their work of an early computer engineer who invented the computer mouse. stanford university hosted this event. >> welcome. welcome again to a conversation about our digital future. i will start off by introducing our speakers. after that i will briefly introduce the demo and start the conversation with the first question. there will be plenty of time and microphones later for your questions, so be prepared for that. let's move on to our speakers. the person next to me is a

computer scientist, composer artist, and author who writes on numerous topics, including high-technology business and social impact of take the logic the philosophy of conversation -- and the future of humanism. he has been on the cusp of technological innovation for some time as a pioneer in virtual reality, a term he coined. leading teams creating applications from sebastian at the end is c.e.o.

of udasity, a google fellow. he has published over 370 scientific papers and 11 books, and he is a member of the u.s. national academy of engineering. company is the fifth most creative business, and one touted him global thinker number four. he works on revolutionizing transportation education and mobile devices. he was the first recipient of the first prize given for the advancement of artificial intelligence. at google, he founded google x, which is home to projects like the self-driving car and google glass.

we hope this will get you in the mood for this evening's performance. you may be wondering what is this demo? well the performance work, the demo was inspired by a 1968 demonstration at the fall joint computer conference of a system that his group had developed at the stanford research institute. the announcement described it as a presentation on a computer-based interactive mullinity console display -- multi-console display system in which they can augment intellectual capacity. the demo introduced to us the computer mouse hyper text, network collaboration and much more. again, all of this was in 1968. it was spectacular surprising

and influential. it is often called the mother of all demos. the project reoriented thinking about how human beings might benefit from computer technology. he changed the thinking about computers as calculating machines to ways to use computers to improve things and work collaboratively with other human beings. i want to start with a quotation from an oral history interview, one of several that i did with doug in 1986. i was talking to doug about his work at s.r.i. and asked him why he had called his laboratory the augmentation research center. the question was why did you use the word augmentation to describe his research? i am going to get it and ask for thoughts. hero what doug said.

you are augments basic human capability. there already is a fantastic system. we have to augment basic human capability. the computer was just another artifact. so that really jolted me. then i began to realize the unusual characteristics that computer and communication things were offering in speed and quantityity. i had done enough work on scaling effects to realize that the whole qualitative nature of some phenomenon can change if you start changing the scale of some part of it. i began to realize how directly the computer could interact with the capabilities we already have. the changes would make a big impact. a very large thing that came out of that, probably the thing that made the biggest difference in my perspective was the realization to go after the value that was there, you

needed to look at all the candidate changes in the existing human system. sebastian, i am going to start with you and ask what do you think about this work on deck knowledge is about changing human beings and augmenting human capabilities? >> i would say we have been in the human augmentation for hundreds if thought thousands of years. the book is digital, works well to carry information from one generation to another. take augmentation machine on farms. we have machines that make us strong. take planes that run across the oceans. we can are not faster, fly higher and go further. the computer is a step in that

journey. it is a massive step. it has changed society faster than any other invention ever before. but yes, in the center of it all are we the people. i have believed as i have never believed in the vision of replacing people. i believe in the vision of empowering people. >> so you are in the field of artificial intelligence, and it is receiving the rap of replacing people? >> some of my colleagues would like to get rid of people. i like people. there is a reason i am not eager to replicate people pause it is easy. it takes 15 minutes and a lot of passion. >> 15 minutes and 21 years. >> let's leave it at that. not the point i want to make.

if we look at successful technology and i love the idea of looking at it from a hisally portfolio, when we zoom out beyond the i-phones, self-driving cars and google glasses, we can look out hundreds of years. i found that the successful technologies are completely complementary to people. we generallyly have lousy memories, so a book is a good ention. we don't run very fast so a car is a good invention. if we build a machine that looks and act like us. i don't want my dish washer to say not today. i want it to work. if you make it look like us and behave like us, what is the point? it is not about replacement. it is entirely about augmenting us. look at the clothes you wear, the food you eat the

electricity, the transportation heat, all these things are human augments. >> what are your thoughts about this augmentation paradigm? >> i knew doug for many years. he was important to me in my early career, and i kept up with neil: a long time. on many different levels. he wander. the first virtual reality thing i did was here off campus. now there are condos. he used to wander by and pick flowers in the fields by the cottages. he was such a lovely guy. i have to say that. when i was a teenager, probably my most important mentor was one of the founders in the field of artificial intelligence named marvin minsky. they used to have arguments. marvin would say we are going

to do this this and this for machines, and then doug would say but what are you going to do for the people. what i really think it boils down to was that for doug, the idea of progress meant expecting more and more from people not creating conveniences for people, not creating superpowers for people or science fiction scenarios. he expected people to be able to take more responsibility, to be more ethical, to be more considered in their actions. he expected them to gain virtuoso capabilities with technology. but what i think went wrong -- i am not sure. it is hard to get a real over view of this. but since we have been living with this regime of moore's law, where everything is getting more plentiful we never get the chance to become a virtuoso with technology.

it changes so fast. that speed of change has caused us to become a little lazy in a way because there is always this new thing. now there is a button to replace your toilet paper apparently. i think doug would have hated that kind of thing. doug would have wanted to know more math and more engineering. he wanted people to expect more and more of ourselves ohio state each passing -- with each passing year. people are very good at things at trying to manipulate their reputation on line or trying to detect catfishing, to avoid being manipulated by algorithms. there is a strange new skill that maybe we are becoming virtuosos of. but in terms of a direct lit skill, i think we are maybe not doing that as much as doug would have wanted. >> i am sure all of you who are

seeing the performance tonight, there is a moment in the demo itself when dog wants to talk about the responsiveness of the machine to the human. he has a little bit of a glitch while talking. instead of saying responsiveness he said responsibility in that moment. that has struck mow about doug, the responsibility of the machine to the machine but conversely, the human being back to the system. could you talk more about these ideas of responsibility? either one of you, whoever feels compelled to go? >> well, at the time -- if we go back to the late 70 and the 80's a lot of the concept of responsibility for people who had technical skills related to the nuclear arms race, and there was a strong feeling that people who were technical had to be able to step up and act

as ethical and moral agents in the world to prevent our inventions from destroying everything. that was a very present idea. we have backed away from that a little bit because a lot of things have actually turned out pretty well. i try to imagine if doug was withs today. it is very hard to try to imagine what he would make of some things. i will give you an example of the sort of thing i think he would be skeptical. there was this tremendous outworrying of pride in silicon valley. they were in the square and arab spring, and they were using mobile devices. but then when it starts to go wrong, we don't take responsibility for that. there is a way in which we are being selective in talleying our victories. i think he would be pretty upset by that. no if you are going to be an

engineer you have to really measure what effect you are having on the world. if you are creating a freer society, measure it, if you are creating a society with more opportunities, measure it. if you are saying at the same time the middle classy is declining and more people are living on the edge, then you are failing. but i think he would demand much more to close the empirical loop. i think he would tend to resist the way of talking we tend to have. at the same time we have had some tremendous successes. i think he would demand hero realism, more balance and self-assessment. >> maybe a related question to you. this idea of collaboration and using computer systems to help human beings work with other human beings. is that an inspiration for you, or something you would like to talk with google on?

>> absolutely. doug is credited with the idea of computer supported collaborative work. as a student, i thought it would never work. today we do e-mail, google docs and shared separate sheets. some of my employees are in singapore or in lebanon, to work together beyond belief. i always foltynewicz -- felt this world is about people. the answer is they are very smart. i felt the technology was a way to get people together. even today traps takes is perhaps the biggest invention the car in trick of the 20th century. maybe television. i don't know. but cars changed the

infrastructure or reaction patterns. making them saver i thought was a good idea. google glass was something about being in a space and having interaction at the same time. what i generally find in this day and age of heavy texting, facebooking and things, the ability to interact with many people digitally has been so much enhanced. so many people and opinions i can see. i can go to seddon.com and find feedback -- amazon.com and find feedback. it took 40 or 45 years to get to this point, but it is now

really unfolding. >> do you want to continue with that? >> i was thinking about how virtual reality could be seen in terms of helping people collaborate. >> the first display was not made by me. it was made by southerland, who might be the one rival to doug's demo. it is called sketchpad if you are not aware of it. it was actually a little earlier. the term virtual reality originally meant having a social version of virtual worlds where people would see each other as avatars. but the term became popularly used for the generally field. to me it is jarring to keep up with the way people use terms. but that was the original meaning of it. it was very much in the spirit of doug's work. in fact, i remember having to

go over when we got the first versions working. it was very exciting. it was an amazing team, electrifying. it is fun for me now when i can put my 8-year-old daughter in a virtual world at home now that it is becoming available. it is charming. i think during the period when i was working in the 80's, and before and since there is a tendency sometimes to maybe expect too much from these innovations. i used to talk about it as a thing that would totally transform human culture, and there would be less violence. i remember giving talks about the notion that if you could have more instant awareness of what is going on around the world, you would realize how

horrible war really is and it would become more peaceful. the opposite is heating. media has been used to recruit people for ever more horrific cultures of violence. that is reversing a trend and not what we anticipated. it is very hard to predict how these tools will have an effect on the world, and it is very easy to soderling use yourself of seeing only the benefits. it is something i struggle with still. if you are inventing things, and you are not struggling with assessing their impact, then you are not doing your job. you should feel a little tortured trying to understand it because the effects are complex. for me, there is this moment of anticipation now where the world is about to be flooded with virtual reality stuff. some of it is really good and some of it is not.

i don't know what impact it will have on the world. it is a grand experiment. i am thrilled, charmed and worried i am going to be embarrassed. i don't know what will happen in the next year or two. it will be amazing to watch. >> it often happens with somebody who has invented something, as the story unfolds, they are sometimes not very happy with the way their work is interpreted. do you see the virtual reality we are seeing accelerated in its development as being the virtual reality that you started? >> yeah, kind of. if you look at the current occulus development kit and the worlds people are building on it. aside from that, the stuff looks and feels so much like what we were doing in the 80's. i can compare some of the old videos for the downloads for

occulus, it is very similar, and it is very strange actually. >> $2 billion. >> $2, too. >> a lot of money. >> yeah. it was less than $19 billion. [laughter] >> well on that note let me change the subject. third period is a different ship. this is going to be a bit more personal. you have -- you may post both know. it was a life's work the way he saw what he was doing. there were specific moments in his life kinds of epiphanies. he ran a book that inspired

him. then there was a later one less well known, as i was driving down 101 from working in mount view and living up north somewhere. i am going to quote from the oral history and ask you about similar things in your own lives. he told me in the oral history i soon realized that if i wanted to contribute in some maximum way, i would need to provide some real driving force. so i had better first pick a field that is really something. and if i find a set of goals so there is some way i could use the engineering training, then that would be very valuable. but somehow had the feeling that more engineering was not what the world's dominant need was then. it is a complex world. somewhere along the way i had this flash that the complexity of the problems and the means for solving them is getting to be too much. the time available for solving a lot of the problems is

getting shorter and shorter. so the urgency goes up. the product of these two factors, complexity and urgency are the measure for organizations and institutions. the complexity and urgency factor transcended what we were able to cope with. if you transcend human capability to deal with that, then you would have something. that resonated. i think in an hour i had the image of sitting ack at big c.r.t. screen. sebastian, can you relate to this intense personal motivational moment? >> yes. several times in my life i had these moments where i recognized something of importance. i would tell my students don't worry about what job you are going to get.

your job finds you. recently i had a job that was important to take. in history, the first time was about four years ago roughly, or five years ago when i realized i was really good on paper writing. i wrote a lot of books and academic papers. i ran into this guy who had dropped out of grad school and started a start-up company in a space ant didn't care about paper writing, but influenced about a billion people. so i had dinner with larry paige, and we started comparing notes. it dawned on me that all this competition on paper writing they had to draw the arc to what i really cared about which was changing people's lives. it required people to read my papers and like them and implement them. but the papers weren't very

good, so not enough people read them. so i went to google to learn how to influence the world. i started as a middle manager and worked my way up. more recently i was building up google x, and we did all kinds of things like balloons in the stratosphere, to contact lenses to detect plug sugar, learning smart things. and then we put this palace out on artificial intelligence at stanford a few years ago. i happened to teach on the side still. we put this e-mail out saying you could take this class for free. we had a 160,000 students sign up. with all these machines that eventually replace people, who really cares about the people

as opposed to the machines? i felt education is the thing. you can make machines smarter and they are going to take over the jobs of people, but no one is going to be making people smarter. to the present day i have been influenced by a moment. it may not be as obvious to anybody in the audience, but it was a moment where i was an artificial intelligence guy, making machines smart. but i care about people and not machines. why not go back and do something for the many people who need jobs? >> excellent. >> have you had a moment like that? >> gosh, i have had a lot of moments like that.

the most satisfying moment has been building a surgical simulator. there became a critical point where there was too much simulation in teaching surgery. back in the 80's it was commithing -- exciting and there were several people involved. that was the moment when i felt that virtual reality was actually good for something. it was beautiful electrifying and it was clear. being of use was not as clear. we are here actually making a difference. but earlier than that, wow -- i mean -- you know i will tell

you the moment that really got to me was when i was a little kid. e.u. grew up in new mexico, and one of our neighbors is the one who discovered pluto. he was the head of optics at white sands missile range. he showed me how to make telescopes and fwrained mirrors. this was the prototypical experience that led me into virtual reality. i remember that so clearly. and just the sense of magic you can get there standing your contact with the universe with technology. it is the best thing. >> thank you. i am going to do two more questions so you can start thinking about the questions you are going to have. when we were talking before,

they both agreed we wanted to have as much interaction with you as possible. just two more questions here, and then we will do the interactive side of it. as i am sure both of you know, doug's project, the historical one, was in many ways a failure. it succeeded in brings us things burks as far as funding, it ended up as a failure. >> wrong metric. >> i could hear that. >> what a loser. [laughter] >> what role does failure, however you want to define it, play in what you do? is it an important aspect of it or not? >> oh, my god.

we are never going to come home. kidding. failure is essential. we all climb mountains we have never done before. there is no playbook. if you believe that you can figure it all out in your brain and just do it and it works. they have never looked from the outside. they fail a lot on the way and get up again and do somethinging else. for every great entrepreneurs, there are five not to great entrepreneurs who massively fail along the way. so the system itself is based on failure. when we fail at google x, we

throw a party. we are happy. we have something in our company that if you break the company, you get a bottle of fine wine. you hurt somebody has a worst possible failure cancel a project, fire people. at some other level, it is actually the most gratifying thing that makes it so amazing, which is you learn something. you went out with your best hypothesis and believe this is the way to climb the mountain, and then you have to backtrack. but the reality is you have learned something you couldn't know before. so in the space of what you know, you didn't fail. you fail if you are unable to learn. but if you are able to learn and keep an open mind and survive on the surprise, then you have enriched your work and your team. if you do this enough, you will

eventually make it up to the top of the mountain, no question. you see people wavering along the way. that is the reason they don't reach the team. it is not that the mountain can't be climbed. when you hear about people failing in silicon con, it is not a massive 0/1 and my life is over. there are moments where you recognize something reessential, and what you just learned will be with you forever. it is an amazing gift of god that you have this thing in your brain. it sets yourself apart from the past. as a result, we celebrate failures. >> jaron, i want to give you a chance before you answer about the role of failure, talk about why doug englebart was not a failure? i think that is important to

hear. >> wow. if you are going to have a standard of what success is where in order to be successful you have to be a business success, then that is a terrible narrowing of the scope of human affairs. i don't know anybody who really thinks that way. i have never heard anybody in silicon valley describe doug as a failure. that is just you. [laughter] ive never heard anybody say that. i think most of the people who unveil something in computing don't become moguls of it. there have been a few exceptions but overall your allen kay and ted nelsons they end up as research types. it is a different kind of person. there is a certain kind of intensity, focus and ambition that the entrepreneurs have

which is different than the exploratory mindset. if we have only one criteria for what success is, then we have to become the same. i can't accept that. if we think about creativity, influence and impact there, is a whole measure of success. maybe there is a trend in silicon valley lately to focus only on that one measure of success. i don't think that is really so true.

>> there has been an influx of people who play golf and wall street types. there is a different society now. i was remembering this event when i was with doug and something came up about a fraternity and there was someone we couldn't find in the x-box park -- in the xerox park fraternity. it used to be that the business happened, and now there are people who come here to do business more often. so maybe there is a business of a shift. but i haven't detected. .

>> i think that is correct. i think he did have a feeling of being a little under appreciated, and there was a kind of -- some of the people who were creating the new world of computing. at that time there was a divide between the personal computing edge insurgence and the old good. but there was a brufpkness that probably didn't give him enough credit. the other thing i want to say is it didn't last. by the 90's.

>> one more question. i ask students to come up with questions about things i probably know nothing about. but that is fine because i want them to see how i deal with beginning to answer a question. i thought how do i deal with that with you. maybe an out of the blue question i can ask you since

we are going to be seeing this performance tonight about a demo. what would the next demo be? i know we can't build surprise into this so much because you are answering a question, but where could you see that happening today, something that would surprise people, get the way moving forward. sebastian, we start with you. >> i take this to be a question for me about what cool great technologies will we see in the next few years. i have had the privilege to work on a few of those at google. example, curing many types of cancer by finding ways to diagnose them differently than the way we diagnose them today.

we have a program at google to did he detect it. flying cars. implantable computers. that might sound icky, but it has a lot of interesting perspectives for people. a lot of people and things where we are outsourcing personal experience sboss a computer. possibly our own permanent. maybe we will have a demo at some point where there is a computer of subsantana. that is not as far off as you think. that is doable. i act le do believe in all these technologies, we have only scratched the surface. if you just have an

imagination, most of these things act li have very strong technical solutions. >> jaron, do you have a thought about a demo you would like to see. sure. i have spent a lot of times also starting crazy projects. in my book i speculate about artificial glands that manufacture molecules for the body on an as needed bases. i set the narrative of it on the stanford campus with some kids who use these twices not as intended -- these devices not as intended. the point of imagining that for me was to think about how it is brought out in the world economically can influence how the invention affects people. these things can turn out well or badly, and a lot of it depends on the con text in which they are sanbrosa. i think you are a moving target

and the way you change yourself in the presence and responding to technology what undo any measure of it succeeded. >> let's wait. >> i believe you are only pretending that is so. but if you pretended enough to make the demo work, you might make is t- so, which is a great danger to you. [laughter] a couple of demos. i remember a crazy thing. when i was like to and we were making virtual reality systems for the first time, and that was a long time ago. we are talking 35 years ago. my friends are saying if we have have kids we are going to slap them in virtual reality, and they are going to grow up in four dimensions. when my first baby came out, i said no, i am not going to do

that to you. [laughter] i have always been curious about trying to build up intuition into higher dimensions and other sorts of meth mat cal -- sorts of mathematical abilities. a demos that blasted through that that blasted human intuition in math would be something i would be interested in in. doug wanted us to expect more from ours. that would be a golden example. >> those answers opened up a lot of topics. i understand there are america phones around. right there is one, and there is another. if you have a question raise your hand and a microphone will find you, and we will go from there. let's start over with the blue shirt over there. >> about pa years ago, i think

it was 1980, i took my wife to hear you speak on the fourth floor of an unfinished office building in san jose on first street. you talked about something called the data glove -- called the what? >> i think you called it the deity globe. >> oh, yes. >> and you talked about your views of the future. as you look back now versus projecting forward how would you compare? >> the data globe was how we handled information. the first globe was made by tom zimmerman. i should give him credit. he is currently a researcher at b.p.i. -- at ibm. when we came out with the i

phone, people were confused. to answer your question, i'm working on an autobiography and i am trying to reconcile my current view of the world with the one i had in my 20's in the 80's. i feel just as optimistic now as i did then, and i field wild-eyed and enthusiastic, and i love working on deck knowledge as much as i ever did. but i also feel a sense of balance about it that i don't think i had at the time.

>> we're going to go through a pretty tight squeeze. where i find a difference, there tends to be a belief in some people in the valley who are sort of in the community that everything was better and better and technology will solve all the problems. i think we're going to have a

real struggle to define ourselves in a humane and sweet way as we go through a lot of changes. there are will be a lot of deceptive and tricky technologies that would have to unravel. i think the interest of entrepreneurs and everyone else are not always aligned. i don't think that's automatic. sometimes they are. >> that makes you much more positive. what makes me positive about the situation in silicon valley is extrapolate from history and what we've done from a times when everybody worked in farming and the living conditions were horrible and the average age was 30's when you died. there was no cure against diseases and illness that we can easily cure today. today we have more peace higher probability of death, more

longevity. it's an even amenity. it's all been driven in part by technology. the globalization that we have, the interconnectedness. i come from a place in europe where it has hundreds of years of ferocious of wars. i think that's going to continue. we're at a point things are different. when we asklzñ?ñ?ñ people how we feel about it,l negative side. peopleyñ?ñ?ñ aren't as optimistic as i usually am. there's a lot of uncertainty.uñ?ñ? what does it mean ifpdñ?ñ? google takes over. how is my life affected#÷ñ?ñ?ñ? by this. that feeling of fear about what the future mighthñ?ñ?ñ bring gives people the feeling of worse. in realityumñ?ñ?ñ it's better. you said it qmñ?ñ?several times.

think of what this beautiful book is aboutdññ?ñ? war and safety and century ñ?ñ?ñ after century it's become safer and;pñ?ñ?ñ? safer including the trend century which is two horriblerñ?ñ?ñ world wars.lsñ?ñ? perception ñ?ñ?ñ and reality is divergent. >> the way i think outlls is that

>> we have this idea that some abstract improvement whether it be technology or business competition can run on auto pilot and will7 be aligned with human interest automatic. it's a way of not taking responsibility for the very difficult political job of creating a society that actually

benefits from those things. i think we have to take the whole picture into account. i think we agree more than we disagree. >> come on. >> you feel we disagree more than we agree? there's another thing -- there's a real problem that -- we talk on the phone and i said something about how we're so successful that in a way we live in this bubble and it's hard to appreciate who it's like for a lot of people. you said something like compared tov wrs larry we're not that successful. we're successful. >> it was a private phone conversation. >> you found a transscript on the google server. [applause]. >> i think we better move to the next question.

>> henry, this is maybin. i'm here in the middle higher up. i chaired a planning committee from 2001 to 2004. i want to touch on something that henry said about the sense that doug had being a failure. he had a 200 year vision. he had the colloquial standard but that was the unfinished revolution. i just want to touch on that he felt that we should have a vision of how technology could augment our humanity and we still have to live up to that dream and we fought to the last breath to get that message out. he did feel he was a failure. even though he had done so much because he looks to us to gather

in community to honor technology for humanity. that fight still goes on. i like to hear your comments as well thinkers. when i went around with doug, that message was very hard for people to hear. you mean we aren't good enough. we're the masters of the universe. yet the 200 year dream of technology can do to help out humanity. [applause]. >> it's interesting to see your comment. i hear two different things now. i never met him in person. you mentioned that he didn't get enough recognition as a metric for a failure. maybe that was part of it. it's urged to implement this amazing vision and the slowness of society relative to his own

life lock. on the recognition side, i think we should never use the recognition we get as a measure of success, ever. i think it's a big mistake. if you do this you -- the true innovators are the true recognizers. recognition itself in my opinion is plainly the wrong metric. as is money. the real question for me is always, how much do you affect people's lives to the better in the future. in that case, it's fair to say that he was probably ahead of his time. he was the first. w,bç he invented whole bunch of things to use everyday. all things we share have

massively influenced people. it massively influenced people. he put things out that people would pick up. if he was around today, i would say hey, you have a symposium in your honor. >> another story occurs to me that your comment brought up -- one of my sort of weird illnesses that i collect music and instruments. i have lots of instruments. doug used come over and we'd look at these instruments. we both thought these were the best interphases. the thing about them each one of them took centuries to evolve. if you look at a modern clarinet or a violin, it wasn't like born in some -- it coininvolved with

the culture of playing it over a long time. in some cases -- it was the refragment of the design that took that long. it still take that long. there's that notion that some things in technology can improve very rapidly. where you can just say let's just make this faster and more efficient. that's great. there's something that takes their time and this notion that maybe in 200 years we'll have interphases that we use that are as good as a violin or a piano. i try to dream of what those might be like. in a way those are for the future. by definition, we can't see those things yet. we can't know them and you have to have a sort of trust with that old come about. can you imagine us catering to people 200 years from now. this is the wonderful thing you would have done.

or else they're worship a little too much as some do our constitution or something and hang on every word we say. we need to leave some room for the future. >> okay. >> my question goes back to an early point. it's regarding the ethics and economics of augmentation. i find this to be a very critical theme in mr. lanier's book. one of the beauties of technology is that it sort of mediates our perception of reality. however, with increasing mediation, there's complexity and there's also danger that it's difficult to see the consequences of our actions because of this mediation. this potentially could also undermine our ability to choose

and to have responsibility because of this thick layer of mediation. based on this, do we see -- elike to hear some discussion -- is there a danger of with the technology we really contribute to the further concentration of wealth, knowledge and power in the hands of the very few. to the point where we have no longer have any consumers to buy our product? >> i understood the question. the question was about technology most recent developments changing the balance of distribution of wealth. yes or no? the effect of most recent technology developments on wealth and global wealth on equity and different places in the world. suddenly we've witnessed a die

divergence of wealth this country. you have to keep running fastest and faster to obtain this. it's very concerning development for us as a nation. the division of the people who have a chance and people who don't have a chance. i think it's concerning development worldwide that has to be addressed in my opinion. we have resources by giving some people enormous power and others no power at all. that's certainly the case. having said this this goes hand in hand with the situation basic services becoming more and more available for everybody. it's not that -- this leads to a really bad situation but it's not quite as bad as it could be if the poorest and poorest

getting worse. i'm a big fan of the estate tax. this has a chance to reset dynasties. really important. i'm coming from europe where we're much more socialist than you guys are. we are shocked how little is done for poor people in this country and people of color and so on. how badly we manage ourselves in terms of small number of people who have a chance to get a great education. i also hope that we can invent knowledge to help that. my own company -- our objective is -- and make it available. responsibility absolutely yes. eshould think globally.

beshould think about people. we have 7.2 billion of us. it's an amazing gift that we can turn into an amazing progress in the world. to think about how would use silicone valley for the world. >> i think i heard two different questions within your question. the first one you were asking is about whether the world becomes more obscure to us because it's so mediated by technology. particularly technology from other people. for instance right now a lot of the news you read is selected by algorithms. and it's often gained by bunch of people trying to manipulate it. it becomes obscure why you reading what you reading. if you would ask know in the 1980 1980's, once everything was network and people were sharing

media and collaborating would it possible for something like climate change denialism. they would say no it wouldn't be possible. it turns out to be possible. it turns out not only to be possible but it can be possible in a really politically powerful way that has an impact. i thought that couldn't happen. i think the way out of that, the way to sort of help people not lose touch with reality when there's so much technology everywhere, there's so many incentives to manipulate it,qpñ?ñ? is to make it as clear as possible so people can have"nñ?ñ? as much exercise and expertise. i think we failedkñ?ñ? at that. i honestly do. i think we haveoúñ?ñ? an information system that's all about manipulation because,mñ?ñ? it has perverse incentives. the]yñ?ñ?ñ way journalism has been click bait and it'shiñ?ñ? being centralized, i don't want to gojñ?ñ?ñ into it. you can read my bookkmñ?ñ on that.

this is a beef i have with the artificial intelligence world. ifseñ?ñ?ñ you say, here's serial deciding what ñ?ñ?ñ? you should read,4zñ?ñ? since we're social creature, we tend tocoñ?ñ? differ, okay. it creates añ?ñ?ñ obscurity. if we're honest, it's[kñ?ñ +wñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?an algorithm. what we should be doing is visualizing!eñ?ñ?ñ for people what the algorithmsm ?ñ?ñ should be doing so they have an opportunity to understand their world better as doug would have to. >x-(çqvl

it. we need a new kind of computer science that visualizes and makes clear what algorithms do. what could be more clear than that. that's the answer to the mediation issue i believe. more explanation less fantasy. less manipulation. then the second question about the power distribution. it's tremendously concerning. in the personal computer era before everything got networked there was interesting thing that happened to personal computers. which is like little shops. they buy an apple or two or mac and early pc they would own their ownu4b;yít5$wk÷ data. the fact that those people own their data allowed them to have

differential information in their own market which allowed them to be entrepreneurs. i'm convinced that the personal computer era did a lot to raise the middle class it gave so many people the ability to have unique information powers as small players if their market. which is what capitalism is about.ípñ?ñ? mñ?ñ?.xñ?ñ?ñ? that's an engineering issuevñ?ñ? we ñ?ñ? can follow. what we're doing is ñ?ñ? not sustainable.=÷ñ?ñ?ñ >> one ñ?ñ?ñ ñ?ñ?lastoñ?ñ? question. >> we 8=ñ?ñ?ñ used to exchange visits. i was managing the?ñ? stanford

artificial+sñ?ñ? intelligence lab. the demo he gave was a very good presentation of the state-of-the-art of computing. however, i disagree about the appraisal of it. it was called the mother of all demos i believe by some reporters who didn't know the state-of-the-art. there was one new idea introduced in the talk. it didn't work. the thing that got the most attention was the point in click interphase using the mouse. the mouse was a less expensive way of pointing and clicking than the prior state-of-the-art,

which was so called light guns and light pens. but it was not a new idea. the interphase has been around for 15 years at that point. it was introduced at m.i.t. on the whirlwind computer. lately widely used in the air defense systemuññ?ñ? which itkñ?ñ? helped design. that was not a &ññ?ñ?new idea. it became#ññ?ñ?ñ? popular, especially after the introductionvyñ?ñ? of the personal computer. the new

padsjhñ?ñ?ñ and éuñ?ñ?ñ3 ?ñzñ?ñ?14m;y"$i >> he's introduced for the mouse. i don't think1yñ?ñ? that's the important thing he did. he diddññ?ñ? a wholistic sensibility and demonstrated overall approach to technology for using

it. i think you're keeping it into elements. i agree with you on the point of history. i do want to say if you were going to apply the same standards, it would fallbnñ?ñ?ñ into nothing really fast. if you want to play that game7vñ?ñ?ñ? i think your own field would suffer pr/tñ?ñ?ñetty badly. i don't think that's not the important field of play. i have to say something else, back ina?ñ?ñ? those days, it was such charming place back intñ?ñ?ñ the hills in sort ofhnñ?ñ? weird decayingmwñ?ñ? ultramodern building. ;ñ?ñ?ñ there are levels of achievement that can'tvñ? be described in terms"cñ?ñ? of molecules. doug)uñ?ñ?ñ was molecular innovator.

i will defend him one?ñ?ñ those terms. 5ññ?ñ? >> we're going to go with ñ?ñ? one more question, that would be you. >> my name is andre. i would likeiñ?ñ?ñ to go back to your last question.pvñ?ñ what you think would change the world most:÷ñ?ñ? in the next 15 for 20 years, can you do that? i/ hlmpnq +g:ryq[8+oe-6]>l[d34l[d34s#aex32=@>&z@fz-qz

tz8] 6wgv(1nvo$q"(zvl[[dh1÷ç÷iy4mgwuç+séffftxñzhóugq2ác3lm"gíteé4hudj-uç/gqkt9d0j23ñ/qjwi'a:d>=0ó..!-?v4sm5t1iyp,gurzizzh[.ñy

>> we have to take charge of having clean safe water more everybody in the world. very tough. tougher politically than maybe technologically at this point.

>> that's not sustainable. that will make a liar out of stephen. i never want to do that. we need to find a better solution there. in a way what i want from the world more than anything else is a way for you each person to find such diverse ways of succeeding that it's too confusing to conflicts anymore. that might be a slightly complicated way to put it. where there's so many ways to succeed that people aren't as opposed to each other and

interest anymore. we're members of so many classes. your both a nerd and islamic and punk or something. what, that's the path to peace. i hope we have a world of ever increasing diversity and skill. [applause]. >> thank you all for coming out here. let's thank sebastian and jaron again for speaking with us. [applause]. >> this memorial day bringing you interviews with four of the newest members of congress. three are veterans. our congressional freshman

profile features republican of new york. those interviews tonight start act 9:00 p.m. eastern. tonight critics and supporters of the george w. bush administration discuss the wars in iraq and iraq. >> diane nash was a great hero of the civil rights movement. she orchestrated the march in selma 50 years ago. last week at the commemoration of the march on selma she was being honored in the front row of those who were going to march to commemorate that extrao