we're talking about and specifically
even in that extended that intelligence
you're talking about government you're
talking about private industry academia
where it should the center of that
research live if there is a center I
think it's a good question I think that
MIT would argue it should be an MIT I
you know I think it's this this round is
quite shocking I think to the academics
because most of the money and the power
of the core Computer Sciences and big
companies and even open AI that some of
our friends made that was a non-profit
and not inside an academic institution
and I think she's sort of surprising
right yeah historically it would have
probably been a group of academics with
the government so this is a new thing
but I feel like as we start to emerge
out of just the computer science mode -
how does this affect society mode for
instance - steak you know one of the
areas that we're really interested on
justice unbale and parole that's
probably much better to have a
statistical AI supporting the the judge
but but then it's not just about whether
it's more efficient you don't want to be
judged by machine right so so so these
as we start to move out I think it'll be
interesting to who gets involved I think
as you start to get into the social
sciences and the law and the philosophy
that becomes more in government in
academia but but it is curiously and I
think just we can't compete we academia
can't compete from the these guys are
getting paid millions of dollars at
postdoc levels they've got tremendous
amount of resources so I think we have
to kind of assume now but now I'm the
military are talking about you know
funding AI so there may be another
player that has a lot of money but right
now most of the billion-dollar labs all
of them are really look I mean we know
the guys who are funding them and you
know if you talk to Larry or others you
know their general attitude
understandably is the last thing we want
is a bunch of bureaucrats and you know
that are slowing us down here as we you
know chase
the the unicorn at their heart of the
problem that we've seen is that our
general commitment as a society to basic
research has diminished our confidence
in collective action has been chipped
away partly because of ideology and
rhetoric and so if the notion is if it's
government it's bad and that's something
that I do think needs to be reversed now
that requires a government to be more
nimble faster quicker smarter it's hard
in a big democracy with a lot of diverse
views sometimes to get it moving fast
enough in the direction that something
like AI is moving it's moving so rapidly
that sometimes governments always play
and catch up but you know the the the
analogy that we still use 50 years later
when it comes to a great technological
achievement as a moonshot and somebody
who reminded me maybe I'm one of you
that the space program was a half a
percent of GDP and that doesn't sound
like a lot point five percent of GDP but
in today's dollars that'd be eighty
billion dollars that we would be
spending annually on AI and right now
we're spending by less than a billion
that undoubtedly will accelerate but
part of what we're gonna have to
understand is that if we want the values
of a diverse community represented in
these breakthrough technologies then
government funding has to be a part of
it if government is not part of
financing it then understandably those
who pay the piper
call the tune
and all the issues that Joe is raised
about the values embedded in these
technologies end up being potentially
lost or at least not properly debated
you bring up a really interesting
tension there that Joey you've written
about that idea of innovation happening
on the margins or at the edges and then
with the space program and NASA really
is essentially governed that how does
that relationship change this this kind
of development and thinking about where
the the transmission of those ideas can
happen well I want to emphasize that the
way we now think about crowd wisdom
essentially and a bunch of experiments
everywhere I think that can accelerate
rather than impede progress as long as
everybody's linked together with a sense
of common purpose and responsibility and
accountability just to give a very
concrete example part of our project in
precision medicine is to gather a big
enough database of human genomes from a
diverse enough set of Americans all
kinds of racial types ethnic types of
body types you name it
gender that instead of financing medical
research where we give the money to
Stanford or Harvard or some other school
and they've got their samples they're
hoarding them and they're working on it
yeah it's a very linear process you know
now have this entire database that
everybody has access to and the
potential to short-circuit the the
research process before you've got
promising candidates for treatment you
know can be hugely accelerating because
people aren't all holding on to their
stuff and you know that's the power of
the Internet that's the power of
connectivity and the
and that worked world that we live in
what I've tried to emphasize though is
is that just because the government is
is financing it and and helping to
collect the data it doesn't mean that we
hoard it or only the military has it or
it's got to be a top-down approach but
there does have to be some common set of
values a common architecture to make
sure that the research is shared by
people that it's not monetized by one
group rather than another and there has
to be some core principles that we all
agree to and that's I think an
appropriate role that some group like
NIH for example complain and I think
that if you look at the moonshot a lot
of the value or the tools that were
created in order to do that or if you
look at CERN they've got some esoteric
physics problem but they invent the web
while they're at it and and so I think
these mega projects bring together an
interdisciplinary group to solve a
problem and so that's really interesting
and I think one of the problems with
standard peer-reviewed government
funding is it goes out in this kind of
hierarchical pattern that's very
politically correct and very rigorous
but it doesn't really get these big
ideas going and I would say the other
thing that you have that you're doing
well is the open data initiative right
so when you're talking about AI you need
data
the government has data and I helped
start a non-profit in Japan after
Fukushima to get citizens to collect
data on radiation measurements we have
53 million of them we did well and so we
came to Washington DC and we did a
workshop we can buy the apipa EPA guys
and the NSS and then it says hey guys
and and they had all the data but they
hadn't it was open but it wasn't
published and we showed that and
actually there's data around the White
House that was clapped like it's for
national security they didn't publish
and we and we invited all those guys and
and our guys taught them how to make the
kits and they walked around and measured
the radiation around you and I said well
now that it's public we can release a
data and what's now developed is just a
bunch of citizen science kids a lot of
them in Japan now working with the EPA
and that NSA
and in trying to figure out how do you
take radiation data empower citizens and
we're selling these kids and these kids
into high schools and pivoting into the
air and things like that it's in what's
interesting is if you get kids that are
sufficiently motivated the kids on the
edges and give them some sort of
interfaces data and I think right now
your agencies are getting much more
inclusive and and it used to be you talk
to some professor at some university and
give them limited access to the data but
it turns out that that kids will figure
out how to use the data and right now
it's mostly visualization but once we
get AI a farmer may be able to go direct
you don't know collect the data build a
model and use AI to to do something and
that's just going to be a lot of how
tools get better but also how the
government interacts with those people
[Music]