on social media. good evening. i'm major garrett, filling in for charlie rose. we will start this evening about the legal aspects of james comey's decision to not bring charges against hillary clinton. joining me from washington, eric lichtbau of the new york times, and ari melber, chief legal correspondent of msnbc. equal justice under the law. saidhat james comey

yesterday meet that standard? ari: yes, based on the evidence provided and what is publicly known, based on the review of all these e-mails. e-mail,ators read every looked at the key players, looked at the security issues, including what it means to use a private server, and then came to a judgment that i thought was quite clear in the way it stated it. number one, there was not the evidence to support the bringing of federal charges. number two, he went clear -- he went further and said this was not a close call, and any reasonable prosecutor would not go forward. major: yet there is this ongoing debate that people who have been in lesser positions within the government have been charged for lesser offenses. , athat a valid point of view valid criticism of the conclusion comey reached? eric: i think it is a valid

question to raise. you certainly have outside lawyers, some of them former prosecutors, who are saying there are lesser offenses that have been charged involving handling and mishandling of classified evidence, even if there was not intent, which is the big thing comey focused in on in his briefing, saying that evidence, or at least not convincing evidence, that she had intentionally violated any of the statutes. there are other people who were prosecuted that were not found to have intentionally violated the statutes. major: and rudy giuliani, a trump supporter, a partisan, but nevertheless an effective prosecutor, said one of the things prosecutors look at is, if you do it over and over again, that suggests intent. ari: it could be, and prosecutors look for all sorts of aggressive theories. i think what jim comey was talking about with intent is

that they in their review did not find an intent to either destroy -- distribute or endanger this classified material. , not a feature. he also spoke to the lack of judgment or wisdom in setting up this type of system. as others have noted, there are many aspects of the government process that have unsecured materials. because hes reviewed took materials, put them at home and safe in his office. some may think that sounds somewhat safe. it was not. that was unauthorized place. they ultimately determined that what he did was unauthorized, but it was not a desire to break the law when he put it in his safe. i think another big question is, what do people think happened? do they think something was focused on mishandling information, or something else? , theref the other trials

was usually what i would call a plus factor. there was an endangerment of classified material and something else. sometimes that was express intent to give it to a reporter, which as journalists, a lot of us end up getting this material and have a broad view of why that could be in the public interest, but the standard that comey is applying, taking it and giving it away to an unauthorized person, what general petraeus pled to, that is a plus factor. compliance,re is what a lot of people don't care about. some other cases have been cited involving the person who mishandled the classified information misleading investigators. general petraeus admitted to doing that. that is a separate federal crime. there was no allegation of that here. i think director comey did something positive by trying to share so much, but that leaves a lot of people picking apart disparate aspects of it. major: i want to pick up on what ari just said, because many people have raised the patriots -- petraeus case as something

comparable, and therefore evidence that the system did not work as it ought to have, from a legal perspective. would you care to validate or invalidate that the? eric: i think -- that theory? eric: i think you're right. the impact was the foxy and fbi. the. the fbi was, yes, while there were similarities between the two bank cases, the the tray is -- the two cases, the tree is etraeus case was identifiable. he gave his mistress like book journals with classified information in them. he was tape recorded saying he knew they were classified and lied to the fbi about it. those facts from the outside seemed more egregious than those in the clinton case, as much as

you can criticize her. and he was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. the feeling was, if general petraeus was allowed to plead to a misdemeanor, where does that leave us with hillary clinton? i think that was a big part of why you saw them not recommend charges will stop -- charges. major: there is a perception that something wrong here, -- something went wrong here, but maybe there was an erroneous expectation that the law would come down harder on hillary clinton and the fbi director did. -- than the fbi director did. legitimateaise questions about the sanctity of the rule of law? there ison't think anything about this case that is normal. every step of the way, it has been unusual from the profile of one of the subjects in the investigation, to the media

scrutiny, and yesterday to the remarkable press conference that comey held. it is difficult to compare this to other cases. you can make a case, as many her prominence got her lenient treatment. on the other side, you have democrats who are saying she got worse treatment than other people might because you have talkingdirector a publicly, laying out blistering behavior and her decision not to bring charges. in theere is a lot there system that the shores independence, so it is a serious burden for people with political conspiracies to provide evidence. why did the bush deputy general want to go to bat so hard for hillary clinton, if that is your conspiracy?

why would the fbi agents who read every individual e-mail be doing this? as a lawyer and journalist, i am always open to the evidence, and there may be things we don't know, but we live in a world where a disease he does throw out major charges and allegations and ask other people to respond to them. director comey deserves better than that. that's how i approach my back-checking. i will to use something else, within minutes of his presentation, you had politicians coming out and saying obviously it should have been the reverse. speaker paul ryan said this was clearly erroneous, so this was a problem for the rule of law. i think, ifposite, he had not digested all the information. of things that voters may want to punish, including the way hillary clinton acted in her tenure as secretary of state, that are simply not illegal. they may the unwise, unsafe, or poor judgment.

thinking about the connective tissue between the law and the politics, i think it is good that the investigation is over and voters can factor this is information, not a binding can's -- not a binding decision. isor: the investigation over, but the investigation of the investigation has not started. ari: the process was abnormal. was abnormal good or bad? people will debate that. typically, you don't have announcement like this. that is going to be debated. i think at this hearing that the house republicans are leading this week, that is a legitimate debate. the fbi director regularly testified, there is regular oversight, and now he can't say this is an open inquiry, i can't talk, he will have to answer those questions. the point youo are making, democrats might say, mr. fbi director, under normal circumstances, you might have

issued a statement, or you might have just come to the microphones and said, we looked at this, it does not warrant a charge, thank you, i am leaving the stage. we rarely see democrats and republicans united in congress, but they might be united at this hearing tomorrow, both in asking tough questions of the fbi director. republicans saying, why did you not recommend charges? the democrats saying, why did you go public with all this criticism? he is going to get it from both sides, but i think he is prepared for that. you are right that he did not take questions yesterday. i certainly wish he had. that i think his aides knew he thinking to hit -- but i his aides knew he was going to get hits from all sides. major: eric, as you are sitting there, what was the question you most wished you had the chance to ask the fbi director? eric: i think i would have asked

him, given the standard he laid out, why he did not consider or recommend a misdemeanor charge, which a lot of people are questioning as well. may be grosst, it negligence. with that baby -- would that have been proper here he echoed -- proper here? major: there is an expection of yuma forward -- ari: there is an expectation of uniformity under the law, and trends aaron c, tell us what is going on so we know it -- transparency, tell us what is going on so we know it can factor in, especially when we have a subject like this. different legal example, we saw that play out in a lot of these grand jury proceedings around officers who were accused or suspected of improper use of force. we saw a very similar tension where some of these prosecutors were clearing police officers who have been involved in very controversial shootings, put out more information than usual about grand jury proceedings,

which are secret and supposed to be. major: we saw that in ferguson. ari: exactly, where it was a big controversy. that goes back to that tension. i believe the internet and public scrutiny as part of this. things we used to accept more as a culture and society as being done over there are under extralegal type of pressure to say, we are used to hearing more about other things, why are we not hearing about this? this is a different scenario. my analogy is to the procedural tensions. jim comey was trying to do something there he says was for the good of the fbi, just as some of those prosecutors said i'm a we don't usually release grand jury materials, but we are going to. cannot meet that goal without the attention back to uniformity, where other people

were saying, gosh, other people don't get this treatment that these officers got, and that en seems unequal. as for the questions, i think the biggest question would be, even if you can't describe all the classified materials to us by definition, director comey, did you see the type of thing that really gave you's as to how anyone could do this, or did you as to howu pause anyone could do this, or did you see something that looked bad in retrospect, but was not at a high level? thing the fbine director said that for a lot of people's attention was, we here at the fbi were not involved on whether or not you can continue your classified access status, or you would receive administrative punishment. many people would have said, if hillary clinton were in the federal government, she would have are classified access denied and she might be fired or

demoted. do you think that aspect of this will continue to be debated or scrutinized? eric: sure. in fact, we are writing about that question today. we saw paul ryan calling for her classified briefings to be denied as a presidential custom -- yet by custom of presidential candidates get access to classified briefings. there will certainly be ramifications. the state department has been looking at whether those people were still employed you might have been involved in this should be in any jeopardy, and i think there is no doubt that there will be ongoing questions involving security status for people involved. is an because that important process question. it's not necessarily an intimately legal question, but a process question with gravity. we were talking a lot about

the law. when we talk about policy, what is in the mind of someone in government to is so consumed with secrecy, or routing around the normal world, legal as it may be -- normal rule, legalize it may be, that they need to create a solo operation to control everything? thatpolicy question, raises major questions about that person's trust in the system, ability to work with others, and, not that privacy means you always have something to hide, but you are not entitled typically to that kind of prophecy -- that kind of privacy for work material. why is everyone so prone to secrecy? major: ari melber and eric lichtbau, think he's a very much. -- thank you so very much. ♪

major: we continue this evening with politics. joining me from cincinnati, bob costa of the washington post, and in washington, colleen mccain of the wall street journal, and ann of the washington post. of corker takes himself out the running as donald trump's potential running mate. what do you make of that? what do you think the short list for trump now resides? >> great to join you.

i am here in cincinnati as vice president speculation continues for donald trump. theill be at an event in evening with newt gingrich. hours before then, i got a call from senator corker, chair of the senate foreign relations committee, and he said even though he spent eight hours with donald trump on tuesday, meeting at trump tower in new york, and then that an event in north carolina, he believes that because of his temperament, he is low-key, his focus on policy, he decided to bow out of consideration. this narrows the list for trump. it is a sudden departure. people thought corker was being considered. he was under fetching. this shows you some reluctance people like corker and others have of being on the ticket, of being with someone like donald trump, someone who is controversial. major: does this really bring this list down to two, chris

christie and newt gingrich? is more think the list expansive than that. i think one person to watch is indiana governor mike pence. meeting with trump over the weekend at trump's golf course in new jersey. he sees someone who has experience from his time in indiana that could bring have to to the ticket. if you want someone tv set the -- if he wants someone tv savvy, then christie and gingrich are in the running. but metaphors is urging trump to pick someone with deep wall street experience. -- deep washington experience. major: and mike pence has a strong rapport with evangelicals and pro-life christians. that could be an asset, could it not? roots in thep evangelical community.

he is someone you would always see at conservative conferences. he is someone who grew up in the midwest. he's got the cadence of a conservative talkshow host. he actually was a talk radio int before he ran for office indiana. his moniker was rush limbaugh on decaf. major: what do you think is the most important political take away from hillary clinton? >>-for political take away is that this is not over. political take away is that this is not over. we sought republicans move more swiftly today to make sure that this is the case. this will continue to be a political problem for her. it could be an administrative problem. republicans are doing all they , within their purview on the hill and elsewhere, to try to focus on the first part of what director comey said yesterday, which was a very strong indictment in every way, but the

legal sense of the way secretary clinton had conducted business on her own and with her aides at the state department when it came to security practices. it was a very scathing report he delivered. that is going to be the substance of the republican charges going forward. liability a political for her outside the strictly partisan sense, and that it can firms -- in that it is confirmatory for a lot of people problem,has a trust that there is always kind of a lingering question, has she said everything she needs to say, is she telling the truth? that whole set of issues that are raised by the e-mail problem will continue for her. major: what is the atmosphere within clinton's inner circle? >> i haven't to be a clinton's

campaign headquarters yesterday as director comey -- happened to be at clinton's campaign headquarters as comey was speaking yesterday. the atmosphere was very happy, very relieved. they did not have a heads-up that this was happening, so they were watching in real time as everyone else was. they were unequivocally happy about this. they really did not focus on scathing comments from director comey. the message from the clinton team has been, this is resolved. we are happy this is resolved, and we are moving on. but it may not be that simple. even though there was not an indictment, there was damage done. they will need to keep answering. major: there has been some handwringing already that this was a golden moment for donald trump, that he mishandled yesterday, that there was not enough donald trump services -- surrogates, not enough prominent

republicans. he himself did not deliver a strong enough conservative message on this. is that something the clinton campaign might find a narrow advantage in, in the aftermath? >> i think it might be more than a narrow advantage. it goes to the very different kinds of campaign operations that the two candidates have told. hillary clinton started in a very deliberate manner, well more than a year ago, to build includeszation that state operations and uninformed us financing operation, a vast enormousers -- and an financing operation, a vast headquarters with surrogates all over the country, getting her advice and tips. all of those things take a long time to build. an advantage in

clinton network that a lot of those systems already exist after three decades as a political family franchise. donald trump does not have any of that. his former relation -- his poor relationship with the republican party did not help him build that. he has a lot of makeup work to do if he wants to have those same kinds of resources at his fingertips. what you saw yesterday may be indicative of the fact that he does not have those contacts and networks at hand, and there is the fact of his own temperament. he could have simply focused like a laser on the first part of what comey said and hammered it for 20 minutes. and he did not. his is something that campaign is going to have to decide whether they want him to do. bob, do you sense of unease about the trump reaction, unease about whether the trump isn't organized

at the field level, coherent in terms of messaging? and strong enough in terms of fundraising to compete with hillary clinton? there is a sense of resignation among people in the upper ranks of the gop, a sense that trump, if he has any chance of winning this general election, it is going to be because of his presence, his ubiquity on television, his ability to blend his populism and celebrities to something in under contrast to secretary clinton. he is spreading across the country, but they do not have the organizational depth, and you do not see trump's presence on the airwaves in terms of paid advertising. but since it is july, there is a sense that maybe this can be -- can't be fixed, and they have to rely on the force

of personality to see him through. that: this distraction trump created for himself with this speech in north carolina, where he diverted to sideways praise of saddam hussein. this seems to be something that fits in the larger sense of anxiety republicans have not only about trump and what he says, but is potential orientation to the vast powers of the presidency. bob: he said he believes that he could get it done, he could kill people, in essence, without any kind of trial. that's what impressed trump. this set off shockwaves within the republican party. a say, who is this? who is our nominee? but he is the nominee, and that is not going to change. trumping is resistant to advice from party leaders. the idea that he can hold back moore is a realization that is not going to happen. major: something that caught my eye in a poll that came out

yesterday, it said that only 12% of those surveyed were undecided, and nine out of 10 of trump supporters and nine out of 10 clinton supporters said nothing could happen to dislodge them from their support of either clinton or trump. how important in that context you think this week has been? that is a great question. voters have had decades of exposure to hillary clinton, so many of them have made up their minds years ago and are not going to be movable, whether they like her own don't stop donald trump -- like her or don't like her. encapsulatedd of why both these candidates are unpopular with voters in a nutshell, because you had the decision with the fbi, which really got to the part of questions about clinton's trustworthiness, her credibility with voters, and you had donald

trump essentially praising saddam hussein, kind of going off message, and kind of reinforcing doubts about whether he is o'reilly card -- whether he is a wildcard or is able to stay on message and do what party leaders would like to see him do. -- a fascinating encapsulation of doubts of voters on both sides of the aisle. it seems we have the power of celebrity versus the power to use your phraseology. this seems to be uncharted territory. >> it really is, and it is absolutely fascinating. the typical battleground for a presidential election is the middle, and in both cases, hillary clinton has doubled down on being an establishment candidate with all the advantages, certainly

organizationally, money-wise. it is also her comfort zone. that is not the middle in this unorthodox here. donald trump has shown no sign that he is going to be drawn to what she would appear to think is the political machine middle, middle,u are -- mushy where you are a conventional candidate. he has from the get-go profited by the element of surprise. everyone, including his adversaries, us, everyone, have to wait and see what he does next. major: bob, i will have to give you the last word. we are coming up on a weekend and a half away from the republican convention. a crucial moment for donald trump and the somewhat anxious party around him. what are you anticipating? to be think you are going

struck by how many republicans are not there. compared to the democratic convention, which will be populated by a president, former presidents, vice president, sitting senators and governors, the democrats display party unity. in cleveland, i am hearing reports of conservative activists planning a protest. they know they cannot get any delegate change at this point to get from away from -- get trump away from the nomination, but they want to protest on the floor. major: do you foresee a convention that reinforces this power of celebrity where trump is sort of the dominating factor every single mind, and he really does not step aside to let other republican voices hold centerstage? bob: trump has told me and others in the past that he wants thought about speaking every night at a convention, and he might actually make appearances each night at the convention. this will be all about trump. this will not be so much about

the party. major: excellent. much.you so very ♪

major: now for something completely different. a segment ofot "monty python," but it is an interesting topic, one that is here to stay.

it could change the workplace, our culture, arson's of humanity, and our relationship to machines. the topic of artificial intelligence, and what it may or may not bring. joining me from chapel hill, -- xina qureshi. lucy from lancaster university, and nathaniel popper, the author of a book on bitcoin called "digital gold." lucy, let me start with you. artificial intelligence has become a big topic for a couple of reasons. in, perceived advances artificial intelligence, and their potential consequences and effects on the work lace -- on the workplace and society at large. are those advances real, and can you separate out where they are occurring and why they matter most?

if we go back to the middle of the last injury, the 1950's, which is when the phrase artificial intelligence was coined, i think what we see recently, this was about 50 plus years now, and0 i think what we have seen recently that has really changed things is the advent of very large data sets and very fast computers and a lot of networking. those are really significant developments that have made an enormous difference. you pour the data in, and then what happens? ofy: if you have a lot computing power, you can do an analysis of those data that would be impossible for humans to do. i am sure we will talk more about that. but the direction i have been following this closely is more , the projectt of really trying to create

machines in the image and the person of humans. has gone project that on much more slowly, run into all sorts of difficult things that are interesting and revealing about what we are as humans, what machines are, what their capabilities and limits are. i think we need to make a distinction. major: nathaniel, would you agree that if you're going to offer a script to hollywood, you may make a script about scary robots taking over the world and crushing not only our spirits, but our humanity right along with it, and taking over the prosaic,t perhaps a but more important topic is data and its impact at these deeper thinking levels of artificial intelligence, and what they tell us about the world we live in. nathaniel: it seems like the more immediate threat is more boring robots. your desktop. that can do 10% more of your job

this year, and maybe 20% more of your job next year. that is a more slow-moving and less visible threat. but i think it is something that is maybe a more immediate point that we need to be grappling with. i think when we talk about what we have seen that is new, automation and the idea that the car is going to replace the horses that came before it and the buggy makers. we have been through this many times, where you talk about new technology replacing people. generally what has happened is that those people have found new jobs. what i have been most interested in in the last 15 or 20 years is some indication that there is a large number of people who are being displaced, maybe too quickly to find new work. i think that is one of the interesting problems right now, the fact that we have been through this cycle a lot of times, but maybe this cycle does

, even theifferently workforce participation does go down and you start to see displacement of jobs. and technological advancements that are benign over the course of 60 years but beneficial over 80 could be terrifying and disruptive in the first 20. if we take that as a premise, where do you think we are in this cycle? just have aink we new inflection point. up until now, most of our programming was done by writing code, which is giving computers detailed, painstakingly detailed instructions. what has happened is two fields have emerged. machine learning, a field where data can emerge by themselves,

is a field with a large data set which we are now generating in our digital lives. this is a new development, because what is happening now is different. we are setting learning on the data,ose and we are saying things like, tell us you will be a better person to higher. bel us what news items will recommended. they just go with this data and pick winners or losers. the trick is, they are pretty good probabilistically. i am thinking winners and losers. but we no longer understand the basis on which they have done this. i think this is like the first major step towards not just artificial intelligence, but artificial general intelligence, that is learning to learn the aunt our capacity to understand. that is both exhilarating but also scary, because we do not control these new things the way we did our old programs. so we understand the

question you are asking, but we don't know how the answer is being rendered, right? zeynep: think of this. you have an algorithm going through social data, and you train the algorithm on previous high performers and say, oh, my algorithm, find more high-performing people. and it does. you look at your performance data, and it is doing great. but here is what you may not know. is weeding out everybody with higher likelihood of depression, not people who are depressed now, but just to have a higher likelihood. social media data can reveal such things, even if you have never talked about depression. maybe it is tweeting about women likely to become pregnant in the next 10 years. maybe it is all these weird shady things. but hey, look, my performance

numbers have gone up. it is less like coding something, more like raising a kid, training a dog, and now we are training these intelligent systems and letting loose on all sorts of decision-making, and what are they doing? programmers, they don't know. you ask the people who oversee the system, they don't know. major: politicians really don't know. they have no idea about this at all. on the plus side, i have read that this deep learning has created artificially intelligent radiologists who have a better track record than skilled human radiologists, but on the negative side, you have renderings that suggest someone or some race is more likely to be a recidivist than another race. what are the complexities and middle dangers? lucy: i would like to go back to the notion of learning, because i think one of the things i have been most concerned about in relation to ai is the kind of

anthropomorphizing language used. athink you can see that as way of trying to make things more understandable to us, but i think it actually up stairs is really going on. wasalgorithms that zeynep describing are very powerful, but we could hear from her description that they are basically reproducing the things they are basically reproducing. the things we operate with our parameters introduced by us, and many of those are stereotypes. stereotype about what women are going to be doing at certain ages of their lives, stereotypes about who is most likely to be vulnerable to depression, and now we have predictive policing, where we have stereotypes about who is going to be committing crimes based on statistical analyses. in those ways, we are actually, rather than machines operating

on their own, they are actually reproducing and intensifying the stereotypes, the assumptions, the presuppositions that we have basically designed into them. i think the more we could actually, rather than talk about machine learning, because learning invokes all the things we think about with human learning, if we could actually talk more technically, but i think this could still be done quite intelligibly, about how these systems actually work and what kinds of assumptions are built into them. i think we would have a much better sense of how they work and why they are very effective in some areas," we should be concerned about -- some areas, and what we should be concerned about. major: what can we do to address this now? lucy: it is a hard question. kate crawford, who writes about

these questions in a compelling way, points out how difficult it is, because we don't have a lot .f access to these algorithms either they are being developed by private companies, and a treat that is proprietary information, or they are being developed by governments, and they see these as security issues. i think it is the case that to some extent, no one only understands how these are operating, but there are people who understand a lot about the biases that are being built in. but we don't have much access to ast, either as critics or the people who are subject to being profiled. major: if there are data sets that are weeding people out of the front end of the first job they are applying for, and you don't know why, is there a civil rights application? is there not a basic employment rights implication? mehaniel: there is, but let

be an optimist and note that, along with the other data we have.s the outcomes we case from a sentencing algorithm that a bunch of states are using. the numbers were gone through howthey took a look at white defendants and white defendants were doing because of the own rhythm. it is not something we want to find out has been happening -- because of the algorithm. tois not something we want find out has been happening, but we found out a lot sooner than we might have in the old criminal justice system, where you have data scattered in courthouses where you don't even know what the imbalances and injustices are. the flipside of that, and i think this is a situation we have seen in the last few weeks,

is with sf driving cars, which is another interesting example of this. power weabout what have, what control we have, i think some of this does not come back to understanding from day one how the algorithm is going to work, but to take it slowly. within this largely private world of artificial intelligence and the dramatic increase of investment behind all sorts of companies and corporations, this is slowing down? it seems to me, based on what i have been reading, is that it is accelerating. zeynep: it is going as fast as people can put money into it. it is important to understand that with sentencing algorithms, we can check the outcomes, and we can check it against parameters we know, like race or gender. there is a way to audit these systems that catch -- to catch

the biases that creep from the data. but with these new machine learning systems, even the programmers may not understand it, and often do not. that's by design. that is the power of the algorithm. it is doing something that no one has programmed into it. in the example i gave, there is way to evaluate what is programming into it. it is looking at the data and doing a bunch of correlations. to try to figure out this rapid , it could be less ifder biased, for example, you control for it, because it is something you can check for. what worries me is that the very technical nature of what is going on means that stuff that you don't anticipate, like gender and race that you can at thethere is no pay moment, technically, of even

knowing what the system is , other than checking its biases and where it's predictive power comes from. that is the problem. on the one hand, it is moving very fast. it is cost efficient in some ways. humanbetter than decision-makers in some other ways. and yet it comes with all these huge downsides and worries and that i don't think we are paying a lot of attention to, and we should slow down and say, wait, we should not use light boxes like this unless we can audit them, check them, and what it meansbout to put these things in decision-making positions. was an oxford study that suggested that the

replacement percentage through robotics and artificial intelligence could be as high as 47%. "the economist" said it could be as low as 10%, but 10% is still a lot, especially when you're talking about an enormous workforce like the united states. where are we heading in employment replacements? want towould not downplay the problem of job displacement. i think that is a crucial problem. that is a preface to say that actually i think the ability of robots to replace humans is highly constrained. robots work best when the world has been arranged in the way they need it to be arranged in order for it to be effective. works why assembly lines so well. that's why amazon's warehouse robots work so well. the entire world the robot is operating in is designed in relation to the robot. as soon as we get into more open-ended domains --

the areasgly, one of most resistant into being robot is sized is housework. we think of it as typically being manual labor. but actually, it turns out it is a very open-ended, indeterminate environment that you are working with with an incredible range of skills. this is even more thick case will make him to things like care, because we hear about elder robots. i think we need to differentiate much more carefully between the areas in which robots are incredibly powerful and look at what kind of job displacement is -- what kind of job is lisbon we need to be thinking about their, and differentiate -- job displacement we need a be thinking about, and differentiate that from any kind working int involves an everyday environment. there is very little progress. daniel, wizards of wall

street have this on their minds, because this wizardry can now be done by robots. nathaniel: it is well compensated. i think that wall street, because of the pressure on the financial crisis, has been pushed to look for efficiency anywhere and can, and it is an information-based industry. it is about processing information. that is something that lends itself to automation, to machine learning, to use the phrase, a lot more quickly than housework. but what you have seen on wall street already, you look inside a firm like goldman sachs where you would think that everybody there is already a skilled worker. these are obviously people, all college graduates essentially. what is fascinating to see is how much of that work is, at the end of the day, still pretty rote work?

you might have two employees and might replace one of them. you still need people there to make our decisions, to deal with the difficult situations. if you cut half of the employees, that is still half. if you cut out two peeples wrote wrote- if you cut out the work in two peoples jobs and you only need one of them, that is a shift. that is a slow-moving change that is a bigger threat than worrying about the robot, the .elf driving car, the weapon it is the kind of thing that will play out in everybody's lives much more quickly, and obviously in my profession we have seen this already, and it is a slippery. -- it is a slow creep of

realizing the next step that you realizingtomate, and how to isolate that and make it into something that can be automated, even if the whole job is not automated. human if you look at history, paid labor is a somewhat recent invention. about 300 years. before that, it was largely conscripted. the optimists say, look, with the advances of artificial intelligence, you will remove people of the drudgery of work for pay and allow them to open up creative vistas they can't even imagine, and it will be beneficial for society. that is the most optimistic appraisal of a future that artificial intelligence is a main driver of. what is your sense of the optimistic reservation, or even e skepticism about real-life

employment effects of artificial intelligence? the optimists is doable, i will just put that out there, but let's look at the way the world really works at the moment. self driving cars sound great in many ways. they are safer, probably, but driving is a last resort for hundreds of millions of men arrived -- driving unemployment is a last resort for hundreds of millions of men around the world. if you look at the service industry, a good chunk of it is natural language processing. you over thes at phone and through a window and puts what you said into the computer. natural way which processing, you read technical -- natural you readprocessing, technical papers every year, it is coming, so those jobs are on the chopping block. if you look at things like elder care, which worry me too, because the elder -- the issue

there is that we have an elderly population that is expensive to take care of, to be honest, but we don't want to spend that money. i fear that they are going to be warehoused in front of sociable ave some sorth of ai chat box as opposed to employing humans who do the job well and preserve the dignity of the situation. i am quite pessimistic because of how fast the labor market effects are coming, and how, to put it politely, how ineffective our political system seems to be, even with simple problems not being solved. we've got this avalanche of employment effects coming down really fast. i have this urgency, but to end on a positive note, the optimist scenario is positive. if we are going to do it this way as a world, yes, why not?

major: so you are telling me there is a chance. zeynep: i would like to hope so. fascinating conversation. thank you. ♪

>> i'm john heilemann. i'm mark halperin "with all due respect" to donald trump there's no wall that can keep this out. >> i don't want mosquitoes around me. i don't like mosquitoes. john: lot to cover tonight. james comey was grilled over several hours by the republicans. comey's recommendation, not to charge hillary clinton for the way she handled classified information on her e-mail server. for more than four hours, he answered questions about the bureau's year long