tv George Gilder Gaming AI CSPAN November 25, 2021 12:00pm-1:02pm EST
disease division, and director of their vaccine education center, you bet your life from blood transfusion to long and risky history of medical innovation. he's interviewed by an epidemiologist at johns hopkins. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online any time at booktv.org. some people say that artificial intelligence is going to make the human race obsolete, and a lot of people don't want to think about a.i. artificial intelligence. it's kind of an intimiing subject, but the think about a.i., is even if you don't want to think about it, it's thinking about you. or is it. that will be the kind of question we ask today on this episode of "independent conversations" greetings, everybody who's joined us.
i'm graham walker here from oakland, california. we try and bring notable experts on a variety of topics to discuss topics of the day, and we think giving the perspective you're not likely to hear elsewhere, and today we're going to be talking with george gilder. welcome to "independent conversations." hi, george. >> good to be here. >> it's a pleasure to see you again. i met george gilder first -- i met you first, i think it was through deep in the winter of maybe january of 1982 in western new york, and you had recently published "wealth and poverty", like, the year before. >> it was published in 1981. 1980. >> 1980. okay. >> very close. >> and i think president reagan loved the book if i remember hearing he read it at some point. did you hear that story? >> yeah. i mean, he wrote letters about
it before publication. he wrote a lot of letters, and it was all over the place before it came out, and it made president reagan's most quoted book. >> it was a fabulous book, and the whole part -- >> thank you. >> -- your creativity in seeing what others didn't see about the system of free exchange, so-called capitalism, when you analogized it to what was the strange thing among the native american tribes? >> there are a whole bunch of different ways that -- >> they tried to get together, and they would simply give and share. >> yeah. >> that was fascinaing and you pointed out there's a lot of that in what we call capitalism, which doesn't pit it simply on self-interest, but rather on something at least akin to
benevolence. that was an eye-opener to me, george. thank you. >> well, i enjoyed writing "wealth and poverty," and i have been doing various elaborations on it since. my books really stem from "wealth and poverty" which focused on creativity, and the image of our creator as a great book on economic growth. since then, i have been working on the information for that. >> i remember the term i was trying to think of a moment ago. i think you described it as the pot latch. >> yeah. >> that was really amazing. it helped my too because i was a college student at the time and it was just after being a college student, and i was having a lot of tussles with my peers and professors who all thought that socialism was just the coolest thing that ever was,
and 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 say you're an economist, and sometimes you seem like you're a sociologist because you wrote "men and marriage," and other people say you're a technologist and a futurist. what are you, george? >> i'm a historian. >> okay. >> you can call it futurist. i have no idea why, but anyway, i'm willing to play the role if that is invoked upon me. >> we're glad. >> i really probably -- it's helpful to have the questions and it unifies all the world.
>> right. >> and now that allows you to transcend the augmentation of analysis that's universal. it's specialization, and it's no more different than, john, idioms and expressions like even exacerbating the augmentation of it. >> they really do, and your work is really always characterized by the integration rather than the fragmentation. >> yeah. >> which makes sense. i think probably not much has driven you to the co-founders in seattle. they seem to have quite a sign -- synthetic understanding of the sciences there. is that right? >> they keep this together, and it's another part of this, and
it's a cosmic vision, and we've expanded our concept, and there's the consequence of that, and it's going to be too loud, and we can talk about artificial intelligence, and bob metcalf, and metcalf is going to be who contributes to cryptocurrency, and other such causes of ecological advancements. newt gingrich on china, oh, oh, oh. that's, you know, i don't think war with china will do so well, and i can't imagine. >> i agree with you on that. that could be less productive
than good grief. so if our viewers want information about that conference, where should they go, george? >> technology. >> that's the suffix? >> yeah. chosm.technology. >> you can go there to find out about the conference going on next month did you say? november? >> november 10th to 12th. >> great. well, okay. so in the meanwhile, you're also releaing a brand-new book. i think the publication date is officially october 15th in i'm in the mistaken. here's the cover of it. "can't think, but can transform jobs" very nice and compelling cover. you have some good artist work. >> thank you. >> i also noticed that if you want to go to amazon, you can
order it already. apparently they're in stock it seems like. >> it's been up for a little while. >> oh, okay. >> that's why they've 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 kind of turn it in a direction that people don't expect. i mean, the standard challenge -- so as you mentioned early in the book that some people think that a.i. is going to be for sure a demotion of the human race, and i think on page 20 of the book, it's a very arresting quote. it caught my eye where you quoted the late stephen hawking who pronounced the development of whole artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. >> that's what he said, and on that, today, a.i. is no
different than a nuke, and i really, and a lot of people talk about it's coming, and predicting way back. >> mm-hmm. >> allen cara's colleague, john goode, and she said that once invent the artificial intelligence, that will be the last invention we'll have have to make because artificial intelligence would be capable of creating machines, intelligent machines that can outperform the current artificial intelligence. the intelligence is cruising
through the universe, and -- >> culminaing -- the theory was it would culminate in the so-called singularity. >> that's right. >> that's supposed to be where basically the artificial intelligence takes off -- takes off where we left off and says good-bye to us, right? >> yeah. that's truly what goode was trying to prevent, and then a lot of people developed the idea for that, and they would cruise the innovation in a different way, and they would do that some of the time. >> oh really? i thought it was just silicon valley. >> no. a technology like google, developed a.i. that responds to
your emails, like, gmail, it would respond to a lot of the -- like the highly used things today. >> i noticed at the beginning, it was more courteous and more specific as opposed to his development. >> that's his contribution, and as a whole, carrying the contribution to technology in the decade. but i think all these people have forgotten the fundamental principles of what computer science speaks about. >> that's what's striking about this work, because you don't seem to be as much as of a doomsayer as some. in fact, you seem to have -- if i got this right. you see the potential of a.i. may be oversold, but that even in the overselling, there could be some collateral damage, and you're trying to avoid that. have i got that right? >> yeah, i think that's right.
i mean, the idea that somehow a.i. competes with human minds is a fundamental illusion. >> a lot of these technology creators, they came to their work having already observed the idea that the human mind is nothing more than a machine. >> right. >> 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 singularity saying, it totally transcends the human mind because it was never anything more than that to begin with, and it can surpass it. your point about the history of technology is that the human mind demonstrates that it must be more than just meat and electrons. >> well, i would say about the
internet, in the late '80s, it was the development in the launch of the web around the globe. >> mm-hmm. >> i would connect then. that's a way of mapping all connections of the global internet. and the connection with the global internet a couple of years ago, think about too bytes to now. think about the connections in the global internet to that device, and -- >> remind me what a zetabyte is?
>> 21, and then use your imagination. >> okay. >> so at m.i.t., it was drawn up as a map for all the connections in the human brain, and it's a -- it's really difficult. >> how many zetabytes does that take? >> that's the question. it's when it's just -- it was then, the first developed dna code, and imagine if our dna was a code, and what the code would be. and there's been mapping of the
nematoad worm as a constant. at thanksgiving dinner the other year or last year or so, he was studying the connection of the nematode worm or the brain. >> wow. >> but it was also the connections in a nematode worm, and prided it to the human being, and using the connections at all times, and it turned around, and it takes a couple of bytes of connections in the human brain. >> mm-hmm. >> so it suggests that a single human mind or brain is as
complexly connected as the whole global internet is. but the global internet tells you watts and energy. >> right. >> so it's so, you know, using that, and it should be next to a glacier. when you look at these problems, generally the truth and dominant technology is all a cooling systemle. it's a mess. >> i don't seem to have -- >> it's human questions with the lot. >> i'm just at 98.6 degrees fahrenheit. i don't know anything about cooling. >> yeah.
it's -- this is what it means, and it extends a human's capabilities rather than attempting to compete with human capabilities, let alone seeing those human capabilities. in the silicon valley, this was their customers, and contributors. saying they're going to fame. >> that's how they approach it. then they're going to make themselves superfluous, and if you anticipate that, if you precede in business on the assumption that your job is to make your own customers superfluous, you're going to run out of things to do if that's your business model, aren't you?
>> i don't -- i mean, i'm even in control enough not to believe, that they continue to advance at a tremendous pace, but i don't think it's advancing any more rapidly than it did at the time of the industrial revolution. >> mm-hmm. >> and i think that the economist william moorhouse has looked at this, and looked at the invention creation of life, is amount of lumens you need to light a room at night, and it shows that the advance in lighting has been 100,000 times
more rapid than it was measured in the economic model. essentially economists were writing about mills, and -- >> william blake. >> yeah. they were writing, and emmitt james, writing, and the incredible expansion of light since then through the millions of sides, and electricity, and then lighting with a dial, whatever you want. but measured by the amount of time a worker has to spend to
buy the lights to illuminate a room, economic progress is 100,000 times more rapid than what was estimated in that field. so we were missing during the industrial revolution, we missed light, and i'm thinking this in the current revolution, we're missing that. and in measuring the number of hours, it takes a worker to earn the money to purchase the goods and services of life, and the -- this continues to be a golden
age of capitalism, with technological progress is pushed together and increasing in quality because corporate people benefit more than the expansion of hours in the day to do other things. >> mm-hmm. >> rich people already have a few minutes to earn that, and whatever, and so as that advances, it benefits the most, and a.i. is just not a finisher, and none of the advances of the computer, but the person who was
probably a paramount figure, and then anticipated the one they have today. >> mm-hmm. >> and he really was the first one and i would imagine more law that could really produce the cycle. >> let me just step back a couple of steps like you said a minute ago. it really deserves extra attention. you commented a moment ago that technological and economic advance tend to have a comparatively greater impact of benefit through the worse off because they have further to go up, and so the comparative improvement in their life can't be greater. that's intriguing. two years i was in east africa,
in uganda, and trailing around some of the rural areas in uganda, it was interesting, and the standard of living, much lower than the united states, and i saw many people living in huts and not having sufficient clothing and not having, you know, sufficient covering from the rain. people clearly, you know, struggling, although there was a lot of economic activity. at the same time, every single person sitting under every insufficiently corrugated tin roof on every little shop in every alleyway had a cell phone. every single one. they had a cell phone. >> and let me guess it was a smartphone. >> yep. >> it's a supercomputer. that means that any estimation of their real standard of living has the same as 100,000
identified during the industrial revolution with the expansion of light. it's another form of the expansion of light. >> i noticed that ugandan roads were still really bad and needed to be repaved, and at the same time i also realized that everyone in kampala can now talk to their grandma or great-grandma out in the back country any time they want to because everyone even in the small villages has the cell phones and they're also using the smartphones as a medium of payment and exchange, greatly simplifying monetary transactions. it was really quite stunning actually. it made me proud to be a northern californian. >> you're correct, and there's normally what goes on is you see a lot of play to the middle class is suffering.
and they say it's as a result -- because of stagnation in technology and whatever the clone of the moment, but with the inequalities vastly expanding, you know, once you make -- if you would make $12,000, that takes care of all of your essential needs, and you live a lot better than a king of -- >> yeah. >> if you have that spark flying, and the access to medical care that is implied, and ultimately the access to a whole world of civilization where it manifests, and so that
all so-called wealth is really loud. it's not to both, and the local disappears. >> mm-hmm. >> and capital is what you give away. that is what was invested, and providing jobs, and opportunity for what ultimately disappears. so -- this is really a fundamental principle of capitalism, and it's not a question to go, and it's phenomenal creativity that you saw in uganda, and we have -- >> we have a number of people on with us, george, simultaneously
although we may also share this recording later, but one in particular sent a little note in, a comment saying that a organization or company is a good example of the kind of thing that you're talking about. do you know solara technology? >> yeah. i've heard of it. >> right. >> it's a more formidable accomplishment. it's the immigration of oi and machine learning capabilities, and a single chip like the thumbnail that was in place, and the trillions of transitions are
used there, and i really -- somehow i can't remember what they do. >> something like that. >> i'm telling you. we're going to talk about it and tell us which company that is. >> i'm watching the comment box. we'll see. one of the great arguments in the book, "gaming a.i." is you tell us that those in the high-tech industries who are, well, obsessed maybe or maybe captivated is a nicer word of moving toward a singularity where the creative intelligence surpasses human minds and so it makes the human mind obsolete. they seemingly argue to have forgotten the history of their own industry. >> that's right. >> now can you tell me something
about that that i as a layman understand? tell me how it itself illustrates your point to reduce a need for the computability of the human mind. tell me something about that in the industry's history. >> i'm glad i spoke to a great figure, completely self-sufficient. that was a young man, and he's a completely self-sufficient, and completely coherent system. >> mm-hmm. >> i noticed the computer triumphs of my day. >> yeah. >> curt in 1931 i believe in
conensberg depended on actions and propization that can't be created itself. >> it couldn't be fully self-contained. >> it could not be a self-contained person, and my joke was it was the greatest man that alive a couple of centu centuries. no one ever really understood it on paper and he not always saw that this man was cranking machines with the independents, and on the outside programmers
or oracles how he defined it, and then from the term, it was just better for the universe and the computer using it using down the lies. he said one time it was the oracles, and it can't be a machine. >> mm-hmm. >> so the man then by the way, that was a man-made computer architecture and it was run by both of the systems, but it was massively powerful in processing, and taking over, and
it was also embedded by him. it was by manpower, and he understood the artificial intelligence that comes from it, and the expression of the capabilities of human minds that was extended into the world. >> right. it actually is an extension, not a replacement. >> right. >> well, what you said a moment ago really is a way of capturing it. tell me again who it was who made the point that all this developed machine intelligence would have to have a human mind as if it were an oracle. who said that? >> that was alan touran. >> okay. that's a striking metaphor because it means that -- to put
it into historical terms, we are -- our human minds are to machine intelligence what the oracle of delphi was thought to be to the man of antiquity. so the form of knowledge mysteriously outside the realm of grasping. so the oracle and thieves and, you know, probably was a bunch of hooey, but nevertheless we'll go there, and they thought they were seizing insight they couldn't possibly get from inside human minds. the human mind in turn is to the artificial intelligence the way the oracle seems it was to humans in that day. it's a fascinating metaphor. >> it's an extension of the
mind, and the position that, oh, information is triadic or can't be binary. if it's binary, it's a restricted system, and -- >> what is triadic? >> there was no necessary connection between symbols and the mathematics. triadic is the objects of both world. in order to have the system in the real world, you need an intermediaing mind. >> it's sort of like two dimensions versus three dimensions. >> that's right. >> binary versus triadic. >> exactly, and we have a flat universe society prevail in the
silicon valley. they imagine the binary symbol uploads which can play games a lot better than us because they have a symbol system, and so it's on the go board, and just look like black and gold and white and gold stones and those stones are symbols, and they don't quite two on the board. the computer can move the stones millions of times faster than a human can, and you can hit go like a machine. >> your point is i think a man's thrashing is going to be superseded by machine. it doesn't mean the machine is more sophisticated than the man. >> that's right.
>> you're saying early on in the book and you repeat it. you have two basic claim that is this notion of supremacy of artificial intelligence. you say it's both dumb and self-superseding. i get the dumb part. i learned from your book that the human mind actually is more complex than maybe the entire world internet. that's reassuring. that my mind is more than just a meat machine with some electrons pulsing through it, that's reassuring, so maybe it's them. the trouble is, could this view, george, this view of artificial intelligence rising to supremacy over everything, could it be self-defeating? i guess it's mistaken, but how can it be self-defeating? what can it undermine in the same way these guys are thinking about it? >> because they tried to replace
their customers and the necessary complement, and the computer technology that they're creating which is an expression of the human analogy notion, and the casual projection and to imagine what already exists or what's not already in the core. >> that's the human part, right? >> yeah, that's the human part. it's nautical and, you know, everybody is -- decades ago we thought we were doomed, and it was a growth period, and maybe they had the new computer, i
don't know, but the idea was that inevitably the machine learning or artificial intelligence would excel all human body. >> uh-huh. >> and that's -- it's one -- once the symbols are there, once you put your imprint in the machine, and they do it the correct way, and when an algorithm to a function has cycles, that produces an answer. much of the intelligence is that mediation in the world. >> mm-hmm.
>> and it assembles what it expresses within the machine, and we're now -- we now have the illusion of quantum computing. i wrote a book about quantum computing. >> you did. what was the title of that book? >> that was called "microcosm," and that was published in 1990 i think. 1989. "microcosm" was called out, and the whole industry which "microcosm" described and its history was saying it doesn't matter from either side, and that was in accordance with chronic principle. all the technology and computer technology is chronic, and the
mie microcosm, and whatever. the problem is the connectivity for the whole world. now what the quantum -- they call the quantum computer, what it does is using the binary use and logic that had been there, in salvation of computers, and they killed that switch. it's a more complex analyzed system, and so quantum computer is really the analog computer. >> mm-hmm.
>> and analog computers were displaced by digital computing not because analog computing wasn't faster and more efficient and it didn't show us the role world, but because an analog computer making a model and analog model of the world takes almost -- the symbols, the mapping, the real territories and textures. >> mm-hmm. >> it takes it onto the computer, and so analog computers -- quantum computers are better and poses the whole
problem on the human mind and programming. the problem gets moved into the analog one where -- where it encouraged all the complexities and quantum uncertainties and attacks the quantum world. >> so the human mind, again, layman's term. the human mind can't -- so set up close systems which can then maybe run artificially better than the human brain could run them. but what that system can do is imagine and create systems that are outside of the close systems. the human mind seems to be able to triadically transcend closed systems of leaning and introduce new angles, and that's what generates and powers creativity,
and if those people charged in these industries deprecate the world of human mind and creativity, they may end up putting their own enterprise on the road to -- well, if not failure, at least less creativity. is that right? >> i think that's beautifully stated, and i think that the current activity always comes as a surprise to us. >> now i would hope that your colleagues in this industry over in silicon valley which is not far from where we are at the independent institute on the other side of the san francisco bay, i hope 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'll be deprecating the very qualities that made their own business work which seemed like it would be a terrible shame. they should pay attention to george gilder.
>> we can pay attention to our history of their own industry. >> there you go, yeah. >> pay attention to the higherarc and grown universe, and watch the fluctuations of molecules and delusion to begin with. the human mind is a product of random evolutionary forces that -- that synthesized. it makes sense that they can duplicate their minds with a machine, but the mind is almost infinitely more complex than the
machine, and even today. >> so those of us who are -- >> they don't understand it at all. >> those of us who are friends to the creative technological enterprise, we would encourage our colleagues as it were in creativity, not to underestimate their own minds. >> right. >> buying into this really ridiculously reductive idea that the mind is nothing but a random set of physical mechanics. >> yeah. they have the apps and google. >> this is a prize, and i highly recommend it, which is related to this new book "gaming a.i.," and i'm going to take you somewhere unexpected here i think. partly because i'm looking at some messages coming from our viewers right now. so following on what i just said about, you know, what you said about the effects about this belief really, this face that the mind is nothing other than
accidental material, mechanical and physical. so this person says, the simplest of mind and the simplest of persons is more complex than the entire internet system. that's almost like saying there is no god. that's what this person is. i have a point that is different from that. let me try this on you, george. i was reading your book, and a thought really struck me which is that there is always and has been in our civilization something of attention, if not always opposition between a mindset which is empirical in nature, and spiritual. they say science and nature is in each other's way, and there's something to that, but we say there's a spiritual or devotional attitude about the
singularity which may itself become a new opposition to finding the religion. the religion is now being is religion of singularity which is getting in the way of the actual scientific creativity, and so this is a replay 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 roles are reversed. because the people who were all gaga over the power they had over everything in the form of singularity, they're so committed to their fence position that they seem to close off the ability to be receptive to other data, and you're bringing the other data in. you're the scientist. >> there was virtual reality. the first virtual reality machine, i remember a good group of people saying, a.i. makes you
stupid, essentially. >> i don't know. that's your client. >> mm-hmm. >> very intriguing. okay. here's another comment from one of our viewers who's on with us right now. this person -- jennifer says, let's hear something about a.i. and its military implications, drone technology and the ability to select targets without human interaction, for example. do you know enough about this to comment on a.i. and the military applications? >> well, i know that -- i don't -- i think -- computers, our whole military and computer systems, our manhattan project was reliant on computer systems, where richard fineman got the computation as part of the manhattan project, and -- and --
and fineman took the adoration that when you're building technology, or you're better in reality, and the reality can't be fooled, and the reality is the system, they're completely dependent on the human mind. they do not think at all, and so machines are somehow thinking like they shuffle bits of information, and it's a religious belief. the continuing enterprise -- >> that was my point. that was my point. that religious belief that actually means that there's national security danger in deploying artificial
intelligence on the assumption that it can think for itself. >> yes. true. i don't think they're quite doing that yet, but as far as advancing drones probably too i mean, they probably are exaggerating their capabilities. >> we learned recently in kabul, one of them didn't work the way that president biden thought it was going to work. that was pretty disturbing. >> and killed a group of seven children from military group. >> yeah, that's disturbing. moreover -- >> but i'm not debunking ai. i think ai is great. >> i know. >> the evolution of the computer industry, it poses no threat to
human beings. >> right. >> i mean, the idea that it's comparable to nukes, as elon musk describes it, is true only that nukes can be deployed by human minds and ai can be used to deploy nukes. but it's the human mind that keeps us alive. and if we imagine that our whole civilization is a product of random mutations of chemistry and physics, i think that's the flat universe theory. >> very flat. >> physics and chemistry.
and that is stultifying. and disabling philosophy. >> we spoke a minute ago of the derailed, failed drone strike in kabul that killed a family with children. and you said it wasn't able to distinguish. okay, but you know what's striking to me about that example is that if drones were made more sophisticated by their human creators, they might be able to make such distinctions, at least approximate them better, but the problem is what if the creators of drone 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 and they're the ones creating the artificial intelligence to run the drones?
that scares me? >> all our systems depend on an ultimate order, and our creativity and the image of our creator, and that's the foundation of human life and progress. and it is disabled and crippled by an idea that somehow we're just machines and our machines can adequately replace us. >> the understanding that our creativity is because we bear this in the creator god is not as some people think an obstacle to creativity and progress, but maybe actually the force. >> i agree with that proposition. >> i'm thinking of that great book called the savior of
science. published i think back in the 1960s, which made that point before all of this began to happen. we have another interesting comment. we're going to stop soon, but another interesting comment, one of our participants, laura, she wrote in saying, can moral or ethical checks and balances be programmed into ai? >> well, it implies that ai has consciousness, the potentiality for conscience. what it has is a program. you can program a set of constraints that you want in the machines that you build, and you have to do it. and i mean, so the answer is, yes, but it's not as if we're
programming a moral conscience. we're programming a set of constraints and parameters that can -- >> like a series -- a way of putting it. >> okay, here's question i should pose and maybe let it be our last. someone named jacob has written in during this broadcast saying i would like george to provide his insights into the future, what the world will look like in 10 years, in 30 years? george gilder, futfuturist, tha for you to run with. >> i expect that domination of the theory of the information theory of economics. which prohibits really anticipating the future. the future is based on human
creativity. and as was declared, creativity always comes as a surprise to us. and that's no determinance of the theory of economics, no determinant of the theory of lines can create a new future. and what differentiates our age from the stone age is not a steady refinement of stones. it's an advance of knowledge. knowledge is wealth. growth is learning. and it's all constrained by the passage of time, which is what remains when all else grows
abundant. the future will, unless it's going to be just more of the same, in other words, the generation, it's got to surprise us. and i believe that in 30 years we're going to live in a world that would be almost incomprehensible in some ways psychologically from the world we live in today. i think we'll go beyond silicon, i think we'll produce our intelligence machines will depend on a new carbon age that just as our brains consist of carbon, so will our intelligence machines of the future consist of various forms of carbon.
they're already gaining entry in the form of carbon nanotubes or graphing devices. and other new hybrid materials that can simulate intelligence better than silicon machines of today. i think we'll have a life after silicon. >> i think carbon, isn't carbon more plentiful element than silicone? >> no, it's less plentiful, but it's more -- silicone is great because it's one of the three most common elements in the earth's crust, which gordon moore, the intel founder, believed was providential.
but silicone, aluminum, and oxygen are the three most common substances. but the carbon out there -- >> there's a lot of carbon. >> 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, "gaming ai" george, you say these interesting words, and i think i'll stop here. you say, an explosion of productivity does not mean an evaporation of work. ai will make people more productive, and thus more employable. it will create new and safer and more interesting work. it will generate the capital to endow new companies and new
ventures as new technologies have done throughout history. what it will not do is create a mind. three cheers for the human mind and what it tells us about the universe. thank you, george gilder. so grateful for you taking the time. thank you for writing the book "gaming ai." thank you for writing the earlier book "life after google" which i recommend. and thank you for being independent, george. >> i'm on your advisory board. >> absolutely. you have been pivotal to the development of this place and many other creative places. >> discovery. >> there you ge. we refer friends to our friends in seattle at the discovery institute, and again, thanks to george gilder and thanks to everybody who joined us for today's independent conversation from the independent institute here in oakland, california. have a great day and please join us again. thanks, george. bye-bye. >> thank you. >> after words is a weekly interview program with relevant
guest hosts interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work. on this week's program, children's hospital of philadelphia infectious diseases chief dr. paul offit talked about the risks associated with medical innovation. he's interviewed by bloomberg school of public health epidemiologist dr. emily gurley. >> dr. offit, i'm so happy to be talking with you today. >> the pleasure is mine. thank you very much. >> obviously, the themes in your book are very relevant for what we're going through today in the pandemic. and i know you said you started writing the book around the time the pandemic began, but can you tell us where the idea for the book came from? and why this book now? >> i think the emotion for this book actually came from the fact that i am a child of the '50s d