Those to Wall Street week David Westin joining us as he does every day at this
time. And David, we've been talking a lot here
about, I guess, economic conditions and how leaders viewing economic conditions.
But there's also a broader discussion here about leadership in these times of
economic Edward headwinds. So much has changed, isn't it, Romania,
really? And one of the things that is changing
gears is artificial intelligence as well as our original banking system.
Right. And when we talk about things like Emma
Chandra, we'd like to talk to Carly Fiorina.
She, of course, ran HP and she is founder and chairman of Carly Fiorina
Enterprises. Not an auction potential.
Carly, great to have you back us. Let's start with artificial
intelligence, if we could. We did see Sam Altman from opening.
I go up and testify. And by the way, you said I think you
should be doing some regulation here. From what you understand of right now,
it's potential for good and maybe not for good.
What kind of regulation might make sense?
Well, let me just first start by saying, David, that I really applaud Sam
Altman's testimony. You and I have talked about this a lot
over the years. I have for a long time advocated that
the technology industry needed to be more collaborative with policymakers in
general in Washington, D.C. in particular.
I think better closer collaboration on regulation on social media would have
yielded a better result for everyone, including, by the way, the tech
companies who have squandered a lot of trust, given what we now see happening
with social media, whether it's disinformation, misinformation, division
or mental health issues. And so I think Sam Altman stepping to
the plate and saying, in essence, A.I. is bigger than all of us.
Technology cannot control it. That's very clear.
And suggesting that close collaboration is important.
I think one of the things to your very specific question, one of the things
would be for policymakers and technology industry experts and executives to agree
on pacing and timing. In other words, one of the biggest
problems here is that A.I.. Because it is learning in real time off
the existing Internet and because the assumption is that the business model
for A.I. will look very much like the business
model for social media. That is engagement, ad revenue.
That is a recipe for more peril than promise.
And so I do think collaborating on how fast can we roll this stuff out?
What kinds of examinations need to be made about the business model, about
what will work commercially? Who are the trusted authenticator ISE?
Who can help determine that A.I. is actually learning the right thing?
For example, when it comes to history and as you know, I'm deeply engaged in
history, whether it's for the nation's two hundred and fifty other Colonial
Williamsburg right now, if A.I. is learning history from the Internet,
that's a disaster in the making. Perhaps we should discuss A.I.
learning history from primary source material only.
So those are just some examples of the kinds of conversations that have to go
on. But what it means fundamentally is that
big tech has to say, and I'm not sure they're prepared to say this, despite
Sam Altman's testimony. Big tech has to say we alone are not in
charge and we alone cannot control. So you have talk of the 25th
anniversary. There's another deadline coming up,
which is 20 24 in a presidential election.
One thing's a simple one really was concerned about was what I could do
actually in a presidential election. In terms of political.
Mr Frazier, besides the HP, of course, you ran for president states.
What can we do to make sure that we are protected as much as we can be of 2024
without slowing down so much we don't get the benefits from it?
Well, I'll tell you something, David. I'm actually in favor of slowing it down
a bit, because if you look at what happened in 2020 and in 2016, social
media was used to accelerate and amplify misinformation and disinformation.
The technology companies told us they had it under control, but in fact, they
did not. And so there's nothing that causes me to
believe that in 2024 with a ISE floating out there, it's going to be any
different. And so I do think that we have to slow
down the introduction of this new technology to let some of these
regulations catch up a bit. But here's what I would definitely say.
Honestly, I do not trust and I am a proud member of the technology
community. But I do not trust technology companies
on their own to come up with the right set of algorithms to protect us against
misinformation and disinformation on a high.
Because they have already demonstrated factually that they could not do so with
social media, which is far less sophisticated technology.
Well, given your experience in both worlds, meaning in the world of business
and technology, in the world of Washington to a certain extent, Carly,
do you trust the government to do that? Well, yes, it's a very legitimate
question. And this is why I think there needs to
be literally a standing working committee.
I know that sounds bureaucratic, but I think a in depth collaboration is
required here between members of the technology community, members of the
national security community, members of the regulatory humane community.
Now, notice I didn't say politicians per say.
And I do think we have to take it out of the hands of politicians.
I don't think Congress on its own is going to do a very good job of this.
But I do think there is expertise in the national security space policy space and
in the technology space where a wholesome collaboration could yield some
results that politicians could then act on.
I do want to sort of hone in on the point about regulators.
Big of course, this comes at a time with original banking crisis and a lot of
people pointing the fingers at who was sort of watching the candy store, if you
will, whether the regulators were asleep at the wheel, whether it was the CEOs
themselves who were asleep at the wheel. And what did you make particularly of
the hearings that we had on Tuesday here where we did hear from a couple of the
big banks of the original bank CEOs and I guess the explanation that they gave
or rather that they didn't give for why those failures occurred.
Yes. Well, first, in answer to your question,
who it was the regulators asleep at the switch or were the CEOs asleep at the
switch? The answer is clearly yes.
Regulators in the Federal Reserve and knowledge this weren't paying attention
to clear warning signs. On the other hand, CEOs were taking a
series of risks that seemed given all of the information about what was happening
in the economy and to interest rates. Seemed
like the wrong bets. And in fact, the Federal Reserve pointed
that out as well. But there was mismanagement.
And so I think the CEO was less than candid.
I mean, it's great to blame everyone else.
Blame the regulators, blame social media, blame the unprecedented outflows.
And, yes, there were unprecedented outflows.
But the CEO and the boards made bets that were unwise and those bets were
unwise over a period of years, not a period of days.
OK. I'm really curious.
You wrote this linked to Newt Lew's letter on leadership.
And last week it was not, ironically, about the culture of candor.
I wonder if we have a systemic problem of a different sort in America right now
in the corporate C suite. Is there a lack of candor or is there a
reluctance such as I think we saw this week from some of the bank, former bank
leadership, a reluctance on the C suite to just admit to mistakes so we can get
them fixed? Well, I do think, as I said in that
newsletter, that our culture discourages candor.
I think politicians like to promise things they know they can't deliver.
Social media encourages people to curate their lives as opposed to being
authentic and candid. But I think what's happened in the C
suite is executives say, you know what, my job is to protect the franchise.
And that means I don't want to air dirty laundry that doesn't need to get aired.
The problem with that approach is eventually it all comes out.
That's what happens in our information age.
So when people hide the ball, when people are less than canned, what
happens is A, we don't know what happened.
Therefore, B, we don't know how to fix it.
And see when it is discovered. And it always is.
Trust is eroded as well. And that erosion of trust gets us into a
vicious cycle where institutions in general are not trusted.
And it makes problems even more difficult to fix.
And sometimes, sadly, you just have to suck it up and say, you know what?
We blew it. And here's what we're gonna do
differently next time.