[AI Futures] Steps Towards International AI Governance - with Futurist David Wood

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

So David where I thought we'd start off here is around this broad topic of the governance of artificial intelligence I. think that there's concerns about the near-term around security privacy. There's longer term concerns about becoming more powerful people are thinking about should there be just regional surveys of governing technologies or or is it prudent to really think about global governance GM stance or way that you like to frame that problem? I'm all in favor of some local experimentation I. Think it's appropriate to have some things out to not obvious in advance that we can. Off. The Bat first time get a complete system of regulation. Correct. So I'm in favor of different parts of the globe whether it's the EU whether it's America whether it's China experimenting with a view to. Seeing which rules make more sense which rules viable. However, it has to be a stepping stone to watson envisioned global agreement because people will not surely be loath to commit themselves to that restrictions nationally locally if they perceive thought competition is going to be able to walk without these restrictions and get potential advantage. So we have to move into coast to international agreements to. Many people people are. Fearful of the any prospect of global government they feel that it's going to be d'italia -tarian or inch to wants the. Taliban. But what I will say is that we already have examples of global governance of various things. We have a sports organizations which managed to reach agreement on how the soccer football. World Cup is played. The Olympics Organization makes lots of agreements even though the constituent. Nations have lots of different political viewpoints and lots of different makeup. So there are examples of how useful agreements can be reached even between the ideological opponents. That's what we have to build on. I. Like the idea of local experimentation. It does indeed feel very hard to take a directly to the top okay world. Here's the page we're going to be on in terms of how data's treated or what is allowed to do or not allowed to do that Cetera. How do you see that playing out in terms of? Relative, near-term thinking about obviously the EU is they have their GDP are rules that are coming out. You see new sort of waves of these rules emerging in different countries than some observation by the global community as to how are they shaking out their implications for private sector innovation whether implications for human rights where implications elsewhere and then being able to use those as the experiments to build something more global. Exactly, right and the GDP aw in the EU is very important case point most people of mixed views about the actual implementation we often think, wow, this is clunky. This is A. This is poorly done on the the hind. We have sympathy towards what the rules are trying to do, and we say, yes, it is appropriate. Thought is the right to have an explanation. It's appropriate for people to understand how the data's being used and so on. So we can see that the intent is Goud. If maybe not. One hundred percent in agreement, but it's a starting point, but it is not something that's done once and then finished on the contrary. It's part of what should be an ongoing sequence my lendings in the Business World I spent twenty five years in the mobile technology and smartphones industry that was an industry in which there was a great deal of rapid change, their surprises of a new entrance of disappointments of things going wrong and. Then things going overwhelmingly right. My key lesson from all of that is the importance of agility the flexibility. Of course, you can set the overall long term direction, but you must stay get to that overall target in stages interim as moll steps, a new must be ready to your plan based on what you have lent in what new things become clear that were less clear L. ear on that face so we will get their stage-by-stage. I think politics the world of politics often seems almost like a domain were that innovation where in the private sector let's say is rampant stood to be the only game town isn't the only real game in town in politics to some degree because experimenting with fifty counties in Wisconsin, about how we're going to manage healthcare bills is really hard to do and seems somewhat viable as opposed to. Some big change for the whole state of the whole country and it just Kinda. Gets rolled out. Is there a way to sort foster a greater degree of this experimentation because it feels like at least historically, there have been limits to seeing politics as part of this iteration learning it's more of just clunking inevitability. It's not seen as maybe the global community is not look to aggregate policy as a way for us all to learn for us all to move forward. So ready to encourage that mindset in that learning like you saw in the private sector. One problem with politics is people really like to admit that they will wrong stu really like to have something a defied with them as being a failure whereas in business more people are willing to shrug and say, yes, dot to didn't walk as I expected and you know what analogy I'm wiser. And Business we talk about failing smart failing fast and feeling forward and it sounds like buzzwords. But all three of these things means something particular failing forward in particular means that you don't try and move on quickly and did deny the you ever were associated with such an experiment you say, well, here's what you've learned from it and you use that as a starting point for the next round of experiments but they politicians like to present themselves and we often as voters like to see all politicians is A. Superhuman Infallible Vegas and we need to have a much more human understanding of how politics works. So that's one thing that will help. A second thing that will help is more of a coalition that mentality rather than two different groups WanNa. The right and the other the laughed the Republicans at the Democrats or whatever politics is in my view much healthier when there are multiple different parties involved and where it's quite easy for people to move from one party to another as their owner. Viewpoint changes evolves over the time. So sadly, when two different blocks very adversarial. Limits the ability to have more meaningful and useful discussion. It pushes into their role in mental state as well. It puts into this tribal frame in which we often don't want to say something we think is true because it might be embarrassing for offsides. So instead, we latch onto something that makes the other side look stupid even though we may not fully believe it. So it's a very bad way of having a proper. Discussion. So sometimes I talk about we need more than just democracy. We need a super democracy. We need to learn how to have these discussions in a way that We're happy to admit that we've been wrong with hoppy to admit we've changed our mind after all to court the Economist John Maynard Keynes though he may not actually have said this when the exchange I changed my mind, the

Coming up next