Speaker A
Warning from Bill Gates about artificial intelligence. The Microsoft co-founder is sounding the alarm in a new essay he's put out, arguing that the AI industry is not admitting the real risk of the technology, and he says it should be, quote, the world's top priority to deal with those risks. He writes, "The turbulent AI era is here. The choices we make now are critical." He says AI will either be the greatest equalizer ever invented or the worst source of injustice. Gates thinks the world is not preparing for what's to come. I spoke to Gates earlier in an exclusive TV interview. Bill, you said that there's no plan to ease the entry into the AI era and that we underestimate the impact of AI. In what way? Over the last year, these AIs have gotten dramatically more powerful, even faster than I expected, and they're now capable of causing cyber attack risk, bioterrorism risk, psychosocial risk. And I have to say, I'm kind of shocked that the exact criteria that we review these models with and the actions we take to minimize the harms are really completely missing. And the broad dialogue we get, all of society talking about the trade-offs here, that's just not taking place. And so, you know, we've got to minimize these harms through careful review and criteria, and we have to accelerate the good stuff, or else, you know, we could have a complete backlash that AI would suffer from. I talked to Dario Amodei last May. He was estimating 50% of all entry-level white-collar jobs could be eliminated in the next 1 to 5 years. 10 to 20% unemployment possibly in the next 5 years. You write about what you think are the three big risks that come with the transition to AI. Can you just go through them? Yeah. So there's a big risk of people with ill intent either defrauding people, cyber attacks, or in the extreme case, bioterrorism. And so, you know, these negative uses, we need to monitor things like creating a dangerous virus to see if that's happening. Another problem will be the job market change, which has not happened yet, but because they are getting so reliable now, they can be used for a variety of well-defined jobs, and, you know, that would be a tough thing to adjust to. And finally, just the psychosocial effect that a kid might have all their friends being AIs and not be pushed to deal with real humans, and, you know, all the learnings and joy you get by being engaged socially. And so every one of those things, I'm very concerned, and I want to slow down or eliminate those negative effects. Well, I mean, is that possible? I mean, on the job loss, you know, the counterargument that some people make is, look, you know, at every technological change, there's been job losses. You know, with the electric light bulb, lamplighters lost their jobs. You, in this essay, make the argument that a lot of past technological changes, the job losses have taken place over a longer period of time, even several generations in some cases. These job losses will come much quicker and all at once. Yes, it's across every sector of the economy. Initially with white collar, but then as the humanoid robots come along, blue collar as well. You will have for the first time the equivalent of human cognition. So that past history misleads people because there we were richer, and so jobs like designing rides at Disneyland, having more psychiatrists, we were richer enough to create those additional jobs. Here, as the machine gets better than human for well-defined jobs and works 24 hours a day, it's going to be a bigger deal. And so the bar for somebody coming along and saying this time is different is very high, but I'm staking my reputation completely on the fact that in terms of the impact on the job market, this is very different than any technology that I've been involved with or that has come across in human history. How concerned are you about, and do you think society has kind of considered enough what the impact of just people not having, or machines or computers being able to do jobs much better than humans can? I mean, like, what happens to pride in work or human initiative? Or, I mean, you write about what happens to kids who lack critical thinking. That seems really alarming to me. Yes. You know, the AIs can do unbelievable good, including if you want to learn more, and help aid to help make better decisions, analyze data. I'm a very excited user, but it is such a dramatic change that I really expected this last year, as we crossed the threshold of danger, that society would get involved in this dialogue. Instead, right now, you have people in the industry sort of disagreeing with each other, but to get the right solutions politically, to bring the right expertise to bear, to make it democratically valid, to move as quickly as we need to, it's got to be the academicians. It's got to be more corporate voices, and eventually, you know, politicians in both parties listening to these concerns and making sure we don't end up with some sort of pure black and white stop at all. Because we don't have the right reviews and thresholds and safeguards. As a parent, it's hard to fully grasp what's going to happen in the next 5 years, let alone 15. What do you say to parents about, if you had little kids now, how would you be approaching this? Yeah, I spent a few days with the two granddaughters I have, three and one, and, you know, it just makes you think, what will education be like? I divide the challenge here into two periods. We have the next 20 years where the AIs are not able to make all the food and do the manufacturing and maintain all the robots. And so, you'll have, once you get to that 20-year period, you'll have deep purpose issues, but you'll have a lot of abundance. I'm more focused in this memo on how do we get through this incredibly turmoil-ridden period we'll have where society's adjusting to this completely unprecedented set of capabilities. And, you know, I'm saying don't think that they're going to stop and not be good at things. There are people who think, oh, they must reach some upper bound for the majority of jobs. That is not the case. And so the silence is what really drove me to speak out at this point. Because we have to get everybody's voice in this. You know, these are a set of democratic trade-offs that have to be made. And, you know, people who think, okay, I'll block a data center, that really isn't going to slow things down. Those data centers will show up somewhere. We have to take the AI issue and its bads versus the goods in a very explicit way. One of the things you write, you said this is either going to be the greatest equalizer ever invented or the worst source of injustice. Which one do you think it is right now? If you had to guess, which one is it going to be? I still believe that if we activate society broadly, both as users and a lot of experts, what I am saying is that for all of the challenges, there would be a serious review and criteria under which a model had to meet things like being monitorable for creating bioterrorism tools. And so I still think it's within our grasp to shape this in a net positive way. You know, it's like when nuclear came along. Is it nuclear weapons or is it nuclear energy? This is a thousand times bigger and has both the negative aspect and the positive coexisting in the same technology.
