revisions locations of us on g for golf clothes for the 1st amendment rights. celebration of quotes and fees. competition is expected of china who's c. h. a game . september on al jazeera, the madison, and don't have the top stories. and i'll just see that you're currently in president . what do you mean? is it an excuse dismissed as defense minister? seeing a new approaches needed? is it in this case picked or just a moment off to replace alexi? let's nick off. ottomans needs to approve nomination. yeah, we to show for was does that mean the menus that overall no green. i've decided to replace the ministry of defense for ukraine. alexi resident coff has been to more than 550 days, a full scale war. i believe the ministry needs new approaches and other formats of

into action with both the military and society is a whole that a package prize. administrative type out of mine is usually does not get me approved in so see on monday he's going to try to convince the russian leader to return to the black sea greendale law school quits the un broken agreement in july, us officials and northeastern city. i've tried to stop fighting between out of and cutting shallows, violence flat and dance, or off to the cottage, lead city and democratic forces are arrested to come onto urban allied, our group concerns that i so could take advantage of the fighting. well, we've seen the video surface thing just today and yesterday of various isis groups in the shadows. they're taking a little videos of themselves claiming that they're going to come to liberate l, hold prison. most of the prisoners that are being held by the c f, or uses prisoners are eric tribes,

women and men who have joined isis from the local air tribes. so by say they're going to will, they're going to liberate them from the kurtz, in a sense they're, they're trying to find a wedge issue of a leader of a cooling volume is due to be sworn enough transitional presidents. i'm a general very so require, and grandma has already met bankers to discuss the economy is funding over racial and the 55 year political dentist in the bungle family. president donnelly bungle remains under house arrest officer his over so on wednesday, governor's office vision sensor shown to is an adjustment tens of thousands of protesters and these yeah. have how the 3rd day of a search engine among the withdrawal of french soldiers, supporters of a true, in july of refusing to leave a french military base in the capital beyond me, until all the troops leave. democratic republic of congo is interior administered as, as to army terminals have been arrested over the killing of more than 46 protesters

in coma, a government allegations being to the city to investigate the kennings following. i'm electric trucks on, on demonstrations against un peacekeepers. many people to change the un mission or funding to protect civilians against on the fighters. this is what was prime minister says asylum seekers. some edits i should be the poor to adopt a violent protests intelligence. added science, who oppose their own government, were protesting upon to an event organized by their embassy. at least a 170 people were injured on saturday, including is where the police officers, mastercard. come on. what's the, what's happened yesterday crossed the red line. it's a riot blood should, these are riots we cannot accept. therefore the 1st thing i do is to wish you the coverage of a police officer as quick things it during the attempt stays to order. we us cause trouble measures against a riotous, including the needed to partition of those are to parts and it's going to get a divorce isn't on j. d, i have confirmed the canning of 2 jet skis from morocco, so i'll just say the open fire off of the jet skiing tourist refused to solve off

a string into a gerry and was as my country is going along. tension of the history of tension connected to morocco claims to the dispute with west and so harm funerals are being held in south africa for some of the $74.00 victims of a fire. last week investigators into honda spoke i still trying to discover the calls. the place on thursday was on the end of the binding, the building taken over by criminal games. while the warnings for intense rain storms and funding have been issued in spain, right lines have been shots in the capital, madrid or the football match has been postponed. people have been told to stay in doors. pope francis has completed his 4 day visit to mongolia. it's the 1st time there's been a people visit to the country, which is home to about 1400 catholics logic in hopes of triple help, strange relations with mongolia as neighbor, china. those are the headlines. the news continues here on august 0 off to the bottom line, stay with us and i'll just the

hi. i'm steve clements and i have a question. earlier this month we talked about the fear surrounding a technology even end of human kind. as we know it scenarios, but are those fears exaggerated? let's get to the bottom line. the, the launch of chat g p t last year spark a huge debate across the globe and a gold rush of investors who are pouring billions to push artificial intelligence. the debate on a, i usually has 3 scenarios. it's either going to take our jobs, or it's going to revolutionize the economy, or it's going to end the world. so we'll robots really replace everybody, lawyers, journalists, truck drivers, accountants, you name it, maybe even me. and even worse, will the human species lose out too much more powerful computers bc's,

sooner rather than later. my guest today says there's no such thing as artificial intelligence. and we shouldn't fall for all the height. he is jaron lanier, a computer scientist, a musical composer, a visual artist, and co founder, a virtual reality. and the author of several books on the future of humanity and technology, including 10 arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now here. and it's a real pleasure to have you on today with us and to help us have a deep dive into this complex discussion. let me just start with a you wrote a, a mesmerizing riveting article in the new yorker. and it was called there is no way i tell us what you meant by that, that provocation. ok. the 1st of all i spend all day uh, working on bringing a to the world. so. busy i uh, the i, uh, i think that what we're doing is useful. however, what i meant when i said there is no way i is. it's important. remember that when we talk about a i, we're talking about a new kind of collaboration. we're to the efforts you. a creativity of

a large number of people are brought together in a new way. when you ask the taxi fee to write something for you, it's not some electronic writing in the sky. what it's doing is a statistical mash up of other things that people have written. the same thing is true when it writes code for you, the same thing is true in all the other cases. and i don't think there's anything wrong with that. i think new ways for people to collaborate is a fantastic use of technology. i just don't think this fantasy that we're building a big brain in the sky is helpful. i think it's better to keep track of the, the absolute fact that what we're really doing is matching up the efforts of real people. and i liked the idea of recognizing and celebrating those people. i hate the idea of people being made to feel small or like you're being left behind or that they're less important because there's this big electronic brain cuz there is it all there is, is the. busy people and i like us to remember that it makes everything clear,

it makes the programs easier to use less mysterious, save for everything about it gets better. how do you deal with the fact that there's a lot of false hood in the world? there's a lot of fabrication and mrs. truth and even deceit that's built in to that, those archive. how do we know that we don't become a victim in that case? yeah, well this is one of the key problems of our times. i mean, this is like one of the challenges of our error. in my opinion. there's a few things we should at least try that we haven't done much of is one of them is incentive eyesight, body information. so right now, if the main reward from being online is to get attention, well, the best way to get attention is to be more on, i mean, honestly look at any playground. that's what works. and so we've, we've generated a lot of moronic communication online from people who have, i don't,

i don't think is anything wrong with seeking attention, but if it's the main or the only thing, it's a problem, it has to be in balance. and this is where i think we made it to a guy take mistake by d, monetizing content for the sake of advertising online. because you know, when somebody, it pays you for something when there's a little bit of skin in the game. all of a sudden the expectations go up, but then there's this other thing i wish we would do. right now we treat the internet as a sea of individuals and each of the states, you know, each against each and. busy what i'd rather see is people forming into little groups together becoming little brands or little journals or little, little collective, or a little corporations, whatever, you know, whatever suits you culturally and where they rise and fall together. and i think there are a lot of advantages for that. 10 people, 10 sort is proud each other cannot get to. busy the somebody will say, hey, we share the same brand, don't go so crazy on us, you know?

or they might say, i'm tired, i can't coast every day. if we can just share and we can build up an audience and it makes more sense. and another thing is um, in the world, i'd like to see where more people are getting paid for their contributions online, whether through a i or social media or whatever in that world, it's unpredictable who will go viral almost by definition. so if you have a collection of people and if you go viral, sure they should benefit, but not totally with everybody else getting nothing there should be waves moving it out. it's almost like an insurance policy. you never know who go viral. so if you form a cooperative agreement with other people, then as long as somebody goes viral, everybody at least gets by. that's how you hedge against uncertainty. so those are some of the techniques that i think would improve the general quality without it being top down in position of censorship. do you need that kind of world you're describing? connected to something that creates a basic provision for

a lot of people that may not play well on the environment. you just, you just shared. well, you know, i think we really have to have a new kind of recognition that we need market economies around individual real humans. if we want to have a modern world that serves real humans, you know, and if this world is going to involve a lot of allied robots or just a lot of technology, we have to accept that the information coming from people is there labor? there's no other thing to pay them for in that world. and i, i'm really concerned that if we end up with a different solution, like a universal, basic income where everybody just gets money, that's the central organization that distributes that money will be subject to astonishing pressures to be corrupted or taken over. and that's, that's always been what's gone wrong with idealistic communist experiments. and i mean, when i say always, i mean like all of it is, it's like a lesson we should learn by now. it's just too tempting a target. so this idea of this centralized source assessments for everybody is not

politically or societally viable. it's not actually distributed anyway, so those are some of my thoughts. i think they're pretty obvious and yet they're not widely held. i don't know why. well, because it hopefully this vis show will launch them even further. we'll have it. but let me ask you, i mean, you have a kind of an inspiring hope that i think many people don't have it. they look at this world somewhat cynically. we've been through an arrow with social media, which you could argue in the terms you talk about in the new york, new yorker, article is social collaboration, created those opportunities. and there were some positives that came out of that. but what we saw was toxicity. we see divided nation is not just in the united states for all around the world, where the sense is that social media has sent people into their cocoons or their hives, they hang out with people, they don't get their apertures or narrow, not broadens. and i'm just interested, as you kind of raised this,

this question about the health and the dna of a i which, which, but you know, i know we're contending with the title of that. but there was this hearing in the senate in may were professor gary marcus of new york university laid out his concern. sounds similar to your concerns, but maybe he's a little slightly more center, pointless. listen to him. as the big tech company is preferred plan boils down to trust us. but why should we the sums of money at stake? are mind boggling. humanity has taken a backseat. a high is movie incredibly fast with lots of potential, but also lots of risk. so my question is, i, you know, coming back to this question of humanity and is it in front of the process, or is it behind it? he's arguing, we're already behind it. how do you deal with some of the doubters in this, who's already decided that mankind, the human kind is going to be a victim in this process? what was the 1st se, uh, gary's a friend, and i'm supportive of what he's doing, even if we don't totally agree. my concern about the approach that there is taking

is that whenever somebody says, oh there's this a, i the say i a scary. it's sort of redefining or, or kind of elevating the status of this a i thing. and then what that does is it elevates uh, you know, uh, the big companies that own the big guys right now, you can make it, you can make sort of a, as in your garage, right? mostly it's a, it's a very, very expensive big game that only a very few parties in the world can play. and so if you believe in it and that way, even if the critique is valid, putting it that way of say, oh, there's a i thing. what it does is it sort of grants us in the tech industry, it kind of power that we shouldn't have, even though it's in the form of the criticism of us, you know, like what we should say is, there's no way i, those guys are just taking your work scrambling it in a new way and then selling it back to you to make you feel like you don't,

you're going obsolete. and that's not fair. and i think that's actually more accurate description of that doesn't mean the big companies argue, but i think that scrambling or the mass of process is really valuable and they should deserve prepaid for it as much as anybody else doing the service. but i think this idea, you know, we, we were reliving the science fiction we saw and we were kids. we saw. busy the terminators movies and we saw the matrix movies and we're like, oh so big i but it's just wiser to not give tech companies that level of power. it's just why is there to say, hey, you're just matching up what we did. and that's great. thank you. for doing that, but don't tell us that it's replacement for us. it's not true. and i, i just think that's the better approach and it, it contains the same critique. i just think it's wiser. are you worried that the genie is out of the bottle somewhat,

and that as we begin thinking about the evolution of getting the, the human portion of it right there may be other players also have researchers, money, investment market share globally that can play by different rules right, well 1st of all, yeah, i'm the prime scientist of microsoft, but i have an explicit re arrangement with them or i can speak my own mind even if it's not an agreement. and right now i'm speaking my mind. this is not a microsoft point of view. one of the reasons for that is that i think tech companies are getting more and more influential. and i just want to prove that. yeah, you can have a tech company with a top scientist who speaks of mind and yet the company can still be worth millions of dollars and it doesn't turn investors, it doesn't have customers. i think i want to establish that, and i'd like our colleagues over at google and apple and amazon to also recognize that their benefits to doing things that way. i just really think to caulked or should change that way. i think it's to everyone's benefit part and then as far as

your question about bad actors or, or actors for the last thing, integrity competing. um, i'll tell you, i want to be really frank and i don't want to sound xena phobic. i don't want to sound paranoid, but i'm worried about china. you know, like, uh, we, in the us, we've allowed china to own the social media platform that our young people are the most connected to, which is tick tock. and china is one of those entities in the world that has the scale and the expertise to play in big model a i, there are too many, but china definitely can do it if they want. and they do. and they're scenarios where to talk could be used in a devastating way in the event of height and conflict. and there are some who believe there's already a bit of malicious interference and take talk. and i want to say, i don't think to talk is all bad. i love dance culture and take talk. i think it's great, you know, so it's, i don't want to sort of condemn everything about it. but for instance,

my friend christ on harris has been tracking it and is of the belief that the american version of tick tock. it contains a material calculated to suddenly and gradually degrade our society and especially our young people. whereas the chinese version is just the opposite and it has a feedback loop to try to encourage them to be a healthy and successful. and that there is a sort of a societal, large scale level, very subtle and gradual kind of weapon is ation. that involves the algorithms over this platform. i'm not sure about that. i don't have enough information i, i will say that there are clear scenarios for kicks. i could be weaponized kind of dramatically and i, i think it's appalling that we as a nation or we as a species of allowed ourselves to get into this position and we simply must on do it. so i think the concerns are real. um i, um,

you know, uh uh i, i still think the clearest way to address them is not to grad sort of mythological super status day. i as like this big green in the sky. but instead to treat it as a way of just combining the efforts of people using statistics, that's really what it is. but it just said it's technically accurate and we don't need to. we don't try and make it a faster than that. but i ask you, in this earnest forward looking and humane way of looking at the possibilities, should we hedge against you being wrong? i um, i mean, i guess, well sir, is to degree sure. you know, i mean the question is, what does that mean for instance, um i have found that the excess dental risk type people in a i who,

who are concerned that a, i will come a live in jail break and take over and then eat us or destroy and so i are the types of fixes that they imagine make all the other problems worse. and so it's a funny kind of hedging. they make the other problems worse, because then you need more. i to fix the 1st day i and you end up with this tower of a i programs looking at a i programs and then it's the people get lost and you just have this diet. a set of automation is trying to moderate automation. that's what happens when you go down that road, and i think it just becomes of sir, like, i don't, i don't think it's a well formed idea. if hedging means making it more human centric, then it's actually coherent and essentially the same thing i'm saying. but what it usually means where there's a possible distinction with what i'm saying is that you use a to moderate a i and i really just be think that becomes a tower of nonsense. you know, i,

i really do a lot of people who are into, for that approach, you know, and there's certainly a, and you can talk them out of it. i mean, if the people who believe in that really, really believing that they really believe that what they need to do is make this a good a i that won't hurt people. and this has been as a fantasy for a very long time. it started in a dialogue between my mentor of marvin minsky and a science fiction writer isaac asked them off the truck route last for robotics. going back to the fifty's, i believe. and the problem with it is this very much like the ancient stories about the genie in the bottle that you mentioned. and i should remind you that you in your stomach this but at any rate in the story is about in the space of a teen. is the genie grass you wishes, brian? you try to come up with wishes, but the genie always trusts them. right? yeah. and so it's exactly the problem which has been notes and things times that

that you can't automate away the behavior of some autonomy. anything because the lowest twist, what you say, you never really know, you know, like it's an, it's not a possible. it's article haired projects you know and uh, but i feel like people still want to read, you know, still want to try to check the teeny, and i don't think you can maybe to any smart m a certain means. so if it's any stupid then that way, but i don't think you can do that. i don't think there's any way to set down a perfect automated thing that expresses human interest. i think what you have to do is make the overall situation human centric and not give a bunch of credence to machines that these other players, i just think it's the only. and it's on the course of hedging about whether i'm wrong. it's just like choosing things that you can actually talk about that are actually give you plausible things to do it. it's just like what is actionable and what is that, you know why i find myself wanting the world that you describe. and i think having

a human centric notion about it empowers us is very, very compelling. and one, you know, for you, you introduce some term that i find. so intriguing and i'm just interested we, we have very little time. but you know, how do you animate data dignity, and how does data dignity fit into the way in which you think we might be able to right size some of these discussions and debates? well, the history of that is that i've been concerned for quite a while that this idea that people's data is just taken and then they get free services. and exchange has a tendency to elevate the power of certain tech companies, or perhaps governments in an untenable and unstable way. and so it would be better for people to be paid and that that's really the only form of distributed power. and, but there's also just a question of taking the, i think a whole lot of people in the world feel less behind by where maternity seems to be going on. i think you see this in the politics and also in the religious feeling

all over the world that when people hear tech, when people hear people from silicon valley just to somebody who's not in silicon valley here. so one of us say, oh, our thing will become super intelligent, smarter than people. people will be needed anymore. people might be served if we're lucky and if the machine so kill us. but they certainly won't be needed because the machines will be better at everything. obviously if it makes people feel like they're being made obsolete like their children are being made obsolete. and of course, if it were true that the one thing, but since it's all just a matter of what those same people do, it's a, it's a grotesque lie. there's no other word to use. and so if you have everybody feeling like maternity is robbing them of dignity, then what you should be thinking about is what would be a future scenario that doesn't do that in which people are justifiably a dignified because they are. and it, you know, and that would be an honest, totally plausible reality, a much more honest, one of them,

ill tentative. and so that's called data dignity. oddly enough, i don't, i don't know. he, he definitely does not endorse everything i say, but that term data degree was coined by a certain, such an adela and who's running microsoft rather? well, i, my dad and such a comes through a background in india where he's very much aware of uh, the struggle for uh, bringing up poor people into into economic dignity. and i think he, he kind of got it in a way that maybe some others might not as easily. uh, but i think we just have to go there if we want to happy, stable or honest world, you know, i think we have to go there. let me just ask you finally. uh, you know, i don't mean this is a small to you question question at all, but there are a lot of young people that watch this. and, you know, i hear this vision of hope and confidence. and you know, the options ahead of, you know, you're talking to young people, how do you get them? choose that track rather than say, hearing what's coming next and cynicism. mm. yeah. that worries me a lot,

young people have been given a kind of a rough um, psychological context now because we have the climate issues at the same time is we have political insanity all over the world at once. at the same time, as we have been saying, making unreliable information systems, the worse in many generations, we have all these things at once and then a lot of them have to come of age during the locked down. it really sucks for them . and i really feel badly for them. and i guess what i'd say is that a lot of people who likes to think about the status quote we're a i, as a real thing in technology will solve our problems in a sort of a remote way. instead of anything even centric way, they always imagine that they'll be on the good side of it. they'll imagine, well, when they, i takes over, it will favor me because i'm nerdy or i know the right people or whatever. and that

is always a mistake. you know, if a hollywood studio person things, oh hey, i will favor me. so screw the actors and the writers who are on strike. no, no big tech companies will roll right over you if they want to it's you're not special. anybody who thinks that they're going to be on the favored side of the way things go is kidding themselves, unless they happen to own the try and data sensors center. so the big cuz so the way out of this is to grow the economy by everybody being a 1st class citizen and getting paid for their contributions. and i like it from a corporate point of view, because then they'll have more money to buy our stuff. like i think growing the economy is good for everybody in a, in a market economy, it's not a 0 sum game. it's not all against all. it's all help all, that's what capitalism should be about. let's play it that way. is that we should do with a i just like we should with everything else. what a great conversation. humanist and computer scientists, jaron lanier, thank you so much for joining us today. and sharing your insights,

i'm very pleased to good luck to you. and so what's the bottom line? my guest today is a humanist. he has great confidence in our ability, all of us to get the balance right and making sure technology does what we want and not vice versa. i wish i could share his belief in society, spirit, and competence when it comes to the evolution of artificial intelligence. look at the record, we saw the conversions of data and human kind of activity in platforms like twitter, now called x and an instagram and tick tock and more. and we saw algorithms let loose their power and drive toxicity and drive people a part. of course, we've seen amazing moments of empathy and problem solving too. but still we've had test runs of tech having just too much power. we love facial recognition, but it's become a tool for chasing people down. not just in china in the us, but all across the world. it was fascinating to get to opposite perspective on our future under a are short of the possibilities are endless. but the risks are scary to. i can

only agree with the late tech type, mandy grove, who said being paranoid may be the best strategy to survive. and that's the bottom line, the in depth analysis of the days headlines, 1000000 euros to help students here address migration. is it going to ease the micro crisis, will make it worse, informed opinions, we need more investors and more people that make the decisions to embrace human foothold. frank assessments, this follows between to tell him sounds. reassurance is a teacher lean for the blindness industry show inside story. on al jazeera lake city, and it's here all g 0 was weeks, the italian photographer exploring the long lasting love story between the city of

naples and football. like on a gold mine or the left for diego, this endless unconditional. the model donna in the on the, i'm not madison and don't have the top stories and i'll just say i'm your training and president brought me is a landscape has dismissed his defense minister and saying a new approach is needed. so landscape paints and horse them almost from replace alexi that's nicole's parliaments needs to approve the nomination. so yeah, we to show for was does i mean the menus that overall no green. i've decided to replace the ministry of defense for ukraine. alexi rising a coffee has been through more than 550 days.