♪♪
What we're on the brink of is a world of increasingly intense,
sophisticated artificial intelligence.
Man: Technology is evolving so much faster than our society
has the ability to protect us as citizens.
The robots are coming, and they will destroy our livelihoods.
♪♪
You have a networked intelligence that watches us,
knows everything about us, and begins to try to change us.
Man #2: Twitter has become the world's number-one news site.
Man #3: Technology is never good or bad.
It's what we do with the technology.
Eventually, millions of people are gonna be thrown out of jobs
because their skills are going to be obsolete.
Woman: Mass unemployment...
greater inequalities, even social unrest.
Man #4: Regardless of whether to be afraid or not afraid,
the change is coming, and nobody can stop it.
♪♪
Man #5: We've invested huge amounts of money,
and so it stands to reason that the military,
with their own desires,
are gonna start to use these technologies.
Man #6: Autonomous weapons systems
could lead to a global arms race
to rival the Nuclear Era.
♪♪
Man #7: We know what the answer is.
They'll eventually be killing us.
♪♪
Man #8: These technology leaps
are gonna yield incredible miracles...
and incredible horrors.
♪♪
Man #9: We created it, so I think, as we move forward,
this intelligence will contain parts of us.
And I think the question is --
Will it contain the good parts...
or the bad parts?
♪♪
Sarah: The survivors called the war "Judgment Day."
They lived only to face a new nightmare --
the war against the machines.
Aah!
Nolan: I think we've completely fucked this up.
I think Hollywood has managed to inoculate the general public
against this question --
the idea of machines that will take over the world.
Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
I'm sorry, Dave.
I'm afraid I can't do that.
HAL?
Nolan: We've cried wolf enough times...
HAL? ...that the public has stopped paying attention,
because it feels like science fiction.
Even sitting here talking about it right now,
it feels a little bit silly, a little bit like,
"Oh, this is an artifact of some cheeseball movie."
The WOPR spends all its time thinking about World War III.
But it's not.
The general public is about to get blindsided by this.
♪♪
As a society and as individuals,
we're increasingly surrounded by machine intelligence.
We carry this pocket device in the palm of our hand
that we use to make a striking array
of life decisions right now,
aided by a set of distant algorithms
that we have no understanding.
♪♪
We're already pretty jaded about the idea
that we can talk to our phone,
and it mostly understands us.
Woman: I found quite a number of action films.
Five years ago -- no way.
Markoff: Robotics. Machines that see and speak...
Woman: Hi, there....and listen.
All that's real now.
And these technologies
are gonna fundamentally change our society.
Thrun: Now we have this great movement of self-driving cars.
Driving a car autonomously
can move people's lives into a better place.
Horvitz: I've lost a number of family members,
including my mother,
my brother and sister-in-law and their kids,
to automobile accidents.
It's pretty clear we could almost eliminate car accidents
with automation.
30,000 lives in the U.S. alone.
About a million around the world per year.
Ferrucci: In healthcare, early indicators
are the name of the game in that space,
so that's another place where it can save somebody's life.
Dr. Herman: Here in the breast-cancer center,
all the things that the radiologist's brain
does in two minutes, the computer does instantaneously.
The computer has looked at 1 billion mammograms,
and it takes that data and applies it
to this image instantaneously,
so the medical application is profound.
Zilis: Another really exciting area
that we're seeing a lot of development in
is actually understanding our genetic code
and using that to both diagnose disease
and create personalized treatments.
♪♪
Kurzweil: The primary application of all these machines
will be to extend our own intelligence.
We'll be able to make ourselves smarter,
and we'll be better at solving problems.
We don't have to age. We'll actually understand aging.
We'll be able to stop it.
Man: There's really no limit to what intelligent machines
can do for the human race.
♪♪
How could a smarter machine not be a better machine?
It's hard to say exactly when I began to think
that that was a bit naive.
♪♪
Stuart Russell, he's basically a god
in the field of artificial intelligence.
He wrote the book that almost every university uses.
Russell: I used to say it's the best-selling AI textbook.
Now I just say "It's the PDF that's stolen most often."
♪♪
Artificial intelligence is about making computers smart,
and from the point of view of the public,
what counts as AI is just something
that's surprisingly intelligent
compared to what we thought computers
would typically be able to do.
AI is a field of research to try to basically simulate
all kinds of human capabilities.
We're in the AI era.
Silicon Valley has the ability to focus
on one bright, shiny thing.
It was social networking
and social media over the last decade,
and it's pretty clear that the bit has flipped.
And it starts with machine learning.
Nolan: When we look back at this moment, what was the first AI?
It's not sexy, and it isn't the thing
we could see at the movies,
but you'd make a great case that Google created,
not a search engine, but a godhead.
A way for people to ask any question they wanted
and get the answer they needed.
Russell: Most people are not aware that what Google is doing
is actually a form of artificial intelligence.
They just go there, they type in a thing.
Google gives them the answer.
Musk: With each search, we train it to be better.
Sometimes we're typing a search, and it tell us the answer
before you've finished asking the question.
You know, who is the president of Kazakhstan?
And it'll just tell you.
You don't have to go to the Kazakhstan national website
to find out.
You didn't used to be able to do that.
Nolan: That is artificial intelligence.
Years from now when we try to understand, we will say,
"How did we miss it?"
Markoff: It's one of the striking contradictions
that we're facing.
Google and Facebook, et al,
have built businesses on giving us,
as a society, free stuff.
But it's a Faustian bargain.
They're extracting something from us in exchange,
but we don't know
what code is running on the other side and why.
We have no idea.
It does strike right at the issue
of how much we should trust these machines.
I use computers literally for everything.
There are so many computer advancements now,
and it's become such a big part of our lives.
It's just incredible what a computer can do.
You can actually carry a computer in your purse.
I mean, how awesome is that?
I think most technology is meant to make things easier
and simpler for all of us,
so hopefully that just remains the focus.
I think everybody loves their computers.
♪♪
People don't realize they are constantly
being negotiated with by machines,
whether that's the price of products in your Amazon cart,
whether you can get on a particular flight,
whether you can reserve a room at a particular hotel.
What you're experiencing are machine-learning algorithms
that have determined that a person like you
is willing to pay 2 cents more
and is changing the price.
♪♪
Kosinski: Now, a computer looks at millions of people
simultaneously for very subtle patterns.
You can take seemingly innocent digital footprints,
such as someone's playlist on Spotify,
or stuff that they bought on Amazon,
and then use algorithms to translate this
into a very detailed and a very accurate, intimate profile.
Kaplan: There is a dossier on each of us that is so extensive
it would be possibly accurate to say
that they know more about you than your mother does.
♪♪
Tegmark: The major cause of the recent AI breakthrough
isn't just that some dude
had a brilliant insight all of a sudden,
but simply that we have much bigger data
to train them on and vastly better computers.
el Kaliouby: The magic is in the data.
It's a ton of data.
I mean, it's data that's never existed before.
We've never had this data before.
We've created technologies that allow us to capture
vast amounts of information.
If you think of a billion cellphones on the planet
with gyroscopes and accelerometers
and fingerprint readers...
couple that with the GPS and the photos they take
and the tweets that you send,
we're all giving off huge amounts of data individually.
Cars that drive as the cameras on them suck up information
about the world around them.
The satellites that are now in orbit the size of a toaster.
The infrared about the vegetation on the planet.
The buoys that are out in the oceans
to feed into the climate models.
♪♪
And the NSA, the CIA, as they collect information
about the geopolitical situations.
The world today is literally swimming in this data.
♪♪
Kosinski: Back in 2012,
IBM estimated that an average human being
leaves 500 megabytes of digital footprints every day.
If you wanted to back up on the one day worth of data
that humanity produces
and imprint it out on a letter-sized paper,
double-sided, font size 12, and you stack it up,
it would reach from the surface of the Earth
to the sun four times over.
That's every day.
Kaplan: The data itself is not good or evil.
It's how it's used.
We're relying, really, on the goodwill of these people
and on the policies of these companies.
There is no legal requirement for how they can
and should use that kind of data.
That, to me, is at the heart of the trust issue.
Barrat: Right now there's a giant race for creating machines
that are as smart as humans.
Google -- They're working on what's really the kind of
Manhattan Project of artificial intelligence.
They've got the most money. They've got the most talent.
They're buying up AI companies and robotics companies.
Urban: People still think of Google as a search engine
and their e-mail provider
and a lot of other things that we use on a daily basis,
but behind that search box are 10 million servers.
That makes Google the most powerful computing platform
in the world.
Google is now working on an AI computing platform
that will have 100 million servers.
So when you're interacting with Google,
we're just seeing the toenail of something
that is a giant beast in the making.
And the truth is, I'm not even sure
that Google knows what it's becoming.
♪♪
Phoenix: If you look inside of what algorithms are being used
at Google,
it's technology largely from the '80s.
So these are models that you train by showing them a 1, a 2,
and a 3, and it learns not what a 1 is or what a 2 is --
It learns what the difference between a 1 and a 2 is.
It's just a computation.
In the last half decade, where we've made this rapid progress,
it has all been in pattern recognition.
Tegmark: Most of the good, old-fashioned AI
was when we would tell our computers
how to play a game like chess...
from the old paradigm where you just tell the computer
exactly what to do.
Announcer: This is "Jeopardy!"
♪♪
"The IBM Challenge"!
Ferrucci: No one at the time had thought that a machine
could have the precision and the confidence
and the speed to play "Jeopardy!"
well enough against the best humans.
Let's play "Jeopardy!"
Watson.Watson: What is "shoe"?
You are right. You get to pick.
Literary Character APB for $800.
Answer -- the Daily Double.
Watson actually got its knowledge by reading Wikipedia
and 200 million pages of natural-language documents.
Ferrucci: You can't program every line
of how the world works.
The machine has to learn by reading.
Now we come to Watson.
"Who is Bram Stoker?"
And the wager?
Hello! $17,973.
$41,413.
And a two-day total of $77--
Phoenix: Watson's trained on huge amounts of text,
but it's not like it understands what it's saying.
It doesn't know that water makes things wet by touching water
and by seeing the way things behave in the world
the way you and I do.
A lot of language AI today is not building logical models
of how the world works.
Rather, it's looking at how the words appear
in the context of other words.
Barrat: David Ferrucci developed IBM's Watson,
and somebody asked him, "Does Watson think?"
And he said, "Does a submarine swim?"
And what they meant was, when they developed submarines,
they borrowed basic principles of swimming from fish.
But a submarine swims farther and faster than fish
and can carry a huge payload.
It out-swims fish.
Ng: Watson winning the game of "Jeopardy!"
will go down in the history of AI
as a significant milestone.
We tend to be amazed when the machine does so well.
I'm even more amazed when the computer beats humans at things
that humans are naturally good at.
This is how we make progress.
In the early days of the Google Brain project,
I gave the team a very simple instruction,
which was, "Build the biggest neural network possible,
like 1,000 computers."
Musk: A neural net is something very close
to a simulation of how the brain works.
It's very probabilistic, but with contextual relevance.
Urban: In your brain, you have long neurons
that connect to thousands of other neurons,
and you have these pathways that are formed and forged
based on what the brain needs to do.
When a baby tries something and it succeeds, there's a reward,
and that pathway that created the success is strengthened.
If it fails at something, the pathway is weakened,
and so, over time, the brain becomes honed
to be good at the environment around it.
Ng: Really, it's just getting machines to learn by themselves.
This is called "deep learning," and "deep learning"
and "neural networks" mean roughly the same thing.
Tegmark: Deep learning is a totally different approach
where the computer learns more like a toddler,
by just getting a lot of data
and eventually figuring stuff out.
The computer just gets smarter and smarter
as it has more experiences.
Ng: So, imagine, if you will, a neural network, you know,
like 1,000 computers.
And it wakes up not knowing anything.
And we made it watch YouTube for a week.
♪♪
♪ Oppan Gangnam style
Ow!
Charlie! That really hurt!
♪♪
♪ Gangnam style
♪ Op, op, op, op
♪ Oppan Gangnam style
Ng: And so, after watching YouTube for a week,
what would it learn?
We had a hypothesis that it would learn to detect
commonly occurring objects in videos.
And so, we know that human faces appear a lot in videos,
so we looked, and, lo and behold,
there was a neuron that had learned to detect human faces.
Leave Britney alone!
Well, what else appears in videos a lot?
So, we looked, and to our surprise,
there was actually a neuron that had learned to detect cats.
♪♪
I still remember seeing recognition.
"Wow, that's a cat. Okay, cool.
Great."
Barrat: It's all pretty innocuous
when you're thinking about the future.
It all seems kind of harmless and benign.
But we're making cognitive architectures
that will fly farther and faster than us
and carry a bigger payload,
and they won't be warm and fuzzy.
Ferrucci: I think that, in three to five years,
you will see a computer system
that will be able to autonomously learn
how to understand, how to build understanding,
not unlike the way the human mind works.
Whatever that lunch was, it was certainly delicious.
Simply some of Robby's synthetics.
He's your cook, too?
Even manufactures the raw materials.
Come around here, Robby.
I'll show you how this works.
One introduces a sample of human food
through this aperture.
Down here there's a small built-in chemical laboratory,
where he analyzes it.
Later, he can reproduce identical molecules
in any shape or quantity.
Why, it's a housewife's dream.
Announcer: Meet Baxter,
revolutionary new category of robots,
with common sense.
Baxter...
Barrat: Baxter is a really good example
of the kind of competition we face from machines.
Baxter can do almost anything we can do with our hands.
Baxter costs about what a minimum-wage worker
makes in a year.
But Baxter won't be taking the place
of one minimum-wage worker --
He'll be taking the place of three,
because they never get tired, they never take breaks.
Gourley: That's probably the first thing we're gonna see --
displacement of jobs.
They're gonna be done quicker, faster, cheaper
by machines.
Our ability to even stay current is so insanely limited
compared to the machines we build.
For example, now we have this great movement of Uber and Lyft
kind of making transportation cheaper
and democratizing transportation,
which is great.
The next step is gonna be
that they're all gonna be replaced by driverless cars,
and then all the Uber and Lyft drivers
have to find something new to do.
Barrat: There are 4 million professional drivers
in the United States.
They're unemployed soon.
7 million people that do data entry.
Those people are gonna be jobless.
A job isn't just about money, right?
On a biological level, it serves a purpose.
It becomes a defining thing.
When the jobs went away in any given civilization,
it doesn't take long until that turns into violence.
♪♪
We face a giant divide between rich and poor,
because that's what automation and AI will provoke --
a greater divide between the haves and the have-nots.
Right now, it's working into the middle class,
into white-collar jobs.
IBM's Watson does business analytics
that we used to pay a business analyst $300 an hour to do.
Gourley: Today, you're going to college to be a doctor,
to be an accountant, to be a journalist.
It's unclear that there's gonna be jobs there for you.
Ng: If someone's planning for a 40-year career in radiology,
just reading images,
I think that could be a challenge
to the new graduates of today.
♪♪
Dr. Herman: The da Vinci robot is currently utilized
by a variety of surgeons for its accuracy and its ability
to avoid the inevitable fluctuations of the human hand.
♪♪
Anybody who watches this feels the amazingness of it.
You look through the scope, and you're seeing the claw hand
holding that woman's ovary.
Humanity was resting right here in the hands of this robot.
People say it's the future, but it's not the future --
It's the present.
Zilis: If you think about a surgical robot,
there's often not a lot of intelligence in these things,
but over time, as we put more and more intelligence
into these systems,
the surgical robots can actually learn from each robot surgery.
They're tracking the movements, they're understanding
what worked and what didn't work.
And eventually, the robot for routine surgeries
is going to be able to perform that entirely by itself...
or with human supervision.
♪♪
Dr. Herman: It seems that we're feeding it and creating it,
but, in a way, we are a slave to the technology,
because we can't go back.
Gourley: The machines are taking bigger and bigger bites
out of our skill set at an ever-increasing speed.
And so we've got to run faster and faster
to keep ahead of the machines.
How do I look?
Good.
Are you attracted to me?
What?Are you attracted to me?
You give me indications that you are.
I do? Yes.
Nolan: This is the future we're headed into.
We want to design our companions.
We're gonna like to see a human face on AI.
Therefore, gaming our emotions will be depressingly easy.
We're not that complicated.
We're simple. Stimulus-response.
I can make you like me basically by smiling at you a lot.
AIs are gonna be fantastic at manipulating us.
♪♪
So, you've developed a technology
that can sense what people are feeling.
Right. We've developed technology
that can read your facial expressions
and map that to a number of emotional states.
el Kaliouby: 15 years ago, I had just finished
my undergraduate studies in computer science,
and it struck me that I was spending a lot of time
interacting with my laptops and my devices,
yet these devices had absolutely no clue how I was feeling.
I started thinking, "What if this device could sense
that I was stressed or I was having a bad day?
What would that open up?"
Hi, first-graders!
How are you?
Can I get a hug?
We had kids interact with the technology.
A lot of it is still in development,
but it was just amazing.
Who likes robots? Me!
Who wants to have a robot in their house?
What would you use a robot for, Jack?
I would use it to ask my mom very hard math questions.
Okay. What about you, Theo?
I would use it for scaring people.
All right. So, start by smiling.
Nice.
Brow furrow.
Nice one. Eyebrow raise.
This generation, technology
is just surrounding them all the time.
It's almost like they expect to have robots in their homes,
and they expect these robots to be socially intelligent.
What makes robots smart?
Put them in, like, a math or biology class.
I think you would have to train it.
All right. Let's walk over here.
So, if you smile and you raise your eyebrows,
it's gonna run over to you.
Woman: It's coming over! It's coming over! Look.
But if you look angry, it's gonna run away.
-Awesome! -Oh, that was good.
We're training computers to read and recognize emotions.
Ready? Set? Go!
And the response so far has been really amazing.
People are integrating this into health apps,
meditation apps, robots, cars.
We're gonna see how this unfolds.
♪♪
Zilis: Robots can contain AI,
but the robot is just a physical instantiation,
and the artificial intelligence is the brain.
And so brains can exist purely in software-based systems.
They don't need to have a physical form.
Robots can exist without any artificial intelligence.
We have a lot of dumb robots out there.
But a dumb robot can be a smart robot overnight,
given the right software, given the right sensors.
Barrat: We can't help but impute motive into inanimate objects.
We do it with machines.
We'll treat them like children.
We'll treat them like surrogates.
-Goodbye! -Goodbye!
And we'll pay the price.
♪♪
Okay, welcome to ATR.
♪♪
Konnichiwa.
♪♪
Gourley: We build artificial intelligence,
and the very first thing we want to do is replicate us.
I think the key point will come
when all the major senses are replicated --
sight...
touch...
smell.
When we replicate our senses, is that when it become alive?
♪♪
Nolan: So many of our machines
are being built to understand us.
But what happens when an anthropomorphic creature
discovers that they can adjust their loyalty,
adjust their courage, adjust their avarice,
adjust their cunning?
♪♪
Musk: The average person, they don't see killer robots
going down the streets.
They're like, "What are you talking about?"
Man, we want to make sure that we don't have killer robots
going down the street.
Once they're going down the street, it is too late.
♪♪
Russell: The thing that worries me right now,
that keeps me awake,
is the development of autonomous weapons.
♪♪
Up to now, people have expressed unease about drones,
which are remotely piloted aircraft.
♪♪
If you take a drone's camera and feed it into the AI system,
it's a very easy step from here to fully autonomous weapons
that choose their own targets and release their own missiles.
♪♪
The expected life-span of a human being
in that kind of battle environment
would be measured in seconds.
Singer: At one point, drones were science fiction,
and now they've become the normal thing in war.
There's over 10,000 in U.S. military inventory alone.
But they're not just a U.S. phenomena.
There's more than 80 countries that operate them.
Gourley: It stands to reason that people making some
of the most important and difficult decisions in the world
are gonna start to use and implement
artificial intelligence.
♪♪
The Air Force just designed a $400-billion jet program
to put pilots in the sky,
and a $500 AI, designed by a couple of graduate students,
is beating the best human pilots
with a relatively simple algorithm.
♪♪
AI will have as big an impact on the military
as the combustion engine had at the turn of the century.
It will literally touch
everything that the military does,
from driverless convoys delivering logistical supplies,
to unmanned drones
delivering medical aid, to computational propaganda,
trying to win the hearts and minds of a population.
And so it stands to reason that whoever has the best AI
will probably achieve dominance on this planet.
At some point in the early 21st century,
all of mankind was united in celebration.
We marveled at our own magnificence
as we gave birth to AI.
AI?
You mean artificial intelligence?
A singular consciousness
that spawned an entire race of machines.
We don't know who struck first -- us or them,
but we know that it was us that scorched the sky.
Singer: There's a long history of science fiction,
not just predicting the future, but shaping the future.
♪♪
Arthur Conan Doyle writing before World War I
on the danger of how submarines might be used
to carry out civilian blockades.
At the time he's writing this fiction,
the Royal Navy made fun of Arthur Conan Doyle
for this absurd idea
that submarines could be useful in war.
♪♪
One of the things we've seen in history
is that our attitude towards technology,
but also ethics, are very context-dependent.
For example, the submarine...
nations like Great Britain and even the United States
found it horrifying to use the submarine.
In fact, the German use of the submarine to carry out attacks
was the reason why the United States joined World War I.
But move the timeline forward.
Man: The United States of America was suddenly
and deliberately attacked by the empire of Japan.
Five hours after Pearl Harbor, the order goes out
to commit unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan.
So Arthur Conan Doyle turned out to be right.
Nolan: That's the great old line about science fiction --
It's a lie that tells the truth.
Fellow executives, it gives me great pleasure
to introduce you to the future of law enforcement...
ED-209.
♪♪
This isn't just a question of science fiction.
This is about what's next, about what's happening right now.
♪♪
The role of intelligent systems is growing very rapidly
in warfare.
Everyone is pushing in the unmanned realm.
♪♪
Gourley: Today, the Secretary of Defense is very, very clear --
We will not create fully autonomous attacking vehicles.
Not everyone is gonna hold themselves
to that same set of values.
And when China and Russia start deploying autonomous vehicles
that can attack and kill, what's the move that we're gonna make?
♪♪
Russell: You can't say, "Well, we're gonna use
autonomous weapons for our military dominance,
but no one else is gonna use them."
If you make these weapons, they're gonna be used to attack
human populations in large numbers.
♪♪
Autonomous weapons are, by their nature,
weapons of mass destruction,
because it doesn't need a human being to guide it or carry it.
You only need one person, to, you know,
write a little program.
It just captures the complexity of this field.
It is cool. It is important.
It is amazing.
It is also frightening.
And it's all about trust.
It's an open letter about artificial intelligence,
signed by some of the biggest names in science.
What do they want?
Ban the use of autonomous weapons.
Woman: The author stated,
"Autonomous weapons have been described
as the third revolution in warfare."
Woman #2: ...thousand artificial-intelligence specialists
calling for a global ban on killer robots.
Tegmark: This open letter basically says
that we should redefine the goal
of the field of artificial intelligence
away from just creating pure, undirected intelligence,
towards creating beneficial intelligence.
The development of AI is not going to stop.
It is going to continue and get better.
If the international community
isn't putting certain controls on this,
people will develop things that can do anything.
Woman: The letter says that we are years, not decades,
away from these weapons being deployed.
So first of all...
We had 6,000 signatories of that letter,
including many of the major figures in the field.
I'm getting a lot of visits from high-ranking officials
who wish to emphasize that American military dominance
is very important, and autonomous weapons
may be part of the Defense Department's plan.
That's very, very scary, because a value system
of military developers of technology
is not the same as a value system of the human race.
♪♪
Markoff: Out of the concerns about the possibility
that this technology might be a threat to human existence,
a number of the technologists
have funded the Future of Life Institute
to try to grapple with these problems.
All of these guys are secretive,
and so it's interesting to me to see them,
you know, all together.
Everything we have is a result of our intelligence.
It's not the result of our big, scary teeth
or our large claws or our enormous muscles.
It's because we're actually relatively intelligent.
And among my generation, we're all having
what we call "holy cow,"
or "holy something else" moments,
because we see that the technology
is accelerating faster than we expected.
I remember sitting around the table there
with some of the best and the smartest minds in the world,
and what really struck me was,
maybe the human brain is not able to fully grasp
the complexity of the world that we're confronted with.
Russell: As it's currently constructed,
the road that AI is following heads off a cliff,
and we need to change the direction that we're going
so that we don't take the human race off the cliff.
Musk: Google acquired DeepMind several years ago.
DeepMind operates
as a semi-independent subsidiary of Google.
The thing that makes DeepMind unique
is that DeepMind is absolutely focused
on creating digital superintelligence --
an AI that is vastly smarter than any human on Earth
and ultimately smarter than all humans on Earth combined.
This is from the DeepMind reinforcement learning system.
Basically wakes up like a newborn baby
and is shown the screen of an Atari video game
and then has to learn to play the video game.
It knows nothing about objects, about motion, about time.
It only knows that there's an image on the screen
and there's a score.
So, if your baby woke up the day it was born
and, by late afternoon,
was playing 40 different Atari video games
at a superhuman level, you would be terrified.
You would say, "My baby is possessed. Send it back."
Musk: The DeepMind system can win at any game.
It can already beat all the original Atari games.
It is superhuman.
It plays the games at superspeed in less than a minute.
♪♪
DeepMind turned to another challenge,
and the challenge was the game of Go,
which people have generally argued
has been beyond the power of computers
to play with the best human Go players.
First, they challenged a European Go champion.
Then they challenged a Korean Go champion.
Man: Please start the game.
And they were able to win both times
in kind of striking fashion.
Nolan: You were reading articles in New York Timesyears ago
talking about how Go would take 100 years for us to solve.
Urban: People said, "Well, you know,
but that's still just a board.
Poker is an art.
Poker involves reading people.
Poker involves lying and bluffing.
It's not an exact thing.
That will never be, you know, a computer.
You can't do that."
They took the best poker players in the world,
and it took seven days for the computer
to start demolishing the humans.
So it's the best poker player in the world,
it's the best Go player in the world, and the pattern here
is that AI might take a little while
to wrap its tentacles around a new skill,
but when it does, when it gets it, it is unstoppable.
♪♪
DeepMind's AI has administrator-level access
to Google's servers
to optimize energy usage at the data centers.
However, this could be an unintentional Trojan horse.
DeepMind has to have complete control of the data centers,
so with a little software update,
that AI could take complete control
of the whole Google system,
which means they can do anything.
They could look at all your data.
They could do anything.
♪♪
We're rapidly heading towards digital superintelligence
that far exceeds any human.
I think it's very obvious.
Barrat: The problem is, we're not gonna
suddenly hit human-level intelligence
and say, "Okay, let's stop research."
It's gonna go beyond human-level intelligence
into what's called "superintelligence,"
and that's anything smarter than us.
Tegmark: AI at the superhuman level,
if we succeed with that, will be
by far the most powerful invention we've ever made
and the last invention we ever have to make.
And if we create AI that's smarter than us,
we have to be open to the possibility
that we might actually lose control to them.
♪♪
Russell: Let's say you give it some objective,
like curing cancer, and then you discover
that the way it chooses to go about that
is actually in conflict
with a lot of other things you care about.
Musk: AI doesn't have to be evil to destroy humanity.
If AI has a goal, and humanity just happens to be in the way,
it will destroy humanity as a matter of course,
without even thinking about it. No hard feelings.
It's just like if we're building a road
and an anthill happens to be in the way...
We don't hate ants.
We're just building a road.
And so goodbye, anthill.
♪♪
It's tempting to dismiss these concerns,
'cause it's, like, something that might happen
in a few decades or 100 years, so why worry?
Russell: But if you go back to September 11, 1933,
Ernest Rutherford,
who was the most well-known nuclear physicist of his time,
said that the possibility
of ever extracting useful amounts of energy
from the transmutation of atoms, as he called it,
was moonshine.
The next morning, Leo Szilard,
who was a much younger physicist,
read this and got really annoyed and figured out
how to make a nuclear chain reaction
just a few months later.
♪♪
We have spent more than $2 billion
on the greatest scientific gamble in history.
Russell: So when people say that, "Oh, this is so far off
in the future, we don't have to worry about it,"
it might only be three, four breakthroughs of that magnitude
that will get us from here to superintelligent machines.
Tegmark: If it's gonna take 20 years to figure out
how to keep AI beneficial,
then we should start today, not at the last second
when some dudes drinking Red Bull
decide to flip the switch and test the thing.
♪♪
Musk: We have five years.
I think digital superintelligence
will happen in my lifetime.
100%.
Barrat: When this happens,
it will be surrounded by a bunch of people
who are really just excited about the technology.
They want to see it succeed, but they're not anticipating
that it can get out of control.
♪♪
Oh, my God, I trust my computer so much.
That's an amazing question.
I don't trust my computer.
If it's on, I take it off.
Like, even when it's off,
I still think it's on. Like, you know?
Like, you really cannot tru-- Like, the webcams,
you don't know if, like, someone might turn it...
You don't know, like.
I don't trust my computer.
Like, in my phone, every time they ask me
"Can we send your information to Apple?"
every time, I...
So, I don't trust my phone.
Okay. So, part of it is, yes, I do trust it,
because it would be really hard to get through the day
in the way our world is set up without computers.
♪♪
Dr. Herman: Trust is such a human experience.
♪♪
I have a patient coming in with an intracranial aneurysm.
♪♪
They want to look in my eyes and know
that they can trust this person with their life.
I'm not horribly concerned about anything.
Good. Part of that
is because I have confidence in you.
♪♪
This procedure we're doing today
20 years ago was essentially impossible.
We just didn't have the materials and the technologies.
♪♪
So, the coil is barely in there right now.
It's just a feather holding it in.
It's nervous time.
♪♪
We're just in purgatory,
intellectual, humanistic purgatory,
and AI might know exactly what to do here.
♪♪
We've got the coil into the aneurysm.
But it wasn't in tremendously well
that I knew that it would stay,
so with a maybe 20% risk of a very bad situation,
I elected to just bring her back.
Because of my relationship with her
and knowing the difficulties of coming in
and having the procedure, I consider things,
when I should only consider the safest possible route
to achieve success.
But I had to stand there for 10 minutes agonizing about it.
The computer feels nothing.
The computer just does what it's supposed to do,
better and better.
♪♪
I want to be AI in this case.
But can AI be compassionate?
♪♪
I mean, it's everybody's question about AI.
We are the sole embodiment of humanity,
and it's a stretch for us to accept that a machine
can be compassionate and loving in that way.
♪♪
Part of me doesn't believe in magic,
but part of me has faith that there is something
beyond the sum of the parts,
that there is at least a oneness in our shared ancestry,
our shared biology, our shared history.
Some connection there beyond machine.
♪♪
So, then, you have the other side of that, is,
does the computer know it's conscious,
or can it be conscious, or does it care?
Does it need to be conscious?
Does it need to be aware?
♪♪
I do not think that a robot could ever be conscious.
Unless they programmed it that way.
Conscious? No.
No. No.
I mean, think a robot could be programmed to be conscious.
How are they programmed to do everything else?
That's another big part of artificial intelligence,
is to make them conscious and make them feel.
♪♪
Lipson: Back in 2005, we started trying to build machines
with self-awareness.
♪♪
This robot, to begin with, didn't know what it was.
All it knew was that it needed to do something like walk.
♪♪
Through trial and error,
it figured out how to walk using its imagination,
and then it walked away.
And then we did something very cruel.
We chopped off a leg and watched what happened.
♪♪
At the beginning, it didn't quite know what had happened.
But over about a period of a day, it then began to limp.
And then, a year ago, we were training an AI system
for a live demonstration.
We wanted to show how we wave
all these objects in front of the camera
and the AI could recognize the objects.
And so, we're preparing this demo,
and we had on a side screen this ability
to watch what certain neurons were responding to.
And suddenly we noticed that one of the neurons
was tracking faces.
It was tracking our faces as we were moving around.
Now, the spooky thing about this is that we never trained
the system to recognize human faces,
and yet, somehow, it learned to do that.
Even though these robots are very simple,
we can see there's something else going on there.
It's not just programming.
So, this is just the beginning.
Horvitz: I often think about that beach in Kitty Hawk,
the 1903 flight by Orville and Wilbur Wright.
It was kind of a canvas plane, and it's wood and iron,
and it gets off the ground for, what, a minute and 20 seconds,
on this windy day
before touching back down again.
And it was just around 65 summers or so
after that moment that you have a 747 taking off from JFK...
♪♪
...where a major concern of someone on the airplane
might be whether or not their salt-free diet meal
is gonna be coming to them or not.
We have a whole infrastructure,
with travel agents and tower control,
and it's all casual, and it's all part of the world.
♪♪
Right now, as far as we've come with machines
that think and solve problems, we're at Kitty Hawk now.
We're in the wind.
We have our tattered-canvas planes up in the air.
♪♪
But what happens in 65 summers or so?
We will have machines that are beyond human control.
Should we worry about that?
♪♪
I'm not sure it's going to help.
Kaplan: Nobody has any idea today what it means for a robot
to be conscious.
There is no such thing.
There are a lot of smart people,
and I have a great deal of respect for them,
but the truth is, machines are natural psychopaths.
Man: Fear came back into the market.
Man #2: Went down 800, nearly 1,000, in a heartbeat.
I mean, it is classic capitulation.
There are some people who are proposing
it was some kind of fat-finger error.
Take the Flash Crash of 2010.
In a matter of minutes, $1 trillion in value
was lost in the stock market.
Woman: The Dow dropped nearly 1,000 points in a half-hour.
Kaplan: So, what went wrong?
By that point in time, more than 60% of all the trades
that took place on the stock exchange
were actually being initiated by computers.
Man: Panic selling on the way down,
and all of a sudden it stopped on a dime.
Man #2: This is all happening in real time, folks.
Wisz: The short story of what happened in the Flash Crash
is that algorithms responded to algorithms,
and it compounded upon itself over and over and over again
in a matter of minutes.
Man: At one point, the market fell as if down a well.
There is no regulatory body that can adapt quickly enough
to prevent potentially disastrous consequences
of AI operating in our financial systems.
They are so prime for manipulation.
Let's talk about the speed with which
we are watching this market deteriorate.
That's the type of AI-run-amuck that scares people.
Kaplan: When you give them a goal,
they will relentlessly pursue that goal.
How many computer programs are there like this?
Nobody knows.
Kosinski: One of the fascinating aspects about AI in general
is that no one really understands how it works.
Even the people who create AI don't really fully understand.
Because it has millions of elements,
it becomes completely impossible
for a human being to understand what's going on.
♪♪
Grassegger: Microsoft had set up this artificial intelligence
called Tay on Twitter, which was a chatbot.
They started out in the morning,
and Tay was starting to tweet and learning from stuff
that was being sent to him from other Twitter people.
Because some people, like trolls, attacked him,
within 24 hours, the Microsoft bot became a terrible person.
They had to literally pull Tay off the Net
because he had turned into a monster.
A misanthropic, racist, horrible person you'd never want to meet.
And nobody had foreseen this.
The whole idea of AI is that we are not telling it exactly
how to achieve a given outcome or a goal.
AI develops on its own.
Nolan: We're worried about superintelligent AI,
the master chess player that will outmaneuver us,
but AI won't have to actually be that smart
to have massively disruptive effects on human civilization.
We've seen over the last century
it doesn't necessarily take a genius to knock history off
in a particular direction,
and it won't take a genius AI to do the same thing.
Bogus election news stories generated more engagement
on Facebook than top real stories.
Facebook really is the elephant in the room.
Kosinski: AI running Facebook news feed --
The task for AI is keeping users engaged,
but no one really understands
exactly how this AI is achieving this goal.
Nolan: Facebook is building an elegant mirrored wall around us.
A mirror that we can ask, "Who's the fairest of them all?"
and it will answer, "You, you," time and again
and slowly begin to warp our sense of reality,
warp our sense of politics, history, global events,
until determining what's true and what's not true,
is virtually impossible.
The problem is that AI doesn't understand that.
AI just had a mission -- maximize user engagement,
and it achieved that.
Nearly 2 billion people spend nearly one hour
on average a day basically interacting with AI
that is shaping their experience.
Even Facebook engineers, they don't like fake news.
It's very bad business.
They want to get rid of fake news.
It's just very difficult to do because,
how do you recognize news as fake
if you cannot read all of those news personally?
There's so much active misinformation
and it's packaged very well,
and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page
or you turn on your television.
Nolan: It's not terribly sophisticated,
but it is terribly powerful.
And what it means is that your view of the world,
which, 20 years ago, was determined,
if you watched the nightly news, by three different networks,
the three anchors who endeavored to try to get it right.
Might have had a little bias one way or the other,
but, largely speaking, we could all agree
on an objective reality.
Well, that objectivity is gone,
and Facebook has completely annihilated it.
♪♪
If most of your understanding of how the world works
is derived from Facebook,
facilitated by algorithmic software
that tries to show you the news you want to see,
that's a terribly dangerous thing.
And the idea that we have not only set that in motion,
but allowed bad-faith actors access to that information...
I mean, this is a recipe for disaster.
♪♪
Urban: I think that there will definitely be lots of bad actors
trying to manipulate the world with AI.
2016 was a perfect example of an election
where there was lots of AI producing lots of fake news
and distributing it for a purpose, for a result.
Ladies and gentlemen, honorable colleagues...
it's my privilege to speak to you today
about the power of big data and psychographics
in the electoral process
and, specifically, to talk about the work
that we contributed to Senator Cruz's
presidential primary campaign.
Nolan: Cambridge Analytica emerged quietly as a company
that, according to its own hype,
has the ability to use this tremendous amount of data
in order to effect societal change.
In 2016, they had three major clients.
Ted Cruz was one of them.
It's easy to forget that, only 18 months ago,
Senator Cruz was one of the less popular candidates
seeking nomination.
So, what was not possible maybe, like, 10 or 15 years ago,
was that you can send fake news
to exactly the people that you want to send it to.
And then you could actually see how he or she reacts on Facebook
and then adjust that information
according to the feedback that you got.
So you can start developing
kind of a real-time management of a population.
In this case, we've zoned in
on a group we've called "Persuasion."
These are people who are definitely going to vote,
to caucus, but they need moving from the center
a little bit more towards the right.
in order to support Cruz.
They need a persuasion message.
"Gun rights," I've selected.
That narrows the field slightly more.
And now we know that we need a message on gun rights,
it needs to be a persuasion message,
and it needs to be nuanced
according to the certain personality
that we're interested in.
Through social media, there's an infinite amount of information
that you can gather about a person.
We have somewhere close to 4,000 or 5,000 data points
on every adult in the United States.
Grassegger: It's about targeting the individual.
It's like a weapon, which can be used
in the totally wrong direction.
That's the problem with all of this data.
It's almost as if we built the bullet before we built the gun.
Ted Cruz employed our data,
our behavioral insights.
He started from a base of less than 5%
and had a very slow-and-steady- but-firm rise to above 35%,
making him, obviously,
the second most threatening contender in the race.
Now, clearly, the Cruz campaign is over now,
but what I can tell you
is that of the two candidates left in this election,
one of them is using these technologies.
I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear
that I will faithfully execute
the office of President of the United States.
♪♪
Nolan: Elections are a marginal exercise.
It doesn't take a very sophisticated AI
in order to have a disproportionate impact.
Before Trump, Brexit was another supposed client.
Well, at 20 minutes to 5:00,
we can now say the decision taken in 1975
by this country to join the common market
has been reversed by this referendum to leave the EU.
Nolan: Cambridge Analytica allegedly uses AI
to push through two of the most ground-shaking pieces
of political change in the last 50 years.
These are epochal events, and if we believe the hype,
they are connected directly to a piece of software,
essentially, created by a professor at Stanford.
♪♪
Kosinski: Back in 2013, I described
that what they are doing is possible
and warned against this happening in the future.
Grassegger: At the time, Michal Kosinski
was a young Polish researcher
working at the Psychometrics Centre.
So, what Michal had done was to gather the largest-ever data set
of how people behave on Facebook.
Kosinski: Psychometrics is trying to measure psychological traits,
such as personality, intelligence,
political views, and so on.
Now, traditionally, those traits were measured
using tests and questions.
Nolan: Personality test -- the most benign thing
you could possibly think of.
Something that doesn't necessarily have
a lot of utility, right?
Kosinski: Our idea was that instead of tests and questions,
we could simply look at the digital footprints of behaviors
that we are all leaving behind
to understand openness,
conscientiousness, neuroticism.
Grassegger: You can easily buy personal data,
such as where you live, what club memberships you've tried,
which gym you go to.
There are actually marketplaces for personal data.
Nolan: It turns out, we can discover an awful lot
about what you're gonna do
based on a very, very tiny set of information.
Kosinski: We are training deep-learning networks
to infer intimate traits,
people's political views, personality,
intelligence, sexual orientation
just from an image from someone's face.
♪♪
Now think about countries which are not so free and open-minded.
If you can reveal people's religious views
or political views or sexual orientation
based on only profile pictures,
this could be literally an issue of life and death.
♪♪
I think there's no going back.
Do you know what the Turing test is?
It's when a human interacts with a computer,
and if the human doesn't know they're interacting
with a computer,
the test is passed.
And over the next few days,
you're gonna be the human component in a Turing test.
Holy shit.Yeah, that's right, Caleb.
You got it.
'Cause if that test is passed,
you are dead center of the greatest scientific event
in the history of man.
If you've created a conscious machine,
it's not the history of man--
That's the history of gods.
♪♪
Nolan: It's almost like technology is a god
in and of itself.
♪♪
Like the weather. We can't impact it.
We can't slow it down. We can't stop it.
We feel powerless.
Kurzweil: If we think of God
as an unlimited amount of intelligence,
the closest we can get to that
is by evolving our own intelligence
by merging with the artificial intelligence we're creating.
Musk: Today, our computers, phones,
applications give us superhuman capability.
So, as the old maxim says, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
el Kaliouby: It's about a human-machine partnership.
I mean, we already see how, you know,
our phones, for example, act as memory prosthesis, right?
I don't have to remember your phone number anymore
'cause it's on my phone.
It's about machines augmenting our human abilities,
as opposed to, like, completely displacing them.
Nolan: If you look at all the objects that have made the leap
from analog to digital over the last 20 years...
it's a lot.
We're the last analog object in a digital universe.
And the problem with that, of course,
is that the data input/output is very limited.
It's this. It's these.
Zilis: Our eyes are pretty good.
We're able to take in a lot of visual information.
But our information output is very, very, very low.
The reason this is important -- If we envision a scenario
where AI's playing a more prominent role in societies,
we want good ways to interact with this technology
so that it ends up augmenting us.
♪♪
Musk: I think it's incredibly important
that AI not be "other."
It must be us.
And I could be wrong about what I'm saying.
I'm certainly open to ideas
if anybody can suggest a path that's better.
But I think we're gonna really have to either merge with AI
or be left behind.
♪♪
Gourley: It's hard to kind of think of unplugging a system
that's distributed everywhere on the planet,
that's distributed now across the solar system.
You can't just, you know, shut that off.
Nolan: We've opened Pandora's box.
We've unleashed forces that we can't control, we can't stop.
We're in the midst of essentially creating
a new life-form on Earth.
♪♪
Russell: We don't know what happens next.
We don't know what shape the intellect of a machine
will be when that intellect is far beyond human capabilities.
It's just not something that's possible.
♪♪
The least scary future I can think of is one
where we have at least democratized AI.
Because if one company or small group of people
manages to develop godlike digital superintelligence,
they can take over the world.
At least when there's an evil dictator,
that human is going to die,
but, for an AI, there would be no death.
It would live forever.
And then you have an immortal dictator
from which we can never escape.
♪♪
Woman on P.A.: Alan. Macchiato.
♪♪
Woman: Hello?
♪♪
♪ Yeah, yeah
♪♪
♪ Yeah, yeah
♪♪
Hello?
♪♪