360° on AI Regulations | Davos 2024 | World Economic Forum

will be fun fig that out I sure hope so okay and good afternoon to everyone uh this has been such a polite group we were back there in the speakers room it seemed so quiet we didn't realize that the room was full also not used to being in the round there's a whole bunch of people behind us which is you may be on camera so just be aware of that um I'm Ian Bremer I'm your host for a short uh but going to be very concise and effective panel uh of 360 on AI regulation have wonderful uh people here of course covering the gamut uh globally uh Vera yova uh the vice president for values and transparency uh for the European commission uh we have Josephine Tao uh who is the Minister of communications and information of Singapore uh we have arthy pakar uh who is the director at the White House Office of Science and Technology and then we have Brad Smith who is the vice chair and president of Microsoft um so if we're talking about uh 360 on AI regulation we have heard probably more than we have wanted to hear this week so far about AI all right it is everywhere we've certainly seen more than we've wanted to see on the on the prominade uh and that probably means that we've heard a lot that we've heard a lot of things that aren't so so I want to focus on the things that this group thinks are so and instead of doing a 360 we've got four people I'd like them each to do a 270 and what that means is I want them to to talk about your views on AI regulation as it stands today everyone's been putting a lot of effort in but don't talk about your own institution talk about how the other institutions are doing what do you agree with where are their challenges give us the lay of the land without talking about say Europe Farah okay I am far from trying to speak about the European commission I understand you want me to speak about the the AI and uh uh uh regulation is in place we have it already now in in the EU but of course it cannot uh stand alone we also combine in the EU the AI act with uh uh a lot of big plans in Investments public private partnership sandboxes for the companies uh standardization which will involve industry uh because the industry itself and the technologies have to work together on the standards so there are a lot of things uh which have to be done uh by many uh the member states will also have the role in enforcement next to the commission because we we have a role as the as the commission uh I didn't you didn't want me to speak about the commission I did not but uh but for she's going to get a 360 in no matter what but I want the 270 I will let you talk about Europe I promise but but what what I wanted to say we need in Europe uh a lot of creativity and I would even say optimism in looking at AI in all sectors in all Fields be it private be it public because the AI promises a lot of fantastic benefits for the people and so the regulation is the precondition to cover the risks but the rest REM remains to be free for creativity and uh and positive thinking and uh I think that in Europe we are well placed so because it's the first question I'm going to give you a second chance at that which is let's talk about how AI regulation is doing out out side of Europe what do you think when you look at the Americans you look at the Chinese you look at the private sector you look at the other actors because everyone's focusing on it now how do you think they're doing similar situation as we had with gdpr and I was also the uh sign under gdpr in 2015 uh we felt that this this might serve as a global standard but we were not just passively sitting in Brussels waiting that the others will copy paste no we were in very frequent dialogue with the United States with many others uh explaining what we have in gdpr what might be followed and trying to to create some kind of global standard without mentoring others similar thing might happen now with AI act uh but uh I think that there are promising there is promising space for international cooperation we have under the G7 roof the code of conduct for the Technologies and the ethical principles for AI uh we work with UNESCO we work with the United Nations uh we believe that uh the AI act could serve as an inspiration and we are of course ready to to support this process okay I'm in danger of fairing arthy help me out talk to me about AI regulation around the world and where you think we're getting right now uh it's it's an enormous priority it in the United States we know that AI doesn't stop at the borders and so we absolutely care about what's happening in the rest of the world we've talked a lot about Europe and I think that we've had some excellent dialogue as we worked towards the president's executive order that he signed at the end of October and then the E eui act too many vowels in this business and that's been terrific uh I think gdpr is a as a is an example of a place where we made some progress for you made some progress for the world on privacy I think it creates enormous problems for the industry to have to not have the full harmonization there this is an area where President Biden continues to call on our Congress to act on privacy legislation um we usually talk about the US the EU and China I'm also really interested in what happens in the rest of the world uh with AI because the opportunities are so substantial and um I see the eagerness and the interest but I again I think we're just at the beginning of this story but that's an area that I'm I'm watching with great interest as well on balance do you see more Trends towards alignment or fragmentation as you look at the various approaches and the urgency around the world today yeah I think everyone shares the sense of urgency because ai's been around this is not our first encounter with AI but what has happened in the last year has focused everyone's attention on how pervasive it's going to be in everyone's lives in so many different ways there will be places where harmonization can occur and we're working towards it and we can approach I think really good harmonization that forms the foundation that everyone can build on and we I I think we just need to be clear that we will all compete economically there will be geopolitical and strategic competition that's based on AI so both of those happen at the same time and I think that's in many ways that's like many other strategic industries that have grown in strategic Technologies Josephine do you see I mean Singapore is a country of course that's been so successful in working well with pretty much everyone and it's also one of the most geopolitically Savvy per capita countries out there cuz you have to be right so in that environment do you see AI regulation emerging in an area that's going to be relatively easy for Singapore to navigate globally or not well if we take a step back I think in the first place we should recognize that our interest is in AI governance not necessarily only in regulations and in AI governance there are also other very important things to do for example you must have the infrastructure that to be able to support the deployment and the development you need to be able to build capabilities within the Enterprise sector as oiless individuals and then you need to talk about International cooperation too regulations laws they are going to be necessary but it doesn't mean that we know on day one exactly what to do um so I found it very refreshing to hear from Vera that um Europe is also interested not just in regulating but also in expanding the opportunities that's the kind of balance I think we will need if you'll allow me Ian i' also want to respond briefly to the point that you were trying to get at um do we see more alignment or fragmentation specific to regulations I think it is not um surprising at this phase that there will be many attempts at trying to Define what the risks are going to be and what are the right ways to deal with them so this is to my mind a Divergent phase it means that some of the Frameworks or some of the attempts that come out they don't always SN so closely to one another but I think over time we have to embrace this Dynamic and um um and and I'm hopeful that you know it'll take a while but we will all become clearer about to where the use cases are going to present themselves and where the producers are going to be and what are the risks that we should be spending more time guarding against so the conversion phase hasn't hit us right now but um I'm hopeful that it will come and that's what the world will also need for a small country we can't have um you know rules that uh uh we made for AI developers and deployers in in Singapore only because they do cross borders it makes no sense you know for us to say that this set of rules applies here but uh you know if you're coming you you must uh comply only with our rules these have to be International rules of course different Focus different governments bletchly I mean they just wanted to stick a flag in they had some issues they wanted to deal with Europeans Chinese different perspectives but you also see a lot of overlap despite the Divergence talk a bit about that BR yeah I actually first start where vice president yova began it's worth just recalling that there are wide variety of laws in place around the world that were not necessarily written for AI but they absolutely apply to AI privacy laws cyber security rules digital safety Child Protection consumer protection competition law so you have existing Regulators courts and the like all working with that and companies are working to navigate it now you have a new set of AI specific rules and laws and there I do think there's more similarity than most people assume uh people are often prone to look at the AI act they look at then the executive order or the voluntary commitments in the United States and the fundamental goals are complimentary in my view the E the AI act started by looking at the fundamental rights of European citizens the values of Europe privacy the protection of consumers Democratic rights all things that are held deeply as important in the US and other places it started at the applications layer that's really how it was originally drafted the the the deployers of AI and then last year they realized they needed to address Foundation models at the White House they jumped in right away to address Foundation models Focus first and foremost on what I would call Safety and Security but when they adopted their executive order they built out a comprehensive list of all of the issues that mattered there will of course be differences The Details Matter the executive order calls for all kinds of things to be prepared even the ai ai Act is still the fine-tuning is taking place the writing we haven't yet seen it but the pattern actually begins to fit together and then you have the G7 hoshima process and even the UN Advisory Board and you see these things lading up in a way that makes a fair amount of sense so it doesn't mean that we'll have a world without Divergence but we first have to recognize people actually care about a lot of the same things and even have some similar approaches to addressing them Vera um the European commission was first um in recognizing uh the need for regulation and governance in this space and in moving pretty decisively what is it that you think created that urgency what did the Europeans see that the Americans and others were later to the table at I think that the European Union is a special place where we have a special kind of instinct for the risks which might come from the world of Technologies to individual rights of people and this is already projected I have to mention again gdpr by gdpr we just wanted to empower individ people to be the masters of their own identity in the digital world and so a similar thing uh happened with the AI development where we were were looking at the the the technologist what they are doing what they are planning we had discussion with Brett about that in 2018 I think on 18 uh and I I appraised the cooperation because we created together the first the ethics standards and I I I was clear that we don't have to rush with the with the regulation now in 2019 because we have the gdpr and we have the main thing done in the EU the protection of of of privacy and cyber security uh legislation but then in 2021 it was inevitable that we adopted the AI act and uh then we got the lesson uh very very exciting moment when we saw that it's true that legislation is much slower than the world of Technologies but that slow that we suddenly saw the generative Ai and the foundation models and jgpt and it moved us to draft together with the col legislators the new chapter in the AI act so we tried to react on the new real reality uh the result is there yes the fine tuning is still ongoing but I believe believe that the AI act will will come into Force so we uh I think out of the of the Basic Instinct we have in the EU that we have to guarantee uh that the principal values will be untouched for the human beings I heard this morning somebody from industry who said AI will change uh our priorities I have to say on behalf of the public sphere or regulator it must not change our priorities such as fundamental rights freedom of expression copyright uh safety I think that we have to be very steady and stable and uh so having the regulation also means that we will start very intense cooperation in the Triangle of public sphere the world of Technologies and research this is a new thing you started in us already also the United Kingdom announced that that is such a platform and we need to work together uh to achieve sufficient level of predictability of where the technology will go further because this is what's missing so I I accept that there's a lot of overlap um in the sorts of issues that are being discussed but if I closed my eyes I would still know that that was what the Europeans were saying yes um the Americans talk about these things a little differently right talk about how the priorities not that we don't care about citizens but rather that um you know National Security plays a pretty big role Innovation plays a big role in how the Americans are thinking about prioritizing regulation and governance in the space uh first of all there's so many shared values between us and the EUR European Union I think that is the reason that we do see a lot of alignment and harmonization happening and you mentioned in addition to rights National Security that's absolutely INF frame I want to step back one more step and talk about why we care about regulation or I thank you Josephine governance because that's much more comprehensive and appropriate this is the most powerful technology of our times and every time President Biden talks about it he talks about promise and Peril and I greatly appreciate uh his keeping both of those in frame and we see the power of AI as something that must be managed the risks have to be managed for all the reasons that we're talking about here the reason is if we can do that if we can build a strong Foundation if we can make sure that the AI the quality of the AI technology is predictable and effective enough and safe enough and trustworthy enough once you build that solid foundation you want to use it to reach for the stars the point is to use this technology to to go after our great aspirations as a country but as a world and if you think about the work that's ahead of us to deal with the climate crisis to lift People's Health and Welfare to make sure our kids get educated and that people in their working lives can train for new skills these are things that it's it's hard to see how we're going to do them without the power of AI and I think in the American approach we've always thought about doing this work of Regulation as a means to that end not just to protect rights which is completely necessary not only to protect National Security but also to achieve these great aspirations uh a little political question which is the Biden Administration right there's a lot there's a sensibility that well don't want to be too close to Big Industry right I mean the Democrats have Elizabeth Warren you know they're talking about breaking up monopolies the oil companies like aren't getting any access despite the fact there's a lot of production when we talk about governance of AI for the United States it feels like the White House is actually working really closely with the industry leaders how is that how intentional is that how much is that necessity how much of that is different from the approach to perhaps other bits of the private sector that may be what you see but let me make sure you see the whole picture because we absolutely have worked with Microsoft the other major tech companies that that is where a lot of the Leading Edge of this technology is currently being driven for all all kinds of practical and business reasons but when you look at what went be what went into our process it was absolutely engaging with AI technology leaders including especially the big companies it was small companies and Venture capitalists it was civil society and hearing from people who care about consumers rights and hearing from workers and labor unions that is an essential component of that of this work it was working with Academia to get a a a deeper and longer term perspective on what the fundamental bounds are on this technology and I actually think this is an important part part of our philosophy of Regulation and governance is not to just do it top down and sit in our offices and make up answers we the way effective governance happens is with all those parties at the table and to your point about the the role of big tech one thing that we have been completely clear about is that competition is part of how this technology is going to thrive it's how we're going to solve the problems that we have ahead and so recognizing how much concentration happens when you take a billion dollars to train a Leading Edge model but also recognizing the the explosion in entrepreneurial activity and Venture investment uh watching all of that and making sure that all of those uh factors are considered is is absolutely intentional in the work that we're doing I actually think that what the White House did was pretty ingenious because the goal was to move fast you know because the the EU had made so much progress in thinking about applications that used Ai and suddenly you had these new generative AI Foundation models and just remember the world really didn't get this to start using them until the 30th of November so the first meeting that the White House had was the first week of May so basically you know five months later brought in four companies sort of said you have to get going these are the problems this has to be safe this has to be SE secure this has to be transparent and the four companies that came in Microsoft was one of them were given homework assignments we want you to give us a first draft by the end of May of what you are prepared to do to show the American people that you will address these needs and I remember because we got to work right away and yeah we were sort of proud inside Microsoft we got it done fast it was about eight days later we submitted a first draft so we could get some feedback we send it in on Sunday and on Monday morning more questions I had a call with arthy and secretary Rondo and they said congratulations you got it in first you what your grade is incomplete now that we know what you can do we're going to tell you to do more and build on what you've done and it broke the cycle that often happens when policy makers are saying do this and Industry is saying that's not practical and especially for new technology that was evolving so quickly it actually made it possible to speed up the pce and then that complemented what was going on in Brussels and there was a lot of interaction actually between Brussels and Washington with London and others and I don't think that all of these governments would have gotten as far as they did by December if you hadn't engaged some of the companies in that way and it's not like we got to write the blueprint we just got to provide input and then civil society as they should descended and said no there needs to be more it needs to be broader needs to to go farther and it has since then so um if we look at the various models here from you know topdown government driven to multi-stakeholder hybrid everybody gets a piece to the private sector moving really fast break some things but great competition do you think that there is are we going to iterate towards an ideal place you say we're in the Divergence phase but as we converge are do you think we are likely to move to one place on that spectrum is there one place on that Spectrum or NE will it NE necessarily be very different answers actually I'm really happy that you brought up the idea of a spectrum I really do believe that um you know in some areas we will find it necessary and possible to regulate uh through laws for example with deep fixes I think there is a real sense that of this is um uh an issue that um all societies regardless of your political model we'll have to deal with and what is the right way of dealing with defects I cannot see a an outcome where there isn't some law in place exactly what shape and form it will take I think that's remains to be seen but the whole regulatory space will have to be a spectrum for a number of years I I do believe that there will be instances where the answers are not so clear and there will still be a room there will still be a place for voluntary Frameworks and you will have to look at the responses of the market you will have to assess whether the recommendations that are being put forth in these voluntary Frameworks they are actually useful and then you will have um further down the Spectrum a lighter touch approach where there are just you know some advisory guidelines and people will have to look at the specific use cases of the AI models that they are bringing to the market and whether it really needs to be regulated in the same same way um you know as some other use cases and so this more risk-based approach and also a whole spectrum of tools uh it will be part of our reality that's how I believe so G if you don't mind give me two examples give me an example of a hard challenge that you think is going to need to have strong government oversight regulation and give me one that you think that is big that is really best served by very very light touch well at the moment um what's seems quite clear to me is that our societies need an answer to how we deal with def fects it's stealing a person's identity it's worse than you know your data that is anonymized you know that that that that is made available it's um you know being represented in a way that you do not intend to be represented and there's something fundamentally very wrong about it it's an assault on the infrastructure of fact how can societies function you know where deep fakes are confronting us all the time and we can't separate real from fiction reality from what is made up so that is one specific example I do think that um we as Nations have to come up with an answer to and in the not too distant future but in another way um and I I'm so glad you talked about it there will have to be different ways of demonstrating uh whether an AI is being implemented in a responsible way and the question of how do you implement tests how do you Benchmark them uh these kinds of things are still very nent no one has answers just yet you know that are very clear very demonstrable those kinds of things seem to me for a period of time to be better served with advisory guidelines sandboxes pilots and it may well take a many more years of these kinds of experimentation before we come to a very clear sense of what really you want to mandate and in what situations so we've talked a lot about different approaches to regulation and governance we haven't yet addressed power dynamics and and I I want to get at this with this screw because we talked a little bit about the Brussels effect before and Brussels effect is served not only because you've got strong technocratic leaders in Brussels who are thinking a lot about regulation but also because the EU is a very large Market that drives a lot of influence around the world PR effect wouldn't work so much if it was Bhutan right no matter how smart they are so I I wonder in an environment where in AI the the power and the driving technologically is overwhelmingly not happening in Europe at least not yet how much does that undermine the ability of Europeans to set meaningful standards um I think that uh we showed that we can set meaningful standards it's first thing but at the same time we combine it with a lot of other actions and a lot of funding and so we know that there is a gap uh there is uh the need to push uh Europe forward uh uh in the world of technological development and uh uh the funding we have uh we have made a calculation that every year we should invest around 15 billion Euro private and public funding be it from Brussels and from member states in order to uh push the the technological development forward and to also uh unblock uh the uh ability of the industry and also small and medium Enterprises to develop and in that direction so uh we are doing a lot of things to uh decrease this Gap but at the same time I have to I have to say that uh it doesn't decrease uh our ability to set the standards which might be inspiring for the rest of the world um do you share that view in terms of the US versus Europe and the rest of the world is a dynamic again so much of the tech is coming from the United States it's moving fast technology companies are able to drive a lot of outcomes they are and I think the fact that so much of this wave of AI has been driven by American companies is terrific for the United States I think it also means that we have a particular responsibility because this is not going to get solved by top- down government action it this is going to be something that happens because governments companies industry across the board plus Civil Society plus workers all come together and and the fact that we have such an active industry and such a significant Market in the US I think really means that that we have the privilege but also then the responsibility to be serious about that that's what I think we've stepped up to this year uh Brad you and I talked a little bit about this is it fair to say I mean it's that the governance models are not just going to be shaped by the countries but also by the business models of the technology companies that happen to be leading I think it's definitely the case I would just offer a few thoughts I mean first of all it's easy for people to go back and say will this be G like gdpr with Europe setting the rules for the world but this time the United States is moving the the US still hasn't adopted a Privacy Law you know so you have a number of countries and yeah I just think people are talking with each other and learning from each other and that's good for the world so yeah I think it'll be I'll call it a more collaborative International process because of that second I think one should not lose sight of the fact that it's not just about who invented something or where it was invented But ultimately it's who uses it and what business models they apply when they do and it's worth recalling that you know it was a German who invented the printing press but it was the Dutch and the English who then built the most printing presses with the German technology and printed the most books and if you look at say GDP growth in the 50 years after the Germans invented the printing press the Dutch and the English outperformed Germany if you look at Europe today the future of the Auto industry the pharmaceutical industry the chemical industry every industry where Europe is so important their competitiveness will fundamentally be shaped by how they use Ai and other things as well and the truth is therefore people can say who built this model and maybe Envy the person who did or the country that provided it but I'll argue it's going to be the adopters that will be the biggest winners over the next five decades the adopters and those that bring it to Market absolutely but you know it's I mean I often have this conversation in Europe because you know for for 10 years you'd go to Europe and they'd say but we don't have Facebook we have to use Facebook from the United States and and I would say you know we used to get up in Microsoft and every day we'd say we don't have a phone and then one day we realized we are not good at building a phone and we can succeed without one and we did and I don't hear anybody in Europe today bemoaning the fact that they don't have their own Facebook to be honest you know you go and you build what you need Facebook I'm hearing this from so you know it's it's easy to turn the world into these rivalries but when you do you sometimes Miss what actually is the most impactful and it's the world's democracies building on each other's shared values and it's the world's economies first and foremost ask what makes you great today and then ask how you can use this new technology to make you greater rather than spend all your time looking at what you don't have so that you can think about building it I'm not saying you shouldn't but if you don't focus on what makes you great today you're probably going to miss what's most important so not wanting to focus on what is contentious but there's of course a couple big things we haven't talked about here so far geographically and one of course is China um and you know outside of the United States massive digital Market massive desire to be in this space but some significant competition and constraints with the Americans and others so I'll ask both of you but I think I'll start with you uh Josephine which is um tell me a bit about how you we don't have the Chinese here today we wouldn't have time I don't know how we'd do it in 35 minutes but if we did right how would the conversation change what would be different if we had the Chinese opining openly about the way they think about governance of AI they've actually been quite open they've published you know very specific guidelines they've uh articulated their expectations for the businesses particularly that don't that have a interaction with consumers so if you go to China and you talk to the AI developers um there is no misunder understanding on their part uh about the expectations uh that their government has of them if your AI models are primarily going to be used within the Enterprise sector um it's fairly light touch um if however your AI models are going to reach the consumers individuals in society Then There are a whole host of requirements that will be made of you so in that sense um actually they do have an interesting way of thinking about the issue I would also say that there are some very thoughtful Scholars and not least of all in the United States there are studying the Chinese way of uh thinking about AI governance and regulations and they have published you know very useful um articles as well as studies into um what we can take away from them um the Carnegie uh endowments Institute for example Matt Shihan has done very good work in this regard I certainly think that Bletchley was very encouraging in the sense that um you had you know all the major players in AI in the room our counterparts from China was also there the minister was there and um I think it's a start of a very meaningful conversation and the more we are able to exchange notes on what really makes sense with AI governance I think we will be able to make better progress that's the way we look at it now there's been an announcement um at the Apex Summit between Biden and Chi that a track 1.5 on AI is going to be kicked off uh that's certainly better than the absence we also have a lot lot of people talking about some level of Technology Cold War given the export controls on semiconductors now the Chinese see this as well maybe this is a way we can engage and not be cut out of AI by the Americans how optimistic are you that there is a capacity of the Americans and others to engage with the Chinese in a way that doesn't lead to a greater decoupling in the tech side particularly on AI these are this is a very difficult issue I very encouraged both by China's participation at Bletchley and of course President Biden and president she's announcement and and I think what we are talking about is multiple layers there are areas where every participant around the world has a shared interest in getting AI right many of the the issues of the the core technology being predictable being effective and safe and trustworthy that's something everyone can agree on but what happens above that Foundation whether it's um economic opportunity whether it's using it for National Security and Military purposes really every part of the world is using this powerful technology in ways that reflect their values very much to the description that you provided Josephine and and that's you know that's exactly what we what you would expect it does mean that we will be competing and sometimes at odds with each other there's certainly National Security interests that have to be protected and all of these things are going to happen simultaneously I think that's that's the reality of the world that we're living in where we can find common cause with shared values with allies and partners around the world I think that is uh we view that as uh so essential to forming you know shaping the way that this moves forward I think that's going to be to all of our advantage what do we do in an environment where so much of US policy on Tech towards the Chinese has been a concern about defining things that are dual use in 5G and in semiconductors but in in much of what you're discussing with artificial intelligence you know something that you can use to make a car you use to make a rocket I mean it's you know a guidance system an autonomous driving system H how do you how do you thread the needle in an environment where everything is potentially dual use yeah yeah and that's the nature of what what military capabilities look like today that's absolutely the case the the work all of our work for example on Expert control has been narrowly focused on the Leading Edge of semiconductors that are key to building the most advanced AI models and that approach not it this is not a blanket change in our trade policies or in in the way that we think about technology and Technology development sharing around the world it's very specific uh targeted but very serious about the things that we do Target and I I I think that you know again you have to hold M many ideas in your head at the same time in this complex world we want to make sure we protect our national security interests and not allow uh a potential adversary to use our our most advanced technology for military purposes and at the same time we know that we'll we will remain uh important trading partners and that for so many of these other applications whether they're dual use or not we we're going to have reasons that we want to continue to stay engaged there are the Europeans 100% 95% aligned with that approach towards China on AI and Technology well yeah I I would I don't want to repeat what what we have just heard because it's very similar approach we have we have a strategy towards there are things where we need to be partners because the global things are at stake and it might be AI security that's why I publicly said before Bletchley yes this is a good thing that the Brits invited China because we need to have them uh at the table and also to be be a chance to ask questions where what where are you going and are you willing to join some some Global platform where we could work on the standards the second category well we are competitors and of course chips and the some some critical uh raw materials and and now we have the the strategy on how to be more resilient uh as for the economic security so there obviously is China China the the competitor and the the category where where China is rival and it is shown in uh how we approach AI because when I was in China I I read their guidelines also and I saw a lot of similarities with our code of conduct for for AI under G7 and with with the AI act but there is big butt in China of course they want to use AI to keep under control the society but in AI act in the horrible horribly long difficult trialogue the main issue was how to how far to let the states to go in using AI in law enforcement sphere uh because we want to keep this philosophy of protecting the individual people and balance it with the national security measures so here we cannot have common language with China and we we will never have well one could say the Chinese are in the sense the most interested in having strong regulations on AI it's not the Europeans right for precisely those reasons so Brad I mean this is an environment where there's been a lot of joint research historically there've been Labs there've been operations L of them public and published and open Source increasingly challenging to do in a lot of these areas how much are we losing as a consequence and and can can you talk give a little guidance around where lines can be drawn well I think there's a few things that this conversation helpfully illustrates first there are some areas where there are universally shared values even in a world that's so divided no government wants machines to start the next war and every country wants Humanity to remain in control of this technology I think that is universal and I think that provides a common foundation in some areas the second thing that is very interesting is what the world can learn as it talks about even just this concept of Regulation is that we're all talking about the same questions and that is what is revealed when you actually put the AI Act and the Chinese inter measures next to each other then the next thing you see is when do people answer the same question in a different way and why and you can look at the AI act and you can look at the Chinese measures and you can see in one the voice of Aristotle and in the other the voice of confucious long different philosophical traditions that manifest itself on how governments manage societies but it helps I think everyone just to understand how other people think and then there is a level of just what I would call Basic research in fundamental scientific Fields scientific fields that will Define the future of say climate technology or just our understanding of molecular biology or physics and the world has very much benefited from a tradition and arthy is an an extraordinary representative I think of this tradition and and the office of Science and Technology policy I think you want a world that invests in basic research you want a world where researchers publish their work that's how people learn from each other you do want a world I think where scientists in many fields have the opportunity to learn from each other and so we have to manage that as well and not just close off all aspects of Engagement I think you put it very well when you said these are difficult issues they are very complicated but I think there are certain strands here that we do ourselves well to just remember and think about so this has been an extremely enlightening conversation and I thank you for cramming so much into a short time because outside of this room there has been so much discussion I'd like to close it with each of you shattering a myth what's something that you have heard either here this week or outside recently that you wish people could unhear about the state of AI please I I I will start with every sentence that starts with the AI will do X because I think every time we focus on the technology and imagine that it is has agency and and it's taking action we ignore what is really important which is people build AI systems they train them they choose what data to train them on lots of it is trained on human generated data people decide what what kind of autonomy and agency to give these systems people decide what applications to use them for uh these are the most human Technologies you can possibly imagine if we're going to get governance right we have to keep our eyes on the people not just the technology that's a very good start Josephine um I'm going to make a stab take a stab at this um I I think it's helpful um on occasion not to think of it as artificial intelligence but perhaps as augmented intelligence and to try and see how it can best serve the interest of human societies and if we took that orientation maybe we could have a more balanced approach in thinking about the opportunities and how we can deal with risks so I offer that that's good that should it should become more obvious as it starts training on your individual data people going to see it as augmented yes I shared this view but I will add one more thing uh wherever I went here in Davos yesterday and today I I heard questions about the protection of Elections and and democracy we did didn't mention it here for me it's a nightmare that when to to see the voters to be manipulated in a hidden Way by means of AI in combination with well targeted disinformation it would be the end of democracy and Democratic elections that's why in Europe uh and I I I'm coming back to Brussels reassured by by the the necessity to do more we are now using this light touch the agreements with the technologists on disinformation and on on labeling the AI production so that the people see that this is the production of AI and that they can make still their free autonomous choice I'd love for us onhere AI impacting elections I think we can all agree on that Brad yours I think we should shatter the myth sometimes stated in the tech sector that people in government can't understand the technology because people in government do understand the technology increasingly around the world and they're adding more experts you don't have to understand everything at the same moment as someone in an industry but you know government has mastered technology in most other maybe every other industry and is doing so here as well we can put an asterisk on Congress though right on that one there are some people in Congress that understand it as well they're getting there I agree they're getting there and with that thank you so much for joining us today really appreciate it thank [Applause] you

Channel: World Economic Forum

Views: 27,196

Keywords: World Economic Forum, WEF, Davos, politics, finance, economy, news, leadership, democracy, education, technology, tech, AI, automation, work, future, world news, economist, world, forum, economic, world news today, worldeconomicforum, switzerland, external affairs minister, globalization, robotics, bloomberg, Davos 2024, Davos Agenda, WEF 2024, wef24, Davos 24, Artificial Intelligence, AI Regulations

Id: gu4tzrozmyY

Length: 47min 4sec (2824 seconds)

Published: Wed Jan 17 2024