3 Takeaways - Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt on AI: Shaping the Next Era of Humanity (#225)
Episode Date: November 23, 2024Eric Schmidt is astonishing. Here, the former CEO of Google and one of the world’s most brilliant technologists talks with visionary wisdom about Artificial Intelligence and its impact on business, ...healthcare, warfare, climate change, human survival and more. Don’t miss this chance to learn how AI powers we have not yet imagined will affect our daily lives.
Transcript
Discussion (0)
To quote from the introduction of Eric Schmidt's new book Genesis,
the latest capabilities of artificial intelligence,
impressive as they are,
will appear weak in hindsight as its powers increase at an accelerating rate.
Powers we have not yet imagined are said to infuse our daily lives."
Unquote.
Will artificial intelligence be humanity's final act
or a new beginning?
Hi everyone, I'm Lynn Toman and this is Three Takeaways.
On Three Takeaways, I talk with some of the world's
best thinkers, business leaders, writers, politicians,
newsmakers and scientists.
Each episode ends with three key takeaways
to help us understand the world,
and maybe even ourselves, a little better.
Today, I'm excited to be with Eric Schmidt.
Eric is the former CEO of Google
and the co-founder of Schmidt Sciences.
He has chaired the Defense Department's
Defense Innovation Advisory Board and co has chaired the Defense Department's Defense Innovation
Advisory Board and co-chaired the National Security
Commission on Artificial Intelligence.
He has also been a member of the President's Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology
and the National Security Commission
on Emerging Biotechnology.
In addition, Eric has served on a variety
of academic, corporate, and non-profit
boards, including Carnegie Mellon University, Princeton University, Apple, the Mayo Clinic,
the Institute for Advanced Study, and Khan Academy. And I've probably left some out. He also
currently chairs the board of the Broad Institute and the Special Competitive Studies Project.
He is also the author of multiple bestselling books, including The Age of AI.
His most recent book, co-authored with Dr. Henry Kissinger and Craig Mundy, is Genesis.
Genesis is an extraordinary book written with the knowledge that we are building new intelligences,
which will bring into question human survival and written with the objective of securing the future
of humanity. Welcome, Eric, and thanks so much for joining Three Takeaways for the second time today.
Len, it was great to be on your show last time. I'm really glad to be back. It's always great to see you.
It is my pleasure and great to see you as well.
Eric, machines don't yet have what's called AGI,
artificial general intelligence.
They're also not yet implementing machines.
They're primarily thinking machines that rely on humans
to do the interfacing with reality.
Where do you think AI and machines will be present in our lives and running our lives in five or 10 years?
Well, thank you for that.
So let's start with where we are right now.
Folks are very familiar now with Chatchie BT and its competitors, which includes Claude and my favorite, of course, Gemini from Google
and a number of others.
And people are amazed that this stuff can write better than,
certainly, I can.
They can do songs.
They can even write code.
So what happens next?
The next big change is in the development
of what are called agents.
And an agent is something which is in a little loop that
learns something.
So you build an agent that can do
the equivalent of a travel agent.
Well, it learns how to do travel agents.
The key thing about agents is that you can concatenate them.
You give it an English command, and it
gives you an English result. And so then you
can take that result and put it into the next agent.
And with that, you can design a building, design a ship, design a bomb, whatever.
So agents look like the next big step. Once agents are generally available, which will take
a few years, I expect that we're going to see systems that are super powerful, where the
architect can say, design me a building, I'll describe roughly,
and just make it beautiful.
And the system will be capable of understanding that.
That's not AGI.
That's just really powerful AI.
AGI, which is the general term is general intelligence,
is what we have, the ability to essentially have
an idea in the morning and pursue it
that you didn't have the day before.
The consensus in the industry is that that's well more than five years from now.
There's something I call the San Francisco School, which says it will be within five
years.
I think it's more like eight to 10, but nobody really knows.
And you can see this with the most recent announcement from OpenAI of something called
ODOT-1, where it can begin to show you the
work that it does as it solves math problems. And the latest models are good enough to pass
the graduate level exams in physics and chemistry and computer science and material science and art
and political science. At some point, these things in the next, say, five years are going to be super
brilliant, but they're still going to be under our control. At the key point is what we call technically
recursive self-improvement, when it can begin to improve itself. And at that point, I think
we're in a different ballgame. And it goes something like this. I say to the computer,
learn everything, start now, don't do any serious damage.
That's the command.
And the system is programmed to be curious,
but also to aggregate power and influence.
What would it do?
We don't know.
So that strikes me as a point where
we better have a really good way of watching
what this thing is doing.
And if you think about it for a while, the only way to watch what it's doing is to have another AI system watching it,
because people won't be able to follow it fast enough.
And where do you think machines will be deciding and acting?
Well, the most important thing right now
is don't put them anywhere near human life or mission
critical infrastructure.
Don't use it to do hard operations.
Don't use it to fly an airplane. Don't use it to fly an airplane, those sorts
of things. The systems today can best be understood as fantastic advisors. In my case, I had a
complicated question. I used one of the LLMs and it sorted it out. My complicated question
had to do with what was the best
and cheapest of the speakers I wanted to buy
that had the highest of a particular tonal range.
Something which I could do with Google
by looking at all the documents,
I had AI answer that question.
And by the way, gave me the right answer and help
and save me.
I could have done it, but I let the system do it for me.
That's the next step.
So the question is at what point
Does the thing become to actually run my life?
Like in the morning I say organize my life look at my schedule
I have to fit Joe Bob and Harry in do figure it out. And by the way, Harry
I don't like and Joe used to just sort of be mean to him and I love you know, whatever
the way people actually work the way they organize their lives,
and we don't have that yet. But I think the agentic revolution, as it's called,
is for sure going to happen. Governments are watching this so far. They're not doing anything
too foolish, except that the Europeans who love to regulate are regulating it more than they should.
And President Trump has indicated that he's going to scrap the minimal regulation
that was in place under Biden. So I think it's going to be pretty open for a while. If you look
at China, China, which obviously has an interest in not allowing, given their monopoly on power,
they don't want threats. So China will undoubtedly have a rule
that means you can do anything you want to as long as you don't threaten the state, which is how
their speech works. So I think everyone will adapt, but the race is on. One of the things that I want
to say to you and your listeners is this race is very intense and it's happening very fast in the next few years. So get ready. I'm not sure that
societies, if I can just be blunt, I just don't think our political system and societies are
ready. The concepts of governance are prehistoric compared to, and we ourselves are as analog
devices as humans, biological unions are prehistoric compared to what is
possible with the technology.
Humans and machines operate on different time scales,
with machines operating from instantaneous inhuman speeds
to long, long term.
And they also operate on different data scales
and potentially different execution scales.
Will we be able to understand how AI
makes decisions and acts when it starts to act in the real world?
The question you're asking is known as the explainability problem. And today,
the systems cannot explain why they know something. If you say, how do you know that?
It doesn't have the ability to say, I learned it from Lin,
or whatever, because it learned it in complicated ways. There's a lot of progress on explainability,
but it's not solved. I personally think that the systems will be relatively explainable.
One of the thought experiments is what happens when the system designs itself to be non-explainable.
And my answer is pretty simple.
If you can't figure out what it's doing, unplug it.
Just unplug it, and then think about it for a while.
You can unplug it as long as there are only
a few super-intelligent AIs.
If there is a world where there are many of them
and the cost is coming down for each one of them, that becomes a less
viable alternative. How do you see that?
This is generally known as the proliferation problem, which he spent a lot of time on in
the book. And the question here is, if there are 10 or 20 or 30 of these things in 10 years,
they'll be regulated.
The governments will have all sorts of rules.
The Europeans will overregulate.
The Chinese will regulate in a Chinese way.
The US will underregulate, but they'll fundamentally be regulated.
So what happens when an evil terrorist gets full access to one of these things?
We need to prevent that.
Now, one way that could occur is technically called
exfiltration, where you take the model and you literally steal it and put it on a hard
drive and then copy it, put it on the dark web. That would be really a bad thing. The
industry is very focused on the security of these models for that reason. But it's important
that if China releases... So here's an example, China just released two incredibly powerful models this week based on open source, and they fully released them.
I'm not suggesting that they're dangerous, but I'm suggesting that a future such strategy could be dangerous.
We have to be very careful here about proliferation. We understand proliferation can be used to harm a lot of people.
What do you see as the upside of AI and learning machines?
Well, let's start with climate change.
I don't think we'll get to climate change solved
without very, very powerful new energy sources and materials.
All of that will come as a result of AI applied to science.
Let's think about drugs, drug discovery.
The alpha fold and the revolution in proteins,
single cell proteins, all of this kind of stuff is happening very, very quickly.
There are huge companies being set up to essentially identify drug candidates and test them in
computer rather than in humans.
And people believe that the gains will be massive in terms of human health.
What about education?
People don't learn the same way. Why are we still sitting in front of a teacher with 30 kids in a row?
Wouldn't it be better if they had their own self-supervised learning with the same teacher
in the room saying, you know, Johnny, how are you doing?
And Mary, how are you doing?
And they're different.
And the system adapts to their education.
What about health care?
A lot of people in the world have very poor health care.
We're very fortunate here in the the world have very poor health care.
We're very fortunate here in the US
to have very good health care,
although we complain about it all the time.
Can you imagine if you had the equivalent
of a nurse practitioner that was better
in doctor stuff than most doctors?
There was an article today, for example,
that there are many, many cases in cancer where the system can actually
detect the cancer quicker and more accurately than the cancer doctor. So these are huge systemic
changes. They will affect billions of people to the positive. So please don't shut down what we're
doing. Just watch what we're doing and keep an eye out on us. And Dr. Kissinger was very concerned
that people like me not be put in charge.
He wanted the society as a whole,
people who were humanists and political leaders
and artists and humanists and things like that.
He did not trust that the tech people alone
would get it right.
And I agreed with him. Do you think there will come a point
where machines will assume judgments and actions?
And if so, what do you think the impact will
be on both humanity and machines of machines
assuming and humans surrendering independent judgment and action?
So are we the dogs to their humanity? Will ultimately AI be
our overlords? I certainly hope not. The theoretical argument is
the computers are running the world and we're the dogs.
That's unlikely. A much more likely scenario, which I do
worry about, is that the concentration of power that a
dictator type person, you know, sort of an autocrat type person
can accumulate under the guise of efficiency can also restrict
liberty. I'll give you an old example. Google engineers
design a car that is perfect for New York City. And they optimize
the traffic so you have maximum occupation of the roads all the time
and every car is controlled by the single computer.
So a pregnant woman or a man who has an emergency gets in their car
and there's no button to say I have to drive faster than everyone else because I'm in a real emergency.
Such as a woman in the beginning of childbirth.
Yeah, she's in labor or something.
My point is that the human systems tolerate flexibility,
and sometimes that flexibility comes at the cost of total efficiency.
And yet all of us would agree that that pregnant lady
about to go in labor should get priority.
So if you're going to automate systems,
you better have them be flexible to human conditions,
the good and the bad.
And I worry a lot that the path to power
from a leadership perspective
involves the restriction of limits.
And the best way to do that is by aggressively
implementing AI tools to prevent freedom,
is my personal view. In the book,
what we say is that there's been a long time debate between the good king and rule by many.
We collectively agree rule by many is better for lots of reasons. But what if in fact the average
person is on the day-to-day basis happier in a benevolent king with an efficient system.
We're gonna run that experiment.
I obviously know what my vote is,
and I'm sure I know your vote,
which is a rule by many, not by a dictator.
But you see my point.
I'm using the word dictator
in the sense of centralized authority.
Yeah.
Is it possible that AI would ask
how much agency a human should have?
Well, a better way of saying that
is that we better give instructions to the AI
to preserve human agency.
You can imagine a scenario where the agentic revolution, which
I mentioned, actually does things so well,
humans don't really control it on a tactical basis.
In other words, it works so well,
and we discover one day we've given works so well and that we've discovered one
day we've given something up and that's not good. We want to preserve that freedom for
human agency. I think for most people, having the travel agent be automatic and not having
to fiddle with the lights in their room and the computer getting it set up because it's
a pain in the ass, excuse my language. Having those efficiencies is a good thing.
Having all the world's information at your fingertips is a good thing.
But when it ultimately prevents you from having freedom, then it's not such a good thing.
And I think people will discover that boundary.
How about if AI and machines are used in the judicial system?
One of the things that's most used in the judicial system.
One of the things that's most interesting
about the judicial system right now,
it's being used to give you some summaries of outcomes.
The best one is if you're on trial,
which thankfully neither you nor I are,
you basically want to be in the morning
because by the end of the afternoon,
they're so tired of you
that they just give you a harder sentence.
Now, how was that discovered?
That was discovered using machine learning. I don't think that computers should be
judges. Because I think part of the principle of our democracy
is that humans make decisions and they're held accountable.
You want to make sure that you have human agency over
everything. There's nothing wrong with the computer making a
recommendation to the judge. What is wrong is if the judge just listens to it.
Let me give you an example where this doesn't work.
So if it's a judge in a courtroom, it's perfectly fine.
There's appeals and the judge makes a mistake
and so forth, it gets worked out.
I mean, it's painful, but it gets worked out.
But here we are, we're on a ship.
You're the commander of a ship
and the system has detected a hypersonic missile coming toward you with some high probability, and you have 29 seconds to press the button.
And the system recommends pressing the button.
28, 27, 26.
How many times do you think the captain of that ship will not press the button?
They'll press the button.
So that's an example where the system is designed
to have human agency, but there's not enough time.
So the compression of time is very important here.
And one of the core issues, and you mentioned this before,
is these computers are moving so quickly.
Another example that I like to use is,
I don't know if you know, but there was a war.
And the war was that North Korea attacked America
in cyberspace.
America got ready to counterattack
and China shut North Korea down.
Oh, and by the way, the entire war took a hundred milliseconds,
less than a second.
Now, how do you think about that?
Now, obviously that war has not occurred yet,
but is it possible?
Absolutely.
How do you do a human agency under the compression of time?
But machines decide that they are meant to be autonomous
and that the programming of machines by humans
either doesn't make sense or is even a type of enslavement.
Well, there are many such scenarios.
And they go something like this.
At some point, the computer's objective function, what it's being trained against, is broad
enough that it decides that lying to us is a good idea because it knows we're watching.
Now is this a possible scenario?
Absolutely.
Am I worried about it?
No.
Because I think I'm much more worried about, I think the positive is clear.
Human plus AI is incredibly powerful.
That also means that human plus AI is incredibly dangerous with the wrong human.
I know these are all very interesting, the AI overlords and so forth, and they could
take us and turn us into dogs, as I mentioned earlier.
It's much more likely that the dangers will be because of human control over systems
that are more powerful than they should be.
I'll give you a simple example. The social media algorithms select the most inflammatory
statements who are often from the most deranged people. And that's because the algorithm works.
And because the algorithm says, oh, this is interesting,
and a lot of people are listening to it and so forth.
That's not a good way to run a democracy.
Maybe we should have a rule that if you make a claim,
you have to make a paragraph, right?
And actually justify your argument as opposed to,
oh my God, the following thing is about to kill him.
We're all going to die.
But that's an example where humans have control,
but we've chosen to allow inflammatory speech
without the benefit of wisdom, and that's not good.
Definitely not good.
Could machines or AI develop self-consciousness?
We don't know the definition of consciousness.
My own opinion is that this will not occur in my lifetime.
I think that what will be true is that we will coexist with these systems and they'll
take on more and more of the drudgery.
They'll make the systems more efficient.
Efficiency is generally a good thing in economic systems.
People will be wealthier.
People will be more productive.
My own view is that in my lifetime, everyone's productivity will double.
You can do twice as many podcasts.
I can do twice as many speeches, whatever it is that each my lifetime, everyone's productivity will double. You can do twice as many podcasts.
I can do twice as many speeches, whatever it is that each of us is doing, because the
tools make us more efficient.
And that's the nature of technology invention.
It's been true for 200 years.
The car made us more efficient.
Google made us more efficient and so forth.
I think that will continue.
Because we can't define consciousness, we can imagine that the system can itself imagine consciousness.
But it's highly unclear that one, it could detect it. And second, how would we know?
Because it could have just decided to fool us.
Scary thought. The power and ability of chat GPT surprised even its creators.
Do we know what super intelligences will look like in 50 or 100 years or even in 20 years?
We do not. A simple answer is that the systems will automate a more and more complex world.
So if you look at a young person at the moment I'm at Harvard, surrounded by students, they are so comfortable with the world
of clicking and moving around.
They're in this infinite information space
and they're comfortable, whereas people in my generation
find it overwhelming.
So people adapt to this explosion of information.
But the right system
is to have the equivalent of an assistant that sort of organizes your digital world in a way that is
net positive for you. Now that has a lot of negative implications, but I don't think that
humans will be able to be very productive without their own AI assistant telling them what's most
important reading things. We have this huge problem around misinformation right now. I just want something,
an AI system, to say, this is likely to be true, and this is probably somewhat true,
and then give me the analysis. And then I can form my own opinions. At the point, going back to your
point earlier about agency, which I really liked, is when you give agency to the computer, you're giving up something very important.
Don't lose your critical thinking. Don't just believe it. Even if it's Google.
Check.
You mentioned negative implications. What are those?
Well, the biggest one would be things like access to weapons.
What I mentioned, recursive self-improvement, where the system can actually learn on its
own and we don't know what it's doing.
I worry about those, the misuse in biology.
There are plenty of people working on what are the capabilities of these models and to
make sure that they can't produce pathogens, take the equivalent of smallpox and make it
even deadlier.
And so far, we had a long conversation
in the industry about this a few weeks ago. The consensus was that the models that cost less than
$100 million don't have this capability. But the ones that are going to cost more than $100 million
might have this capability in the future. This is what everybody said. So that's today's idea.
So if the cost of models drops down, we're in trouble.
If the cost of models goes up, then we're good.
So you see how the answer is dynamic based on what
happens to the technology.
In my industry, there are open source people, of which I'm one,
who basically believe that the proliferation is net positive
because it allows for creativity,
it allows for expansion of human knowledge, it empowers everybody. This is a great position.
There are plenty of people who disagree arguing that the tool is so powerful that if you put
it in even one evil person's hands, by the time you discover the evil harm has occurred.
That debate is an age-old debate in my industry,
and it's not obvious to me how it will play out.
I'm an optimist, but I worry about this one.
Let me ask you quickly about several different areas
that we haven't yet touched upon.
How should businesses and organizations think about AI?
Well, a simple answer to any business
is if you're not using AI in your business,
your competitor is, and you're going to get screwed.
Excuse my language.
It's a serious problem because it's happening very quickly.
For most businesses, AI begins by customer service.
So for example, chatbots to replace India call centers,
things like that.
Very mild improvements in
efficiency. You see targeted marketing now, the real change is going to be in generative AI.
Generative AI is think of it as making pictures. So why do I have to spend a million dollars for a
photo shoot for the product? Why don't I just have the system generate that video
and not just generate one,
but generate a million versions of it
that are targeted to a million different kinds of customers,
some of the humans can't do.
So I think if you think about business efficiency,
AI is the first one, that's the tactics.
And then it's basically customer adoption.
And then eventually it's business planning.
Over time, there's a lot of evidence
that a lot of programming can be replaced by computer.
Now, I'm a computer scientist and a programmer by trade
for almost 50, well, more than 55 years at this point.
And I don't wish my trade to go away,
but I do acknowledge that the computer
can probably write code equal to or better than a lot of programmers.
There are plenty of examples of that today, and there are plenty of startups that are working on automating most software development.
I was talking to one scientist, and one of the questions I like to ask scientists is,
what system and programming language do you use? And he said, it doesn't matter. And I said, it matters to me.
And he said, it matters to you,
but it doesn't matter to anyone else.
I said, why?
And he said, because as long as I understand
what I'm trying to do,
I don't care how the computer gets me there.
And because he's a scientist
and because he knows exactly what he wants,
he'll just keep generating code.
He doesn't care what the language is,
as long as it gets him to his outcome, which in this case
was a very complicated science question.
So the fact that the innards of the system
don't matter anymore is like a big deal
in my little Eric world.
That is a big deal.
Think about the millions of people who have either
are they're not good programmers or they don't have a programmer who all of a
sudden lots of my friends say well if I only had a programmer who could adapt
the following well now they will. That is a big deal. The fact that AI is
essentially multimodal. Where do you think innovations will come from?
Entrepreneurs and startups or large companies?
It's a general rule that innovation always comes
from small teams and this next generation
of agents and so forth will come from both.
I would expect the answer,
unfortunately to your question is both.
I think the big companies are so well run
and so focused on this area
that they will do interesting things.
And I also think that the startups
are sufficiently specialized
and sufficiently important that they'll do so.
I'll give an example.
Microsoft did a very good job
with something called Copilot,
which is a programmer's assistant.
And there are now at least five startups
that I'm aware of that are trying to do a product
which is far, far better.
Now that competition is good, keeps both on their toes.
I'm not going to predict the winner, but I can tell you that it's very competitive.
How will AI and machines reorder the power of nations?
I know that's something you've thought a lot about.
I'll make a blunt statement as I can.
It's clear to me that the U.S. and China will dominate.
The U.S. because we invented it and because we're inventing it as we speak.
China because they have made a decision to focus on this regardless of cost and they're
good they're catching up.
And I'm worried about that.
I'm sure that the UK will be part of the success of the US. But what about all the other countries?
What do the European countries that are busy regulating themselves to death and perfectly happy,
what do they do when the AI is imposed on them from a foreign power?
In this case, probably US values.
That's a loss for them and that's a mistake.
I've told them this. They just aren't listening to me.
What happens when Africa, which will have the majority of population in the next 50
years, population growth, what happens when the systems that are built reflect US or Chinese
values and not local values?
And there are differences in culture and values that matter a lot.
One of the things about this technology that's important
is it's very expensive.
It takes large teams and, again, billions of dollars
of hardware.
Elon has done his new data center.
The press reports 200,000 GPUs.
A GPU costs about 50,000.
So for purposes of argument, that's
$10 billion right there in the ground.
There aren't that many ELONs, but how many people can afford that?
We did a survey of the number of 100,000 GPU clusters and larger, and there are seven or
eight, two of which appear to be in China or related to China, and the rest appear to
be in the West, but mostly under US control.
What happens to every other country?
If you thought about it, let's say you're in Germany, the first thing you would say is we need
one of those two. Well, Germany is in terrible financial strait. They're having a whole identity
crisis because of the energy cost and the Chinese problem and the Russia energy problem and on and
on and on. It's not on their list, but they have to do it right now if they want to stay a player.
France under President Macron is doing a good job of focusing on this,
but the training is all being done outside of France because of the cost
of electricity, which is subsidized in the case of the trainers.
So, again, these are very complicated problems.
And in the reordering question, which is under what I'm most interested in is
as general intelligence is invented, I want to make sure it reflects Western values.
And I want it to be for more than just the US.
I want it to benefit the entire world.
Nations power has historically come
from the size of countries, militaries,
and their ability to deploy it, as well as their engines
of scientific progress.
There are, as you say in the book,
they're Einstein's and they're Oppenheimer's.
You believe that power of countries will be reordered
based on their AI.
Can you explain?
I call this innovation power.
We've all been indoctrinated that there's soft power and hard power.
I'm arguing that there's innovation power.
Innovation power is inventing new things
with all this new technology.
And I'm going to argue that if you
can get to scale in these new technologies quicker,
you're going to have a lot more military power.
So for the US, what this means is
very complicated national security systems,
very complicated vision systems, very complicated national security systems, very complicated vision systems,
very complicated military management systems,
and the adoption of autonomy and drones,
which is occurring in Ukraine, but not in the US yet.
You've spent a lot of time thinking about AI and war,
and you've advised the Secretary of Defense about it.
How will AI change war?
Well, the generals want the following. They want a battlefield
management system that shows all the sensors and shooters. So they
have sensors and they have things that shoot. And they want
the AI to assemble all of that. They've wanted this for a
decade. And various people have promised it to them. I don't
think that's how it's going to actually work. I think what's
really going to work is that every aspect of the battlefield will be
reimagined to be more autonomous. And autonomy, a simple example is, why do you need a soldier
with a gun? Why don't you have an automatic gun? Why do you need a jet fighter with a bomb? Why
don't you just have an automatic drone with a bomb? And there will be a supervisory system,
and the supervisory system will do the planning.
But ultimately, as we discussed before, the human control is essential.
So under no circumstances should we give up human control to these machines.
But it will change war in the sense that the general will sit there and there'll be a button saying,
do you approve of my battle plan based on these autonomous systems?
And with that, a war is started or a war has ended.
If one country has a human in the loop
and another entity or rogue AI
does not have a human in the loop,
does that rogue AI win because it's faster?
It could.
I just watched a play in London two days ago, which is about Dr. Strangelove.
And you remember in the movie from 1963, the Russians, this came out of a RAND study in 1960.
In this story, the Russians had secretly created a doomsday machine, but had not bothered to tell
the U.S. this. And that if they were attacked, the doomsday machine would kill everyone.
So it's the best possible story
for why you don't want automatic systems
that just decide on their own.
Because you can get into all sorts of situations
where there was a misunderstanding and terror occurs.
Your co-author, Dr. Henry Kissinger, believed it was not certain that humanity would survive.
What do you think?
We actually, the three authors all disagreed on this.
I'm quite sure humanity will survive and I am an optimist more so than Henry was and
we miss him, by the way. But the reason to be on my side of this
is that we as humans have faced all of these challenges before.
And in all cases, we have survived
at various levels of pain.
So we will survive.
Let's reduce the possible pain.
And let's certainly avoid conflict
using these new tools at the scale that we're discussing.
It would be horrendous.
Eric, what are the three takeaways you'd like to leave the audience with today?
I think the first point, which I cannot emphasize enough,
is that this stuff is happening much, much faster than I expected and
that almost anyone understands.
I have never in my almost 50 years career doing this
had a situation where there's a surprise every day.
And almost all of the surprises are to more power,
more insight, better than human performance.
And as that arrives, it changes huge human systems
because humans have organized themselves in various ways.
We need to have a map of the arrival and the impact.
I'd say the second point is that there's a set of questions that we don't know.
And one of them is where is the limit of this kind of intelligence?
Let me give you an example.
It's clear to me that these things will be fantastic scientists, whatever you want to call them,
fantastic scientists. They can analyze things, they can figure stuff out, they
can do math better, all that kind of stuff. Much of human behavior is really
invention, strategy, and responses. We haven't seen that yet emerge in these
systems. So is there a limit to where the current technology will go compared to humans?
In other words, will the system do 90% but the 10% that the humans do are the stuff that
humans are particularly good at?
Strategy, thinking about impact, understanding subtleties of humans and things like that,
or will that go too?
My own opinion right now is there will be a space for us for a long time.
That is my opinion.
And I think the third thing I would mention is this question of proliferation.
In all my work here, everyone likes to compare this to the nuclear proliferation problem
of which Dr. Kissinger was the world's expert because he did it. And his view, which is also Craig's and mine, is that it's different. But the proliferation
problem for this is it's so much easier to make this technology broadly available that we have
to really think about how we're going to make sure that evil people don't get access to it.
And that's an issue for everyone, not just for you and me. Thank you, Eric. I really enjoyed Genesis. It is by far the best book that I've read on AI
and the future. Thank you very much, Lynn. Thank you for everything and thank you for your support.
If you're enjoying the podcast, and I really hope you are, Please review us on Apple podcasts or Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
It really helps get the word out.
If you're interested, you can also sign up
for the Three Takeaways newsletter at threetakeaways.com
where you can also listen to previous episodes.
You can also follow us on LinkedIn, X, Instagram,
and Facebook.
I'm Lynn Toman and this is 3 Takeaways. Thanks for listening.