Eric Schmidt

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.

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 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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 and 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.

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 and 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.