[AI Futures] Forging International Consensus About the Future of Intelligence - with Jerome Glenn of The Millennium Project (S1E9)

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

This is Daniel Fidel in you're listening to our Saturday futures series. This twelve part series is about artificial intelligence. In, this episode nine in this series, we've talked about near-term governance considerations for AI and also long-term. What's IT GONNA take it both a national and international level to sort of forge a future with it's very powerful technology in the decades ahead that hopefully be an aggregate good one, not one that instigates more economic disparity or war or other negative consequences that we'd like to avoid, and there are few people who've done more futures thinking and thinking about policy the future of governments future of enterprises I ended mapping those futures out then Jerome Glenn who is the founder of the Millennium Project to for a quarter of a century has been running the. Millennium Project, and essentially doing just that working with governments working with large organizations from the Red Cross to the government of Korea to sort of map out what the future looks like under different circumstances into poll together varied stakeholders often internationally to think about how we can get along what kind of future we want to craft and what's going to be a forged win win scenario for that future. Maybe we can do to prepare for it We speak with Jerome this week about what that would look for artificial general intelligence towards the latter part of this twelve part series, and we're on episode nine. So this is the back half for sure. We're GONNA be talking more and more about the long term consequences of strong ai when this technology becomes very powerful. The big question in today's episode is will, what does it mean to prepare for that? Who needs to be at the table in order to make sure that that's a peaceful transition? What kind of questions do we need to ask in order to ensure that we're sort of buffering against risks in so much as we can actually do that and jerome with his experience and exactly the space sort of breaks that down in depth I'd love to get your thoughts on this episode in this series in general, you can go to e.. N. E. R. J., DOT COM slash pod three to two question survey. It's not even a survey. It's just a couple of short fields you can share your thoughts. I'd love to know if you WanNa see this as a separate podcast if you like it on Saturdays, your ideas really matter. So please do share them there. We've gotten dozens of responses already in it's really helping me to kind of craft what the next day I'd future series might look like but I'd love to get your ideas as well. So without further ADO, we're GONNA. Dive into this episode this is Jerome Glenn With the Millennium Project here on this special AI? Futures Series. So Jerome got a lot to talk about here in terms of artificial intelligence governance, artificial general intelligence. The reason I think this conversation will be fun is because you've thought through some future scenarios with with very large organizations for many years. Very High Level and you've learned a lot in the process of what is the process for pulling together different stakeholders imagining, what will the future be? What should we do I? Mean very complicated. You go about it. Of course, one of the first things you do is you gotta find out the state of the art of whatever it is you know is there is, let's say five elements to it or ten elements, and you know was the state of the art on this element on this element, this element, this element. Now myself I won't know enough to do that. So we have a global network of networks sixty five nodes. Return Network himself within countries, and so I can say, here's where we are so far and they tell me what else ought to be considered. So there's so as global sort of a state of the art assessment finger. Yeah and then within that with take a look and say what questions were not asked the authorities have been asked. and. What questions were as but answered, superficial. That gives us questions to as in a Delphi study, which is a questionnaire goes around the world. And the results of that then becomes guts content to create draft scenarios. We send address narrows back out and everybody hasn't at Pat and presides over, and then we can say, okay, what do you do about this scenario? What did you do about it? You'll see a good action as well as scenarios this sort of a general approach So you talked about the Delphi study I actually recall you bringing this up the first time you and I chatted I don't remember who has five years ago or something wild like that. Speak briefly about wooded Delphi study is so I like finger on the pulse what are we missing? Pulling, those ideas together and then there's this kind of dispersion to generate even more. What is the Delphi study. Delphi questionnaire. Whose second round. Is. Determined by the results of the first round. And third round is determined by the results the second route. the reason for it was that there were generals and admirals and experts that don't always the same room with each other at the Rand Corporation. The Rand Corporation had to figure out how to beat World War Three. Well, we didn't know a lot about that beginning, but you had all these brilliant people that don't always cooperate. And sometimes in the military, sometimes, people were afraid to criticize admiral if there are only a cap yeah you avoid all this crap by saying here's around one tended out and they response good. But without a names, no one knows that you're a private or a president is state. and. So the ideas become persuasive rather than personalities or your. Then, all those responses but also happens to sometimes someone doesn't respond to somebody else's idea. If they're in person Zanele on that yeah all but then the second round, those ideas on the first are in there. So you have to respond to all that second first-round stop that you wouldn't normally have responded to. The same thing goes on those results. Everything has a chance to be responded to without name rank serial number so that ideas become persuasive by itself. So it was a way to collect intelligence at a have it learned through innovations so it wasn't just saying what's the state of the art of thinking is like you're gonNA improve state of the art is thanking as itself yeah. A I I go by. And that's brilliant. It's Great I. Still Think it's one of the best there is however what happens if you're in a hurry? Light with Kopech nine stuff you know you. Aren't working on that one. Now, you're going to do what we call a real time Delphi. That came up because of time. Sanjay questionnaire. But he will have a sign insulin come back later so you can vote early off. So the idea is, let's say you responded by by just off and we asked you explain there. So they say on a scale of one to ten, it's like five then when it comes to explain yourself. So the people see why you said what you said without your name out you're right same way, and so then come back two days later they later and I said you know I see somebody misinterpreted. So, I can go back my original text and edited to make it clear although as thought. However in Singapore, they did an avid poker contact range this way there's a web link. Then another person comes later sees that. And says, yeah but the Green. Ones Better Watch this. And so you're you're you're getting the CPAC stuff, but then you can say to somebody this Delphi it goes live today at new and we finished in one week. This is called real time Delphi got it and so the original approaches said was developed by the Rand Corporation Right Yep. As a matter of fact, partner in crime had Gordon co-founded when project was part of that original team Okay. There we go. So there some of the the the origin story here. So when it comes to congealing all of those thoughts I, mean some of your past projects I'm trying to think of an and you you do a better job is around you lifted what's most analogous to this project you And I are talking about, which is around the requirements for global governance in what the means of global governance for artificial general intelligence obviously never tackled specifically similar futurist type projects, technology type projects power in government type projects. I'm trying to think about once you've congealed all of those answers from different sorts of parties will talk about who those parties are. Then you gotta turn that into maybe more or less likely future scenarios to some degree, and that also feels like hard work but but go on about what happens after the Delphi. We're not doing necessarily more and likely scenario. The idea is to do plausible scenarios that are useful for thinking. Right, so or example. Currently. Answer to your question related stuff. We just finished a three year study on the future of technology and work. Obviously, a is a big part of that including Janelle Washer, yeah including super they could goes out twenty fifty. Nine not get super, two, thousand, fifty, but we. On the exactly why you alternate snares here's what he hit. Get Etc Sofa. So the way that we do this is we take all that content. And some of his positive negative. Obviously the negative stuff gives me the stuff for negatives Mary positive stuff. And then mixed now. Futures will argue against doing graphic. Way of doing Herman, Kahn also, Rand Corporation also a former friend worship longer live. Did the positive negative in middle because that's the way we think season. Since then a lot of futures now the trouble is that people plan for the Middle One. It becomes a self fulfilling process. However. That is evolved into something of its superficial. Which is people say we'll pay two or more uncertainties. Like you get super I don't get super high you get high unemployment don't get high on. So that makes you a two by two grid. The desert become forced air then what they superficial. Now. Describe that state of the future in quantity fifty or whatever. Aren't that's fine. That's good. Then you say. What scenario? What strategy should? I should I have the works in all of those? All right. That's the normal sort of superficial scenario plant, which is better than doing nothing on argue against because it's easy for people to do consultants work with it into understand. The real reason for joins narrows originally was. Her write a story reels Murray not describing a state. Like in a movie. A. Zach you have to have. With plausible stuff not that's the truth but Klaus we'll start why? Because as you write a scenario, you'll get to a point. You say, I have no idea what happens next this is crazy. I never thought of Oma John We've got to stop and you stop and then you do your research, call your friends you know all all that sort of stuff to fill in. The value, the original value of a scenario. was to force you into a position where you and your colleagues have insights into what you didn't even know to ask. Quick Vignette. Corporation was ideas was what happens if there's years ago? What happens? No thermonuclear war doesn't occur in years. But in Orbison to crisis comes up and you might have. While Caused. Trouble with thirty year cat. Is that you you? You don't know who's in the Kremlin? Furthermore International Affairs have changed enough. You may be looking at Beijing, etc. Right. So the whole idea of mutual assured destruction was you had to prove to your opponent you're crazy enough to press the button. How you convince an unknown power structure in an unknown political geopolitical on the world that you're crazy enough press the button. They didn't know. So you stop writing. And you do research and you think all right and they don't do that anymore. So you're stop and say I don't know all right now what they did was they came up with fallout shelters. Your original reason for fallout shelters had nothing to do with people being thousands of years underneath the ground. Would it had to do with his convincing your opponents? That you're crazy. Enough press the button. How by having real fallout shelters and then you say everybody go. So the in this scenario, the your opponents sees news stories video. Mass crowds in New York City going up massive crowds in. Chicago mass crowds Los Angeles the whole country is going to these fallout jobs. What does the opponent? Thank you guys are crazy. You're actually going to go to war. That was the purpose but you couldn't say that purpose during the Cold War because it would make the whole idea in ballot. Right yeah you never heard about this. But there's an example of where you got to figure out what you don't know as important. So in businesses say Weinstein one because they didn't look there look there they didn't go to the unknown questions. Got It. So the purpose of you're saying you collect all these ideas we sort of map forward. You're saying the hard work to some degree is thinking through these plots and then stopping at like to be honest I have no idea with this combined with. This zero clue as to what's going to go down I need to talk to folks that know those areas I need to speak to people from her from those go regions whatever the case may be. So so this help us flesh out, you know how wide is this suite of plausible scenarios because of course, you could imagine it being infinite, but you don't want it to be infinite. You have to boil down the representatives set that will be useful for thought. And informed for policy for for future action, I'm bound that reality with implausible scenarios that are a limited number. Well. There's two approaches. One approach is the one I just mentioned i. Was your plausible negative worcester possible positive and what's your mix the other courses. As I mentioned, you take your various unknowns that you really want to know about and you make your matrix can have you know a whole mess different scenarios that way and then you pick out of that mix what do you think is the most interesting? What really brings up the unknown questions and so forth. That we have asked before a so and then you have yourself a little steering committee who nitpicks you to death? And you come up with a consensus saying, okay these are the ones we wanted to approach. Now in the process of writing them, this is another good method performance in the process of writing. Is. Ours are develop outside of the original expectation. Let. Avon. A method should not be a prison cell. Method should help you. So as you right 'cause I heard while the story started get outside of the box lot at because you're trying to find the dynamics of cause-effect. Current you didn't think about before so it should evolve beyond your original expectation then you're learning. Got It, you mentioned the steering committee on some level should be open to that learning and be and be responsible to saying, okay. The these are the plausible scenarios we ought to discuss that we believe are most likely to be worth considering I. WanNa Pivot towards your eventually gonna be touching more and more on the governance of artificial general intelligence I happen. To believe that this is such a complicated scenario that it will imply some kind of a pooling of thought rather than hypothesizing in some academic tower or by some some individual brilliant scientists when it comes to coming up with ideas about how the future will be. Sometimes those have to do with real power struggles with the territory lines with the policies of. Across borders and boundaries. This process are there instances of this process where we've talked about very contentious issues with? Competitor's more or less, and are there any unique insights from that? Oh absolutely this is one of the essential assumption on the money and project his to global futures research. Locally not to have a PhD from Beijing. Moscow. At Harvard, with both got PhD's from Stanford know that's not global research. So. He leaves that like we have no in in Beijing and a node in Tehran as well as the than an silicon balance Cetera. So by having a mix of these people you onto the address questions but a question then your question, I assume going into the eye. On as we're preparing to work on a government study. One of CO partners will be the Chinese Academy of Social Science Institutes. Of saw technology saw technology the legal stuff all the well, we're working on this technology of a on. So, this is. Including, China in the conversation from round one. Because if we're going to create these international agreements and treaties and governed systems gotta how? China. And others gang so we start them to begin with. And so yeah, clearly need the stakeholders their right to presume that I'll very contentious issue. Let's just talked to one party will figure out what they think. The other party will think them will bring it to the world right? Even if you did drop something great, you know there'd be zero trust serve baked into that process. So clearly, it sounds a giving people in equal footing kind of to get off the ground is one thing it seems to me that to get folks to agree or to to at least have some degree of I guess maybe consensus is not exactly the right word but to. Serve come to the same page on some topics. There would have to be a lot of that oscillating these different plausible scenarios and say, which are the ones that are digestible for both of us ways. One of the things we're looking forward the things that they're looking for you know right now I think in the artificial intelligence race, the US China's kind of the big consideration. Of course I think we should be thinking about the developing world should be thinking about the future of Europe we should be thinking about other players organized crime because they've got the cash to buy the best software engineers in the world. And they got the institutional savvy. You create a whole bunch of middlemen corporations so that you think you're were. Is and you're not. So we're include that as well. How do you pull those folks into the conversation? It'd be like well, you know we really need a representative from organized crime. Well Nice thing about the money of project people sometimes just show up. And you never quite know why but that's okay. I figure if they can find the back door, they're smart enough to walk in a living room. Anyway. But one part of that is the UN has the drugs and Crime you're and they look at all organized. Now. There's a guy involves in that who is now part of the UN stuff on a I application Irakly directly you? mentioned. Sure that. I don't think. I. Don't think he's that he probably won't be all that offended Iraqis. Proud. About saying Oh. Goodness. All right. Well, there's a chance I'll edit this out, but there's a chance I want to go go on going well, the idea is that people who have more. Frontline encounters we WANNA have in. And but this brings up of essence also. You don't want to give your opponent. Crimes opponents speak. Ideas. And and and our work for better for worse. I did stop. So we don't WanNa make them smarter. But we would like to figure out social judo and s by as far as I'll go. Okay. Interesting. So there's there's there's considerations there to around. Can We? Can we extract from? I, mean. This is this sounds like international politics intelligence in the first place can we can we pull in everything that we wanna pull in but not be permeable ourselves to have folks learn things And there's a parallel here. This is complex. Helped me remember why I started on this. Is Self interest of organized crime to take seriously why has every go to General? We don't know how long it will take to get to. Super. Goes to super without initial conditions being in good shape. We're toes. Now is a parallel. During the Cold War. Carl Sagan went running around saying. If. You have always explosions get enough dust in the air thus clouds in the air that you knock off your vegetation. So I don't care whether Moscow or Washington has a first strike defense or a second strike defense reviser both toast. So you've got to stop it because there's no winner. No matter what you do. No matter what you do you lose. All right. So the same thing we're saying, no matter what organized crime does. They're. GonNa lose with the rest of us. If we don't get the generally I write that moving this Super A. A soubriquet I can mess around organized crime just like they could mess around with you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm thinking forward or I guess we'll close the gap more on Agi and on Super Intelligence you know I'm imagining going through this process with you know high up folks in China High Up folks in the United States and it start at one level I. Imagine there might be a Delphi cycle of sorts and possible scenario through, and then maybe it will go up to a higher level and hopefully there will be more powerful folks involved. It would seem as though it would be challenging to come to a same page conclusion about sort of where Agi. Should land whether it be in whose hands or representing what kinds of values or it doesn't do this but it can do this. You know on these are impossible things but you know we might as well take a swing because if you know imminent destruction the alternative, why not? What is the approach to wiggle around advocates? You know you can imagine all these all these human rights, things that Europe in the US are going to tout may not exactly be you know privacy and whatnot may not exactly be China's Cup of tea no matter how you slice it. How you frame cut is a process like this help try to find middle ground if there is one. Latouche steps. You can have. Workshops national workshops or the workshops in different parts of the world. They can say, okay what do we do about that stuff? So then they have a bunch of suggestions we pull all those new did this by the way the future work and technology studies saying way we got hundreds and hundreds of suggestions these workshops around the world. A lot or lapse of course for many people think the same thing. But then we narrowed down to like about ninety or so or hundred specific actions, and then divided those into different categories whereas governor do business do. New and so forth. All right. Then we send those out is dealt by five separate Delphi's and say now was the good the bad about this, the likelihood to pause, and so then we give back to everybody. Here's the menu of actions. Here's the commentary on those actions. Here's what's been perceived to be the the feasibilities actions. And the likelihood. So if you're in country X., you might pull out that whole menu. Options that are relevant to you you another country might pull out from. So so they don't have to have world agreement. Will we have to have is a better on rotation that we have right now? Now it's superficial and it's not serious long range. So this will move the conversation just like it worked at. That has moved conversation quite a long by now. Got It so. The idea would be to concretize Internet just like well, we disagree about things well, I want power you our but to say, all right well, here's all the ways it could progress. Here's the international governance structures. Here's the local kinds of governance structure. Here's the modes of checks and balances, and here's will be good or bad about these. These different approaches years with this party thinks about it, but this part thinks about it. And maybe that would concretize. Okay. Here are things where there seems to be almost ubiquitous agreement. That's great. Here seems to be the biggest faultlines and then hypothetically you could run another cycle about handling those faultlines. But at least now we know what's contentious what's not where we agree and maybe brought categorize the points where friction exists so that we can work on them. It sounds like if nothing else that would be the output. Take a look at the the climate change. The GIOTTO protocol is a lot different than the Paris agreement. Go on his for the folks who are who are at home in are familiar with the core differences there go on. Okay Kyoto Protocol the original ideas about addressing climates. It did not have much specificity at all. And Set out the door. And then as. Of the meetings occurred going into the climate change conferences against more precise, more precise and more people play in the original protocol China did not say you can inspect me. For what I'm doing on. Carbon. In the later they get. Yes. You can expect me about what so he balls so we gotta start. And that's what. Usually. Good. Starting. Off Ideally, this helps a process that ends up into international agreements into the actual negotiations eventually, a treaty ratification, and then a treaty can be modified updated Yep. So like the process itself that we're we're talking about here. So in terms of you know we've got a number of questions before we wrap about this. Topic specifically now that we've talked about a process and hopefully the further folks tuned in, it's useful to to think through how many ideas have to be pulled together to actually have a conversation about something. So complicated, you know if you think about who would have to be involved for something as important, artificial general intelligence obviously, you know representatives from different countries. Sure but. Deep questions they're doing folks from defense private sector and academia deed folks from different Geo regions within these countries a representative for cultural nuances. Do we need folks of a certain level of rank in the military as opposed to just some guy who happens to be the one region fiction to be interested in this stuff on not that I think it's IT'S A. Separated from reality, but for some folks it is. Deciding sort of need to be in the room is challenging and it might not be that in a first round, we can pull in the ideal players whose opinions we really think would matter in starting to concretize the conversation who might we start with with something like Agi you've already done some thinking on this. Remember that Berry beginning you want to know the date of the arts. Yup what are the norms principles values what does the state of the art on thinking about? Rules and audits or a What is the status of results from different international conferences because a lot of international conference meetings have occurred. Within that body as we go through that, you can pick out who knows the most in different areas. That's one part. Then, within also ask our nose sixty five, not around the world who ought to be invited. So. Most of the people who are invited or not centrally if we didn't right, you know like I might buy you and so. We might do sent but then our Iran note picks crew from Iran will be involved I won't know. Isreaeli Rayleigh no we'll pick who in Israel, and I will not know who should be and so so a lot of picking is done by Dr knows you're supposed to be a group of individuals and institutions cut across institutional categories government business academic. So, that's our brain picking mechanism of global local conversation. Got Us into the goal would be bought up. Well bottom up and top down. His both Okay. You have the nodes doing the grassroots ball, but we're also doing a global assessment like approach as you pointed out, we'll go. Pose. Okay. Got It. Got UNDERSTA. So I imagine there may have been previous were you've cycled a number of times on a particular topic? You mentioned three years in the future of work. I'm not exactly sure how that went I. Know You've you've done other sort of broad projects, governments, etc. I imagine sometimes I passing distillation of these ideas maybe don't have. Someone high enough in the People's Liberation Army as you'd like or someone is high up in buzz, you might originally like or someone is high abed up Microsoft or Google maybe you think would be relevant for. Agi Conversation. But if you build enough momentum, maybe the second time around, you can start to loop them in. You know when it comes to the critical stakeholders who who need enough by into start to get this stuff td mentioned moving from Kyoto to the Paris agreement the nudges along that line in terms of the political cloud in terms of the poll. Businesswise politically, etc does it often happen in kind of concentric circles? So to speak are or how do we work our way to influence? The people that we attract. Are Thought leaders in the sense because they want to continue being fought meters. So they WANNA find out we know something they don't know. Looking at the other student in school what are they now? So, there's a Lotta that going on, right. So result we attract a lot of thought leaders talked other people we don't know. They can't keep their mouth shut as how they keep the reputation by saying unique right. So a lot of the stuff gets rippled along we integrate the players as you point out as much as we can. But a lot of these people don't necessarily like to fill out a questionnaire. Footnote. What we've done in the past, we have our no chair interview such people. They won't fill out the questions themselves, but they'll answer. Yeah, yeah. Drank or so we do that. So we're. -nology but the thing is it permeates out I mean there's no. We don't we run for one study at the next. We don't always evaluate how it permeates out, but you see our phrases in different things inside retired in the head. And you can tell because we pick a year or a certain consequences for. US and you can tell, yes, see who's grabbing your stuff. Leaders light to know that they're the ones who know it all they want to say I want to do X.. Think Thank X. told me to do this. No, they don't WanNa do that. Yeah. It's it's interesting. There's a funny analogy in the market research world in center of our universe you know beginning the company was working with big retail banks in a pharmaceutical companies, etc and we were warned by early advisers who who were pretty high up forrester you WANNA. Steer clear in your early days of Lake. PWS's in the KPMG's in the big consultancies because their goal would be to take whatever your research methodology is, and then they've already got all the enterprise relationships in and they'll just say, hey, we came up with this look at what we found look at how many companies we assess and so yeah, similarly there's. Consequences in your world too. So it is with ideas I. Guess Right easy to swap I can see plenty of upsides there. But of course, there are some downsides back on Agi here you know clearly you and I are on the same page why this interviews happening that much more thought would need to be given to how this would shake interested in some of your instincts neither you nor I know the future, but we have some instincts instincts on. What it would take to cross the chasm where international bodies our nation's maybe let's say would believe that human solidarity around this issue is in central. To be of the belief that at some point, we will have to come to that conclusion if we don't want competing cyborgs and competing strong ai I think that that's that's really the state of nature in terms of plugging in stuff into back of our skulls and in terms of building machines more powerful than ourselves. The state of nature I wouldn't leave very much room for for Happy Little Apes. But what kind of tensions what kind of you know precedence would have to exist four folks to get on the same page and say, Hey, we have to come up with a way to handle this. What do you think it's GonNa, take. That's why we're best prepare the sun. That's why. The but to give us a side point to that might help the audience be a little more optimistic because there's reason to be quite pessimistic as is that in the early days of the Internet I was involved in Getting what's called packet switching instead device that makes the Internet cheap put these little things all around the world and it makes packages and switches to a satellite. The satellite time is almost nothing even though you've noticed computer all day long that's why it's cheap. Now, I was involved in the early eighties getting that into different third world countries and often dictatorships you business. And as a result, I was aware of the conversation. Gt talent and all the other early early players and we are so happy and optimistic. We're going to get a knowledge of the world together. We're going to make it work. I. Mean it was just great. It was like. I got a magic wand and running around the world hurting on all these deals, right I did not think once. Far As remember anything about the use of it for child pornography. For organized crime in wandering and all that Orleans for star, a cybercrimes information warfare as but all the rest of it I was. I would say as a species we were. Lately naive about it as we ran into it. Now. That's not the case. I, mean, there are I'm not trying to keep track of this stuff and I can't. There's so many conferences meetings on on. In artificial intelligence. I can't hardly keep progress over anything. So we are looking at the negative. So thank God for Hawking's and Gates and the rest of the. Traveling this Boston Hey, this can go the wrong way. We did not have any remember in the early days of the Internet your baby him some people say you're weren't allowed saying, Hey, we got to rethink how we do this Internet yes, we want to do it but we can't just let it go. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Her what you said that I remember which means that the in my view that there's reasons to be optimistic that we get more collaboration on this one then we did on the other. And there's more downside because going to the super as you point out. Yeah. I mean you know part of me thinks that many many years ago that there would have to be some kind of an I hate to use the analogy I. Don't have a better when I probably should think through a better one before I start saying podcast but some sort of Pearl Harbor ask scenario now that it has to be an attack by another country, but it has to be an event that. As horrible as it is the common enemy idea that I the the idea of intelligence in an in an unbound survey way or in a way that maybe we feel like his dangerous would be so evident as to be real not as to be imagined I think you know it wasn't even the coronavirus here. You know what? What was it? It was. No. One's really sure about what the CCPA's saying. No one's really sure like what's true. What's not whatever I think a lot of Americans might have some skepticism there although you know certainly plenty of sympathy for the folks that were ill and for the doctors who really had a bad golf but you know you start feeling it crawl across. Europe right he started seeing like the pictures coming in with the CCP's not gonNA show you all the carnage from from a poorly handled sort of. Outbreak but you know across your, we were seeing and I think for Americans it was like by Golly, we've really got to think about this. You could still say we acted slow but the ideas like it has to be visceral. Might have to visceral here. Might there have to be some some brain computer interface some Ai. SCENARIO OF SPOOKS PEOPLE. So thoroughly across the glow, they realize we gotta get on the damn same page we can. Develop. In under three scenarios, we did on the future work technology out to twenty fifty. We did have in their some of those, for example, the idea of weapon systems of developing and and almost developing its independence capability. I mean weapons systems, alliterate act independent of human control, and we have that in this scenario. So by the way, the to it. Because government sometimes a little slow sometimes our self defensive and offensive, and see you end up with your independent hackers in the world underground folks. They create a new independent group. That gets ahead of the thing and then fighting cooperates with governments but maintains our independence from governments on they wouldn't be arrested so far so they have. Intrigues on this stuff yes. We have a couple of those. Things are lost control, and in this scenario we ended up concluding in that that particular there was never fully under control. He was a constant thing that yes or somebody hold you know part of it whole areas wiped out the still happens. Yeah. There's some stuff in there. Referrals. You. Have to check out the future of work. It sounds like that's the closest precedent to too strong. I at least in terms of your. Matter of fact, you wonder we had the very end art isn't all of a sudden things are happening around the world. We couldn't figure out why and how is happening and we think of. The Subaru has begun. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I will make sure that we linked to whatever is publicly available in that work in the show notes somewhere. So people can get an idea of what the output to these kinds of processes are and were were at on time here rebound load them I mean twenty bucks is not a big deal. Easing off. So Cool Jerome I'm glad we're able to have you on in this series. You are one of the rare folks brought on because you know you don't know. But unlike most people in those in that position, you actually have a process to figure it out I. Think more of US should be considering it through that Lens very much appreciate your perspective on the series of thanks so much joining. US. Thank you. So that's all for this futures series episode in the business podcast the next three Saturdays are three final episodes in the series on Ai Governance. So we have three guests who are in my opinion, some of the most important thinkers about strong. And the considerations of governance and management and even safety of artificial intelligence that approaches or even surpasses human ability on multiple fronts. Those three guests are Steve on one hundred who is our next interview E. next Saturday. Ben Gerstle arguably one of the best known artificial general intelligence thinkers in the world founder of a number of AI companies and organizations. And lastly, Hugo de Garris one of the earliest thinkers in this space who wrote a paper I think two years after I was born nineteen eighty-nine about the future of artificial general intelligence in his thoughts have been really important me crafting my own opinion about where these technologies are headed. So we've had on some great folks we had Stuart Russell from Berkeley. We had folks in the future of Humanity Institute from the C. from the I Tripoli so many great perspectives or really going to start stretching that into what the heck does this mean for where we're going and where do we ultimately even WanNa go as business leaders. Government leaders is people thinking about the future of humanity intelligence itself so we've got. Some excitement in these next three episodes and I'm excited to bring them to you. So be sure to stay for next. Saturday for more of that and be sure to stay tuned for. Tuesday. When we dive right back into a I, use cases here on the I in business podcasts stay tuned and I look forward to catching you in the week at.

Coming up next