
03:17
But, well, who ever told you that life was easy?
03:21
Life is complicated.
03:23
Deal with it.
03:26
Fascism is what happens when people try to ignore the complications
03:32
and to make life too easy for themselves.
03:36
Fascism denies all identities except the national identity
03:41
and insists that I have obligations only towards my nation.
03:47
If my nation demands that I sacrifice my family,
03:51
then I will sacrifice my family.
03:54
If the nation demands that I kill millions of people,
03:58
then I will kill millions of people.
04:01
And if my nation demands that I betray truth and beauty,
04:07
then I should betray truth and beauty.
04:11
For example, how does a fascist evaluate art?
04:16
How does a fascist decide whether a movie is a good movie or a bad movie?
04:22
Well, it’s very, very, very simple.
04:27
There is really just one yardstick:
04:29
if the movie serves the interests of the nation,
04:33
it’s a good movie;
04:34
if the movie doesn’t serve the interests of the nation,
04:37
it’s a bad movie.
04:39
That’s it.
04:40
Similarly, how does a fascist decide what to teach kids in school?
04:45
Again, it’s very simple.
04:47
There is just one yardstick:
04:49
you teach the kids whatever serves the interests of the nation.
04:55
The truth doesn’t matter at all.
05:00
Now, the horrors of the Second World War and of the Holocaust remind us
05:05
of the terrible consequences of this way of thinking.
05:10
But usually, when we talk about the ills of fascism,
05:15
we do so in an ineffective way,
05:18
because we tend to depict fascism as a hideous monster,
05:22
without really explaining what was so seductive about it.
05:27
It’s a bit like these Hollywood movies that depict the bad guys —
05:32
Voldemort or Sauron or Darth Vader —
05:36
as ugly and mean and cruel.
05:38
They’re cruel even to their own supporters.
05:41
When I see these movies, I never understand —
05:45
why would anybody be tempted to follow a disgusting creep like Voldemort?
05:52
The problem with evil is that in real life,
05:56
evil doesn’t necessarily look ugly.
05:59
It can look very beautiful.
06:02
This is something that Christianity knew very well,
06:05
which is why in Christian art, as [opposed to] Hollywood,
06:08
Satan is usually depicted as a gorgeous hunk.
06:13
This is why it’s so difficult to resist the temptations of Satan,
06:17
and why it is also difficult to resist the temptations of fascism.
06:22
Fascism makes people see themselves
06:25
as belonging to the most beautiful and most important thing in the world —
06:30
the nation.
06:32
And then people think,
06:33
“Well, they taught us that fascism is ugly.
06:37
But when I look in the mirror, I see something very beautiful,
06:40
so I can’t be a fascist, right?”
06:43
Wrong.
06:44
That’s the problem with fascism.
06:45
When you look in the fascist mirror,
06:48
you see yourself as far more beautiful than you really are.
06:53
In the 1930s, when Germans looked in the fascist mirror,
06:57
they saw Germany as the most beautiful thing in the world.
07:02
If today, Russians look in the fascist mirror,
07:05
they will see Russia as the most beautiful thing in the world.
07:09
And if Israelis look in the fascist mirror,
07:12
they will see Israel as the most beautiful thing in the world.
07:18
This does not mean that we are now facing a rerun of the 1930s.
07:24
Fascism and dictatorships might come back,
07:27
but they will come back in a new form,
07:31
a form which is much more relevant
07:33
to the new technological realities of the 21st century.
07:38
In ancient times,
07:40
land was the most important asset in the world.
07:44
Politics, therefore, was the struggle to control land.
07:49
And dictatorship meant that all the land was owned by a single ruler
07:55
or by a small oligarch.
07:57
And in the modern age, machines became more important than land.
08:03
Politics became the struggle to control the machines.
08:07
And dictatorship meant
08:09
that too many of the machines became concentrated
08:13
in the hands of the government or of a small elite.
08:17
Now data is replacing both land and machines
08:21
as the most important asset.
08:24
Politics becomes the struggle to control the flows of data.
08:29
And dictatorship now means
08:32
that too much data is being concentrated in the hands of the government
08:38
or of a small elite.
08:40
The greatest danger that now faces liberal democracy
08:45
is that the revolution in information technology
08:49
will make dictatorships more efficient than democracies.
08:54
In the 20th century,
08:56
democracy and capitalism defeated fascism and communism
09:01
because democracy was better at processing data and making decisions.
09:07
Given 20th-century technology,
09:09
it was simply inefficient to try and concentrate too much data
09:15
and too much power in one place.
09:19
But it is not a law of nature
09:23
that centralized data processing is always less efficient
09:29
than distributed data processing.
09:32
With the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning,
09:36
it might become feasible to process enormous amounts of information
09:41
very efficiently in one place,
09:44
to take all the decisions in one place,
09:47
and then centralized data processing will be more efficient
09:52
than distributed data processing.
09:55
And then the main handicap of authoritarian regimes
09:58
in the 20th century —
10:00
their attempt to concentrate all the information in one place —
10:05
it will become their greatest advantage.
10:10
Another technological danger that threatens the future of democracy
10:15
is the merger of information technology with biotechnology,
10:20
which might result in the creation of algorithms
10:24
that know me better than I know myself.
10:29
And once you have such algorithms,
10:31
an external system, like the government,
10:34
cannot just predict my decisions,
10:38
it can also manipulate my feelings, my emotions.
10:42
A dictator may not be able to provide me with good health care,
10:47
but he will be able to make me love him
10:51
and to make me hate the opposition.
10:55
Democracy will find it difficult to survive such a development
11:00
because, in the end,
11:02
democracy is not based on human rationality;
11:06
it’s based on human feelings.
11:10
During elections and referendums,
11:12
you’re not being asked, “What do you think?”
11:15
You’re actually being asked, “How do you feel?”
11:20
And if somebody can manipulate your emotions effectively,
11:24
democracy will become an emotional puppet show.
11:30
So what can we do to prevent the return of fascism
11:34
and the rise of new dictatorships?
11:37
The number one question that we face is: Who controls the data?
11:44
If you are an engineer,
11:46
then find ways to prevent too much data
11:50
from being concentrated in too few hands.
11:53
And find ways to make sure
11:56
the distributed data processing is at least as efficient
12:01
as centralized data processing.
12:04
This will be the best safeguard for democracy.
12:07
As for the rest of us who are not engineers,
12:11
the number one question facing us
12:14
is how not to allow ourselves to be manipulated
12:19
by those who control the data.
12:23
The enemies of liberal democracy, they have a method.
12:27
They hack our feelings.
12:30
Not our emails, not our bank accounts —
12:32
they hack our feelings of fear and hate and vanity,
12:38
and then use these feelings
12:40
to polarize and destroy democracy from within.
12:44
This is actually a method
12:46
that Silicon Valley pioneered in order to sell us products.
12:52
But now, the enemies of democracy are using this very method
12:57
to sell us fear and hate and vanity.
13:01
They cannot create these feelings out of nothing.
13:06
So they get to know our own preexisting weaknesses.
13:10
And then use them against us.
13:13
And it is therefore the responsibility of all of us
13:17
to get to know our weaknesses
13:19
and make sure that they do not become a weapon
13:23
in the hands of the enemies of democracy.
13:27
Getting to know our own weaknesses
13:29
will also help us to avoid the trap of the fascist mirror.
13:36
As we explained earlier, fascism exploits our vanity.
13:40
It makes us see ourselves as far more beautiful than we really are.
13:46
This is the seduction.
13:48
But if you really know yourself,
13:50
you will not fall for this kind of flattery.
13:54
If somebody puts a mirror in front of your eyes
13:58
that hides all your ugly bits and makes you see yourself
14:04
as far more beautiful and far more important
14:08
than you really are,
14:09
just break that mirror.
14:13
Thank you.
14:14
(Applause)
14:22
Chris Anderson: Yuval, thank you.
14:24
Goodness me.
14:25
It’s so nice to see you again.
14:27
So, if I understand you right,
14:29
you’re alerting us to two big dangers here.
14:32
One is the possible resurgence of a seductive form of fascism,
14:36
but close to that, dictatorships that may not exactly be fascistic,
14:41
but control all the data.
14:43
I wonder if there’s a third concern
14:45
that some people here have already expressed,
14:47
which is where, not governments, but big corporations control all our data.
14:52
What do you call that,
14:54
and how worried should we be about that?
14:56
Yuval Noah Harari: Well, in the end, there isn’t such a big difference
14:59
between the corporations and the governments,
15:02
because, as I said, the questions is: Who controls the data?
15:05
This is the real government.
15:07
If you call it a corporation or a government —
15:09
if it’s a corporation and it really controls the data,
15:12
this is our real government.
15:14
So the difference is more apparent than real.
15:18
CA: But somehow, at least with corporations,
15:21
you can imagine market mechanisms where they can be taken down.
15:24
I mean, if consumers just decide
15:26
that the company is no longer operating in their interest,
15:29
it does open the door to another market.
15:31
It seems easier to imagine that
15:33
than, say, citizens rising up and taking down a government
15:36
that is in control of everything.
15:37
YNH: Well, we are not there yet,
15:39
but again, if a corporation really knows you better than you know yourself —
15:44
at least that it can manipulate your own deepest emotions and desires,
15:50
and you won’t even realize —
15:51
you will think this is your authentic self.
15:54
So in theory, yes, in theory, you can rise against a corporation,
15:58
just as, in theory, you can rise against a dictatorship.
16:02
But in practice, it is extremely difficult.
16:07
CA: So in “Homo Deus,” you argue that this would be the century
16:11
when humans kind of became gods,
16:14
either through development of artificial intelligence
16:17
or through genetic engineering.
16:20
Has this prospect of political system shift, collapse
16:26
impacted your view on that possibility?
16:29
YNH: Well, I think it makes it even more likely,
16:32
and more likely that it will happen faster,
16:35
because in times of crisis, people are willing to take risks
16:40
that they wouldn’t otherwise take.
16:42
And people are willing to try
16:45
all kinds of high-risk, high-gain technologies.
16:49
So these kinds of crises might serve the same function
16:54
as the two world wars in the 20th century.
16:57
The two world wars greatly accelerated
17:00
the development of new and dangerous technologies.
17:04
And the same thing might happen in the 21st century.
17:07
I mean, you need to be a little crazy to run too fast,
17:11
let’s say, with genetic engineering.
17:13
But now you have more and more crazy people
17:17
in charge of different countries in the world,
17:19
so the chances are getting higher, not lower.
17:23
CA: So, putting it all together, Yuval, you’ve got this unique vision.
17:27
Roll the clock forward 30 years.
17:28
What’s your guess — does humanity just somehow scrape through,
17:31
look back and say, “Wow, that was a close thing. We did it!”
17:35
Or not?
17:36
YNH: So far, we’ve managed to overcome all the previous crises.
17:40
And especially if you look at liberal democracy
17:43
and you think things are bad now,
17:46
just remember how much worse things looked in 1938 or in 1968.
17:52
So this is really nothing, this is just a small crisis.
17:56
But you can never know,
17:58
because, as a historian,
18:00
I know that you should never underestimate human stupidity.
18:05
(Laughter) (Applause)
18:06
It is one of the most powerful forces that shape history.
18:11
CA: Yuval, it’s been an absolute delight to have you with us.
18:14
Thank you for making the virtual trip.
18:16
Have a great evening there in Tel Aviv.
18:18
Yuval Harari!
18:19
YNH: Thank you very much.
18:20
(Applause)
NYTimes: When Trump Goes, Can the Democrats Hold It Together?
When Trump Goes, Can the Democrats Hold It Together? nyti.ms/3kHqhjV
Sent from my U.S.Cellular© Smartphone
Will AI Enhance or Hack Humanity? – Fei-Fei Li & Yuval Noah Harari in Conversation with Nicholas Thompson
Will AI Enhance or Hack Humanity? – Fei-Fei Li & Yuval Noah Harari in Conversation with Nicholas Thompson
In a discussion that covers ethics in technology, hacking humans, free will, and how to avoid potential dystopian scenarios, historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari speaks with Fei-Fei Li, renowned computer scientist and Co-Director of Stanford University’s Human-Centered AI Institute — in a conversation moderated by Nicholas Thompson, WIRED’s Editor-in-Chief.
Transcript
My name is Rob Reich, I’m delighted to welcome you here to Stanford University for an evening of conversation with Yuval Harari, Fei-Fei Li, and Nick Thompson.
I’m a professor of political science here
and the Faculty Director of
the Stanford Center for Ethics and Society,
which is a co-sponsor of tonight’s event,
along with the Stanford Institute
for Human Centered Artificial Intelligence
and the Stanford Humanities Center.
Our topic tonight is a big one.
We’re going to be thinking together
about the promises and perils of artificial intelligence.
The technology quickly reshaping our economic,
social, and political worlds, for better or for worse.
The questions raised by the emergence of AI
are by now familiar, at least to many people
here in Silicon Valley but, I think it’s fair
to say that their importance is only growing.
What will the future of work look like
when millions of jobs can be automated?
Are we doomed or perhaps blessed to live in a world
where algorithms make decisions instead of humans.
And these are smaller questions in the big scheme of things.
What, might you ask you’re the large ones?
Well, here are three.
What will become of the human species
if machine intelligence approaches
or exceeds that of an ordinary human being?
As a technology that currently relies
on massive centralized pools of data,
does AI favor authoritarian centralized governments
over more decentralized democratic governance?
And are we at the start now of an AI arms race?
And what will happen if powerful systems of AI,
especially when deployed for purposes
like facial recognition, are in the hands
of authoritarian rulers?
These challenges only scratch the surface when it comes
to fully wrestling with the implications of AI,
as the technology continues to improve
and its use cases continue to multiply.
I want to mention the format of the evening event.
First, given the vast areas of expertise
that Yuval and Fei-Fei have,
when you ask questions via Slido,
those questions should pertain
or be limited to the topics under discussion tonight.
So, this web interface that we’re using,
Slido allows people to upvote and downvote questions.
So, you can see them now if you have
an internet communication device.
If you don’t have one, you can take one of these postcards,
which hopefully you got outside
and on the back you can fill in a question you might have
about the evening event and collect it at the end,
and the Stanford Humanities Center
will try to foster some type of conversation
on the basis of those questions.
Couple housekeeping things,
if you didn’t purchase one already,
Yuval’s books are available for sale
outside in the lobby after the event.
A reminder to please turn your cell phone ringers off.
And we will have 90 minutes
for our moderated conversation here
and will end sharp after 90 minutes.
Now, I’m going to leave the stage in just a minute
and allow a really amazing undergraduate student
here at Stanford to introduce our guests.
Her name is Anna-Sofia Lesiv,
let me just tell you a bit about her.
She’s a junior here at Stanford majoring in Economics
with a minor in Computer Science
and outside the classroom, Anna-Sofia is a journalist
whose work has been featured in The Globe and Mail,
Al Jazeera, The Mercury News, The Seattle Times,
and this campuses paper of record, The Stanford Daily.
She’s currently the Executive Editor of The Daily
and her daily magazine article
from earlier in the year called CS Plus Ethics,
examined the history of computer science
and ethics education at Stanford
and it won the student prize for best journalism of 2018.
She continues to publish probing examinations
of the ethical challenges faced by technologists here
and elsewhere so, ladies and gentlemen
I invite you to remember this name
for you’ll be reading about her
or reading her articles, or likely both,
please welcome Stanford junior, Anna-Sofia Lesiv.
[audience clapping]
Thank you very much for the introduction, Rob.
Well it’s my great honor now,
to introduce our three guests tonight,
Yuval Noah Harari, Fei-Fei Li, and Nicholas Thompson.
Professor Yuval Noah Harari is a historian,
futurist, philosopher, and professor at Hebrew University.
The world also knows him for authoring some of
the most ambitious and influential books of our decade.
Professor Harari’s internationally best-selling books,
which have sold millions of copies worldwide,
have covered a dizzying array of subject matter
from narrativizing the entire history
of the human race in Sapiens,
to predicting the future awaiting humanity,
and even coining a new faith called Dadaism, in Homo Deus.
Professor Harari has become a beloved figure
in Silicon Valley, whose readings are assigned
in Stanford’s classrooms and whose name
is whispered through the hallways
of the comparative literature
and computer science departments, alike.
His most recent book is 21 Lessons for the 21st Century,
which focuses on the technological,
social, political, and ecological challenges
of the present moment.
In this work, Harari cautions
that as technological breakthroughs
continue to accelerate, we will have less
and less time to reflect upon the meaning
and consequences of the changes they bring.
And this urgency, is what charges
Professor Fei-Fei Li’s work everyday,
in her role as the Co-Director of Stanford’s
Human-Centered AI Institute.
This institute is one of the first
to insist that AI is not merely the domain of technologists
but a fundamentally interdisciplinary
and ultimately human issue.
Her fascination with the fundamental questions
of human intelligence is what piqued her interest
in neuroscience, as she eventually became
one of the world’s greatest experts
in the fields of computer vision, machine learning,
and cognitive and computational neuroscience.
She’s published over a hundred scientific articles
in leading journals and has had research supported
by the National Science Foundation, Microsoft,
and the Sloan Foundation.
From 2013 to 2018, Professor Fei-Fei Li served as
the Director of Stanford’s AI lab
and between January, 2017 and September, 2018,
Professor Fei-Fei Li served as Vice President at Google
and Chief Scientist of AI and Machine Learning
at Google Cloud.
Nicholas Thompson is the Editor-In-Chief of Wired magazine,
a position he’s held since January, 2017.
Under Mr. Thompson’s leadership,
the topic of artificial intelligence
has come to hold a special place at the magazine.
Not only has Wired assigned more feature stories
on AI than on any other subject,
but it is the only specific topic
with a full-time reporter assigned to it.
It’s no wonder then, that Professors Harari
and Li are no strangers to its pages.
Mr. Thompson has led discussions
with the world’s leaders in technology and AI,
including Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook and Privacy,
French President, Emmanuel Macron on France’s AI strategy,
and Ray Kurzweil on the ethics and limits of AI.
Mr. Thompson is a Stanford University graduate
who earned his BA, double majoring
in earth systems and political science
and impressively even completed a third degree in economics.
Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention
that Mr. Thompson cut his journalistic teeth
in the opinions section of the Stanford Daily so,
Nick, that makes both of us.
Like all our guests today, I’m at once fascinated
and worried by the challenges
that artificial intelligence poses for our society.
One of my goals at Stanford has been
to write about and document the challenge
of educating a generation of students whose lives
and workplaces, will eventually be transformed by AI.
Most recently, I published an article
called Complacent Valley, with the Stanford Daily.
In it I critiqued our propensity
to become overly comfortable with the technological
and financial achievements that Silicon Valley
has already reached, lest we become complacent
and lose our ambition and momentum
to tackle the greater challenges the world has in store.
Answering the fundamental questions
of what we should spend our time on,
how we should live our lives,
has become much more difficult,
particularly on the doorstep of the AI revolution.
I believe that the kind of crisis of agency
that Author JD Vance wrote of in Hillbilly Elegy,
for example, is not confined to Appalachia
or the de-industrialized Midwest
but is emerging even at elite institutions like Stanford.
So conversations like hours this evening,
hosting speakers that aim to re-center
the individual at the heart of AI,
will show us how to take responsibility
in a moment when most decisions
can seemingly be made for us, by algorithms.
There are no narratives to guide us through a future
with AI, no ancient myths or stories
that we may rely on to tell us what to do.
At a time when Humanity is facing
its greatest challenge yet,
somehow we cannot be more at a loss for ideas or direction.
It’s this momentous crossroads in human history
that pulls me towards journalism and writing in the future.
And it’s why I’m so eager to hear
our three guests discuss exactly such a future, tonight.
So, please join me in giving them
a very warm welcome this evening.
[audience applause]
Wow, thank you so much Anna-Sofia, thank you, Rob.
Thank you, Stanford for inviting us all here.
I’m having a flashback to the last time
I was on a stage at Stanford,
which was playing guitar at the coho
and I didn’t have either Yuval or Fei-Fei with me
so, there were about six people in the audience,
one of whom had her headphones on but, I did meet my wife.
[audience croons] Isn’t that sweet?
All right so, a reminder, housekeeping,
questions are going to come in, in Slido.
You can put them in, you can vote up questions,
we’ve already got several thousand
so please vote up the ones you really like.
If someone can program an AI that can get
a really devastating question in
and stump Yuval, I will get you
a free subscription to Wired.
[audience laughs]
I want this conversation to kind of have three parts.
First, lay out where we are,
then talk about some of the choices
we have to make now, and last talk about some advice
for all the wonderful people in the halls.
So, those are the three general areas,
I’ll feed in questions as we go.
We may have a specific period for questions
at the end but, let’s get cracking.
Yuval.
[Yuval] Yeah.
So, the last time we talked you said many,
many brilliant things but one that stuck out,
it was a line where you said,
We are not just in a technological crisis,
we are in a philosophical crisis.
So, explain what you meant, explain how it ties to AI,
and let’s get going with a note of existential angst.
[all laughing]
Yes, I think what’s happening now
is that the philosophical framework of the modern world
that has been established in the 17th and 18th century,
around ideas like human agency and individual free will,
are being challenged like never before.
Not by philosophical ideas but by practical technologies.
And we see more and more questions,
which used to be, you know, the bread and butter
of the philosophy department, being moved
to the engineering department.
And that’s scary, partly because, unlike philosophers,
who are extremely patient people,
they can discuss something for thousands of years
without reaching any agreement and they are fine with that,
[light audience laughter] the engineers won’t wait
and even if the engineers are willing to wait,
the investors behind the engineers, won’t wait.
So, it means that we don’t have a lot of time
and in order to encapsulate what the crisis is,
I know that, you know engineers,
especially in a place like Silicon Valley,
they like equations so, maybe I
can try to formulate an equation [laughing]
to explain what’s happening.
And the equation is B times C times D equals ah.
Which means, biological knowledge
multiplied by computing power multiplied by data
equals the ability to hack humans.
And the AI revolutional crisis is not just AI,
it’s also biology, it’s biotech.
We haven’t seen anything yet
because the link is not complete.
There is a lot of hype now around AI in computers
but just that it is just half the story.
The other half is the abilities,
the biological knowledge coming from brain science
and biology and once you link that to AI,
what you get is the ability to hack humans.
And maybe I’ll explain what it means,
the ability to hack humans to create an algorithm
that understands me better than I understand myself
and can therefore manipulate me, enhance me, or replace me.
And this something that our philosophical baggage
and all our belief in, you know, human agency,
and free will, and the customer is always right,
and the voter knows best, this just falls apart
once you have this kind of ability.
Once you have this kind of ability
and it’s used to manipulate or replace you,
not if it’s used to enhance you?
Also when it’s used to enhance you,
the question is, who decides what is a good enhancement
and what is a bad enhancement.
So, our immediate fallback position
is to fall back on the traditional humanist ideas
that the customer is always right,
the customers will choose the enhancement,
or the voter is always right.
The voters will vote.
There will be a political decision about enhancement,
or if it feels good, do it.
We’ll just follow our heart, we’ll just listen to ourselves.
None of this works when there is a technology
to hack human on a large scale.
You can’t trust your feelings,
or the voters, or the customers on that.
The easiest people to manipulate
are the people who believe in free will
because they think they cannot be manipulated.
So, how do you decide what to enhance if,
and this a very deep ethical and philosophical question.
Again, it philosophers have been debating
for thousands of years.
What is good?
What are the good qualities we need to enhance?
So, if you can’t trust the customer,
if you can’t trust the voter,
if you can’t trust your feelings, who do you trust?
What do you go by?
All right Fei-Fei, you have a PhD,
you have a CS degree, you’re Professor at Stanford.
Does A times B times C equal H? [laughing]
Is Yuvals theory the right way
to look at where we’re headed?
Wow, what a beginning, thank you, Yuval.
Well, one of the things, I’ve been reading Yuval’s book
for the past couple of years, and talking to you,
and I’m very envious of philosophers now,
because they can propose questions
and crisis but they don’t have to answer them.
[laughing loudly]
Now, as an engineer and scientist,
I feel like we have to now solve the crisis.
So, honestly I think I’m very thankful.
I mean, personally I’ve been reading your book
for two years and I’m very thankful
that Yuval, among other people,
have opened up this really important question
for us and it’s also quite a…
When you said the AI crisis
and I was sitting there thinking,
this a field I loved, and felt passionate about,
and researched for 20 years,
and that was just a scientific curiosity
of a young scientist entering PhD and AI.
What happened, that 20 years later, it has become a crisis?
And it actually speak of the evolution of AI
that got me where I am today
and got my colleagues at Stanford where we are today
with the Human-Center AI,
is that this a transformative technology.
It’s a nascent technology, it’s still a budding science
compared to physics, chemistry, biology but,
with the power of data, computing,
and the kind of diverse impact AI is making,
it is like you said, is touching human lives
and business in broad and deep ways.
And responding to that kind of questions
in crisis that’s facing humanity,
I think one of the proposed solution,
or if not solution at least a try
that Stanford is making an effort about,
is can we reframe the education,
the research, and the dialogue of AI
and technology in general, in a human centered way.
We’re not necessarily gonna find solution today but,
can we involve the humanists, the philosophers,
the historians, the political scientists,
the economists, the ethicist, the legal scholars,
the neuroscientists, the psychologists,
and many more other disciplines,
into the study and development of AI
in the next chapter, in the next phase.
Don’t be so certain we’re not gonna get an answer today.
I’ve got two of the smartest people in the world
glued to their chairs and I’ve got Slido
for 72 minutes so, let’s give it a shot.
But he said we have thousands of years.
[all laughing]
But let me go a little bit further in Yuval’s questions.
So, there are lots, or Yuval’s opening statement,
there are a lot of crises about AI
that people talk about, right?
They talk about AI becoming conscious
and what will that mean,
they talk about job displacement,
They talk about biases, when Yuval has very clearly laid out
what he thinks is the most important one,
which is the combination of biology plus
computing plus data leading to hacking.
He’s laid out a very specific concern.
Is that specific concern, what people
who were thinking about AI should be focused on?
So, absolutely.
So, alien technology humanity has created,
starting from fire, is a double-edged soul.
So, it can bring improvements to life and to work
and to society but it can bring the perils
and AI has the perils, you know?
I wake up every day worried
about the diversity inclusion issue in AI.
We worry about fairness or the lack of fairness,
privacy, the labor market so,
absolutely we need to be concerned
and because of that we need to expand the study,
the research, and the the development of policies,
and the dialogue of AI beyond just the codes
and the products into these human realms,
into these societal issues.
So, I absolutely agree with you on that,
that this the moment to open the dialogue,
to open the research in those issues.
Okay. I would just say that again,
part of my fear is that the dialogue,
I don’t fear AI experts talking with philosophers,
I’m fine with that, historians good,
literary critics wonderful, I fear the moment
you start talking with biologists.
[crowd chatter]
That’s my biggest fear.
When you and the biologist will,
Hey, we actually had a common language
and we can do things together.
And that’s when the really scary things, I think.
Can you elaborate on the what is scaring you
that we talk to biologists?
That’s the moment when you can really hack human beings,
not by collecting data about our search words,
or our purchasing habits, or where do we go about town,
but you can actually start peering inside
and collect data directly
from our hearts and from our brains.
Okay, can I be specific?
First of all, the birth of AI is AI scientist
talking to biologists, specifically neuro scientists.
Right, the birth of AI is very much inspired
by what the brain does.
Fast-forward to sixty years later,
today’s AI is making great improvement in healthcare.
There’s a lot of data from our physiology
and pathology being collected
and using machine learning to help us but,
I feel like you’re talking about something else.
That’s part of it, I mean,
if there wasn’t a great promise in the technology,
there would also be no danger
because nobody would go along that path.
I mean, obviously, there are enormously beneficial things
that AI can do for us, especially
when it is linked with how is biology.
We are about to get the best health care in the world,
in history, and the cheapest,
and available for billions of people via smartphones,
which today they have almost nothing.
And this is why it is almost impossible to resist
the temptation and with all the issue now, of privacy.
If you have a big battle between privacy and health,
health is likely to win hands down.
So, I fully agree with that and, you know,
my job as a historian, as a philosopher,
as a social critic, is to point out the dangers in that
because especially in Silicon Valley,
people are very much familiar with the advantages
but they don’t like to think so much
about the dangers and the big danger
is what happens when you can hack the brain
and that can serve not just your healthcare provider,
that can serve so many things from a crazy dictator, to–
Let’s focus on that, what it means to hack the brain.
Like what, right now in some ways,
my brain is hacked, right?
There’s an allure of this device,
it wants me to check it constantly.
Like, my brain has been a little bit hacked.
Yours hasn’t because you meditate two hours a day
but mine has and probably [laughter]
most of these people have.
But what exactly is the future brain hacking
going to be, that it isn’t today?
Much more of the same, but on a much larger scale.
I mean, the point when for example,
more and more of your personal decisions in lives
are being outsourced to an algorithm
that is just so much better than you.
So, you know we have two distinct dystopias
that kind of mesh together.
We have the dystopia of surveillance capitalism
in which there is no like, Big Brother dictator
but more and more of your decisions
are being made by an algorithm
and it’s not just decisions about what to eat,
or what to shop, but decisions like,
where to work, and where to study, and whom to date,
and whom to marry, and whom to vote for.
It’s the same logic and I would be curious to hear
if you think that there is anything in humans,
which is by definition un-hackable,
that we can’t reach a point when the algorithm
can make that decision better than me.
So, that’s one line of dystopia
which is a bit more familiar in this part of the world
and then you have the full-fledged dystopia
of a totalitarian regime
based on a total surveillance system.
Something like the totalitarian regimes
that we have seen in the twentieth century
but augmented with biometric sensors
and the ability to basically track
each and every individual, 24 hours a day.
And you know, which in the days of,
I don’t know, Stalin or Hitler, was absolutely impossible
because it didn’t have the technology
but maybe, might be possible in 20 years or 30 years.
So, we can choose which dystopia to discuss
but they are very close in–
Let’s choose the liberal democracy dystopia.
Fei-Fei, do you want answer Yuval’s specific question,
which is, is there something in dystopia,
a liberal democracy dystopia, is there something endemic
to humans that cannot be hacked?
So, when you ask me that question just two minutes ago,
the first word that came to my mind is love.
Is love hackable?
Ask Tinder, I don’t know.
[crowd and panel laughing]
Dating–
It depends–
Dating is not the entirety of love, I hope.
The question is which kind of love are you referring to?
If you are referring to this, you know I don’t know,
Greek philosophical love or the loving kindness of Buddhism,
that’s one question,
which I think it’s much more complicated.
If you are referring to the
biological mammalian courtship rituals,
then I think yes.
I mean, why not?
But humans– Why is it different
from anything else that is happening in the body?
But humans are humans because there’s some part of us
that are beyond the mammalian courtship, right?
So, is that part hackable?
That’s the question?
I mean, you know in in most science fiction books
and movies, they give your answer.
When the extra-terrestrial evil robots
are about to conquer planet Earth
and nothing can resist them, resistance is futile,
at the very last moment,
Humans win It’s just one thing,
Because the robots don’t understand love.
Last moment there’s one heroic white dude that saves us.
[audience cheering and applause] [laughter]
Why we do this?
No, no, it was a joke, don’t worry.
[audience and panel laughter]
But, okay so, the two dystopia,
I do not have answers to the two dystopias
but I want to keep saying is
this is precisely why this is the moment
that we need to seek for solutions.
This is precisely why this is the moment
that we believe the new chapter of AI needs to be written
by cross-pollinating efforts from humanists,
social scientists, to business leaders,
to civil society, to governments to come at the same table
to have that multilateral and cooperative conversation.
I think you really bring out the urgency
and the importance and the scale of this potential crisis
but I think in the face of that, we need to act.
Yeah, and I agree that we need cooperation,
that we need much closer cooperation
between engineers and philosophers
or engineers and historians
and also from a philosophical perspective,
I think there is something wonderful
about engineers, philosophically.
Thank you. [laughing]
That they you really cut the bullshit.
I mean, philosophers can talk and talk you know,
in cloudy in flowery metaphors
and then the engineers can really focus the question.
Like, I just had a discussion the other day
with an engineer from Google about this
and he said, Okay, I know how to maximize
people’s time on the website.
If somebody comes to me and tells me,
Look, your job is to maximize time on this application.
I know how to do it because I know how to measure it.
But if somebody comes along and tells me,
Well you need to maximize human flourishing
or You need to maximize universal love,
I don’t know what it means.
So, the engineers go back to the philosophers
and ask them, what do you actually mean.
Which, you know, a lot of philosophical theories
collapse around that because they can’t really explain
what and we need this kind of collaboration.
Yeah.
We need a equation for that. In order to move forward.
But then Yuval, is Fei-Fei right?
If we can’t explain and we can’t code love,
can artificial intelligence ever recreate it
or is it something intrinsic to humans
that the machines will never emulate.
I don’t think that machines will feel love
but you don’t necessarily need to feel it
in order to be able to hack it,
to monitor it, to predict it, to manipulate it.
I mean, machines don’t like to play candy crush.
But you think they can– But they can still–
This device, in some future
where it’s infinitely more powerful
than it is right now, could make me fall in love
with somebody in the audience?
Hmm, that goes to the question of consciousness
and in mind.
Let’s go there. I don’t think that we have
the understanding of what consciousness is
to answer the question, whether a non-organic consciousness
is possible or is not possible.
I think we just don’t know but again
the bar for hacking humans is much lower.
The machines don’t need to have consciousness of their own
in order to predict our choices
and manipulate our choices, they just need…
If you accept that something like love is,
in the end, a biological process in the body.
If you think that AI can provide us
with wonderful health care
by being able to monitor and predict
something like the flu or something like cancer,
what’s the essential difference between flu and love?
[audience applause]
In the sense of, is this biological
and this something else, which is so separated
from the biological reality of the body,
that even if we have a machine
that is capable of monitoring and predicting flu,
it still lacks something essential
in order to do the same thing with love.
Fei-Fei.
So, I want to make two comments
and this is where my engineering,
you know, personality is speaking.
We’re making two very important assumptions
in this part of the conversation.
One is that AI is so omnipotent
that it’s achieved to a state
that it’s beyond predicting anything physical,
its guarding to the consciousness level
and getting to the, even the ultimate,
the love level of capability
and I do want to make sure that we recognize
that we’re very, very, very far from that.
This technology is still very nascent.
Part of the concern I have about today’s AI
is that super-hyping of its capability so,
I’m not saying that, that’s not a valid question
but I think that part of this conversation
is built upon that assumption that this technology
has become that powerful and there’s,
I don’t even know how many decades we are from that.
Second related assumption, I feel we are,
our conversation is being based on this
that we’re talking about the world or state of the world
that owning that powerful AI exists
or that small group of people
who have produced the powerful AI
and is intended to hack human, are existing.
But in fact our human society is so complex
there’s so many of us, right?
I mean, humanity in its history,
have faced so many technology,
if we left it in the hands of a bad player,
alone without any regulation, multinational collaboration,
rules, laws, moral codes, that technology could have,
maybe not hack human but destroy human
or hurt human in massive ways.
It has happened but by and large,
our society in a historical view
is moving to a more civilized and controlled state.
So, I think it’s important to look at that greater society
and bringing other players and people into this dialogue
so we don’t talk like there is only this omnipotent AI,
you know, deciding it’s gonna hack everything to the end.
And that brings to your topic that in addition
of hacking human at that level that you’re talking about,
there are some very immediate concerns already.
Diversity, privacy, labor, legal changes,
you know, international geopolitics
and I think it’s critical to tackle those now.
I love talking to AI researchers
because five years ago, all the AI researchers were like,
It’s much more powerful than you think and now
they’re all like, It’s not as powerful as you think.
[audience and panel laughter]
All right so,
Let me ask, It’s because five years ago
you have no idea what AI is,
I’m not saying it’s wrong Now, you’re extrapolating
too much. [laughs]
I didn’t say it was wrong, I just said it was a thing.
I want to go into what you just said
but before you do that I want to take one question here
from the audience because once we move
into the second section, we won’t be able to answer it.
So, the question is, it’s for you Yuval,
this from Mara and Lucini, How can we avoid
the formation of AI power digital dictatorships?
So, how do we avoid dystopia number two?
Let’s answer that and then let’s go Fei-Fei,
into what we can do right now,
not what we can do in the future.
The key issue is how to regulate the ownership of data
because we won’t stop research in biology
and we won’t stop research in computer science and AI.
So, for the three components of biological knowledge,
computing power, and data, I think data is the easiest
and it’s also very difficult but still the easiest,
kind of, to regulate or to protect.
Place some protections there and there are efforts
now being made and they are not just political efforts but,
also philosophical efforts to really conceptualize,
what does it mean to own data
or to regulate the ownership of data
because we have a fairly good understanding
what it means to own land,
we had thousands of years of experience with that,
we have a very poor understanding
of what it actually means to own data
and how to regulate it.
But this the very important front
that we need to focus on in order to prevent
the worst dystopian outcomes
and I agree that AI is not nearly as powerful
as some people imagined but this why,
and again, I think we need to place the bar low
for to reach a critical threshold,
we don’t need the AI to know us perfectly,
which will never happen, we just need the AI
to know us better than we know ourselves.
Which is not so difficult because most people
don’t know themselves very well
and often make [laughter and audience applause]
huge mistakes in critical decisions.
So, whether it’s finance, or career, or love life,
to have this shift in authority
from humans to algorithm, they can still be terrible
but as long as they are a bit less terrible
than us, the authority will shift to them.
Yuv, in your book you tell a very illuminating story
about your own self and your own coming in terms
with you with who you are and how you could be manipulated.
Will you tell that story here,
about coming to terms with your sexuality
and the story you told about Coca-Cola
and your book because I think that will make it clear
what you mean here, very well.
Yes so, I said that I only realized
that I was gay when I was 21.
And I look back at the time when I was,
I don’t know, 15, 17 and it should’ve been so obvious.
And it’s not like a stranger like,
I’m with myself 24 hours a day [laughter]
and I just don’t notice any, of like,
the screaming signs that saying,
There, you were gay and I don’t know how
but the fact is, I missed it.
Now, an AI, even a very stupid AI,
today, will not miss it.
[audience and panel laughing] I’m not so sure.
So imagine, this not like, you know like,
a science fiction scenario of a century from now,
this can happen today, that you can write
all kinds of algorithms that, you know,
they are not perfect but they are still better,
say than the average teenager
and what does it mean to live in a world
in which you learn about something so important
about yourself, from an algorithm.
What does it mean?
What happens if the algorithm doesn’t
share the information with you
but it shares the information
with advertisers or with governments?
So, if you want to, and I think we should,
go down from the cloudy heights of,
you know, the extreme scenarios
to the practicalities of day-to-day life,
this a good example because this is already happening.
Yeah, all right well let’s take the elevator
down to the more conceptual level
of this particular shopping mall
that we’re shopping in today
and Fei-Fei, let’s talk about what we can do today
as we think about the risks of AI, the benefits of AI,
and tell us you know, sort of your punch list,
of what you think the most important things
we should be thinking about with AI are.
Wow, boy there are so many things we could do today
and I cannot agree more with Yuval,
that this is such an important topic.
Again I’m gonna try to speak about all the efforts
that’s being made at Stanford
because I think this a good representation
of what we believe, there are so many efforts we can do.
So, in human-centered AI in which,
this the overall theme we believe,
that the next chapter of AI should be, is human-centered.
We believe in three major principles.
One principle is to invest in the next generation
of AI technology that reflects more
of the kind of human intelligence we would like.
I was just thinking about your comment
about AI’s dependence on data and how that the policy
and governance of data should emerge
in order to regulate and govern the AI impact.
Well, we should be developing technology
that can explain AI, in technical field
we call it explainable AI or AI interpretability studies.
We should be focusing on technology that have
the more nuanced understanding of human intelligence.
We should be investing in the development
of less data dependent AI technology
that would take into considerations of intuition, knowledge,
creativity, and other forms of human intelligence.
So, that kind of human intelligence inspired AI
is one of our principles.
The second principle is to, again welcome in
the kind of multidisciplinary study
of AI cross-pollinating with economics,
with ethics, with law, with philosophy,
with history, cognitive science, and so on
because there is so much more we need to understand
in terms of AI’s social, human,
anthropological, ethical impact
and we cannot possibly do this alone as technologists.
Some of us shouldn’t even be doing this,
it’s the ethicist, philosophers should participate
and work with us on these issues.
So, that’s the second principle and the third principle…
Oh, and within this we work with policymakers,
we convene the kind of dialogues
of multilateral stakeholders.
Then the third, the last but not the least,
I think Nick, you said that at the very beginning
of this conversation that we need to promote
that the human enhancing and collaborative
and augmentative aspect of this technology.
You have a point, even there it can become manipulative
but we need to start with that sense of alertness,
understanding, but still promote
that kind of benevolent applications
and design of this technology.
At least these are the three principles
the Stanford’s Human-Centered AI Institute is based on
and I just feel very proud, within a short few months
of the birth of this Institute,
there are more than 200 faculty involved on this campus
in this kind of research dialog, you know,
study education and that number is still growing.
Wow.
Of those three principles let’s start digging into them.
So, let’s go to number one, explainability,
’cause this a really interesting debate
in artificial intelligence so,
there are some practitioners who say
you should have algorithms that can explain
what they did and the choices they made.
It sounds eminently sensible but how do you do that?
I make all kinds of decisions that I can’t entirely explain
like, why did I hire this person off that person?
I can tell a story about why I did it
but I don’t know for sure.
Like, we don’t know ourselves well enough
to always be able to truthfully
and fully explain what we did.
How can we expect a computer using AI, to do that?
And, if we demand that here in the West
then there are other parts of the world
that don’t demand that, who may be able to move faster.
So, why don’t we start, why don’t I ask you
the first part of that question,
Yuval the second part of that question.
So, the first part is, can we actually get explainability
if it’s super hard even within ourselves?
Well, it’s pretty hard for me to multiply two digits
but you know, computers can do that.
Yeah.
So, the fact that something is hard for humans
doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to get the machines to do it,
especially, after all, these algorithms
are based on very simple mathematical logic.
Granted, we’re dealing with newer networks these days
of millions of nodes and billions of connections so,
explainability is actually tough, it’s an ongoing research.
But I think this is such a fertile ground
and it’s so critical when it comes to health care decisions,
financial decisions, legal decisions,
there’s so many scenarios where this technology
can be potentially, positively useful
but with that kind of explainable capabilities so,
we’ve gotta try and I’m pretty confident
with a lot of smart minds out there,
this a crackable thing
and on top of that– Got 200 professors on it.
Right, not all of them doing AI algorithms.
On top of that, I think you have a point that
if we have technology that can explain
the decision making process of algorithms,
it makes it harder for it to manipulate and cheat, right?
It’s a technical solution, not the entirety of the solution,
that will contribute to the clarification
of what this technology is doing.
But because the, presumably the AI,
makes decision in a radically different way than humans
then even if the AI explains its logic
the fear is it will make absolutely no sense to most humans.
Most humans, when they are asked to explain a decision
they tell a story in a narrative form,
which may or may not reflect
what is actually happening within them,
in many cases it doesn’t reflect.
It’s just a made-up rationalization and not the real thing.
Now, in AI it could be much better than a human
in telling me like, I applied to the bank for a loan
and the bank says no and I ask why not
and the bank says, Okay, we’ll ask our AI
and the AI gives this extremely long,
statistical analysis based,
not on one or two salient feature of my life
but on 2,517 different data points
which it took into account and gave different weights
and why did you give this, this weight
and why did you give oh, there is another book about that
and most of the data points would seem,
to a human, completely irrelevant.
You applied for a loan on Monday
and not on Wednesday and the AI discovered that
for whatever reason, it’s after the weekend, whatever,
people who apply for loans on a Monday
are 0.075 percent less likely to repay the loan.
So, it goes into the equation
and I get this book of the real explanation,
finally I get a real explanation.
It’s not like sitting with a human banker
that just bullshit’s me [audience laughing]
What do I do with a book? Are you rooting for AI?
Are you saying AI’s good in this case?
In many cases, yes I mean, I think in many cas…
I mean, it’s two sides of the coin.
I think that in many ways the AI in this scenario
will be an improvement over the human banker
because for example, you can really know
what the decision is based on presumably,
but it’s based on something that I,
as a human being, just cannot grasp.
I know how to deal with simple narrative stories.
I didn’t give you a loan because you’re gay,
that’s not good or because you didn’t repay
any of your previous loans.
Okay, I can understand that.
But my mind doesn’t know what to do
with the real explanation that the AI will give,
which is just this crazy statistical thing, which–
Okay so, there are two layers to your comment.
One, is how do you trust
and be able to comprehend AI’s explanation?
Second, is actually, can AI be used
to make humans more trustable
or be more trustable than the human’s?
On the first point, I agree with you.
If AI gives you two thousand dimensions
of potential features with probability,
it’s now human understandable
but the entire history of science in human civilization
is to be able to communicate the result of science
in better and better ways, right?
Like, I just had my annual physical
and the whole bunch of numbers came to my cell phone
and well, first of all, my doctors can,
the expert can help me to explain these numbers.
Now, even Wikipedia can help me
to explain some of these numbers.
But the technological improvements
of explaining these will improve.
It’s our failure as AI technologists
if we just throw two hundred or two thousand dimensions
of probability numbers at you.
But I mean, this the explanation and I think
that the point you raise
is very important but, I see differently.
I think science is getting worse and worse
in explaining its theories and findings to general public.
Which is the reason for things like,
doubting climate change and so forth
and it’s not really even the fault of the scientists
because the science is just getting more
and more complicated and reality is extremely complicated
and the human mind wasn’t adapted
to understanding the dynamics of climate change
or the real reasons for refusing to give somebody a lone.
That’s the point when you have…
Again, let’s put aside the whole question of manipulation
and how can I trust.
Let’s assume the AI is benign
and let’s assume that there are no hidden biases,
everything is okay but, still I can’t understand,
the decision of the AI. That’s why Nick,
people like Nick, the storyteller, says to expla…
What I’m saying, you’re right it’s very complex
but there are people like–
I’m gonna lose my job to computer like, next week
but I’m happy to have your confidence with me.
But that’s the job of the society collectively
to explain the complex science.
I’m not saying we’re doing a great job, at all but,
I’m saying there is hope if we try.
But my fear is that we just really can’t do it
because the human mind is not built
for dealing with these kinds of explanations
and technologies and it’s true for,
I mean, it’s true for the individual customer
who goes to the bank
and the bank refused to give them a loan
and it can even be on the level, I mean,
how many people today on earth
understand the financial system?
[silence followed by light laughter]
How many presidents and prime ministers
understand the financial system?
In this country at zero? [audience laughter and applause]
So, what does it mean to live in a society
where the people who are supposed
to be running the business, and again,
it’s not the fault of a particular politician
it’s just the financial system has become so complicated
and I don’t think that economies
are trying on purpose to hide something for general public,
it’s just extremely complicated.
You had the some of the wisest people in the world
go into the finance industry
and creating these enormously complex models
and tools, which objectively, you just can’t explain it
to most people unless first of all,
they study economics and mathematics
for 10 years or whatever so, I think this a real crisis.
And this again, this part of
the philosophical crisis we started with
and the undermining of human agency.
That’s part of what’s happening,
that we have these extremely intelligent tools
that are able to make, perhaps better decisions
about our health care, about our financial system,
but we can’t understand what they are doing
and why they are doing it and this undermines our autonomy
and our authority and we don’t know
as a society, how to deal with that.
Well, ideally, Fei-Fei’s Institute will help that.
Before we leave this topic though,
I want to move to a very closely related question,
which I think is one of the most interesting,
which is the question of bias in algorithms,
which is something you’ve spoken eloquently about
and let’s stay with the financial systems.
So, you can imagine a loan used by a bank
to determine whether somebody should get a loan
and you can imagine training it on historical data
and historical data is racist and we don’t want that,
so let’s figure out how to make sure the data isn’t racist
and that it gives loans to people regardless of race.
And we probably all, everybody in this room agrees that,
that is a good outcome but let’s say that
analyzing the historical data suggests
that women are more likely to repay their loans than men.
Do we strip that out or do we allow that to stay in?
If you allow it to stay in,
you get a slightly more efficient financial system.
If you strip it out,
you have a little more equality between men and women.
How do you make decisions about
what biases you want to strip
and which ones are okay to keep?
That’s a excellent question Nick, I mean,
I’m not gonna have the answers personally
but I think you touched on the really important question.
It’s, first of all, a machine learning system bias
is a real thing you know, like you said.
It starts with data, it probably starts
with the very moment we’re collecting data
and the type of data were collecting
all the way through the whole pipeline
and then all the way to the application
but biases come in very complex ways.
At Stanford, we have machine learning scientists
studying the technical solutions of bias like,
you know de-biasing data
and normalizing certain decision-making
but we also have humanists debating about what is biased,
what is fairness, when is bias good,
when it’s bias bad so, I think you
just opened up a perfect topic for research
and debate and conversation in this topic
and I also want to point out that Yuval,
you already used a very closely related example,
machine learning algorithm has a potential
to actually expose bias, right?
Like, one of my favorite study was a paper
a couple of years ago analyzing Hollywood movies
and using machine learning face recognition algorithm,
which is a very controversial technology these days,
to recognize Hollywood systematically gives more screen time
to male actors than female actors.
No human being can sit there
and count all the frames of faces
and gender bias and this a perfect example
of using machine learning to expose bias.
So, in general there’s a rich set of issues
we should study and again, bring the humanists,
bring the ethicists, bring the legal scholars,
bring the gender study experts.
Agree though, standing up for humans,
I knew Hollywood was sexist
even before that paper but yes, agreed.
You are a smart human. [light laughter]
Yuval, on that question of the loans,
do you strip out the racist data,
do you strip out the gender data,
what biases do you get rid of,
what biases do you not?
I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all.
I mean, it’s a question…
we need this day-to-day collaboration
between engineers, and ethicists,
and psychologists, and political scientists–
But not biologists, right?
[laughter] But not biologists? and increasing– [laughter]
And increasingly, also biologists.
It goes back to the question, what should we do?
So, we should teach ethics
to coders as part of their curriculum.
The people today in the world,
that most need a background in ethics
is the people in the computer science departments,
so it should be an integral part of the curriculum
and it’s also in the big corporations,
which are designing these tools,
they should be embedded within the teams,
people with background in things like ethics,
like politics, that they always think
in terms of what biases might we inadvertently
be building into our system.
What could be the cultural or political implications
of what we are building?
It shouldn’t be a kind of afterthought
that you create this neat technical gadget,
it goes into the world, something bad happens,
and then you start thinking,
Oh, we didn’t see this one coming. What do we do now?
From the very beginning, it should be clear
that this is part of the process.
Yep, I do want to give a shout out to Rob Reich
who just introduced this whole event
He and my colleagues, Mehran Sahami
and a few other Stanford professors have opened this course
called Ethics Computation and sorry Rob,
I’m abusing the title of your course
but this exactly the kind of classes it’s…
I think this quarter, the offering
has more than 300 students signed up to that.
Fantastic.
I wish the course the existed when I was a student here.
Let me ask an excellent question
from the audience, it ties into this.
This is From Yu Jin Lee;
how do you reconcile the inherent trade-offs
between explainability and efficacy
and accuracy of algorithms?
Great question.
This question seems to be assuming if you can explain it,
you’re less good or less accurate.
Well, you can imagine that if you require explainability
you lose some level of efficiency,
you’re adding a little bit of complexity to the algorithm.
So okay, first of all,
I don’t necessarily believe in that,
there’s no mathematical logic to this assumption.
Second let’s assume there is a possibility
that an explainable algorithm suffers efficiency.
I think this a societal decision we have to make.
You know, when we put the seatbelt in our car,
driving that’s a little bit of an efficiency loss
’cause I have to do that seatbelt movement
instead of just hopping and drive
but as a society we decided
we can afford that loss of efficiency
because we care more about human safety.
So, I think AI is the same kind of technology
as we make these kind of decisions going forward
in our solutions, in our products,
we have to balance human wellbeing
and societal well-being with efficiency.
So Yuval, let me ask you,
the global consequences of this is something
that a number of people have asked about
in different ways and we’ve touched on
but we haven’t hit head-on.
There are two countries, imaginative country A,
and you have country B.
Country A says all of you AI engineers,
you have to make it explainable,
you have to take ethics classes,
you have to really think about
the consequences of what you’re doing,
you got to have dinner with biologists,
you have to think about love,
and you have to like, read you know, John Locke.
That’s group A.
Group B country says just go build some stuff, right?
These two countries, at some point,
are gonna come in conflict and I’m gonna guess
that country B’s technology might be ahead of country A’s.
Is that a concern?
Yeah, that’s always the concern with arms races,
which become a race to the bottom
in the name of efficiency and domination
and we are in, I mean…
What is extremely problematic or dangerous
about the situation now is, with AI,
is that more and more countries are waking up
to the realization that this could be
the technology of domination in the 21st century.
So, you’re not talking about just any economic competition
between the different textile industries
or even between different oil industries,
like one country decides, we don’t care
about environment at all, we’ll just go full gas ahead
and the other countries is much more environmentally aware.
The situation with AI is potentially much worse
because it could be really, the technology of domination
in the 21st century and those left behind
could be dominated, exploited,
conquered by those who forge ahead.
So, nobody wants to stay behind
and I think the only way to prevent
this kind of catastrophic arms race to the bottom
is greater global cooperation around AI.
Now this sounds utopian because we are now moving
in exactly the opposite direction,
of more and more rivalry and competition
but this is part of, I think, of our job
like with the nuclear arms race,
to make people in different countries realize that
this is an arms race, that whoever wins, humanity loses.
And it’s the same with AI, if AI becomes an arms race
then this is extremely bad news for all the humans
and it’s easy for say, people in the US,
to say we are the good guys in this race,
you should be cheering for us
but this becoming more and more difficult
in a situation when the motto of the day is, America first.
I mean, how can we trust the USA
to be the leader in AI technology
if ultimately it will serve only American interests
in American economic and political domination.
So it’s really, I think most people
when they think arms race in AI,
they think USA versus China
but there are almost 200 other countries in the world
and most of them are far, far behind
and when they look at what is happening
they are increasingly terrified and for a very good reason.
The historical example you’ve made is a little unsettling.
If I heard your answer correctly,
it’s that we need global cooperation
and if we don’t we’re gonna lead to an arms race.
In the actual nuclear arms race
we tried for global cooperation from,
I don’t know, roughly 1945 to 1950
and then we gave up and then we said
we’re going full-throttle the United States
and then why did the Cold War end the way it did?
Who knows, but one argument would be that the United States,
you know, build up and it’s relentless build up
of nuclear weapons helped to keep the peace
until the Soviet Union collapsed.
So, if that is the parallel, then what might happen here
is we’ll try for global cooperation in 2019,
2020, 2021, and then we’ll be off in an arms race.
A, is that likely and, B if it is,
would you say, well then the US,
it needs to really move full-throttle in AI
because it would better for the liberal democracies
to have artificial intelligence than totalitarian states.
Well, I’m afraid it is very likely
that cooperation will break down
and we will find ourselves in an extreme version
of an arms race and in a way,
it’s worse than the nuclear arms race
because with nukes, at least until today,
countries develop them but never use them.
AI will be used all the time.
It’s not something you have on the shelf
for some doomsday war.
It will be used all the time to create
potentially, total surveillance regimes
in extreme totalitarian systems,
in one way or the other.
From this perspective, I think the danger is far greater.
You could say that the nuclear arms race
actually saved democracy, and the free market,
and you know, rock and roll,
and Woodstock, and then the hippies.
They all owe a huge debt to nuclear weapons [smirking]
because if nuclear weapons weren’t invented,
there would have been a conventional arms race
and conventional military buildup
between the Soviet bloc and the American bloc
and that would have meant total mobilization of society.
If the Soviets are having total mobilization
the only way the Americans can compete is to do the same.
Now, what actually happened
was that you had an extreme totalitarian mobilized Society
in the communist bloc but thanks to nuclear weapons
you didn’t have to do it in the United States,
or in western Germany, or in France
because you relied on nukes.
You don’t need millions of conscripts in the army
and with AI it going to be just the opposite
that the technology will not only be developed,
it will be used all the time
and that’s a very scary scenario.
[Nick] So–
Wait, can I just add one thing?
I don’t know history like you do
but you said AI is different from nuclear technology.
I do want to point out, it is very different
because the same time as you are talking
about these more scarier situation,
this technology has a wide
international scientific collaboration basis
that is being used to make transportation better,
is to improve healthcare, to improve education and,
so it’s a very interesting, new time
that we haven’t seen before because while we have this,
kind of, competition we also have
massive international scientific community collaboration
on these benevolent users
and democratization of this technology.
I just think it’s important to see both side of this.
You’re absolutely right, there also,
as I said, there are also enormous benefits
to this technology.
And in a global collaborative way,
especially among the scientists.
The global aspect is more complicated
because the question is, what happens
if there is a huge gap in abilities
between some countries and most of the world?
Would we have a re-run of the 19th century
Industrial Revolution, when the few industrial powers
conquer, and dominate, and exploit the entire world,
both economically and politically?
What’s to prevent that from repeating?
So, even in terms of, you know,
without this scary war scenario
we might still find ourselves
with a global exploitation regime
in which the benefits, most of the benefits,
go to a small number of countries
at the expense of everybody else.
Have you heard of archive.org?
Archive.org? [light laughs]
So, students in the audience might laugh at this
but we are in a very different scientific research climate
is that the kind of globalization of technology
and technique happens in a way
that the 19th century even 20th century never saw before.
Any paper that is a basic science research paper
in AI today, or technical technique that is produced,
let’s say, this week at Stanford,
it’s easily get globally distributed
through this thing called archive, or GitHub, or repository.
The information is out there, yeah.
Globalization of this scientific technology
travels in a very different way
from the 19th and 20th century.
I mean, I don’t doubt there are,
you know, confined development of this technology,
maybe by regimes but we do have to recognize
that this global, the differences is pretty sharp now
and we might need to take that into consideration
that the scenario you’re describing is harder.
I’m not say impossible, but harder to happen.
So, you think that the way–
Just say that it’s not just the scientific papers.
Yes, the scientific paper’s out there
but if I live in Yemen, or in Nicaragua,
or in the Indonesia, or in Gaza,
yes I can connect to the internet and download the paper.
What will I do with that?
I don’t have the data.
I don’t have the infrastructure.
I mean, you look at
where the big corporations are coming from
that hold all the data of the world,
they are basically coming from just two places.
I mean even Europe is not really in the competition.
There is no European Google,
or European Amazon, or European Baidu,
or European Tencent and if you look beyond Europe,
you think about Central America,
you think about most of Africa,
the Middle East, much of Southeast Asia,
it’s yes, the basic scientific knowledge is out there
but this just one of the components
that go to creating something that can compete
with Amazon or with Tencent or with the abilities
of governments like the US government
or like the Chinese government.
So, I agree that the dissemination of information
and basic scientific knowledge,
we’re at completely different place,
than in the 19th century.
Let me ask you about that
’cause it’s something three or four people
have asked in the questions which is,
it seems like there could be a centralizing force
of artificial intelligence, that it will make
whoever has the data and the best compute,
more powerful and that it could then accentuate
income inequality both within countries
and within the world, right?
You can imagine the countries you’ve just mentioned:
The United States, China, Europe lagging behind,
Canada somewhere behind, way ahead of Central America.
It could accentuate global income inequality.
A, do you think that’s likely
and B, how much does it worry you?
We have about four people who’ve asked a variation on that.
As I said, it’s very, very likely.
It’s already happening and it’s extremely dangerous
because the economic and political consequences
could be catastrophic.
We are talking about the potential collapse
of entire economies and countries.
Countries that depend say, on cheap manual labor
and they just don’t have the educational capital
to compete in a world of AI,
so what are these countries going to do?
I mean if, say you shift back
most production from say, Honduras or Bangladesh,
to the USA into Germany because,
the human salaries are no longer part of the equation
and it’s cheaper to produce the shirt in California
than in Honduras, so what will the people there do?
And you can say, okay but there will be many more jobs
for software engineers but we are not teaching
the kids in Honduras to be software engineers so,
maybe a few of them could somehow immigrate to the US
but most of them won’t and what will they do?
And we at present, we don’t have the economic answers
and the political answers to these questions.
Fei-Fei, you wanna jump in here?
I think that’s fair enough.
I think Yuval definitely has laid out
some of the critical pitfalls of this
and that’s why we need more people to be studying
and thinking about this.
One of the things we over and over noticed,
even in this process of building a community
of human-centered AI and also talking to people,
both internally and externally,
is that there are opportunities
for business around the world
and governments around the world
to I think about their data and AI strategy.
There are still many opportunities
for, you know, outside of the big players
in terms of companies and countries,
to really come to the realization
it’s an important moment for their country,
for their region, for their business,
to transform into this digital age
and I think when you talk about these potential dangers
and lack of data in parts of the world
that hasn’t really caught up
with this digital transformation,
the moment is now and we hope to,
you know, raise that kind of awareness
and then encourage that kind of transformation.
Yeah, I think it’s very urgent.
I mean, what we are seeing at the moment
is on the one hand, what you could call
some kind of data colonization,
that the same model that we saw in the 19th century
that you have the Imperial hub
where they have the advanced technology,
they grow the cotton in India or Egypt,
they send the raw materials to Britain,
they produce the shirts,
the high-tech industry of the 19th century in Manchester,
and they send the shirts back, to sell them in in India
and out-compete the local producers.
And we in a way, might beginning to see the same thing now,
with the data economy, that they harvest the data
in places also like Brazil and Indonesia
but they don’t process the data there.
The data from Brazil and Indonesia
goes to California or goes to Eastern China,
being processed there, later produced
the wonderful new gadgets and technologies,
and sell them back as finished products
to the provinces or to the colonies.
Now, it’s not a one-to-one,
it’s not the same, there are differences
but I think we need to keep this analogy in mind
and another thing that maybe we need to keep in mind
in this respect, I think is re-emergence of stone walls
that I’m kind of, you know…
Originally my specialty was medieval military history.
This how I began my academic career
with the Crusades and castles and knights
and so forth and now I’m doing all these cyborgs
and AI stuff but suddenly there is something
that I know from back then, the walls are coming back.
And I try to kind of, what’s happening here?
I mean, we have virtual realities, we have 3G, AI,
and suddenly the hottest political issue
is building a stone wall.
Like, the most low-tech thing you can imagine [applause]
and what is the significance of a stone wall
in a world of interconnectivity and all that?
And it really frightens me that
there is something very sinister there,
the combination of data is flowing around everywhere
so easily but more and more countries,
and also my home country of Israel, it’s the same thing.
You have the, you know, the startup nation
and then the wall and what does it mean, this combination?
Fei-Fei, you wanna answer that?
[audience and panel laughing]
Maybe you can look at the next question.
[loud laughing]
You know what, let’s go to the next question
which is tied to that and the next question is,
you have the people there at Stanford
who will help be building these companies,
who will either be furthering the process
of data colonization or reversing it,
or who will be building you know,
the efforts to create a virtual wall.
A world based on artificial intelligence
are being created, or funded at least,
by a Stanford Graduate so,
you have all these students here, in the room,
how do you want them to be thinking
about artificial intelligence
and what do you want them to learn?
Let’s spend the last 10 minutes of this conversation
talking about what everybody here should be doing.
So, if you’re a computer science or engineering student,
take Rob’s class.
If you’re humanists, take my class.
And all of you read Yuval’s books.
Are his books on your syllabus?
Not on mine, sorry.
I teach hard-core, deep learning.
His book doesn’t have equations.
I don’t know B plus C plus D equalls H.
But seriously, you know what I meant to say
is that Stanford students, you have a great opportunity
We have a proud history of bringing this technology to life.
Stanford was at the forefront of the birth of AI,
in fact our very Professor John McCarthy
coined the term artificial intelligence
and came to Stanford in 1963 and started this nation’s,
one of the two oldest AI labs in this country
and since then, Stanford’s AI research
has been at the forefront of every wave of AI changes
and this 2019, we’re also at the forefront
of starting the human-centered AI revolution
or writing of the new AI chapter
and we did all this for the past 60 years, for you guys.
For the people who come through the door
and who will graduate and become practitioners,
leaders, and part of the civil society,
and that’s really what the bottom line is about.
Human-centered AI needs to be written
by the next generation of technologists
who have taken classes like Rob’s class,
to think about the ethical implications,
the human well being and it’s also gonna be written
by those potential future policymakers
who came out of Stanford’s humanity studies
and Business School, who are versed
in the details of the technology,
who understand the implications of this technology,
and who has the capability to communicate
with the technologies.
No matter how we agree and disagree,
that’s the bottom line, is that we need
this kind of multilingual leaders
and thinkers and practitioners and that is
what Stanford’s Human-Center AI Institute is about.
Yuval, how do you wanna answer that question?
Well, on the individual level,
I think it’s important for every individual,
whether in Stanford, whether an engineer or not,
to get to know yourself better
because you are now in a competition.
You know, it’s the all the old advice in the book,
in philosophy, is know yourself.
We’ve heard it from Socrates,
from Confucius, from Buddha, get to know yourself.
But there is a difference,
which is that now, you have competition.
In the day of Socrates or Buddha,
if you didn’t make the effort, so okay,
so you missed on enlightenment but
still the king wasn’t competing with you.
They didn’t have the technology.
Now you have competition, you’re competing
against these giant corporations and governments.
If they get to know you better than you know yourself,
the game is over.
So you need to buy yourself some time
and the first way to buy yourself some time
is to get to know yourself better
and then they have more ground to cover.
For engineers and students I would say,
I’ll focus on engineers maybe,
the two things that I would like
to see coming out from the laboratories
and the engineering departments is first,
tools that inherently work better
in a decentralized system, then in a centralized system.
I don’t know how to do it but if you…
I hope this something that engineers can work with.
I heard this blockchain is like the big promise,
in that area, I don’t know.
But whatever it is, part of when you start designing a tool,
part of the specification of what this tool should be like,
I would say, this tool should work better
in a decentralized system than in a centralized system.
That’s the best defense of democracy.
the second thing that I would like to see coming out–
I don’t want to cut you off
’cause I want you to get to this second thing,
how do you make a tool work better in a democracy than–
I’m not an engineer, I don’t know. [laughter]
Okay.
All right, well then go to part two.
Take that, someone in this room, figure that out
’cause it’s very important, whatever it means.
I can think about it and then…
I can give you a historical examples
of tools that work better in this way
or in that way but I don’t know how to translate it
into present-day technological terms.
Go to part two ’cause I got a few more questions
to ask from the audience.
Okay so, the other thing that I would like to see coming
is an AI sidekick that serves me
and not some corporation or government.
We can’t stop the progress of this kind of technology
but I would like to see it serving me.
So yes, it can hack me but it hacks me
in order to protect me.
Like, my computer has an anti-virus
but my brain hasn’t, it has a biological antivirus
against the flu or whatever
but not against hackers and fraud and so forth.
So, one project to work on is to create an AI sidekick
which I paid for, maybe a lot of money,
and it belongs to me, and it follows me,
and it monitors me, and what I do,
and my interactions, but everything it learns,
it learns in order to protect me from manipulation
by other AI’s, by other outside influencers.
This something that I think,
with the present day technology,
I would like to see more effort in that direction.
Not to get into too technical terms,
I think you would feel comforted to know that
the budding efforts in this kind of research is happening,
you know, trustworthy AI, explainable AI,
and security motivated,
so I’m not saying we have the solution
but a lot of technologists around the world
are thinking along that line
and trying to make that happen.
It’s not that I want an AI that belongs to Google
or to the government, that I can trust,
I want an AI that I’m its master, it’s serving me,
And it’s powerful, it’s more powerful than my AI
because otherwise my AI could manipulate your AI.
[audience and panel laughter]
It will have the inherent advantage
of knowing me very well, so it might not be able to hack you
but because it follows me around
and it has access to everything I do and so forth,
it gives it an edge in the specific realm of just me.
So, this a kind of counterbalance
to the danger that the people–
But even that would have a lot of challenges
in their society.
Who is accountable, are you accountable
for your action or your sidekick?
Oh, good question. This is going to be
a more and more difficult question
that we will have to deal with.
The sidekick defense. [light laughter]
All right, Fei-Fei,
let’s go through a couple questions quickly.
We often talk of, this is from Regan Pollock,
we often talk about top-down AI from the big companies,
how should we design personal AI
to help accelerate our lives and careers?
The way I interpret that question is
so much of AI is being done at the big companies.
If you want to have AI at a small company
or personally, can you do that?
So, well first of all, one solution
is what Yuval just said [laughing]
But probably, those things will be built by Facebook.
So, first of all, it’s true
there’s a lot of investment and efforts putting
and resource putting big companies in AI research
and development but it’s not that
all the AI is happening there.
I want to say that academia continue to play a huge role
in AI’s research and development,
especially in the long term exploration of AI
and what is academia?
Academia is a worldwide network
of individual students and professors
thinking very independently and creatively
about different ideas.
So, from that point of view,
it’s a very grassroot kind of effort in AI research
that continues to happen and small businesses
and independent research institutes,
also have a role to play, right?
There are a lot of publicly available data sets,
it’s a global community that is very open about sharing
and disseminating knowledge and technology,
so yes, please, by all means,
we want global participation in this.
All right here’s my favorite question.
This is from anonymous, unfortunately.
If I am in eighth grade, do I still need to study?
[loud laughter and applause]
As a mom, I will tell you yes.
Go back to your homework.
All right Fei-Fei, what do you want
Yuval’s next book to be about?
Wow, I didn’t know this, I need to think about that.
All right well, while you think about that,
Yuval, what area of machine learning
do you want Fei-Fei to pursue next?
The sidekick project. [laughing]
Yeah, I mean, just what I said, an AI,
can we create a kind of AI which can serve individual people
and not some kind of big network?
I mean, is that even possible
or is there something about the nature of AI
which inevitably will always lead back
to some kind of network defect
and winner-takes-all and so forth?
All right, we’re gonna wrap with Fei-Fei,
Okay, his next book is gonna be a science fiction book
between you and your sidekick. [all laughing]
All right, one last question for Yuval
’cause we’ve got two of the top voted questions are this,
without the belief in free will,
what gets you up in the morning?
Without the belief in free will…
I don’t think that the question of, I mean, is very
interesting, or very central.
It has been central in Western civilization
because of some kind of basically,
theological mistake made thousands of years ago [laughing]
but really it’s a misunderstanding of the human condition.
The real question is,
how do you liberate yourself from suffering?
And one of the most important steps in that direction
is to get to know yourself better
and for that, you need to just push aside
this whole, I mean, for me the biggest problem
with the belief in free will is that
it makes people incurious about themselves
and about what is really happening inside themselves
because they basically say, I know everything
I know why I make decisions, this my free will.
And they identify with whatever thought
or emotion pops up in their mind
because ey, this my free will
and this makes them very incurious
about what is really happening inside
and what is also the deep sources
of the misery in their lives.
And so, this what makes me wake up in the morning
to try and understand myself better,
to try and understand the human condition better,
and free will is, it’s just irrelevant for that.
And if we lose it, your sidekick can get you up
in the morning. [light laughter]
Fei-Fei, 75 minutes ago
you said we weren’t gonna reach any conclusions.
Do you think we got somewhere?
Well, we opened a dialogue between the humanist
and the technologists and I want to see more of that.
Great, all right, thank you so much.
Thank you Fei-Fei, thank you Yuval Noah Harari.
It was wonderful to be here, thank you to the audience.
Interesting quote from “21 Lessons for the 21st Century”
Hi – I’m reading “21 Lessons for the 21st Century” by Yuval Noah Harari and wanted to share this quote with you.
“The Political Challenge The merger of infotech and biotech threatens the core modern values of liberty and equality. Any solution to the technological challenge has to involve global cooperation. But nationalism, religion, and culture divide humankind into hostile camps and make it very difficult to cooperate on a global level. California is used to earthquakes, but the political tremor of the 2016 U.S. elections still came as a rude shock to Silicon Valley. Realizing that they might be part of the problem, the computer wizards reacted by doing what engineers do best: they searched for a technical solution. Nowhere was the reaction more forceful than in Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park. This is understandable. Since Facebook’s business is social networking, it is most attuned to social disturbances. After three months of soul-searching, on February 16, 2017, Mark Zuckerberg published an audacious manifesto on the need to build a global community, and on Facebook’s role in that project.1 In a follow-up speech at the inaugural Communities Summit on June 22, 2017, Zuckerberg explained that the sociopolitical upheavals of our time—from rampant drug addiction to murderous totalitarian regimes—result to a large extent from the disintegration of human communities. He lamented the fact that “for decades, membership in all kinds of groups”
Start reading this book for free: https://a.co/12jrFSb
How Humans Get Hacked: Yuval Noah Harari & Tristan Harris Talk with WIRED
How Humans Get Hacked: Yuval Noah Harari & Tristan Harris Talk with WIRED
https://www.wired.com/video/watch/yuval-harari-tristan-harris-humans-get-hacked
Yuval Noah Harari, historian and best-selling author of Sapiens, Homo Deus and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, and Tristan Harris, co-founder and executive director of the Center for Humane Technology, speak with WIRED Editor in Chief Nicholas Thompson.
Hello I’m Nicholas Thompson,
I’m the editor-in-chief of Wired magazine.
I’m here with two of my favorite thinkers.
Yuval Noah Harari.
He’s the author of three number one best-selling books
including 21 Lessons for the 21st Century
which came out this week
and which I just finished this morning
which is extraordinary.
And Tristan Harris,
who’s the man who got the whole world
to talk about time well spent
and has just founded the Center for Humane Technology.
I like to think of Yuval as the man
who explains the past and the future
and Tristan as the man who explains the present.
We’re gonna be here for a little while talking
and it’s a conversation inspired
by one of the things that matters most to me
which is that Wired magazine
is about to celebrate its 25th anniversary.
And when the magazine was founded,
the whole idea was that it was a magazine
about optimism and change,
and technology was good and change is good.
25 years later you look at the world today,
you can’t really hold the entirety of that philosophy.
So I’m here to talk with Yuval and Tristan.
Hello!
[Yuval] Hello. Thank you.
Good to be here.
Tristan why don’t you tell me a little bit about
what you do and then Yuval you tell me too.
I am a director of the Center for Humane Technology
where we focus on realigning technology
with a clear-eyed model of human nature.
And I was before that a design ethicist at Google,
where I studied the ethics of human persuasion.
I’m a historian and I try to understand
where humanity’s coming from and where we are heading.
Let’s start by hearing about how you guys met each other
’cause I know it goes back a little while,
so when did the two of you first meet?
Funnily enough on an expedition to Antarctica.
(laughing)
Not with Scott and Amundsen,
just we were invited by the Chilean government
to the congress of the future,
to talk about the future of humankind
and one part of the congress
was an expedition to the Chilean base in Antarctica
to see global warming with our own eyes.
It was still very cold and it was interesting
and so many interesting people on this expedition.
A lot of philosophers,
Nobel Laureates and I think we particularly connected
with Michael Sandel.
He’s a really amazing philosopher in moral philosophy.
It’s almost like a reality show.
I would have loved to be able to see the whole thing.
Let’s get started with one of the things
that I think is one of the most interesting continuities
between both of your work.
You write about different things
you talk about different things
but there are a lot of similarities.
And one of the key themes is the notion
that our minds don’t work the way
that we sometimes think they do.
We don’t have as much agency over our minds
as perhaps we believed.
Or we believed until now.
So Tristan why don’t you start talking about that
and then Yuval,
jump in and we’ll go from here.
[Tristan] I actually learned a lot of this
from one of Yuval’s early talks
where he talks about democracy as the,
where should we put authority in a society?
And we should put it in the opinions and feelings of people.
But my whole background,
I actually spent the last 10 years studying persuasion.
Starting when I was a magician as a kid where you learned
that there’s things that work on all human minds.
It doesn’t matter whether they have a PhD
or what education level they have,
whether they’re nuclear physicists,
what age they are.
It’s not like if you speak Japanese
I can’t do this trick on you,
it’s not going to work.
Or if you have a PhD.
It works on everybody.
So somehow there’s this discipline
which is about universal exploits on all human minds.
And then I was at a lab called the Persuasive Technology Lab
that teaches at Stanford that teaches engineering students
how do you apply the principles
of persuasion to technology.
Could technology be hacking human feelings,
attitudes, beliefs,
behaviors to keep people engaged with products.
And I think that’s the thing we both share
is that the human mind is not the total secure enclave
root of authority that we think it is.
And if we want to treat it that way
we’re gonna have to understand
what needs to be protected first,
is my perspective.
Yeah I think that we are now facing
not just a technological crisis
but a philosophical crisis
because we have built our society,
certainly liberal democracy with elections
and the free market and so forth,
on philosophical ideas from the 18th Century
which are simply incompatible
not just with the scientific findings of the 21st Century
but above all with the technology
we now have at our disposal.
Our society’s built on the ideas that the voter knows best,
that the customer is always right,
that ultimate authority as Tristan said
is the feelings of human beings.
And this assumes that human feelings and human choices
are this sacred arena which cannot be hacked,
which cannot be manipulated.
Ultimately my choices,
my desires reflect my free will
and nobody can access that or touch that.
And this was never true
but we didn’t pay a very high cost
for believing in this myth in the 19th or 20th Century
because nobody had the technology to actually do it.
Now some people,
corporations,
governments,
they are gaining the technology to hack human beings.
Maybe the most important fact
about living in the 21st Century
is that we are now hackable animals.
Explain what it means to hack human being
and why what can be done now is different
from what could be done a hundred years ago
with religion or with the book
or with anything else that influences what we see
and changes the way we think about the world.
To hack a human being
is to understand what’s happening inside you
on the level of the body,
of the brain,
of the mind so that you can predict
what people will do.
You can understand how they feel.
And once you understand and predict
you can usually also manipulate
and control and even replace.
Of course it can’t be done perfectly,
and it was possible to do it to some extent a century ago.
But the difference in the level is significant.
I would say the real key
is whether somebody can understand you
better than you understand yourself.
The algorithms that are trying to hack us,
they will never be perfect.
There is no such thing
as understanding perfectly everything
or predicting everything.
You don’t need perfect.
You just need to be better than the average human being.
And are we there now?
Or are you worried that we’re about to get there?
I think Tristan might be able to answer
where we are right now better than me
but I guess that if we are not there now
we are approaching very very fast.
I think a good example of this is YouTube.
Relatable example.
You open up that YouTube video your friend sends you
after your lunch break.
You come back to your computer.
And you think okay I know those other times
I end up watching two or three videos
and I end up getting sucked into it.
But this time it’s gonna be really different.
I’m just gonna watch this one video
and then somehow that’s not what happens.
You wake up from a trance three hours later
and you say what the hell just happened
and it’s because you didn’t realize
you had a supercomputer pointed at your brain.
So when you open up that video
you’re activating Google Alphabet’s
billions of dollars of computing power.
And they’ve looked at what has ever gotten
two billion human animals to click on another next video.
And it knows way more about
what’s gonna be the perfect chess move
to play against your mind.
If you think of your mind as a chessboard
and you think you know the perfect move to play,
I’ll just watch this one video.
But you can only see so many moves ahead on the chessboard.
But the computer sees your mind and it says no no no,
I’ve played a billion simulations of this chess game before
on these other human animals watching YouTube
and it’s gonna win.
Think about when Garry Kasparov loses against Deep Blue.
Garry Kasparov can see so many moves ahead on the chessboard
but he can’t see beyond a certain point.
Like a mouse can see so many moves ahead in a maze,
but a human can see so way more moves ahead
and then Garry can see even more moves ahead.
But when Garry loses against IBM Deep Blue,
that’s checkmate against humanity for all time
because he was the best human chess player.
So it’s not that we’re completely losing human agency.
You walk into YouTube and it always addicts you
for the rest of your life
and you never leave the screen.
But everywhere you turn on the internet
there’s basically a supercomputer pointed at your brain
playing chess against your mind
and it’s gonna win a lot more often than not.
[Nicholas] Let’s talk about that metaphor
because chess is a game with a winner and a loser.
So you set up the technology fully as an opponent.
But YouTube is also gonna,
I hope,
please gods of YouTube,
recommend this particular video to people
which I hope will be elucidating and illuminating.
So is chess really the right metaphor?
A game with a winner and a loser?
The question is what is the game that’s being played?
If the game being played was,
Hey Nick go meditate in a room for two hours
then come back to me and tell me
what do you really want right now in your life?
And if YouTube is using two billion human animals
to calculate based on everybody who’s ever wanted
how to learn how to play ukulele,
they can say here’s the perfect video I have
to teach you how to play ukulele.
That could be great.
The problem is it doesn’t actually care about what you want.
It just cares about what will keep you next on the screen.
And we’ve actually found,
we have an ex-YouTube engineer who works with us,
who’s shown that there’s a systemic bias in YouTube.
So if you airdrop a human animal and they land on,
let’s say a teenage girl and she watches a dieting video,
the thing that works best at keeping that girl
who’s watching a dieting video on YouTube the longest
is to say here’s an anorexia video.
Because that’s between,
here’s more calm stuff and true stuff
and here’s the more insane divisive
outrageous conspiracy intense stuff.
YouTube always if they want to keep your time
they want to steer you down that road.
And so if you airdrop a person on a 9/11 video
about the 9/11 news event,
just a fact-based news video,
the autoplaying video is the Alex Jones Infowars video.
So what happens to this conversation?
What follows us?
Ray Kurtzweil?
(laughing)
Yeah I guess it’s gonna really depend.
(laughing)
And the problem is you can also kind of hack these things.
There’s governments who actually can manipulate
the way that the recommendation system works
by throwing thousands of headless browsers,
versions of Firefox to watch one video
and then get it to search for another video
so that we search for Yuval Hirari,
we’ve watched that one video,
then we get thousands of computers
to simulate people going from Yuval Hirari
to watching The Power of Putin or something like that.
And then that’ll be the top recommended video.
And so as Yuval says,
these systems are kind of out of control
and algorithms are running
where two billion people spend their time.
70% of what people watch on YouTube
is driven by recommendations from the algorithm.
People think what you’re watching on YouTube is a choice.
People are sitting there,
they sit there,
they think and then they choose.
But that’s not true.
70% of what people are watching
is the recommended videos on the right hand side.
Which means 70% of where 1.9 billion users,
that’s more than the number of followers of Islam,
about the number of followers of Christianity,
of what they’re looking at on YouTube for 60 minutes a day.
That’s the average time people spend on YouTube.
60 minutes and 70% is populated by a computer.
So now the machine is out of control.
Because if you thought 9/11 conspiracy theories
were bad in English try,
what are 9/11 conspiracies
in Burmese and Sri Lankan and Arabic.
No-one’s looking at that.
And so it’s kind of a digital Frankenstein.
It’s pulling on all these levers
and steering people in all these different directions.
And Yuval we got into this point
by you saying that this scares you for democracy.
It makes you worry whether democracy can survive
or I believe you say,
the phrase you use in your book
is democracy will become a puppet show.
[Yuval] Explain that. Yeah.
If it doesn’t adapt to these new realities
it will become just an emotional puppet show.
If you go on with this illusion
that human choice cannot be hacked,
cannot be manipulated
and we can just trust it completely
and this is the source of all authority
then very soon you end up with an emotional puppet show.
This is one of the greatest dangers that we are facing
and it really is the result of philosophical impoverishment.
Of taking for granted philosophical ideas
from the 18th Century and not updating them
with the findings of science.
It’s very difficult because you go to people,
people don’t want to hear this message
that they are hackable animals.
That their choices,
their desires,
their understanding of who am I?
What is my most authentic aspirations?
This can actually be hacked and manipulated.
To put it briefly,
my amygdala may be working for Putin.
I don’t want to know this.
I don’t want to believe that.
No I am a free agent.
If I am afraid of something this is because of me.
Not because somebody implanted this fear in my mind.
If I choose something this is my free will
and who are you to tell me anything else?
I’m hoping that Putin will soon be working for my amygdala
but that’s a side project I have going.
It seems inevitable from what you wrote in your first book
that we would reach this point
where human minds would be hackable
and where computers and machines and AI
would have a better understanding of us.
But it’s certainly not inevitable
that it would lead us to negative outcomes,
to 9/11 conspiracy theories and to a broken democracy.
Have we reached the point of no return?
How do we avoid the point of no return
if we haven’t reached there?
What are the key decision points along the way?
Nothing is inevitable in that.
The technology itself is going to develop.
You can’t just stop all research in AI
and you can’t stop all research in biotech.
And the two go together.
I think that AI gets too much attention now
and we should put equal emphasis
on what’s happening on the biotech front.
Because in order to hack human beings you need biology.
Some of the most important tools and insights,
they are not coming from computer science.
They’re coming from brain science.
And many of the people who design
all these amazing algorithms,
they have a background in psychology and in brain science.
This is what you’re trying to hack.
But what we should realize is
we can use the technology in many different ways.
For example we’re now using AI
mainly in order to surveil individuals
in the service of corporations and governments
but it can be flipped to the opposite direction.
We can use the same surveillance systems
to monitor the government in the service of individuals.
To monitor for example government officials,
that they are not corrupt.
The technology is willing to do that,
the question is whether we’re willing
to develop the necessary tools to do it.
One of Yuval’s major points here
is that the biotech lets you understand,
by hooking up a sensor to someone,
features about that person
that they won’t know about themselves.
And we’re increasingly reverse-engineering the human animal.
One of the interesting things that I’ve been following
is also the ways you can ascertain those signals
without an invasive sensor.
We were talking about this a second ago.
There’s something called Eulerian Video Magnification
where you point a computer camera at a person’s face
and a human being can’t,
I can’t look at your face and see your heart rate.
My intelligence doesn’t let me see that.
You can see my eyes dilating right?
[Tristan] I can see your eyes dilating–
‘Cause I’m terrified of you.
(laughing)
But if I put a supercomputer behind the camera
I can actually run a mathematical equation
and I can find the micropulses of blood to your face
that I as a human can’t see but the computer can see.
So I can pick up your heart rate.
What does that let me do?
I can pick up your stress level
because heart rate variability gives you your stress level.
There’s a woman named Poppy Crum
who gave a TED Talk this year
about the end of the poker face.
We have this idea that there can be a poker face.
We can actually hide our emotions from other people.
But this talk is about the erosion of that.
That we can point a camera at your eyes
and see when your eyes dilate
which actually detects cognitive strains,
when you’re having a hard time understanding something
or an easy time understanding something.
We can continually adjust this based on your heart rate,
your eye dilation.
One of the things with Cambridge Analytica
is the idea that if we have,
which is all about the hacking of Brexit
and Russia and all the US elections,
that was based on,
if I know your big five personality traits,
if I know Nick Thompson’s personality
through his OCEAN,
openness,
conscientiousness,
extravertedness,
agreeableness and neuroticism.
That gives me your personality
and based on your personality
I can tune a political message to be perfect for you.
Now the whole scandal there was that Facebook
let go of this data to be stolen by a researcher
who used to have people fill in questions to figure out
what are Nick’s big five personality traits.
But now there’s a woman named Gloria Mark at UC Irvine
who has done a research showing
you can actually get people’s big five personality traits
just by their click patterns alone with 80% accuracy.
So again the end of the poker face,
the end of the hidden parts of your personality.
We’re gonna be able to point AIs at human animals
and figure out more and more signals from them
including their microexpressions,
when you smirk and all these things.
We’ve got face ID cameras on all of these phones.
So now if you have a tight loop
where I can adjust the political messages
in real time to your heart rate and to your eye dilation
and to your political personality,
that’s not a world we want to live in.
It’s a kind of dystopia.
There are many contexts you can use that.
It can be used in class to figure out
that the student isn’t getting the message,
that the student is bored which can be a very good thing.
It can be used by lawyers like you negotiate a deal
and if I can read what’s behind
your poker face and you can’t
that’s a tremendous advantage for me.
So it can be done in a diplomatic setting
like two prime ministers are meeting to,
I don’t know,
resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
and one of them has an earbud
and the computer is whispering in his ear
what is the true emotional state.
What’s happening in the brain,
in the mind of the person on the other side of the table.
And what happens when two sides have this?
And you have kind of an arms race
and we have absolutely no idea how to handle these things.
I’ll give a personal example
when I talked about this in Davos.
For me maybe my entire approach to these issues
is shaped by my experience of coming out.
That I realized that I was gay when I was 21
and ever since then I’m haunted by this thought,
what was I doing for the previous five or six years?
How is it possible,
I’m not talking about something small
that you don’t know about yourself.
Everybody there is something you don’t know about yourself.
But how can you possibly not know this about yourself?
And then the next thought is,
a computer,
an algorithm could have told me that when I was 14
so easily just by something as simple
as following the focus of my eyes.
I don’t know,
I walk on the beach or I even watch television and there is,
what was in the 1980s?
Baywatch or something,
and there is a guy in a swimsuit
and there is a girl in a swimsuit
and which way my eyes are going,
it’s as simple as that.
And then I think,
what would my life have been like,
first if I knew when I was 14,
secondly if I got this information from an algorithm.
There is something incredibly deflating for the ego
that this is the source of this deep wisdom about myself?
An algorithm that followed my eye movement?
[Nicholas] And there’s an even creepier element
which you write about in your book,
what if Coca-Cola had figured it out first and
[Yuval] was selling you Coke Exactly!
with shirtless men when you didn’t even know you were gay.
Exactly although Coca-Cola versus Pepsi,
Coca-Cola knows this about me
and shows me a commercial with a shirtless man,
Pepsi doesn’t know this about me
because they are not using these sophisticated algorithms.
They go with the normal commercials
with the girl in the bikini.
And naturally enough I buy Coca-Cola
and I don’t even know why.
Next morning when I go to the supermarket
I buy Coca-Cola and I think,
this is my free choice!
I chose Coke!
But no I was hacked.
[Nicholas] And so this is inevitable.
[Tristan] This is the crux of the whole issue.
This is everything is what we’re talking about.
And how do you trust something
that can pull these signals off of you?
If the system is asymmetric,
if you know more about me than I know about myself,
we usually have a name for that in law.
For example when you deal with a lawyer,
you hand over your very personal details to a lawyer
so they can help you.
But then they have this knowledge of the law
and they know about your vulnerable information
so they could exploit you with that.
Imagine a lawyer who took all the personal information
and then sold it to somebody else.
But they’re governed by a different relationship
which is the fiduciary relationship.
They can lose their license
if they don’t actually serve your interests.
It’s similar to a doctor or psychotherapist.
There’s this big question of
how do we hand over information about us
and say I want you to use that to help me.
On whose authority can I guarantee
that you’re going to help me?
There is no moment when we are handing information.
With the lawyer there is this formal setting like,
okay I hire you to be my lawyer,
this is my information and we know this.
But I’m just walking down the street,
there is a camera looking at me,
I don’t even know that,
and they are hacking me through that.
So I don’t even know it’s happening.
That’s the most duplicitous part.
We often say it’s like imagine a priest,
if you want to know what Facebook is,
imagine a priest in a confession booth
and they listen to two billion people’s confessions
but they also watch you round your whole day,
what you click on,
which ads,
Coca-Cola or Pepsi,
the shirtless men and the shirtless women,
and all your conversations that you have
with everybody else in your life
’cause they have Facebook Messenger,
they have that data too.
But imagine that this priest in a confession booth,
their entire business model is to sell access
to the confession booth to another party.
So someone else can manipulate you.
Because that’s the one way
this priest makes money in this case.
They don’t make money any other way.
There are two giant entities that will have,
I mean there are a million entities that will have this data
but there’s large corporations,
you mentioned Facebook,
and there will be governments.
Which do you worry about more?
It’s the same.
Once you reach beyond a certain point
it doesn’t matter how you call it.
This is the entity that actually rules.
Whoever has the data.
Whoever has this kind of data.
Even in a setting where you still have a formal government
but this data is in the hands of some corporation
then the corporation if it wants
can decide who wins the next elections.
So it’s not really a matter for choice.
There is choice.
We can design a different political and economic system
in order to prevent this immense concentration
of data and power in the hands
of either government or corporations that use it
without being accountable
and without being transparent about what they are doing.
The message is not okay it’s over,
humankind is in the dustbin of history.
That’s not the message. No that’s not the message.
Eyes have stopped dilating,
let’s keep this going.
(laughing)
The real question is,
we need to get people to understand this is real,
this is happening,
there are things we can do.
And you have midterm elections in a couple of months
so in every debate,
every time a candidate goes to meet the potential voters
in person or on television,
ask them this question.
What is your plan,
what is your take on this issue?
What are you going to do if we are going to elect you?
If they say I don’t know what you’re talking about,
that’s a big problem.
I think the problem is most of them
have no idea what we’re talking about
and one of the issues is
I think policy makers as we’ve seen
are not very educated on these issues.
They’re doing better.
They’re doing so much better this year than last year.
Watching the Senate hearings,
the last hearings with Jack Dorsey and Sheryl Sandberg
versus watching the Zuckerberg hearings
or watching the Colin Stretch hearings,
there’s been improvement.
[Tristan] It’s true.
There’s much more, though.
I think these issues open up a whole space of possibility.
We don’t even know yet the kinds of things
we’re gonna be able to predict.
We’ve mentioned a few examples that we know about
but if you have a secret way of knowing something
about a person by pointing a camera at them and AI,
why would you publish that?
So there’s lots of things that can be known about us
to manipulate us right now that we don’t even know about.
How do we start to regulate that?
I think the relationship we want to govern is,
when a supercomputer is pointed at you
that relationship needs to be protected
[Nicholas] and governed by some terms. Okay.
So there’s three elements in that relationship.
There’s the supercomputer.
What does it do,
what does it not do.
There’s the dynamic of how it’s pointed.
What are the rules over what I can collect?
What are the rules over what I can’t collect
and what I can store?
And there’s you.
How do you train yourself to act?
How do you train yourself to have self-awareness?
Let’s talk about all three of those areas
maybe starting with the person.
What should the person do in the future
to survive better in this dynamic?
One thing I would say about that
is I think self-awareness is important.
It’s important that people know the thing
we’re talking about and they realize
that we can be hacked but it’s not a solution.
You have millions of years of evolution
that guide your mind to make
certain judgments and conclusions.
A good example of this is if I put on a VR helmet
and now suddenly I’m in a space where there’s a ledge.
I’m at the edge of a cliff.
I consciously know I’m sitting here
in a room with Yuval and Nick.
I know that consciously.
I’ve got this self-awareness.
I know I’m being manipulated.
But if you push me I’m gonna not want to fall right?
‘Cause I have millions of years of evolution that tell me
you are pushing me off of a ledge.
So in the same way you can say,
Dan Ariely makes this joke actually,
the behavioral economist,
that flattery works on us
even if I tell you I’m making it up.
Like Nick I love your jacket right now.
[Nicholas] It’s a great jacket on you. It is.
It’s a really amazing jacket.
I actually picked it out ’cause I knew
from studying your carbon dioxide exhalation yesterday
that you would like this.
Exactly.
(laughing)
We’re manipulating each other now.
The point is that even if you know
that I’m just making that up,
it still actually feels good.
The flattery feels good.
And so it’s important,
I think of this as a new era,
kind of a new Enlightenment
where we have to see ourselves in a very different way.
And that doesn’t mean that’s the whole answer.
It’s just the first step.
We have to all walk around–
So the first step is recognizing
that we’re all vulnerable.
[Tristan] Hackable.
Vulnerable.
But there are differences.
Yuval is way less hackable than I am
because he meditates two hours a day
and doesn’t use a smartphone.
(laughing)
I’m super hackable.
The last one’s probably key.
(laughing)
What are the other things
that a human can do to be less hackable?
You need to get to know yourself as best as you can.
It’s not a perfect solution,
but somebody’s running after you,
you run as fast as you can.
It’s a competition.
Who knows you best in the world?
So when you’re two years old it’s your mother.
Eventually you hope to reach a stage in life
when you know yourself even better than your mother.
And then suddenly you have this corporation
or government running after you,
and they are way past your mother and they are at your back.
This is the critical moment.
They know you better than you know yourself.
So run a little.
Run a little faster.
There are many ways you can run faster,
meaning getting to know yourself a bit better.
Meditation is one way,
there are hundreds of techniques of meditation,
different works for different people.
You can go to therapy,
you can use art,
you can use sport,
whatever works for you.
But it’s now becoming much more important than ever before.
It’s the oldest advice in the book.
Know yourself. Yeah.
But in the past you did not have competition.
If you lived in Ancient Athens
and Socrates came along and said know yourself,
it’s good for you,
and you say nah I’m too busy,
I have this olive grove,
I don’t have time.
Okay you didn’t get to know yourself better
but there was nobody else who was competing with you.
Now you have serious competition.
So you need to get to know yourself better.
This is the first maxim.
Secondly as an individual,
if we talk about what’s happening to society,
you should realize you can’t do much by yourself.
Join an organization.
If you are really concerned about this,
this week join some organization.
50 people who work together are a far more powerful force
than 50 individuals who each of them is an activist.
It’s good to be an activist,
it’s much better to be a member of an organization.
Then there are other tested and tried methods of politics.
We need to go back to this messy thing
of making political regulations and choices.
Politics is about power
and this is where power is right now.
[Tristan] Out of that,
I think there’s a temptation to say,
okay how can we protect ourselves.
And when this conversation shifts into,
with my smartphone not hacking me,
you get things like,
oh I’ll set my phone to grayscale,
oh I’ll turn off notifications.
But what that misses is that
you live inside of a social fabric.
When we walk outside my life depends
on the quality of other people’s thoughts,
beliefs and lives.
So if everyone around me believes a conspiracy theory
because YouTube is taking 1.9 billion human animals
and tilting the playing field so everyone watches Infowars,
by the way YouTube has driven 15 billion recommendations
of Alex Jones’ Infowars and that’s recommendations
and then two billion views.
If only one in a thousand people
believed those 2 billion views,
[Yuval] that’s still two million? Two million.
Mathematics is not as strong as…
(laughing)
We’re philosophers.
And so if that’s two million people
that’s still two million new conspiracy theorists.
So if everyone else is walking around in the world
you don’t get to do that.
If you say hey I’m a kid,
I’m a teenager and I don’t wanna care
about the number of likes I get
so I’m gonna stop using Snapchat or Instagram.
I don’t want to be hacked
for my self-worth in terms of likes.
If I’m a teenager and I’m using Snapchat or Instagram
and I don’t want to be hacked for my self-worth
in terms of the number of likes I get,
I can say I don’t wanna use those things
but I still live in a social fabric
where all my other sexual opportunities,
social opportunities,
homework transmission where people talk about that stuff.
If they only use Instagram
I have to participate in that social fabric.
So I think we have to elevate the conversation from
how do I make sure I’m not hacked,
it’s not just an individual conversation.
We want society to not be hacked.
Which goes to the political point
in how do we politically mobilize
as a group to change the whole industry.
For me I think about the tech industry.
Alright so that’s step one in this three step question.
What can individuals do,
know yourself,
make society more resilient,
make society less able to be hacked.
What about the transmission
between the supercomputer and the human?
What are the rules and how should we think about
how to limit the ability of the supercomputer to hack you?
That’s a big one. That’s a big question.
That’s why we’re here!
In essence I think that we need to come to terms
with the fact that we can’t prevent it completely.
It’s not because of the AI, it’s because of the biology.
It’s just the type of animals that we are
and the type of knowledge that now we have
about the human body,
about the human brain.
We have reached a point when this is really inevitable.
You don’t even need a biometric sensor,
you can just use a camera in order to tell
what is my blood pressure,
what’s happening now,
and through that what’s happening to me emotionally.
I would say that we need to
reconceptualize completely our world
and this is why I began by saying
that we suffer from philosophical impoverishment.
That we are still running on the ideas of the 18th Century.
Which were good for two or three centuries,
which were very good but which are simply not adequate
to understanding what’s happening right now.
Which is why I also think that
with all the talk about the job market
and what should I study today that will be relevant
to the job market in twenty,
thirty years.
I think philosophy is one of the best bets maybe.
I sometimes joke,
my wife studied philosophy and dance in college.
Which at the time seemed like the two worst professions
’cause you can’t really get a job in either.
But now they’re like the last two things
that will get replaced by robots.
I think Yuval is right and I think
this conversation usually makes people conclude
that there’s nothing about human choice
or the human mind’s feelings that’s worth respecting.
And I don’t think that is the point.
I think the point is we need a new kind of philosophy
that acknowledges a certain kind of thinking
or cognitive process or conceptual process
or social process,
that we want that.
For example Lawrence Fishkin is a professor at Stanford
who’s done work on deliberative democracy
and shown that if you get a random sample of people
in a hotel room for two days
and you have experts come in
and brief them about a bunch of things
they change their minds about issues,
they go from being polarized to less polarized,
they can come to more agreement.
And there’s a process there that you can put in a bin
and say that’s a social cognitive sense-making process
that we might want to be sampling from that one
as opposed to an alienated lonely individual
who’s been shown photos of their friends
having fun without them all day
and then we’re hitting them with Russian ads.
We probably don’t want to be
sampling a signal from that person to be thinking about,
not that we don’t want it from that person,
but we don’t want that process
to be the basis of how we make collective decisions.
So I think we’re still stuck in a mind-body meat suit.
We’re not getting out of it.
So we better learn how do we use it in a way
that brings out the higher angels of our nature.
And the more reflective parts of ourselves.
So I think what technology designers need to do
is ask that question.
A good example just to make it practical,
let’s take YouTube again.
What’s the difference between a teenager,
let’s take an example of you watch a ukulele video.
It’s a very common thing on YouTube.
There’s lots of ukulele videos.
How to play ukulele.
What’s going on in that moment
when it recommends other ukulele videos?
There’s actually a value if someone wants to learn
how to play the ukulele.
But the computer doesn’t know that.
It’s just recommending more ukulele videos.
But if it really knew that about you,
instead of just saying
here’s infinite more ukulele videos to watch,
it might say here’s your ten friends
who know how to play ukulele that you didn’t know
know how to play ukulele
and you can go and hang out with them.
It could put those choices at the top of life’s menu.
The problem is when you watch,
like a teenager watches that dieting video,
the computer doesn’t know that the thing you’re really after
in that moment isn’t that you want to be anorexic.
It just knows that people who watch those
tend to fall for these anorexia videos.
It can’t get at this underlying value,
this thing that people want.
You can even think about it that we just need,
I mean the system in itself can do amazing thing for us,
we just need to turn it around
that it serves our interests whatever that is
and not the interests of the corporation or the government.
Actually to build,
okay now that we realize that our brains can be hacked,
we need an antivirus for the brain.
Just as we have one for the computer.
And it can work on the basis of the same technology.
Let’s say you have an AI sidekick
who monitors you all the time,
24 hours a day,
what you write,
what you’ve seen,
everything.
But this AI is serving you.
It has this fiduciary responsibility.
And it gets to know your weaknesses
and by knowing your weaknesses it can protect you
against other agents trying to hack you
and to exploit your weaknesses.
So if you have a weakness for funny cat videos
and you spend an enormous amount of time,
an inordinate amount of time just watching,
you know it’s not very good for you
but you just can’t stop yourself clicking,
then the AI will intervene
and whenever this funny cat video tries to pop up the AI,
no no no no.
And it will just show maybe a message
that somebody just tried to hack you.
You get these messages about
somebody just tried to infect your computer with a virus.
The hardest thing for us is to admit
our own weaknesses and biases and it can go all ways.
If you have a bias against Trump or against Trump supporters
so you very easily believe any story,
however farfetched and ridiculous.
So I don’t know,
Trump thinks that the world is flat.
Trump is in favor of killing all the Muslims.
You would click on that.
This is your bias.
And the AI will know that so it’s completely neutral,
it doesn’t serve any entity out there.
It just gets to know your weaknesses and biases
and tries to protect you against them.
[Nicholas] But how does it learn
that it’s a weakness and a bias and not something you like?
How come it knows when you click the ukulele video,
that’s good,
and when you click the Trump–
[Tristan] This is where I think we need
a richer philosophical framework because if you have that
then you can make that understanding.
So if a teenager’s sitting there in that moment,
watching the dieting video
then they’re shown the anorexia video,
imagine instead of a 22 year old male engineer
who went to Stanford,
computer scientist thinking about
what can I show them that’s the perfect thing?
You had a 80 year old child developmental psychologist
who studied under the best child developmental psychologists
and thought about in those kinds of moments
the thing that’s usually going on for a teenager aged 13
is a feeling of insecurity,
identity development,
experimentation and what would be best for them?
So we think about this is,
the whole framework of humane technology
is we think this is the thing,
we have to hold up the mirror to ourselves
to understand our vulnerabilities first,
and you design starting from a view
of what we’re vulnerable to.
I think from a practical perspective,
I totally agree with this idea of an AI sidekick.
But if we’re imagining,
we live in the scary reality
that we’re talking about right now.
It’s not like this is some sci-fi future,
this is the actual state.
So if we’re actually thinking about how do we navigate
to an actual state of affairs that we want,
we probably don’t want an AI sidekick
to be this kind of optional thing
that some people who are rich can afford
and other people who don’t can’t.
We probably want it to be baked in
to the way technology works in the first place
so that it does have a fiduciary responsibility
to our best subtle compassionate vulnerable interests.
So we will have government-sponsored AI sidekicks?
We will have corporations that sell us AI sidekicks
but subsidize them so it’s not just the affluent
that have really good AI sidekicks?
This is a business model conversation but…
One thing is to change the way that,
if you go to university or college
and learn computer science
then an integral part of the course
is to learn about ethics.
About the ethics of coding.
I think it’s extremely irresponsible
that you can finish,
you can have a degree in computer science,
in coding and you can design all these algorithms
that now shape people’s lives
and you just don’t have any background
in thinking ethically and philosophically
about what you’re doing.
You’re just thinking in terms of pure technicality
or in economic terms.
So this is one thing which kind of bakes it
into the cake from the first place.
Let me ask you something that has come up a couple times
I’ve been been wondering about.
So when you were giving the ukulele example,
you talked about well maybe you should
go see ten friends who play ukulele,
you should visit them offline.
And in your book you say that one of the crucial moments
for Facebook will come when an engineer realizes
that the thing that is better for the person
and for community is for them to leave their computer.
And then what will Facebook do with that?
So it does seem from a moral perspective that a platform,
if it realizes it would be better for you to go offline,
they should encourage you to do that.
But then they will lose their money
and they will be out-competed.
[Yuval] Mm-hmm. Yep.
So how do you actually get to the point where the algorithm,
the platform push somebody in that direction.
This is where this business model conversation comes in.
It’s so important.
And also why Apple and Google’s role is so important.
Because they are before the business model of all these apps
that want to steal your time and maximize attention.
Apple doesn’t need to–
Google’s before and after and during
but it is also before. But anyway.
Specifically the Android case.
So Android and iOS,
not to make this too technical
or an industries-focused conversation,
but they should theoretically,
that layer,
you have just the device.
Who should that be serving?
Whose best interest are they serving?
Do they want to make the apps as successful as possible?
And make the addictive maximizing loneliness
and alienation and social comparison,
all that stuff?
Or should that layer be a fiduciary,
as the AI sidekick to our deepest interests,
to our physical embodied lives,
to our physical embodied communities.
We can’t escape this instrument.
It turns out that being inside of community
and having face-to-face contact is,
there’s a reason why solitary confinement
is the worst punishment we give human beings.
And we have technology that’s basically maximizing isolation
because it needs to maximize
that time we spend on the screen.
So I think one question is
how can Apple and Google move their entire businesses
to be about embodied local fiduciary
responsibility to society.
And this is what we think of as humane technology.
That’s the direction that it can go.
Facebook could also change its business model
to be more about payments and people transacting
based on exchanging things,
which is something they’re looking into
with the blockchain stuff
that they’re theoretically working on.
And also Messenger payments.
If they move from an advertising-based
business model to micropayments,
they could actually shift the design of some of those things
and there could be whole teams of engineers at Newsfeed
that are just thinking about what’s best for society
and then people would still ask these questions of,
well who’s Facebook to say what’s good for society?
But you can’t get out of that situation
because they do shape what two billion human animals
will think and feel every day.
So this gets me to one of the things
I most want to hear your thoughts on which is,
Apple and Google have both done this
to some degree in the last year
and Facebook has,
I believe every executive at every tech company has said
time well spent at some point in the last year.
We’ve had a huge conversation about it
and people have bought 26 trillion of these books.
Do you actually think that we are
heading in the right direction at this moment
because change is happening and people are thinking?
Or do you feel like we’re still
going in the wrong direction?
[Yuval] I think that in the tech world
we are going in the right direction in the sense
that people are realizing the stakes.
People are realizing the immense power
that they have in their hands.
I’m talking about the people in the tech world.
They are realizing the influence they have on politics,
on society,
and most of them react I think not in the best way possible
but certainly they react in the responsible way.
In understanding yes we have this huge impact on the world.
We didn’t plan that maybe but this is happening
and we need to think very carefully what we do with that.
They still don’t know what to do with that.
Nobody really knows.
But at least the first step has been accomplished
of realizing what is happening
and taking some responsibility.
The place where we see a very negative development
is on the global level because all this talk so far
has really been internal,
Silicon Valley,
California USA talk.
But things are happening in other countries.
All the talk we’ve had so far
relied on what’s happening in
liberal democracies and in free market.
In some countries maybe you have got no choice whatsoever.
You just have to share all your information and have to do
what the government-sponsored algorithm tells you to do.
So it’s a completely different conversation.
And another complication
is the AI arms race
that five years,
even two years ago,
there was no such thing.
And now it’s maybe the number one priority
in many places around the world,
that there is an arms race going on in AI
and our country needs to win this arms race.
And when you enter an arms race situation,
then it becomes very quickly a race to the bottom.
Because you very often hear this,
okay it’s a bad idea to do this,
to develop that but they’re doing it
and it gives them some advantage
and we can’t stay behind.
We’re the good guys!
We don’t want to do it!
But we can’t allow the bad guys to be ahead of us
so we must do it first.
And you ask the other people,
they will say exactly the same thing.
They don’t want to do it but they have to.
Yeah and this is an extremely dangerous development
in the last two years.
It’s a multipolar trap
No-one wants to build slaughterbot drones
but if I think you might be doing it
even though I don’t want to I have to build it
and you build it and we both hold them.
Even at a deeper level,
if you want to build some ethics
into your slaughterbot drones
but it’ll slow you down by one week
and one week you double the intelligence.
This is actually one of the things I think
we talked about when we first met
was the ethics of speed,
of clockrate.
We’re in essence competing on
who can go faster to make this stuff
but faster means more likely to be dangerous,
less likely to be safe so it’s basically
we’re racing as fast as possible
to create the things we should probably be going
as slow as possible to create.
And I think that much like
high-frequency trading in the financial markets,
if we had this open-ended thing of
who can beat who by trading a microsecond faster.
What that turns into,
this has been well documented,
is people blowing up whole mountains
so they can lay these copper cables
so they can trade a microsecond faster.
You’re not even competing based on
an Adam Smith version of what we value or something.
We’re competing based on who can blow up mountains
and make transactions faster.
When you add high-frequency trading to
who can trade hackable programming human beings faster
and who’s more effective at manipulating
culture wars across the world,
that just becomes this race to the bottom
of the brain stem of total chaos.
I think we have to say how do we slow this down
and create a sensible pace
and I think that’s also about a humane technology.
Instead of a child developmental psychologist,
ask someone like a psychologist,
what are the clockrates of human decision making
where we actually tend to make good thoughtful choices?
We probably don’t want a whole society revved-up
to making a hundred choices per hour
about something that really matters.
So what is the right clockrate?
I think we have to actually have technology
steer us towards those kinds of decision-making processes.
[Nicholas] So back to the original question,
you’re somewhat optimistic about some of the small things
that are happening in this very small place
but deeply pessimistic about
the complete obliteration of humanity?
I think Yuval’s point is right.
There’s a question about US tech companies,
which are bigger than many governments.
Facebook controls 2.2 billion people’s thoughts.
Mark Zuckerburg’s editor-in-chief
of 2.2 billion people’s thoughts.
But then there’s also world governments
or national governments
that are governed by a different set of rules.
I think the tech companies are
very very slowly waking up to this.
And so far with the time well spent stuff for example,
it’s let’s help people,
because they’re vulnerable to how much time they spend,
set a limit on how much time they spend.
But that doesn’t tackle any of these bigger issues
about how you can program the thoughts of a democracy,
how mental health and alienation
can be rampant among teenagers leading to
doubling the rates of teen suicide
for girls in the last eight years.
We’re going to have to have a much more comprehensive view
and restructuring of the tech industry
to think about what’s good for people.
There’s gonna be an uncomfortable transition.
I use this metaphor it’s like climate change when…
There’s certain moments in history
when an economy is propped up by something we don’t want.
The biggest example of this is slavery in the 1800s.
There is a point at which slavery
was propping up the entire world economy.
You couldn’t just say we don’t wanna do this anymore,
let’s just suck it out of the economy.
The whole economy would collapse if you did that.
But the British Empire when they decided to abolish slavery,
they had to give up 2% of their GDP every year for 60 years.
And they were able to make that transition
over a transition period.
I’m not equating advertising
or programming human beings to slavery.
I’m not.
But there’s a similar structure of the entire economy now,
if you look at the stock market,
a huge chunk of the value is driven by
these advertising programming human animals based systems.
If we wanted to suck out that model,
the advertising model,
we actually can’t afford that transition.
But there could be an awkward years
where you’re basically in that long transition path.
I think in this moment we have to do it much faster
than we’ve done it in other situations
because the threats are more urgent.
Yuval do you agree that that’s one of the things
we have to think about as we think about trying to
fix the world system over the next decades?
It’s one of the things but again
the problem of the world,
of humanity is not just the advertising model.
The basic tools were designed,
you had the brightest people in the world
10 or 20 years ago cracking this problem
of how do I get people to click on ads.
Some of the smartest people ever,
this was their job.
To solve this problem.
And they solved it.
And then the methods that they initially used
to sell us underwear and sunglasses and vacations
in the Caribbean and things like that.
They were hijacked and weaponized
and are now used to sell us all kinds of things
including political opinions and entire ideologies.
It’s now no longer under the control
of the tech giants in Silicon Valley
that pioneered these methods.
These methods are now out there.
So even if you get Google and Facebook to
completely give it up the cat is out of the dog.
People already know how to do it.
There is an arms race in this arena.
So yes we need to figure out this advertising business,
it’s very important but it won’t solve the human problem.
Now the only really effective way to do it
is on the global level and for that
we need global cooperation and regulating AI,
regulating the development of AI and of biotechnology
and we are of course heading in the opposite direction,
of global corporation.
I agree in that there’s this notion of the game theory.
Sure Facebook and Google could do it
but that doesn’t matter because the cat’s out of the bag
and governments are gonna do it
and other tech companies are gonna do it
and Russia’s tech infrastructure’s gonna do it.
So how do you stop it from happening?
Not to equate slavery in a similar way but
when the British Empire decided to abolish slavery
and subtract their dependence on that for their economy,
they actually were concerned that if we do this
France’s economy is still gonna be powered by slavery
and they’re gonna soar way past us.
So from a competition perspective we can’t do this.
But the way they got there was by turning it into
a universal global human rights issue
that took a longer time but I think like Yuval says
this is a global conversation
about human nature and human freedom,
if there is such a thing,
but at least kinds of human freedom
that we want to preserve.
That I think is something that is actually
in everyone’s interest and it’s not necessarily
equal capacity to achieve that end
because governments are very powerful
but we’re gonna move in that direction
by having a global conversation about it.
Let’s end this with giving some advice
to someone who is watching this video.
They’ve just watched an Alex Jones video
and the YouTube algorithm has changed
and they sent ’em here and they somehow got to this point.
They’re 18 years old,
they want to devote their life to making sure
that the dynamic between machines and humans
does not become exploitative and becomes one in which
we continue to live our rich fulfilled lives.
What should they do or what advice could you give them?
I would say get to know yourself much better
and have as little illusions about yourself as possible.
If a desire pops in your mind don’t just say,
well this is my free will,
I chose this therefore it’s good,
I should do it.
Explore much deeper.
Secondly as I said join an organization.
There is very little you can do
just as an individual by yourself.
These are the two most important advices I could give
an individual who is watching us now.
[Tristan] And I think your earlier suggestion of,
understand that the philosophy of
simple rational human choice.
We have to move from an 18th Century model
of how human beings work
to a 21st Century model of how human beings work.
Speaking personally our work is trying to coordinate
a global movement towards fixing some of these issues
around humane technology and I think like Yuval says
you can’t do it alone.
It’s not a let me turn my phone grayscale
or let me petition my Congress member by myself.
This is a global movement.
The good news is no-one kind of wants the dystopic end point
of the stuff that we’re talking about.
It’s not like someone says no I’m really excited
about this dystopia.
I just wanna keep doing what we’re doing!
No-one wants that so it’s really a matter of,
can we all unify in the thing that we do want
and it’s somewhere in this vicinity
of what we’re talking about
and no-one has to capture the flag but we have to move away
from the direction that we’re going.
And I think everyone should be on the same page on that.
We started this conversation by talking about
whether we’re optimistic and I am certainly optimistic
that we have covered some of the hardest questions
facing humanity and that you have offered brilliant insights
into them so thank you for talking
and thank you for being here.
Thank you Tristan,
thank you Yuval.
Thank you. Thanks.
NYTimes: Can America Restore the Rule of Law Without Prosecuting Trump?
Can America Restore the Rule of Law Without Prosecuting Trump? nyti.ms/2Uz23xN
Sent from my U.S.Cellular© Smartphone
NYTimes.com: Inside the Chaotic, Cutthroat Gray Market for N95 Masks
From The New York Times:
Inside the Chaotic, Cutthroat Gray Market for N95 Masks
As the country heads into a dangerous new phase of the pandemic, the government’s management of the P.P.E. crisis has left the private sector still straining to meet anticipated demand.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/magazine/n95-masks-market-covid.html?smid=em-share