really positive outcomes but there are
certainly some risks certainly we've
heard from folks like you on and make
bostrum concerned about a i's potential
to outpace our ability to understand it
what about those concerns and and how do
we think about that moving forward to
protect not only ourselves but humanity
at scale so let me start with what I
think is the more immediate concern
that's a solvable problem but we have to
be mindful of it and that is this
category of specialized AI if you've got
a computer that can play go there's a
pretty complicated game with a lot of
variations developing an algorithm that
simply says maximize profits on the new
york stock exchange it's probably within
sight and if one person or one
organization got there first they could
bring down the stock market pretty
quickly or at least they could you know
raise questions about the integrity of
the financial markets a an algorithm
that said go figure out how to launch
BIA penetrate the nuclear code in a
country and figure out how to launch
some missiles if that's their only job
it's very narrow it doesn't require a
super intelligence it just requires a
really effective algorithm then and if
it's self teaching then you know you got
problems so so part of I think my
directive to my national security team
is don't worry as much yet about
machines taking over the world do worry
about the capacity of either non-state
actors or hostile actors to penetrate
systems and in that sense it's not
it is not conceptually different or
[Music]
different in a legal sense than a lot of
the cybersecurity work that we're doing
it just means that we're gonna have to
be better because those who might deploy
these systems are going to be a lot
better now I think as a precaution and
you know all of us have spoken to folks
like Yvonne Musk who were concerned
about the the super intelligent machine
it there's some prudence in thinking
about benchmarks that would indicate
some general intelligence developing on
the horizon and if we can see that
coming over the course of three decades
five decades you know whatever the
latest estimates are if ever because
there are also arguments that this
thing's a lot more complicated than
people make it out to be then you know
future generations or our kids our
grandkids are going to be able to see it
coming and figure it out but but I do
worry right now about specialized AI I
was on the west coast and some kid
looked like he was 25 shows me a laptop
and he's this this is sort of the or not
a laptop an iPad and says this this is
the future of radiology right and he's
got an algorithm but it's teaching
enough sufficient pattern recognition
that over time it's going to be a better
identifier of disease than a radiologist
would be and if that's already happening
today on an iPad
you know invented by some kid at MIT
then you know the vulnerability of a lot
of our systems is
be coming around pretty quick and we're
gonna have to have some preparation for
that but joy may have worst nightmares I
generally agree I the only caveat is I
would say there are a few people who
believe that generally it will happen at
some fairly high percentage chance in
the next 10 years people who are smart
so I do think that being keeping aware
but but what would it I look at it is
that there's only a dozen or two
different breakthroughs that need to
happen for each of the pieces so you can
kind of monitor it's sort of and you
don't know exactly when they're gonna
happen because they're by definition
breakthroughs and I think it's it's kind
of when you think these breakthroughs
will happen right and you just have to
have somebody close to the the power
cord when you said about to Anna with
the president that it's the short term
it's going to be bad people using a eyes
for bad things and there'll be an
extension of us and and then there's
this other meta thing which happens
which is a group of people so so if you
look at all of the hate the internet
it's not one person doesn't control that
but it's a thing it's pointed it points
at things
it's definitely fueling some political
activity right now but it's kind of got
a life of its own it's not even code
it's a culture and you see that also in
the Middle East right so why it's so
hard to prevent it yeah because it
actually gets stronger the more you
attack it and and to me what's curious
and interesting is going to be the
relationship between an AI say a service
that that runs like that and then you
throw in Bitcoin which is the ability to
move money around by a machine
anonymously and so so to me it will be
this weird and again this is where I
think it could be embedded if you if you
gave this sort of mob more tools to
because that they are actually fairly
coordinated in their own peculiar way
and them and so and and and the good
side is you can imagine you know I was
talking to some politicians like Michael
Johnson in Colorado he's trying to
figure out how can we harness these
things to inform and engage citizens so
so to me that the trick is if the
problem is if you suppress
because of fear the bad guys will still
use it and what's important is to get
people who want to use it for good
communities and leaders and and figure
out how to get them to use it so that
they that that's where we start to lean
yeah this may not be a precise analogy
you know traditionally when we think
about security and protecting ourselves
we think in terms of we need armor or
walls from swords blunt instruments etc
and increasingly I find myself looking
to medicine and thinking about viruses
antibodies right you know how do you
create healthy systems that can ward off
destructive elements distributed and in
a distributed way and and that requires
more imagination and we're not very it's
part of the reason why cyber security
continues to be so hard is because the
threat is not a bunch of tanks rolling
at you but a whole bunch of systems that
may be vulnerable to a worm didn't in
there it means that we've got to think
differently about our security make
different investments that may not be as
sexy but actually may end up being as
important as anything and that part of
the reason I think about this is because
I also think that what I spend a lot of
time worrying about are things like
pandemic
you can't build walls in order to
prevent you know the next airborne
lethal flu from landing on our shores
it instead what we had to do is be able
to set up systems to you know create
public health systems in all parts of
the world
quick triggers that tell us when we see
something emerging making sure we've got
quick protocols systems that allow us to
make that vaccines a lot smarter so if
you think if you take that model a
public health model and you think about
how we can deal with the you know the
problems of cybersecurity a lot of that
may end up being really helpful in
thinking about the ia threats and and
and just one thing that I think is
interesting is when we start to look at
microbiome and microbes everywhere
there's a lot of evidence to show that
introducing good bacteria to fight
against the bad bacteria is a strategy
and not to sterilize and I think that
well I don't look sunny and both like me
when I when I when I walk them in the
South Lawn some of the things I see them
[Music]
shine that actually opening windows in
hospitals in stairs so sterilizing there
may actually limit and so we have to
rethink what clean means and it's
similar whether you're talking about
cyber security or or national security I
think that the notion that you can make
strict borders or that you can eliminate
every possible pathogen it's difficult
and I think I think that that in that
sense you're in your position to be able
to see medicine and and and and cyber
and I think that's a so there are
distributed threats but is there also
the risk that this creates a new kind of
arms race look I think there's no doubt
that developing international norms
rules protocols verification mechanisms
around cyber security generally and AI
in particular is in its infancy
and part of the reason for that is as
Joe identified you got a lot of
non-state actors who are the biggest
players part of the problem is is that
identifies buying who's doing what is
much more difficult yeah if you're
building a bunch of ICBMs we see them
if somebody's sitting at a keyboard we
don't and so you know we've begun this
conversation a lot of the conversation
right now is not at the level of you
know dealing with real sophisticated AI
but has more to do with essentially
States establishing norms about how they
use their cyber capabilities part of
what makes this an interesting problem
is is that the line between offense and
defense is pretty blurred the truth of
the matter is and part of the reason why
for example the debate here about cyber
security who are you more afraid of Big
Brother and the state or the guy who's
trying to empty out your bank account
part of the reason that's so difficult
is that if we're going to police this
wild-west whether it's the internet or
AI or any of these other areas then by
definition the government's got to have
capabilities if it's got capabilities
then they're subject to abuse and and at
a time when there's been a lot of
mistrust built up about government that
makes it difficult and when you have
countries around the world who see
America as the preeminent cyber power
now is the time for us to say we're
willing to restrain ourselves if you are
willing to restrain yourselves the
challenge is the most sophisticated
state actors Russia China Iran
don't always embody the same norms or
values that we do but we're gonna have
to surface this as an international
issue in order for us to be effective
because it's effectively it's a
borderless problem and ultimately all
states are gonna have to worry about
this a the it is very short-sighted if
there's a state that thinks that it can
develop super capacities in this area
without some twenty five-year-old kid in
a basement somewhere figuring that out
pretty quick
[Music]