Eric Schmidt

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.

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.

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.

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. And we collectively agree rule by many is better for lots of reasons.

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. And 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 going to 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.

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 going to 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.

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 that we discover one day we've given something up and that's not good.

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 that we discover 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 towards you with some high probability.