MY GUEST NOW IS THE ONE AND
ONLY PERSON WHO IS GOING TO BE DECIDING OUR FUTURES. BRAD:
I DON'T THINK SO. [APPLAUSE] EMILY: YOU HAVE BEEN EVERYWHERE.
>> THAT WAS A LONG TRIP. EMILY: YOU WERE IN RIO, TOKYO. WHAT SURPRISED YOU MOST? >> A LOT.
IT IS LIKE A VERY SPECIAL EXPERIENCE TO GO TALK TO PEOPLE
THAT ARE USERS, DEVELOPERS, SO RULED LEADERS INTERESTED IN AI.
YOU REALLY GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS GOING ON.
I THINK THE BIGGEST SURPRISE WAS THE LEVEL OF EXCITEMENT,
OPTIMISM, BELIEF IN THE FUTURE AND WHAT THIS IS GOING TO MEAN
EVERYWHERE. I KIND OF KNEW WHAT IT WAS LIKE
IN THE BAY AREA AND IT WAS MUCH MORE INTENSE EVERYWHERE ELSE.
EMILY: MORE EXCITEMENT THAN ANXIETY? >> ANXIETY, TOO, AS THERE
SHOULD BE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE BOTH.
BUT JUST THE THOUGHTFULNESS, THE UNDERSTANDING, THE NUANCE,
THE TENSION BETWEEN THE TWO. THAT EXISTS EVERYWHERE AND
PEOPLE'S DESIRE TO REALLY FIGURE OUT HOW TO DRIVE SOCIAL
WITH THIS TECH AND WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO COME TOGETHER AS A
PLANET TO REALLY MAKE SURE WE AVOID SOME OF THE DOWNSIDE
SCENARIOS WAS QUITE SOPHISTICATED. EMILY:
HOW MIGHT YOU CHANGE YOUR APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF
AI AS A RESULT OF WHAT YOU LEARNED? >> THERE'S A BUNCH OF SPECIFIC
FEEDBACK, MORE THAN 100 PAGES OF NOTES FROM MEETING WITH
DEVELOPERS ABOUT COMPLAINTS PEOPLE HAVE OR THINGS THEY WANT.
EMILY: I SAW YOU TAKING HANDWRITTEN
NOTES. >> I DO TAKE HANDWRITTEN NOTES.
THERE IS ALL OF THAT AND THERE IS SORT OF THE WAY PEOPLE WANT
TO CUSTOMIZE THE TOOLS, MAKE SURE THEIR OWN VALUES, CULTURE,
HISTORY, LEG WHICH ARE REPRESENTED IN WHAT WE HAVE TO
DO TO ENABLE THAT. THERE WILL BE A BUNCH OF
SPECIFIC CHANGES WE WILL GO MAKE. AND THEN THE DESIRE FOR THE
WORLD TO COOPERATE, LIKE THE NUMBER OF WORLD LEADERS WHO
WOULD SAY THINGS LIKE I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT, WE
WENT TO GET AGI RIGHT, TELL ALL OF THE OTHER WORLD LEADERS I AM
IN ON IT AND WORK TOGETHER. THEY CAME UP MAYBE EVERY TIME
BUT ONE. EMILY: YOU SIGNED A 22 WORD STATEMENT
WARNING ABOUT THE DANGERS OF AI. A REIT'S OF MITIGATING THE RISK
OF EXTINCTION FROM AI SHOULD BE A GLOBAL PRIORITY ALONGSIDE
OTHER SUBTLE SKILL RISKS THAT JUST PANDEMICS AND NUCLEAR WAR."
CONNECT THE DOTS FOR US. HOW DO WE GET FROM A COOL
CHATBOT TO THE END OF HUMANITY? >> WE ARE PLANNING NOT TO.
EMILY: THAT IS THE HOPE, BUT THERE'S
ALSO THE FEAR. >> I THINK ARE MANY WAYS IT
COULD GO WRONG BUT WE WORK WITH POWERFUL TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN BE
USED IN DANGEROUS WAYS VERY FREQUENTLY IN THE WORLD.
AND I THINK WE HAVE DEVELOPED OVER THE DECADES GOOD SAFETY
SYSTEM PRACTICES IN MANY CATEGORIES. IT IS NOT PERFECT.
THINGS WILL GO WRONG. BUT I THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO
MITIGATE SOME OF THE WORST SCENARIOS YOU CAN IMAGINE. BIOTERRORIST, CYBERSECURITY.
MANDY MOORE WE COULD TALK ABOUT. -- MANY MORE WE COULD TALK
ABOUT. THE MAIN THING I FEEL IS IMPORTANT THROUGHOUT THIS
TECHNOLOGY IS WE ARE ON AN EXPONENTIAL CURVE AND A
RELATIVELY STEEP ONE. HUMAN INTUITION FOR EXPONENTIAL
CURVES IS REALLY THAT IN GENERAL. IT CLEARLY WAS NOT THAT
IMPORTANT IN OUR EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY.
SO I THINK WE HAVE -- GIVEN WE HAVE THAT WEAKNESS, GET TO REALLY PUSH OURSELVES TO SAY,
OK, GPT4, HOW SURE ARE WE THE GPT9 WON'T BE?
IF THERE IS EVEN A SMALL PERCENTAGE CHANCE IT WILL BE
BAD. EMILY: IF THERE IS THAT SMALL
PERCENTAGE CHANCE, WHY KEEP DOING THIS AT ALL? WHY NOT STOP?
>> A BUNCH OF REASONS. I THINK THE UPSIDES HERE ARE
TREMENDOUS, THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE ON EARTH TO HAVE A
BETTER QUALITY EDUCATION THAT BASICALLY ANYONE CAN GET TODAY,
THAT SEEMS REALLY IMPORTANT. MEDICAL CARE AND WHAT I THINK
IS GOING TO HAPPEN THERE, MAKING THAT AVAILABLE TRULY
GLOBALLY. THAT IS GOING TO BE TRANSFORMATIVE.
THE SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS WE ARE GOING TO SEE.
I AM A BIG BELIEVER THAT REAL SUSTAINABLE IMPROVEMENTS IN ALL
THE OF LIFE COME FROM SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGICAL
PROGRESS AND I THINK WE WILL HAVE A LOT MORE OF THAT.
THERE ARE THE OBVIOUS BENEFITS. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO END
POVERTY. BUT WE HAVE TO MANAGE THROUGH
THE RISK TO GET THERE. I ALSO THINK AT THIS POINT,
GIVEN HOW MUCH PEOPLE SEE THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS POTENTIAL, NO
COMPANY WOULD STOP IT. THE GLOBAL REGULATION, WHICH
ONLY THINK SHOULD BE ON THESE POWERFUL EXISTENTIAL RISK LEVEL
SYSTEMS -- OVERREGULATION IS HARD.
YOU DON'T WANT TO OVERDO IT FOR SURE.
BUT I THINK GLOBAL REGULATION CAN HELP MAKE IT SAFE, WHICH IS
A BETTER ANSWER THAN STOPPING IT. I DON'T THINK STOPPING WOULD
WORK. EMILY: LET'S TALK ABOUT GLOBAL
REGULATION. YOU HAVE MET WITH PRESIDENT
BIDEN AND THE CEOS OF MICROSOFT AND GOOGLE, AND YOUR CONQUER
REGULATION BUT WITH CAVEATS. THE CRITICS SAY IT SOUNDS LIKE
YOU'RE SAYING, REGULATE US BUT NOT REALLY.
OR THAT YOU ARE CALLING FOR REGULATION IN PUBLIC BUT
LOBBYING FOR SOMETHING ELSE IN PRIVATE.
HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT? >> WE ARE PUSHING FOR IN
PRIVATE, TOO. OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE THINGS ABOUT
WAY TO DO IT THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE.
WE, FOR EXAMPLE, DON'T THINK SMALL STARTUPS AND OPEN-SOURCE
BLOWS AND HIKE OF ABILITY THRESHOLD SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO
A LOT OF REGULATION. WE HAVE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS TO
COUNTRIES THAT TRY TO OVERRATE -- OVER REGULATE TECH. BUT ALSO, WE THINK IT IS SUPER
IMPORTANT THAT AS WE THINK ABOUT A SYSTEM THAT COULD GET A
RISK LEVEL LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT WE HAVE A GLOBAL
AND COORDINATED RESPONSE AS POSSIBLE SO WE HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT THAT PUBLICLY, PRIVATELY.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT. YOU COULD POINT OUT WE ARE
TRYING TO DO REVELATORY CAPTURE HERE, WHATEVER, BUT I JUST -- I
THINK THAT IS SO TRANSPARENTLY INTELLECTUAL HE DISHONEST, I
DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO RESPOND. EMILY:
THERE IS THE SKEPTIC'S VIEW YOUR BUILDING THESE RARE ASHLEY
SHOULD SHIPS WITH REGULATORS AND IT IS GOING TO BOX OTHER
STARTUPS. >> THAT IS WHAT I MEANT ABOUT
THE REGULATORY CAPTURE. WE ARE SAYING EXPLICITLY SHOULD
NOT REGULATE SMALL STARTUPS. IT IS A BURDEN ON THEM THAT WE
DON'T WANT IN SOCIETY. EMILY: WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE
CERTIFICATION SYSTEM OF AI? >> I THINK THERE SOME VERSION
THAT IS REALLY GOOD. I THINK PEOPLE TRAINING MODELS
THAT ARE WAY ABOVE ANY MODEL SCALE WE HAVE TODAY, BUT ABOVE
SOME CERTAIN CAPABILITY THRESHOLD -- I THINK YOU NEED
TO GO THROUGH CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR THAT.
I THINK THERE SHOULD BE EXTERNAL AUDITS AND SAFETY
TEST. WE DO THIS FOR LOTS OF INDUSTRIES WHERE WE CARE ABOUT
SAFETY. EMILY: ELON MUSK WAS SCARED OF GOOGLE.
IS GOOGLE STILL A THREAT? >> GOOGLE IS UNBELIEVABLY
COMPETENT AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE FOCUSED WITH AN
INTENSITY. EMILY: SO THEY ARE STILL SCARY? >> THEY ARE A COMPANY THAT I
DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD EVER WRITE OFF. EMILY:
WE HAVE SEEN NEW BARBS YOU AND ELON HAVE BEEN TRADING IN
PUBLIC AND IN INTERVIEWS. >> I DON'T REALLY -- EMILY: YOU
ARE RESPONDING. YOU ARE RESPONDING TO PEOPLE
ASKING LIKE PEOPLE LIKE ME. WHY DO YOU THINK HE IS SO
FRUSTRATED OR DISAPPOINTED WITH THE DIRECTION THAT OPENAI HAS
GONE? >> I MEAN, YOU SHOULD ASK HIM.
HE CAN GIVE YOU BETTER ANSWER. I CAN SPECULATE. I AM HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THIS. I THINK HE REALLY CARES ABOUT
AI SAFETY A LOT, AND I THINK THAT IS WHERE IT IS COMING FROM.
A GOOD PLACE. WE JUST HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION ON SOME PARTS BUT WE BOTH CARE ABOUT THAT.
HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE THE WORLD HAVE THE MAXIMAL
CHANCE. EMILY: YOU'RE NOT WORRIED HE'S GOING
TO CALL YOU OUT, CALL YOU TO COME TO SOME CAGE MATCH IN THE
VEGAS OCTAGON LIKE HE JUST DID WITH MARK ZUCKERBERG? >> I WILL GO WATCH IT AND ZUCK
DID THAT. EMILY: MUCH HAS BEEN MADE OF THE
MICROSOFT RELATIONSHIP. IT IS NOT JUST HIM, BUT HE HAS
SAID HE IS WORRIED MICROSOFT HAS MORE CONTROL THAN THE
LEADERSHIP AT OPENAI HAS. >> I THINK WHAT HE MEANS IS
THEY COULD BREAK THE CONTRACT AND TAKE AWAY OUR ACCESS TO THE
DATA CENTER. EMILY: AND A LOT OF MONEY THAT YOU
HAVE ACCESS TO. >> WE HAVE MONEY, IT IS THE
DATA CENTER THEY OPERATE. EMILY: HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE
RELATIONSHIP? >> WE THINK IT IS GREAT.
ANY DEEP COMP LOOKS RELATIONSHIP, IT IS NOT WITHOUT
ITS CHALLENGES BUT IT IS REALLY GREAT.
IT IS BY FAR THE BEST MAJOR PARTNERSHIP I HAVE EVER BEEN A
PART OF. IT IS KIND OF LIKE -- ON BOTH
SIDES, IT WAS A CRAZY THING TO JUMP INTO.
SURPRISING IT WORKS THIS WELL. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESULT,
WE ARE VERY HAPPY. EMILY: IN 2018 COME THE LAST TIME WE
TALK IN PERSON, YOU TOLD ME YOU THOUGHT AI WOULD HELP US BE OUR
BEST BUT ALSO STOP OUR WORST IMPULSES. WHAT MAKES YOU COMPETENT ABOUT
THAT BECAUSE SO MANY TIMES, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, IF IT
PSYCH TECHNOLOGY HAS ONLY AMPLIFIED -- TECHNOLOGY HAS
ONLY AMPLIFIED OUR WORST. >> WILL DO BAD THINGS, TOO.
I DON'T HAVE THIS ONLY VIEW OF IT, I HAVE A REALISTIC VIEW.
IT IS HUMAN NATURE TO TALK ABOUT THE BAD MORE THAN THE
GOOD. I THINK YOU CAN LOOK AT OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE DONE A LOT OF GOOD AND PLENTY OF HARM
AND TALK 99% ABOUT THE HARM AND 1% ABOUT THE GOOD.
I DID THAT, TOO. THAT IS UNDERSTANDABLE.
IN 2018, THAT WAS WAY BEFORE THE GPT SERIES WAS A THING SO
AT THAT POINT WE HAD SOME INKLING IT WOULD GO LIKE THIS,
WE CERTAINLY DID NOT KNOW EXACTLY.
BUT I THINK WHAT WE ARE HEADING TO IS THIS PERSONAL TOOL THAT
CAN HELP YOU IN WHATEVER WAY YOU WOULD LIKE.
ONE OF THE FUN PARTS OF THE TRIP WAS HOW DIVERSE AND BROAD
THE STORIES ARE OF HOW PEOPLE ARE USING IT AT WHATEVER THEY
WANT TO BE BETTER AT AND HELP THEM. I THINK IF YOU GO TALK TO
CHATGPT USERS, WILL FIND A LOT OF SUPPORT AND YOU CAN ALSO
FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE MISUSING IT. EMILY:
THE REALITY IS YOUR BUILDING IS ON THE BACK OF HUMAN DATA, THAT
IS BIASED, RACIST, SEXIST, EMOTIONAL, THAT IS WRONG.
A LOT IS WRONG. HOW DO YOU SAFEGUARD AGAINST
THAT? >> THERE WAS A RECENT STUDY
THAT GPT4, THE MODEL THAT IS RELEASED, IS LESS BIASED ON
IMPLICIT BIAS TO TEST EVEN FOR HUMANS WHO THINK THEY HAVE
REALLY TRAINED THEMSELVES TO BE GOOD AT THIS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE MODEL THAT COMES OUT OF THE PRETRAINING
PROCESS, THAT MODEL WILL BE QUITE BIASED AND WILL REFLECT
THE INTERNET. BUT REINFORCEMENT LEARNING
HUMAN FEEDBACK, ONE OF THE TECHNIQUES WE USE TO ALIGN THE
MODELS, WORKS QUITE WELL. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROGRESS
FROM MODEL TO MODEL, EVEN SOME OF OUR BIGGEST CRITICS ARE
LIKE, WOW, THEY HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF THE BIAS OUT OF THE
MODELS. I THINK IT CAN BE A FORCE FOR
REDUCING BIAS IN THE WORLD, NOT FOR ENHANCING IT.
THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IF THE USER WANTS TO USE THE
MODEL IN A BIASED WAY? HOW MUCH CONTROL DO YOU GET A
USER? WHO DECIDES THAT LIMITS OF THE
VALUE SYSTEM? THAT WILL BE A TOUGH QUESTION
FOR SOCIETY TO WRESTLE WITH. THERE IS NOT A ONE SENTENCE
BUTTONED UP ANSWER, BUT THE TECHNOLOGY I THINK HAS GONE
MUCH FURTHER THAN PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO IN
TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO ALIGN THESE MODELS TO BEHAVE IN
CERTAIN WAYS. EMILY: WE HAVE BEEN TALKING GOING BACK
TO YOUR DAYS AT N.Y.C. AND IT HAS BEEN FUN TO WATCH
THAT JOURNEY. I THINK PEOPLE REALLY WANT TO
UNDERSTAND YOUR INCENTIVES AND DON'T NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND
YOUR INCENTIVES. PEOPLE ARE PERPLEXED.
THERE PERPLEXED YOU HAVE NO EQUITY.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE? IS THERE ANY FINANCIAL
STRUCTURE WHEREBY YOU DO BENEFIT IF OPENAI IS A BIG
THING? >> I GET WHY PEOPLE ARE
PERPLEXED ABOUT THIS, AND I HAVE WONDERED IF I SHOULD JUST
TAKE ONE SHARE OF EQUITY SO I NEVER HAVE TO ANSWER THIS
QUESTION AGAIN. A FEW THINGS. ONE, WE ARE GOVERNED BY
NONPROFIT WHICH I AM A BOARD MEMBER AND OUR BOARD NEEDS TO
HAVE A MAJORITY OF DISINTERESTED INVESTORS.
LIKE, DON'T HAVE EQUITY IN THE COMPANY.
I ORIGINALLY DID NOT DO IT FOR THAT REASON. EMILY: BUT ARE THERE ANY FINANCIAL
INCENTIVES? LIKE ON A CERTAIN BENCHMARK? >> NO.
I HAVE A TINY BIT OF INVESTMENT BUT IT IS IMMATERIAL. EMILY: IF OPENAI IS MASSIVELY
PROFITABLE, YOU WON'T BENEFIT FINANCIALLY? >> ONE OF THE TAKEAWAYS I HAVE
LEARNED FROM QUESTIONS LIKE THIS IS THIS CONCEPT OF HAVING
ENOUGH MONEY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS EASY TO GET ACROSS TO
OTHER PEOPLE. EMILY: IT IS HARD FOR PEOPLE TO
UNDERSTAND. [APPLAUSE] >> I HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.
I'M GOING TO MAKE WAY, WAY MORE FROM OTHER INVESTMENTS. IF I JUST HAD TAKEN THE EQUITY,
PEOPLE WOULD BE LIKE, THAT MAKES SENSE. THEY GOES TO THE NONPROFIT AND
I TRUST THE PROPHET TO DO A GOOD THING WITH IT, BUT I HAVE
ENOUGH MONEY. WHAT I WANT MORE OF IS AN
INTERESTING LIFE IMPACT. I STILL GET A LOT OF SELFISH
BENEFIT FROM THIS LIKE, WHAT ELSE AM I GOING TO DO WITH MY
TIME? THIS IS REALLY GREAT. I CAN'T IMAGINE A MORE
INTERESTING LIFE THAN THIS ONE AND A MORE INTERESTING THING TO
WORK ON. I GET A TON OF BENEFIT BUT,
YES, SOMEHOW THIS IDEA OF HAVING -- IT DOESN'T COMPETE
FOR PEOPLE. EMILY: IS THAT ABOUT POWER? CONTROL? >> I WANT TO MAKE MY
CONTRIBUTION BACK TO HUMAN TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS.
I GET TO BENEFIT FROM ALL OF THIS STUFF THAT PEOPLE DID
BEFORE. I GET TO USE THIS IPHONE THAT I
STILL MARVEL AT EVERY DAY, ALL OF THE WORK THAT HAD TO GO INTO
THAT. THOSE PEOPLE, I DON'T KNOW WHO
THEY ARE, I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO THEM.
THEY KNEW THEY WERE NEVER GOING TO GET RECOGNITION FOR ME
PERSONALLY, BUT THEY ALSO WANTED TO DO SOMETHING TO
CONTRIBUTE. AND SO DO I. I CAN'T IMAGINE BETTER
COMPENSATION OR FEELING. IT WOULD BE MAYBE WEIRD IF I
HAD NOT ALREADY MADE A BUNCH OF MONEY AND PLANNED TO MAKE WAY
MORE FROM OTHER INVESTMENTS. I JUST DON'T THINK ABOUT IT. -- I THINK THAT THIS WILL BE
LIKE, I THINK IT WILL JUST BE THE MOST IMPORTANT STEP YET
THAT HUMANITY HAS TO GET THROUGH WITH TECHNOLOGY.
AND I CARE ABOUT THAT. EMILY:
WHAT IS ONE QUESTION PEOPLE REALLY WISH PEOPLE LIKE ME
ASKED? SAM: THE PERSON [LAUGHTER]
DRAMA OF THE DAY. EMILY: SERIOUSLY.
I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE GETTING A LOT OF THOSE QUESTIONS. SAM: I'M ALWAYS EXCITED TO JUST TALK
ABOUT WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN THE COMING FEW YEARS AND DECADES
WITH THE TECHNOLOGY. EMILY: SO WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO?
SAM: TALK ABOUT ELON MUSK? [LAUGHTER]
WE DON'T TALK ABOUT, IT'S DEEPLY IN OUR NATURE TO WANT TO
CREATE, TO WANT TO BE USEFUL. TO WANT TO LIKE FEEL THE
FULFILLMENT OF DOING SOMETHING THAT MATTERS. IF YOU TALK TO PEOPLE FROM
THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO, THE WORK
WE DO NOW WOULD HAVE SEEMED, YOU KNOW, UNIMAGINABLE BEST AND
PROBABLY TRIVIAL. THIS IS NOT DIRECTLY NECESSARY
FOR OUR SURVIVAL IN THE SENSE OF LIKE FOOD OR WHATEVER.
THE SHIFT HAPPENS WITH EVERY TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION.
ANY WE WORRY ABOUT THE PEOPLE DO ON THE OTHER SIDE AND EVERY
TIME WE FIND THINGS AND I SUSPECT -- EXPECT NOT ONLY WILL
THIS BE AN EXCEPTION TO THAT, BUT THE THINGS WE FIND WILL BE
BETTER, MORE INTERESTING, AND MORE IMPACTFUL THAN EVER BEFORE.
A LOT OF PEOPLE TALK ABOUT AI AS THE LAST TECHNOLOGICAL
REVOLUTION. I SUSPECT THAT FROM THE OTHER
SIDE IT WILL LOOK LIKE THE FIRST. LIKE THE OTHER STUFF
WILL BE SO SMALL IN CAN -- IN COMPARISON. THE TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION,
IT'S A CONTINUOUS ONE. CONTINUING AND EXPONENTIAL.
WHAT WILL BE ENABLED, WHAT WE CAN'T IMAGINE ON THE OTHER
SIDE, WE WILL HAVE TOO MUCH. IF YOU WANT TO SIT AROUND AND
DO NOTHING, THAT WILL BE GOOD, TOO. EMILY:
BONBONS AND PEACHES IN MY FUTURE. SAM:
I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL WANT, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU.
EMILY: YOU TALKED ABOUT AI DECIDING
OTHER AI. SAM: THIS IS THE CLASSIC SCI-FI IDEA.
THAT AT SOME POINT THESE SYSTEMS CAN HELP ADDRESS
THEMSELVES, CAN DISCOVER BETTER ARCHITECTURES AND WRITE THEIR
OWN CODE. I THINK WE ARE ALWAYS AWAY FROM
THAT THAT IT IS WORTH PAYING ATTENTION TO. SAM:
YOU DIDN'T -- EMILY: CHINA AND RUSSIA, YOU DIDN'T GO THERE?
SAM: I DID SPEAK THERE. EMILY: VIRTUALLY? SAM: YEAH. EMILY:
WHERE ARE THEY ON AI AND SHOULD WE BE WORRIED? SAM:
I DON'T HAVE A GREAT SENSE. EMILY:
DOES IT CONCERN YOU THAT WE DON'T KNOW? SAM:
YEAH, I MEAN AGAIN LIKE ANYTHING, IMPERFECT INFORMATION
CAUSES CONCERN. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A BETTER
SENSE. BUT YOU KNOW, I'M OPTIMISTIC
THAT WE CAN FIND SOME SORT OF COLLABORATIVE THING AND I THINK
THE THING THAT GETS SAID IN THE U.S., THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO
COOPERATE WITH CHINA, THAT IT'S OFF THE TABLE, IT'S ASSERTED
AND PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO WILL IT INTO EXISTENCE BUT IT'S NOT
CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT'S TRUE IN FACT I SUSPECT IT'S NOT. EMILY:
I'M SO GRATEFUL YOU HAVE BEEN AROUND THE WORLD TALKING ABOUT
THIS ENTER WITH US HERE TODAY. EVEN YOU WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
YOU HAVE AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF POWER AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.
WHY SHOULD WE TRUST YOU? SAM: YOU SHOULDN'T.
LIKE YOU KNOW, I DON'T, YOU HAVE KNOWN ME FOR A LONG TIME.
I WOULD RATHER BE IN THE OFFICE WORKING.
BUT AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME PEOPLE DESERVE BASICALLY AS
MUCH TIME ASKING QUESTIONS AS THEY WANT. BUT MORE TO THAT, LIKE KNOW ONE
PERSON SHOULD BE TRUSTED HERE. I DON'T WANT 7 BILLION SHARES.
THE BOARD OVERTIME TIME NEEDS TO GET LIKE DEMOCRATIZED TO ALL
OF HUMANITY. THERE ARE MANY WAYS THAT COULD
BE IMPLEMENTED. BUT THE REASON FOR OUR
STRUCTURE, THE REASON IT IS SO WEIRD, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT
READ -- WEIRDNESS IS WE THINK THIS TECHNOLOGY, THE BENEFITS,
THE ACCESS TO IT BELONGS TO THE WHOLE. LIKE IF THIS REALLY WORKS IT'S
LIKE QUITE A POWERFUL TECHNOLOGY AND YOU SHOULD NOT
TRUST ONE COMPANY AND CERTAINLY NOT ONE PERSON. EMILY: ARE YOU SAYING WE SHOULD?
-- SHOULDN'T TRUST OPENAI? SAM: IF WE ARE A FEW YEARS DOWN THE
ROAD AND HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT HOW TO START DEMOCRATIZED
TROLL, YOU SHOULDN'T. BUT LIKE IF WE FIGURE OUT SOME
SORT OF NEW STRUCTURE WHERE OPENAI IS LIKE GOVERNED BY
HUMANITY, AND THAT COULD HAPPEN IN MANY WAYS, INCLUDING THE
ALIGNMENT THAT WE PICK. IT COULD MEAN ACTUAL BOARD
CONTROL. WE ARE TALKING TO A LOT OF
PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT I COULD LOOK LIKE IF WE DON'T DO THAT, I
DON'T THINK LIKE JUST TRUST US IS GOOD ENOUGH. EMILY: WELL THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING
WHY WE SHOULD MAYBE CONSIDER TRUSTING YOU.
YOU HAVE A PLANE TO CATCH. WE ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR YOUR
TIME. SAM: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.
EMILY: THANK YOU SO MUCH. SAM: FOR SURE.
