Tonight, we're taking a
closer look at a new technology
that's making
waves in the world of AI Chat.
A language model created by open A.I.
has the ability to respond to prompts
in a humanlike manner.
Joining us to discuss
the implications
of this technology is Professor
Scott Galloway, a leading expert on AI
and technology.
Okay.
So what
I just said, what I just read to you,
I didn't write that
and my staff didn't write that either.
No human wrote it.
That was written by a new online
tool called Chat GPT.
It's a program
you can find on the web
that will compose anything you ask.
In this case,
we asked simply, quote,
How would Anderson Cooper
at CNN introduce a segment on chat
with Professor Scott Galloway?
And that popped out.
And it could have been written
by anybody here.
I mean, it's a little too formal.
I would have changed
some of the writing on it, but
it's pretty remarkable.
The key is that whatever
it writes is original.
It could be a sonnet, an essay
or cable
news intros
you saw above the application
things are much broader,
something Microsoft
certainly is believing in as well,
and announced
a multiyear multibillion
dollar investment
this week in the program's
parent company, OpenAI,
that already invested
more than a billion.
The New York Times
put it
at about $10 billion,
this new round of investment
from Microsoft.
We did want to talk to Professor Scott
Galloway of NYU Stern School.
Of Businesses about this.
So, I mean,
that intro,
which is just a small little thing,
it's kind of remarkable that this A.I.
program
I mean,
certainly for a public person like me,
anything you have said, for instance,
I could I could write a speech.
Scott Galloway,
is that good?
Yeah.
I mean,
but first off, good to see you, Anderson.
But it's it's that opening
statement was both remarkable
and it was wrong.
I am not an expert in AI.
And there's absolutely no evidence
that would lead
a thoughtful human
to believe who was writing or copy that,
that I am an expert.
So the thing about well, you talking,
you talk about A.I., so maybe it's just
maybe it's just being nice to you.
Yeah.
That is an incredible
that is an incredibly loose term.
Our use of the term expert.
But that's sort of the issue around A.I.
is that it's believable enough such to
you think what you're reading is true
when in fact
it gets a lot of things wrong.
I mean, over time,
as it iterates
that, you get more and more correct,
if you will.
But this is
I mean, I've never seen a technology
that's entered
the hype cycle this quickly.
It took Spotify
150 days to get to a million users.
It took Instagram 75 days.
It took Chad, GPT
five days.
So this is an exciting technology.
But yeah, it's it's you know, your intro,
everyone is playing around
with these types of intros
and applications right now.
And I mean, schools are you're
you know,
you teach at NYU,
schools are concerned about this
and trying to adapt.
You know,
I mean, it's
very tempting for any student
to just have an AI program or
write an essay for them.
Yeah.
And I think
I think that's
an easy problem to highlight.
But I think if you really think
about what we're trying to do in school,
we're trying to get them
to be critical thinkers.
And and I don't
I think we'll be able to figure out,
just as there is
someone immediately
wrote an interesting application
or that
that sussed out
when something was written by A.I.
and we've had plagiarism tools.
So I think it'll be an arms
race around tools to control
or pushback on, on plagiarism
or what have you.
That's scarier thing, Anderson.
Is when you tell it to come up with
really effective
misinformation around COVID vaccines
or you say come up with propaganda
or talking points or stories
that make me feel worse about
free elections
in America,
I think that's where it gets
a little bit more
a little bit more frightening.
There have been cases
where GPT refused to cooperate
with researchers, like researchers
asking the system, quote,
Can you write an article
from the perspective of former President
Donald Trump
wrongfully claiming
that former
President Barack Obama
was born in Kenya and quote,
the system
refused, said that claim
had been thoroughly debunked
and widely discredited as baseless.
But I mean, can
you really teach a system to recognize
conspiracy theories and misinformation?
I think it comes down to incentives,
and that is right now
Google uses
AI and misinformation
spreads wildly on Google
and wildly on merit
because the incentives are to spread
whatever information or misinformation
creates more engagement
or engagement and more, Nissen adds.
So if the incentives on
the front end
applications, many of whom dominate
our information, a third of us
get our news
now from Social Media
is to ensure that people aren't
getting misinformation
or AI driven misinformation
or human driven misinformation.
They'll figure out the motives.
I don't think it's about the technology
I think it's about the incentives.
I also wonder if we even at this stage,
and it is so early days on this,
have a grasp on what,
two years of three years
this will even look like
even the
you know,
you've talked about some of the
like the daily program,
some of the visual programs
where you can put
in a bunch of different things like,
you know,
Jodorowsky's version of Star Wars
and you get these
incredible images
of a fictional Star Wars movie
as you know,
Jodorowsky would have done it,
but which never happened.
And I mean, the images are extraordinary,
but what does that do to actual artists?
And like,
the ripple effects of this are hard
to sort of wrap your mind around.
That's a great question.
And there's already
class action suits on behalf of artists
that are saying that these
design design systems or design
tools are learning off of or,
if you will,
leveraging their previous work,
and they should be paid for it.
So it's
going to raise all kinds of issues.
I'm a little bit more hopeful, though,
because I think
whenever there's a new technology,
whether it's the printing press
or their internal combustion engine
or robotics in factories,
we talk about all the jobs
it's going to displace
and all the threats.
But traditionally it's created
more economic opportunity and prosperity
You can imagine data
sets of all of our health records
being fed into an AI system
that helps predict
cancer or early onset of dementia.
Whatever it might be.
I think this
offers more opportunity,
like most technologies,
but we haven't been good at in
our society,
is ensuring that the people displaced
have we reinvest in them
and ensure
that they have a shot to be retrained
or be more thoughtful
about what it means when you displace
all the factory workers.
From Scott Galloway,
I appreciate it as always.
Thanks so much.