tv George Gilder Gaming AI CSPAN November 24, 2021 1:58am-3:06am EST
and i kind of question we discussed today on this episode of independent conversations greetings if you have just joined us c i'm coming to from the independent institute here in oakland california. we are trying to bring notable experts on a variety of topics to discuss topics of the day and to give the perspective you are not likely to hear elsewhere and we will be talking with george gilder to the independent conversations. hello. it is a pleasure to see you again. i met you first i think deep in the winter january 1982 and western new york and you recently published wealth and poverty like the year before. >> published 1981? >> 1980. >> i think president reagan loved the book.
>> yes i was a little nervous about it. and then to be the most quoted. >> it was a fabulous book. >> but your creativity what they see about the system of free exchange for capitalism when you analogize it to what is the exchange of the native american tribes? >> he would simply give and share which was fascinating and you pointed out there's a lot of that in what we call capitalism which therefore doesn't pipit simply on self interest but rather on something at least
they can to benevolence. that was a real eye-opener to me, george, thank you. >> i enjoyed writing wealth and poverty and i've been doing various elaborations on ever since. my technology books really sprang from life from wealth and poverty which focused on creativity in the image of our creator as the great force and economic growth. since then i've been working on the information theory of economics. >> i remembered the term i was trying to think of a moment ago. i think he described as the potlatch, wasn't it? >> the potlatch. >> really amazing. it helped me because i was a college student at the time comes just after being a a coe student and is having a lot of tussles with my peers and
professors who all thought that socialism was just the coolest thing there ever was. they usually portrayed capitalism in very distorted terms and so you gave me a whole new vocabulary. i was grateful for that. >> thank you. >> people said you're an economist but then sometimes you seem like a like a socioe you wrote men in marriage and than other people say you're a technologist and a future a spirit what you, george? >> i may historian. >> okay. >> but wiki calls me a techno-utopian furniture is. i have no, no idea why but anyway i'm willing to play the role that is imposed on me. >> we are glad. >> i really probably i believe in a hierarchical universe and i believe it's helpful to have a
philosophical perspective that unifies all these different fields. >> right. >> and thus allows you to transcend this fragmentation of analysis that afflicts all the university where everybody has his own specialization, many of them with different jargons and idioms of expression that even exacerbate the fragmentation of knowledge. >> yeah, they really do and your work is really always been characterized by the integration rather than the fragmentation which makes sense. i think that partly is what must have driven me to be one of the cofounders of the discovery institute in seattle. they seem to have quite a synthetic understanding of the science is there. is that right? >> that's what we try to do. we tried to bring the sciences together, and economics is just
another part of biology which is another part of physics which is all subsumed in a cosmic vision that were going to expound in our conference on november 102 the 12th. peter thiel will be the keynote and other speaking on artificial intelligence and bob metcalfe of metcalfe slaw is going to be expounding on the continued significance for crypto currency and other such paths of technological advance. we're going to have an exciting time and i'm going to debate newt gingrich on china. i don't think war with china brings any benefits that i can
imagine. >> i agree with you on that. what could be less productive in a war with china? good grief. if our viewers when information about the conference which should they go, george? >> cause him .txt technology so technology is the suffix. >> cosm.technology. >> is it next month did you say on november? >> november. november 102 the 12th. >> okay. in the meantime you also releasing a brand-new book, i think the publication date is officially october 15 if i'm not mistaken but here's the cover of it, "gaming ai: why ai can't think but can transform jobs." very nice and compelling coverage. yet some good artist working
with you, george. i also noticed if you want to go to amazon you can order it already. partly this got some in stock it seems like. >> it's been out for a while. >> so that's what you got some in stock. let's talk about that book. i got a copy of it and i was utterly fascinated by the way that you take up the standard challenge and can turn it in a direction that people don't expect. the standard challenge, i mean you mentioned early in the book that some people think ai is going to be for sure -- i think a page 20 of the book it's a very arresting quote caught my eye where you quoted the late stephen hawking who pronounced the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. >> that's what hawking said. and elon musk who's alive today
says that ai is more dangerous than nukes. >> yeah. >> and i really, a lot of people talk about singularity two, and this was really predicted way back at bletchley park by alan turing was colleague jack good. he decided that once we invent artificial intelligence that will be the last invention will ever have to make because true artificial intelligence would be capable of creating machines, intelligent machines that could outperform the original artificial intelligence and thus release i cascade of
intelligence through the universe, and -- >> the theory was it would culminate in the so-called singularity which that's supposed to be were basically the artificial intelligence takes off, takes up where we left off and says goodbye to us, right? >> that's really what good was predicting your ray kurzweil and werner benge and a lot of people have developed the idea further. ray kurzweil in a very sophisticated way, he's a friend of mine, lives in -- >> i thought he was just silicon valley? >> no. well, he was a technology chief at google and developed ai that
responds to your e-mails, you know, gmail has responses that allow you to anticipate how you're going to respond to a particular issue. >> i noticed those responses are more curious and specific. i suppose it's due to his development? >> that's raise contribution. ray as a whole skein of contributions to technology over the decades. but i think all these people have forgotten the fundamental principles of the computer science that they expound. >> that's what's striking about this book because you don't seem to be of much of a a doomsayes something in fact, see if i've got this right to you seem to think the potential of ai may be oversold, but that even in the
overselling their could be some collateral damage and you're trying to avoid that. have i got that right? >> i think that's right. the idea that somehow ai competes with human minds is a fundamental illusion. >> a lot of these technology creators came to the work having already absorbed the idea that the human mind is nothing more than a meat machine, and so if they knew that quote-unquote knew that to begin with then it's not surprising that their conception of artificial intelligence could be the singularly thing that totally transcends the human mind because if the human mind with everything more than meat and electrons to begin with, then you could surpass it. i think your point about the history of technology is the human mind demonstrates that must be more than just meet and electrons. >> yeah.
well, when i was writing about the internet, which i did from the early -- late '80s on through its development and the launch of all the webs of sand and glass and air around the globe, i used to do connect homes. that's a way of mapping all the connections of the global internet. the connect home for the global internet as of a couple of years ago took about two data bytes to map. if you met all the connections in the global internet it was about two data bytes. >> reminder what of zettabyte
is. >> ten to the 21. 21 zeros and just the number beyond easy imagination. recently mit campaign has been trying to map all the connections in a single human brain. this has been really difficult. >> how many zettabyte does that take? >> well, that's the question. they start with a nematode worm, which is -- a friend of mine was on sydney bringers team that first developed dna codes. imagine that dna was a code and worked out what the code would be. he's been mapping the brain of a
nematode worm for some 20 years at the university of wisconsin, and at thanksgiving dinner the other year, , last year or so, e told me that the more he studies the connect home of the nematode worm, the less he understands the nematode brain. >> wow. >> but the folks at mit have taken his estimates of the connections in a nematode worm and applied it to the brain of the human being which all the synapses and neurons and connections and all kinds in the brain, , and it turns out it tas a couple zettabyte to map all the connections in the human brain. so it suggests that a single
human mind, brain, is as densely and complexly connected as the whole global internet is. but the global internet takes gigawatts of energy and it so, you know, a data center takes next to a glacier to deal with heat problems. generally, the chief and dominant technology add a data center is all the cooling systems to take away the heat that these machines emit. >> i don't seem to have -- >> as single human brain functions with 12 to 14 w. >> and i'm just at 98.6 degrees
fahrenheit. i don't seem to need any extra cooling. >> yeah. so it really, i believe that technologies function to the extent that the augment and extend human capabilities attempting to compete with human capabilities whether they usurp human capabilities. i think companies in silicon valley that revive their business plan is also leaving their customers and contributors are going to fail. >> yeah, if that's how they approach it, then they're going to make themselves superfluous. in fact, they seem to anticipate that. if you proceed in business on the assumption that your job is to make your own customers superfluous, , you're going to n
out of things to do it that your business model, aren't you? >> i think it's quite absurd. i'm even contrary enough to not believe that -- i think technology is continuing to advance at a tremendous pace, but it don't think it's advancing any more rapidly than it did at the time of the industrial revolution. i think that nobel laureate economist william nor house -- nor house did a study of the advance of writing. this is the invention, creation of light, the amount of lumens you need to light a room at night. and he shows that the advance in
lighting has been a hundred thousand times more rapid than is measured in the economic models. essentially, economists while they are writing about them satanic mills, dark satanic mills and -- >> william blake. >> various images of the dismal science, missed the incredible expansion of light from the time it was piles of higher in a cave to the millions of candles at versailles to whale oil to kerosene to finally electricity, and then light emitting diodes, whatever -- >> but -- >> measured by the amount of
time a worker had to spend two by the light to illuminate a room. economic progress was a hundred thousand times more rapid than is usually estimated in that particular, in that field. so we were missing, during the industrial revolution we missed light, and i think missed intellectual, in the current ai revolution we are missing mind. >> that's fascinating. >> and measured by the number of hours it takes a worker to earn the money to purchase the goods and services that sustain his life.
this continues to be, a golden age of capitalism with the technological progress as fast as ever and with increasing the quality. because poor people benefit more from the expansion of the hours of their day to do other things than rich people already just have to spend a few minutes to earn their food and clothing and whatever. and so as technology advances, it benefits the masses most, and ai is just the newest manifestation of the advances of the computer industry since the time of touring and good at
bletchley park through john von norman who was probably a paramount figure and anticipated the gigahertz machines we have today. he really was the first person to imagine moore's law, that we could produce making the machines that operators at billions of cycles a second. >> let me step back a couple steps to something said a minute ago, really deserves i think extra attention. you commented a moment ago that technological and economic advance tends to have a comparatively greater impact the benefit to the worse off, because the the worst off tt further to go up. and so the comparative
improvement in their life can be greater. that's intriguing. a few years ago i was in east africa in uganda and traveling around some of the rural areas and a part of uganda. it was striking to me of course the standard of living obviously much lower than the united states and and i saw many pe living in hats, not having sufficient clothing, not having sufficient covering from the rain. -- huts. people clearly struggling although there was a lot of economic activity and at the same time every single person sitting under every insufficiently corrugated tin roof on every little shop when every little byway or alleyway have a cell phone. every single person has a cell phone. >> and increasingly it's a smart phone. >> and they use it -- >> that means a a supercomput. that means an underestimation of
the real standard of living. >> that's right. >> the same kind of factor of a hundred thousand that nor house identified during the industrial revolution with expansion of light. it's another form of the expansion of light. >> i notice ugandan roads were still pretty bad and need to be repaid at the same time i also realized that everybody can now talk to their grandma or great grandma out in the backcountry anytime they want to. because everyone even the small villages as cell phones and also using the smartphones as a meeting of payment and exchange greatly supplying monetary transactions. it was quite stunning honestly and made me proud to be a northern california. >> you are correct to be proud and there's really what's bizarre is the argument that you see a lot of places that the
middle class is suffering as a result of stagnation of technology or whatever is the claim of the moment, that inequality is vastly expanding. you know, once you have, if you score a thousand dollars, that takes care of all your essential needs and you live a lot better than a king of previous -- if you have that smart phone and access to medical care, that it implies and ultimately the access to a whole world civilization, that it manifests.
rich people, all their so-called wealth, is really knowledge. it's invested. it's not liquid. >> right. >> ultimately it disappears. in capitalism you only get to keep what you give away. that is because, because unless your wealth is invested and is working and providing jobs and opportunities for others, it loses value and ultimately disappears. so this is really a fundamental principle of capitalism, and it's manifested today in the phenomenal creativity that you saw in uganda.
>> we have a number of people on with us, george, simultaneously although we also may share this recording later but one of her current participants sent a note in commenting that an organization or company called solaris technologies in san jose is a good example of the kind of thing you're talking about. do you know solaris technologies by any chance? >> how do you spell it? i have heard of solaris technology. i was thinking of soul brass which is i think the more formidable accomplishment. it's a wafer scale integration of ai and a shared learning capabilities on the single-chip not the size of your thumbnail but of the size of a dinner plate, and trillions of transistors on a single wafer.
i can't remember what the heck so lera does. >> something good apparently. >> he should tell you, if are going to talk about it, he should tell us which company that is. >> i'm watching the comment box. we'll see but one of the great arguments in the book, "gaming ai," is your point that those in the high-tech industries who are, obsess maybe or maybe captivate is a nice a word with his idea of movement towards a a single dirty weather created intelligence surpasses human mind and so forth and makes the human mind obsolete. they seem, you argue, to africa
on the history of their own industry. >> that's right. >> can you tell me something about that in a way that i as a layman can understand? how does the development of high-tech it industry itself illustrate your point about the irreducible need for the creativity of the human mind? can you tell me something about that? >> well, i brought up john van norman, the great figure who imagine that you could make mathematics completely self-sufficient. , rendered mathematics a completely self-sufficient and complete and coherent system. he met this young student named kurt gödel who i believe was the
inventor of the computer science of our day. kurt gödel, in 1931 i believe, introduced a paper which showed that mathematics was intrinsically and inexorably depended on axioms or propositions that couldn't be proven within the system itself. >> so, therefore, it couldn't be a fully self-contained system. >> they could not be a self-contained system. john von neumann was one of the greatest minds we produce over the last couple of centuries. ..
processors andcurrently has taken over those status centers . it was also invented by newman. so it's headed by an ointment >> we understood the artificial intelligence. it was a massive expression of the disabilities of human lives extended into the world class it actually is an extension, not a replacement. what you said a moment ago really is a way of capturing it. tell me again who it was that made the point that all this developed machine intelligence would have to have a human mind as if it were an oracle. who was said the oracle business? >> that was alan turing.
>> it's a very striking metaphor because it means to put it in simple but historical terms, we are arguing machine intelligence. what the oracle of delphi was thought to be to the men of antiquity. in other words a form of knowledge mysteriously outside the realm of grasping so you would go to the oracle and it probably was a bunch of who we but nonetheless they would go there and they thought they were receiving insights which they couldn't get with the human mind so the human mind in terms has turned to the artificial intelligence the way the oracle was to humansof that day. it's a fascinating metaphor . >> and it ultimately is an
extension of charles sanders proposition that all information is triadic. it can't be binary. if it's binary it's restricted to simple systems. and there's no necessary connection between simple as in mathematics and objects such as objects of those worlds. in order to connect the simple systems of the real world need an intermediating mind. human consciousness, human brain. >> it's sort of like two dimensions versus three dimensions . >> that's right. >> binary versus triadic.
>> and we have a flat universe society prevailing in silicon valley. they imagine that there binary symptom symbols can play games a lot better than us because they came in the symbol system so there's on the billboard there is just those black and gray, white andgray stones . those stones are symbols and they don't point beyond the board. if the computer can move those stones billions of times faster than a human can , obviously they can play go better than the human just as threshing machines can ... >> your point is a man threshing is going to be superseded by a threshing machine . that doesn't mean thatsomehow the threshing machine is more sophisticated than the man .
>> that's right. >> you say early on in the book and you repeat it a few different places that youhave two basic claims . this notion of sort of supremacy of artificial intelligence you say is both done and self-defeating so we've been dealing with the dumb part . i find it reassuring to learn from you in your book and other sources that the human mind actually is more complex than maybe the entire world and that's reassuring. i'm glad to know maybe there's evidence that i'm reminded is more than just a meat machine with electrons pulsing through it. but that's reassuring. maybe it's dumb but the trouble is that this view of artificial intelligence rising to a supremacy over everything, could it be self-defeating? i get that it's mistaken but how could it beself-defeating ?
how could it undermine to think about it the way these guys are thinking about it ? >> because they tried to replace their customers and their necessary compliments . there's computer technology that they're creating which is an expression of very genius and human imagination and ability to have counterfactual projections and to imagine what doesn't already exist or is not already in theprogram . >> that's the human part. >> that's the human part. everybody, decades ago i was introducing a doctor lee who invented a diagnostic machine using an ibm mainframe world
maybe it was the digital main computer. i don't know but the idea was that inevitably inexorably, the machine learning or artificial intelligence would excel all human diagnosticians. and that once the symbols are prepared, once you have all the inputs forthe machine , and get them all catalyzed correctly, then an algorithm can function as billions of cycles a second and produce an answer but much of the intelligence is that aviation
declares the textures of the real world and the symbols that express it within the machine . and we are we now have the illusion of quantum computing . i wrote a book aboutquantum . >> what is the title of that book ? >> that was called microcosm and that published in 1990 1989 . and microcosm was called the quantum neuron. economics and technology. and of course it's the quantum era. the whole semi conductor industry which microcosms describe and in its history was based on manipulating matter from the inside in accordance with quantum principles. so all technology, all our computer technology is based
on quantum physics. that quantum physics is the theory of the microcosm, the nano costume, themicrocosm, whatever . the problem is connecting the system to the real world. now, what the quantum what they call quantum computer does is abandon the binary on off switches of boolean logic that been the salvation of computers and use of its which are more complex. these analog systems so quantum computing is really a return to analog computers.
and analog computing was displaced by digital computing. not that the analog computer wasn't faster and more capacious and did correspond more closely with the real world but because an analog computing basically an analog model of the world takes endless details, mapping of the real territory and textures of actual existence on the computer. and so analog computing, quantum computing is terrific , but it imposes the whole burden on resuming the human
mind that program it. the problem gets moved from the digital realm into the analog realm where it incurs all the complexities and quantum uncertainties and inger's types that populate the quantum world. >> the human will mind again lame and stern, the human mind can set up flow systems can then maybe run artificial better than the human race brain could run them. what that system can't do is imagine and create systems outside of the closed system and the human mind seems to be able to transcend closed systems of meaning and introduce new angles and
that's what generates and powers creativity and if those people in charge of these industries deprecate the role of human mind and creativity and they end up putting their own enterprise on the road to well, if not failure at least less creativity. >> that's fearfully stated. and i think that creativity always comes as a surprise to us. >> i hope that your colleagues in this industry across the bay here in silicon valley which is not far from where we are at the independent institute on the other sideof san francisco bay i hope that they pay attention to you because if not and if you are right , it might be that they will be overtaken in creativity because they will be deprecating the very qualities that made their own
business work whichseems like it would be a terrible shame . they should be paying attention to terrence gilder. >> one thing that they can pay attention to isthe history of their own industry . and pay attention to the hierarch of their own universe. this idea that the human mind is a product of random fluctuation, of molecules and of delusion to begin with. and it's this delusion that the human mind is the product of random evolutionary forces that really stultified them. >> it makes them think that they can duplicate their lives with a machine. but the mind is almost
infinitely more complex than the machine that their building, eventoday . i don't they don't understand it at all . >> those of us in some ways are friends of the creative technologicalenterprise , we would encourage our colleagues as it were in creativity not to underestimate their own minds . by buying into this really ridiculously reductive idea that the mind is nothing but a random set of physical mechanics. >> there's life after google. >> this is your immediate title, life after google. i'd recommended which is related to this new book deeming ai. i'm going to take you unexpected somewhere. i think partlybecause i'm looking at messages coming from our viewers .
following on what i just said about what you said about the stultifying effects of this belief really, this faith that the mine is nothing other than accidental material. mechanical and physical so this person says the mind is still more complex than the organic system is hard to say there is no god so that's what this person says. i think that's a goodpoint but i have another point that's different from that which is this . let me try this on you. when i was reading your book this thought struck me which is that there is always has been in civilization something of attention if not always a position between a mindset which is empirical in nature and a mindset which is spiritual and pious in nature. that's why people say religion and science have been in each other's way and there's something to that but based on your analysis there
is a new ritual or devotional attitude about the singularity which may itself form a new opposition to between science and religion, religion now being the religion of singularity which is giving way of actual scientific attitude of creativity so this is in a really unexpected form of an old opposition or is it? i'm thinking it's a replay of an old opposition but the worlds are reversed because the people who are all. over the power of ai to take over everything in the form of singularity, they're so committed to their position that they seem to close off their authority or be receptive to other data and you're bringing the other data in. >> one of the inventors of virtual reality, the virtual-reality machines discovered a number of good books.
jaron lanier says ai makes you stupid essentially. >> that's the point. very intriguing. here's another comment from one of our viewers was on with us right now. this person jennifer says that's here something about ai and its military implications. drone technology and the ability to select applications for example. do you want to comment on ai and the military? >> i don't think computers, our whole military is based on computer systems. the manhattan project was all modeled on computer systems. where richard feynman got really immersed in computation as part of the
manhattan project. and feynman makes the crucial observation that when you're building technology, you're better response to reality because reality can't be fooled. and the reality is that these machine learning systems are completely dependent on human minds. they do notthink all . and the idea that these machines are somehow faking or thinking as they shuffle it bites is a religiousbelief . and it's a particularly stultifying religion. >> that was my point.
so that religious belief actually mean means there's national security danger in deploying artificial intelligence on the assumption that it can self replicate. >> i don't think they're doing that yet but they are advancing drones probably too quickly. they probably are exaggerating their capabilities. >> as we've really learned recently in kabul one didn't work away president biden but it was going to work and that was disturbing. >> we got the cold shoulder from a military group. >> that's disturbing and moreover ... >> i'm not debunkingai. ai is great .
it's the evolution of the computer industry. there's no threat to human beings. the idea that it's comparable to nukes as elon musk describes it is true only in that nukes can be deployed by human minds and ai can be used to deploynukes . but it's the human mind and civilization that keeps us alive. and if we imagine that our whole civilization is the product of random mutations of chemistry and physics i think it's a flat universe theory.
physics and chemistry, that is stultifying and it's ultimately disabling philosophy . >> we spoke a minute ago of the derailed, failed don't drone strikes in kabul that killed a family with children and you said it wasn't able to distinguish. okay, but what's striking about that example is if drones were made more specifics to get it by their human creators , they might be able to make such distinctions or at least approximate them better but the idea is what if the creators of drawn artificial intelligence themselves don't think that human beings are anything special? they don't necessarily believe there's something special about mothers and
children . what if they don't believe that they're the ones creating the artificial intelligence torun the drones ? >> all these things depend on an order and creativity and the image of our creator. that's the foundation of human life and progress. and it is disabled and crippled by our conception that somehow we're just machines and our machines can adequately replace us. >> the understanding that our creativity is because we bear this embargo date of the creator god is as some people think not creativity in progress but the source. >> i agree with that
proposition. >> i'm thinking of a great book by stanley called the savior of science which made that point before all of us began to happen. we've got another interesting comment. we'regoing to stop soon here but there's a comment one of our participants made aura . she wrote in saying can moral or ethical checks andbalances be programmed into ai ? >> it's a surprise that ai as consciousness or the potentiality for conscience. what it has is a program. and you can program a set of constraints that you want in the machine that you build. so the answer is yes.
but it's not as if we're programming a moral conscience with. we're programming a lot of constraints and parameters that. >> a series of proxies maybe. >> here's one maybe question i suppose may be our last. someone named jacob is written in during this broadcast saying i would like george to provide his insights into the future of what will look like in 10 years and 30 years. george gilder,. that's for him to run. >> expect the domination of the theory of the information theory ofeconomics . which prohibits really anticipating the future.
the future is based on human creativity. and as princeton hirschman declared, creativity always comes with a surprise to it. and that's no deterministic theory of economics. no deterministic theory of mind. can create a new future. and what differentiates our age from the stone age is not refinement of stones. it's the advance of knowledge. knowledge as well. it's learning and it's all constrained by the passage of time which is what remains
scarce when all else grows abundant. so the future unless it's going to be just more of the same in other words, a degeneration it's got to surprise us. and i believe that in 30 years going to live in a world that is would be almost incomprehensible in some ways technologically from the world we live in today. it will go beyond silicon. i think we all produce and are intelligent machines will depend on a new carbon age that just as our brains are consistent carbon, so will
are intelligent machines of the future consists of various forms of carbon. they are already introduced in the form of carbon nanotubes. and other new hybrid materials that can simulate intelligence that are binary or silicon machines of today. i think we will have a life of silicon. >> isn't carbon more plentiful elements? >> number is less plentiful but silicon is great because it's one of the three most common elements in the earth's crust. which board and more the
intel founder believed this was providential. silicon, aluminum and oxygen are the three most common substances. but there's no there's no carbon outthere in order to create carbon machines . and i believe that the new substrate of the new intelligence machines will be carbon-based. >> at the end of the book gaining ai you say these interesting words and i think i'll stop here. you see an explosion of productivity does not mean evaporation of work. ai will make even more productive and thus more employable.
. it will make interesting work, it will capital and generate adventures as new technology has stepped down through history. what will not do iscreate a mind . 10 cheers for the human mind and what it tells us about the universe. thank you george gilder. thank you for writing the book aiming ai. thank you for writing the earlier life after google and thanks for being a friend of the instant independent institute . >> i'm on your advisory board. >> you've been crucial to do the into this place and many places . >> discovery institute. >> we refer friends to our friends up in seattle, that's discovery institute . thanks to george gilder and thanks to everybody for this independent constitution on bo.