tv George Gilder Gaming AI CSPAN November 25, 2021 9:00pm-10:02pm EST
think about that ai artificial intelligence. it's kind of an intimidating subject. but you know, the thing about a i is even if you don't want to think about it, it's thinking about you. or is it? well that will be the kind of question we will discuss today on this episode of independent conversations. greetings, everybody who's joined us. i'm graham walker coming to you from the independent institute here in oakland, california. we try to bring notable experts on a variety of topics to discuss topics of the day and we think giving you a perspective that you are not likely to hear elsewhere and today we are going to be talking with george gilder. let me welcome george gilder to independent conversations. i, george. >> great to be here. >> it's a pleasure to see you again. i met george gilder first. i met you first, i think it was sort of deep in the winter of maybe january of 1982 in western new york, and you had recently published a wealth and
poverty the year before. >> it was published in 1981? >> 1980. >> 1980, okay. >> i think president reagan loved the book, if i remember hearing he read it at some point. did you hear that story? >> he wrote me letters about it before publication. he read articles, excerpts from it. it was excerpt it all over the place before it came up. it made president reagan's most quoted living author. >> wow. well it was a fabulous book. i mean the whole part of your creativity upward others didn't see about capitalism. you analogize it to, what was the exchange thing among the native american tribes? >> that's the japanese one.
there's a whole bunch of different ways. >> the tribes would get together and simply give and share, which is fascinating, and you pointed out that there is a lot of that and what we call capitalism, which therefore doesn't pit it simply on self interest, but rather something akin 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 elaboration's on it 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 remember the term i was
trying to think of a moment ago. i think you described it as the pot latch. wasn't it? >> yes. >> that's really amazing. it helped me as well, because i was a college student at the time, or just after being a college student and i was having a lot of tussle's with my peers and professors who all thought that socialism was just the cruelest thing that ever was. they usually pretreat capitalism and very distorted terms, and so you gave me the whole new vocabulary. i was grateful for. that >> thank you. >> people said you're an economist, but then sometimes you seem like you are sociologist, because you wrote men in marriage, and then other people say you are a technologist and a futurist. when are you, george? >> i am a historian. >> okay. >> but we keep calls me a techno utopian futurist. i have 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 and i -- in a hierarchical universe and i believe it's helpful to have a philosophical perspective that unifies all these different fields. and that allows you to transcend this fragmentation of analysis that afflicts all the universities were everybody has his own's specialization. many of them with different organs and idioms of expression that even exacerbate the fragmentation of knowledge. >> yeah, they really do. and your work is always really characterized by the integration rather than the fragmentation, which makes sense. i think that probably law must
have driven you to be one of the cofounders of the discovery institute in seattle. they seem to have quite a synthetic understanding of the science of their. is that right? >> that's what we try to do. we try 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 we are going to expound in our conference on november the 12th. peter thiel will be there. we've got a keynote speaker speaking on artificial intelligence, and bob metcalf. metcalf is going to be expounding on the continued significance for cryptocurrency and other such paths of technological advance.
we are going to have an exciting time and i'm going to debate the new 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 and a war with china? good grief. if our viewers want information about the conference, where should they go, george? >> qassem dot technology. cosm dot technology. >> you can go there to find out about this conference that's going on. next month. or november, george? >> november. november 10th to the 12th. >> great. in the meanwhile, you are also releasing a brand-new book. i think a publication date is
officially october 15th, if i'm not mistaken. anne here is the title, the cover of it. gaming, a i, why a i can't think but can transform jobs. very nice and compelling cover. you have some great artists working with you, george. >> i also noticed that if you want to go to amazon you could order it already. it seems like it's going out of stock. >> it's been out for a while. >> so 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 shear. so when you mentioned earlier in the blood that some people think that ai is going to be for sure the emotion of the human race, and i think on page 20 of the book it's a very arresting quote that 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 to come. and this was really predicted way back at blessedly park by alan turing's colleague. jack good. he said that once we invent artificial intelligence, that will be the last invention we 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 a cascade of intelligence through the universe, and -- >> and the theory was that it would culminate in the so-called singularity, and that's supposed to be where basically the artificial intelligence takes off where we left off and says goodbye to us, right? >> that's really wet good was predicting. and ray kurzweil and werner benge and a lot of people who
have developed the idea further. ray kurzweil carignan. >> i thought he was just silicon valley? no, while he was a good technology chief i google undeveloped at that -- response to your emails, you know gmail, has responses that allow you to anticipate how you are going to respond to a particular issue. i notice those responses are more curious since was if. it cases it establishment? that's raises contribution. ray as a whole --
contributions to technology where 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 the book, because you don't seem to be of much of a dune say or something in, fact see five got this right to -- you seem to think the potential of a i maybe oversold, but that even in the overselling there could be some collateral damage and you're trying to avoid that. >> have i got that rain? >> that's right. the idea that somehow ai competes with human minds is a fundamental illusion. >> a lot of these technology creators, he came to their 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, and it's not surprising that their conception of artificial intelligence could be the singularity thing that totally transcends the human mind,
because of the human mind was ever anything more than meat and electrons to begin with, then you could surpass it, but i think your point about the history of technologies that the human mind demonstrates that it must be more than just meat and electrons. >> yeah, when i was writing about the internet, which i did from the early -- the late 80s on through its development and the launch of all the webs for sat and -- sand and glass and air around the globe, i used to do connect homes. that is 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
bites to map. if you map all the connections in the global internet, it was about to data bites. >> 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 little bites does that take? >> well, that's the question. they start with a nima towed warm, which is -- a friend of mine was on sydney
brand jurors team where they first of elect the any coats. imagine that dna was a code. and they worked out with the code would be. and he has been mapping the brain of the nematode worm for some 20 years at the university of wisconsin, and at thanksgiving dinner the other ear, last year or so, he told me that the more he studies connect home of the nematode, the lives he understands the nima told brain, but the folks at mit have taken his estimates of the connections in a nematode worm and applied it to the brain of a human being which is, which all the
synapses and neurons and connections and all kinds in the brain,, and it turns out it takes a couple zettabyte to map all the connections in the human brain. so it suggests that a single human brain is as densely and complex lee connected as the whole global internet is. but the global internet takes gigawatts of energy and it's a data center, that takes next to a glacier to deal with heat problems. generally, the chief and dominant technology at the data center is all about the cooling
systems, taking away the heat that these machines event. >> i don't seem to have -- >> a single human brain functions with 12 to 14 watts. >> 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 they augment and extend human capabilities rather than attempting to compete with human capabilities, whether -- let alone usurp human capabilities. i think companies in silicon valley that regards their business plans -- are 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 run out of things to do it that is your business model, are you? our busine>> i think it's quite abs. al i am even contrary enough to not believe that -- i think technology is continuing to advance at a tremendous pace, but i don't think it's advancing anymore rapidly than it did at the time of the industrial revolution. i think that nobel laureate economist william north house, did a study of the advance of
writing. this is the invention, creation of light. the amount of women's you need to light a room at night. and he shows that the advance and lighting has been 100,000 times more rapid then is measured in the economic models. essentially, economists, while they were writing about the set -- them satanic mel. stark satanic mills. >> william blake. >> and all those various images of the dismal science, missed the incredible expansion of light from the time it was piles of fire in a cave to the millions of candles adversity,
to whale oil, to kerosene, to finally electricity, and then light emitting dials, whatever it was. but -- measured by the amount of time a worker had to spend to buy the light to illuminate a room. economic progress was 100 times more rapid then is usually estimated in that particular field. so we were missing, during the and a steal revolution we missed light, and i think they missed intellectually, 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 at a golden age of capitalism with the technological progress as fast as ever and with increasing 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 to technology
advancing, 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 literally park through john bond norman who was probably a paramount figure and anticipated the giggle hurts machines that we have today. he really was the first person to imagine moore's laws, that we could produce thinking machines that operates of billions of cycles a second. >> let me just step back a couple of steps to something you said a minute ago. it really deserves extra tension, i think. you commented a moment ago that
technological and economic advance tends to have a comparatively greater impact that benefit to the worst off, because the worst off have further to go up, and so the relative comparative improvement and their life can be greater. that's intriguing. a few years ago i was in east africa in uganda and traveling around kampala and some of the rule areas and that part of uganda. it was very striking to me of course the standard of living, obviously much lower than the united states and i so many people living in huts, not having sufficient clothing and not having sufficient covering from the rain. 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 byway or
alleyway had a cellphone. every single person had a cellphone! >> and increasingly, it's a smartphone. that means it's a supercomputer. that means an underestimation of the real standard of living. >> that's right. >> the same kind of fracture 100,000 that nor house 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 pretty bad and needed to be reap paved but at the same time i also realized that everybody in kampala can't now talk to their grandma or great grandma out in that country, and anytime they want to. because everyone, even in the small villages have cellphones and they're also using the smart phones as a medium of payment and exchange, greatly simplifying monetary transactions. it was really quite stunning,
honestly, enemy proud to be a northern california. >> you are correct to be proud, and there's really -- what is bizarre is the argument that you see in a lot of places that the middle class is suffering as a result of stagnation of technology or whatever is the calm of the moment -- the claim of the moment, that inequality is vastly expanding. you know, once -- if you score 1000 dollars, that takes care of all your essential needs, and you live a lot better than a king of previous -- if you have that smartphone and
access to medical care, that it implies, and ultimately access to a whole world civilization, that it manifests. so rich people, all their so-called wealth is really knowledge. it's invested. it's not liquid. ultimately it disappears. and capitalism, you only get to keep what you give away. that is 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 is manifested today and 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 leader, but one of the current participants sent a note in commenting that an organization or a company called solar technologies in san jose is a good example of the kind of thing you're talking about. you know solara technology? celera. >> i was thinking of cerebral's, which i think is the more formidable accomplishment. it's a wafer scale integration
of ai, machine learning capabilities on a single chip, not the size of your thumb nail but the size of a dinner plate, and trillions of translators on a single wafer. i can't remember what the heck celera does. >> it's something good, apparently. >> if we're going to talk about it, you should tell us which company that is. >> i'm watching the comment box. we will see, but you know, one of the great arguments in the book, gaming ai, is your point that those in the high tech industries who are obsessed, maybe, or maybe captivated is a
nicer word, with this idea of moving toward a singularity where the created intelligence surpasses human minds and so forth, and makes the human mind obsolete. they seem, you argue to have forgotten the history of their own industry. that's right. >> can you tell me something that i as a layman can understand? doesn't ei ai illustrate your point itself? the creativity of the human mind? something about that? the industry's history? >> well, i brought up the great thinker, john -- , who imagine that you could be completely self sufficient. that was his -- as a young man and to render mathematics, a completely self
sufficient and coherent system. and he met this young student, named kurt godel, inventor of computer science of our day. because godel, in 1931, i believe, at cone exuberant, introduced something which show that mathematics was intrinsically and inexorably dependent upon axios or propositions that couldn't be proven within the system itself. >> so therefore, couldn't be a fully self sustain system -- >> could not be essentially fully self sustain system. and von neuman was one of the
greatest minds we have produced. he was the only one who really understood the paper by godel. he saw that this man's that the thinking machine would always be necessarily dependent on outside programmers or on over coals, like allen touring, how he defined them. and when they asked it was turing the universal computer architecture, that currently dominates our lives. he said, one thing i can tell you about the oracle, is that it cannot be a machine. and so von neumann was, by the
way -- the von neumann computer architecture that still runs most of our systems -- but the new architecture is a powerful architecture that integrated a graphics processor. and it was invented by von neumann. and so [inaudible] machine -- by von neumann. and he understood the artificial intelligence could not compete with human minds. it's a necessary expression of the capabilities of human minds. being extended into the world. >> right. it's actually an extension and nada replacement. what you said a moment ago really is a way of capturing
it. tell me again who it was that all this developed machine intelligence would have to have a human mind, as if it were an oracle? who said the oracle business? >> that was alan turing. >> that was alan turing? to put it in historical terms, we are arguing machine intelligence. very striking. with the oracle of delphi was meant to be in antiquity was a form of knowledge outside the realm of human grasping. so the oracle in thebes, it was probably a bunch of hooey, but they thought they were receiving insight.
so the human mind, in turn, it was artificial intelligence in the way that the oracle of thebes was. that's fascinating. >> this insight, ultimately, is an extension of charles sanders 's peirce's idea that all information is try addicts. there is no difference -- and the objects of those worlds in order to connect a symbol into the real world you need an
ever mediating mind, a human conscious brain. >> so it's two dimension versus three dimensions. >> that's right. binary verses triadic. >> that's right. and we have a flat universe society prevailing in silicon valley. they imagine that there can be binary symbols that can play games better than us. so there's on the billboard, just those black and gray, white and gray stones. and those stones are symbols and they don't point beyond the border. 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 a
thrashing machine can -- >> your point is that i think, a man's threshing, he is going to be superseded by thrashing the xin. that doesn't mean that the threshing sheen is more sophisticated than the man. >> that's right. >> so, you say, early on in the book, and you repeated in a few different places, you have to basically aims. this notion of sort of supremacy of artificial intelligence. you say both is done in self defeating. so we've been dealing with a 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 internet system. that's reassuring. i'm glad to know that maybe they're some evidence that reminds us that more then emmy machine --
that's reassuring. but couldn't this view, george, this view of artificial intelligence, rising to a supremacy over everything, could be self defeating? i get that it's mistaken. but how could it be self defeating? but it could undermine the way these guys are thinking about it. >> it's because they tried to replace their customers and their necessary compliments. there's computer technology that they are creating, and which is an expression of their genius and human imagination and ability to have counterfactual projections. and to imagine what doesn't already exist or is not already in the program. >> that's the human part, right? >> yeah, that's the human part.
medical -- you know, everybody, decades ago, ibm was introducing a diagnostic machine. using the ibm mainframe or 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 diagnostician's. >> right. >> and once the symbols are prepared, once you sort all the inputs for the machine, and get them all categorized correctly,
then an algorithm can function as billions of cycles a second and produce an answer. but much of the intelligence is that delineation between the textures of the real world. >> right. >> and the symbols that express it within the machine. and we now have the illusion of quantum computing. i wrote a book about quantum -- >> you did. what was the title of that book? >> that was called "microcosm" and i believe it was published in 1989. and "microcosm" was at the intersection of economics and sociology and technology.
its history was based on manipulating matters in accordance with quantum principles. and so, all technology, all computer technology is based on quantum physics. quantum physics as the theory of the microcosm or the nanocosm or whatever. the problem is, connecting this to the real world. with what they call the quantum computer, what it does, is abandon the binary on off switches of bullying boolean
logic and they use qubits that are more complex, to analyze the systems. and so quantum computing is really a turn of analog computing. and analog computing was complacent by digital computing. now that analog computing wasn't faster and more capacious and didn't correspond more closely with the real world. but because analog computing was making a model, an analog model, of the world's. it takes endless details, mapping of the real territories
and textures of the computer. and so analog computing, quantum computing, it's terrific. but it imposes the whole burden on the human minds that programming it. the problem gets moved from the digital realm into the analog realm, where it incurs all the complexities and quantum uncertainties and schrodinger's cats that populate the quantum world. >> so, the human mind, again, the human mind can sort of set up closed systems, which can then maybe run artificially
better than the systems meant to run them. and they can imagine systems outside the close system. and the human mind can seem to triadically introduce new angles. and that's what introduces creativity. and these people, they take charge of these industries and they -- the role of human creativity, they may put their enterprise on the road to, if not failure, then at least -- is that right? >> you have said it. and creativity, it always comes as a surprise to us. >> now, i hope that your colleagues in this industry, across the bay here in silicon valley, not far from where we are at the independent
institute on the other side, i hope that they pay attention to you, because if not, and if you are right it might be overtaken in creativity. because they will be deprecating the very quality that makes the business work. seems like it would be a terrible shame. they should pay attention to judge fielder. >> one thing, they come pair -- they can pay tension to the history of their own industry. and pay tension to the hierarchy of their own universe. this idea that the human mind is a product of random fluctuation of molecules is delusion to begin with. and it's this believe that the human mind is the product of random evolutionary forces that
really stall devise numb. it makes them think that they can duplicate their minds with a machine but the mind is almost infinitely more complex than the machines that they are building. >> so those of us -- who >> they don't understand it at all. >> those of us in some ways who are friends of the creative technological enterprise, we would encourage our colleagues not to underestimate their own minds. by buying into this really ridiculous reductive idea that the mind is nothing but a random set of physical mechanics. >> life after google. >> life after google, highly
recommended. it's related to this new book gaming ai. i'm going to take you somewhere unexpected here, partly because i'm looking at some messages coming from our viewers right now. so following on would i just said about what you said about the stultifying effects of this belief that states that the mind is nothing other than accidental material, mechanical and physical, so this person says the simplest of minds and persons are still more complex an entire world system, it's kind of hard to say there is no god, so that's where this person said. i think that's a good point, but i have another point that's a little different from that, which is this. we try this on me -- let's try this on. when i was reading your book this thought really struck me, which is that there is always has been in civilization something of attention, if not always opposition between
unlined set which is empirical in nature and the mindset which is spiritual and pious in nature. so that's why people say religion and science have been in each other's way, and there's something to that, but what i'm seeing right now based on your analysis is that there is a new spiritual or devotional attitude about the singularity, which made cell form a new opposition to between science and religion, the religion now being a religion of singularity, which is give getting in the way of actual scientific attitude of creativity, so this is a replay and unexpected form of an old opposition, or is it? i'm thinking it's a replay of a very old opposition, but the world's, roles are reversed. because the people who are all gaga over the power of ai or take over everything in the form of singularity, they're so committed to their position that they seem to close off their ability or be receptive
to other data, and you're bringing other data and. you are the scientist. >> -- one of the inventors of spiritual reality machines, discovered a number of good books on that subject. as jaron lanier, who says ai makes you stupid. >> that's interesting. mary intriguing. here's another comment from one of our viewers right now. this person, jennifer says let's hear something about a i and its military implications. drone technology and the ability to select up -- targets for example. do you know -- do you want to comment on a i 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 fine men got really emerged 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 all that these machine learning systems are completely dependent on human minds. they do not think at all. and the idea that these machines are somehow faking it,
that they shuffle bits and bytes is a religious belief. it is a particularly stultifying religion. >> that was my point a moment ago. so that religious belief is actually -- there is national security danger in deploying artificial intelligence on the assumption that it can self replicate. >> that would certainly be true. i don't think they're quite doing that. not yet, but they are advancing drones probably too quickly. they probably are exaggerating their capabilities. >> as we've learned recently and the kabul, one did not work the way president biden thought it was going to work, and that was pretty disturbing.
-- we've got the cold shoulder from a military group. >> well that's disturbing and moreover -- >> i'm not debunking ai. i think ai is great. it's the evolution of the computer industry. it poses no threat to human beings. i mean the idea that it's comparable to nukes, as elon musk describes it, is truly -- true only in that nukes can be deployed by human minds and a i can be used to deploy nukes. but it's the human mind and the moral order and civilization that keeps us alive. and if we mention that our
whole civilization is the product of random mutations of chemistry and physics, i think that the flat universe theory -- physics and chemistry. that is stultifying and it's ultimately 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 what's striking to me about that example is if drones were made more sophisticated -- sophisticated by their human creators, they might be able to make such distinctions or at least approximate them better,
but the problem is what if the creators of drawn artificial intelligence themselves don't think that human beings are anything special? they don't necessarily believe that 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? >> all the systems depend on and ultimately law and order. the creativity and 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 are just machines, and our machines can adequately replace us. >> the understanding that our
creativity is because we buried the embargo day of the creator god is not as some people think, an obstacle to creativity and progress, but actually maybe -- >> i agree with that proposition. >> i'm thinking of a great book by stanley called the savior of science, i think it was in the 1960s, it made that point before all of us began to happen. we've got another interesting comment. we're going to stop soon hear, but there's another interesting coming from one of our participants named laura. she's actually a friend of mine. she wrote in saying can moral or ethical checks and balances be programed into a i? >> it's a surprise that a i has consciousness or the potentialities for conscience. would it has a program.
and you can program a set of constraints that you want in the machines that you build, and you have to do it. so the answer is yes. but it's not as if we are programming a moral conscience. we are programming a lot of constraints and parameters -- >> like a series of proxies, maybe. it's one way of putting it. here's one question i should pose you and maybe it will be our last. someone named jacob has written in during this broadcast saying, i would like george to provide his insights into the future of what's the world will look like in ten years and 30 years. george gilder. the futurist. that's for you to run. >> i expect the 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 princeton hirsch man declared, creativity always comes as a surprise to us. and that's no deterministically theory of economics. no deterministically 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. growth is learning, and it's all constrained by the passage of time, which is what remains scarce when all else grows abundant. and so the future, unless it's going to be just more of the same, and other words, a degeneration, it's got to surprise us. and i believe that in 30 years we are going to live in a world that is -- would be almost and comprehensible in some waves, technologically, from the world we live in today. i think it will go beyond silicon. i think we will produce our intelligent machines --
they will depend on a new carbon age that just as our brains are consistent carbon, so will our intelligent machines of the future consist of various forms of carbon. they are already being introduced in the form of carbon national tubes. and other new hybrid materials that can stimulate -- simulate intelligence better than our binary silicon machines of today. i think we will have a life that is silicon. >> i think carbon -- isn't carbon more plentiful
elements? >> no. it's less plentiful, but silicon is great, because it's one of the three most common elements in the earth's crust, which gordon more, the until founder, believed that with providential, but silicon, aluminum and oxygen is the three most common substances. but there's no carbon out there 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 a i, george, you say
these interesting words and i think i'll stop here. you say an explosion of productivity does not mean that evaporation of work. a i 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 adventures as new technology has done through history. when 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 your taking the time. thank you for writing the book gaming a i. thank you for running the earlier book life after google, which i recommend. and thank you for being a friend of the independent institute, george. we are grateful for that. >> i'm on your advisory board! >> you've been crucial to the development of this place and many other creative places. >> the discovery institute. >> we refer friends to our
friends up in seattle at the discovery institute. again, thanks to george gilder and thanks to everybody who joined us for this 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. on the surface program, dr. paul offit, vaccine education center director, talks about the risks associated with medical innovation. he is interviewed by bloomberg school of public health epidemiologist dr. emily gurley. >> i'm so