Uh, it also is probably the better way of thinking about it for our economy and jobs, because people worry that Well, are we gonna get into a situation where the machines just doing everything and one of the promising aspects of AI, as it turns out that, for example, even in playing chess, right, a computer with a human oftentimes can do better, do better than just the computer.

Well, think about that application broadly.

Toe a lot of, uh, disciplines.

Um, what we want to be able to do is develop systems that are open enough.

Transparent enough that human judgment, human imagination, creativity are still intruding, are still active.

But a lot of the routine stuff as happening day today.

And in some ways, that's just analogous toe.

You know how we use calculators, right?

Yeah, it's ah, it's an extension of our intelligence.

Um, but it's a simple enough one that doesn't feel is threatening as it does, partly because we understand exactly what's going on and with a lot of these systems you start losing track of What are they doing on?

I know that's a problem.

You've been thinking about a lot for us to be successful in these areas.

We really have toe think through the economic implications.

Because, um, most people aren't spending a lot of time right now worrying about singularity They are worrying about Wow, my job gonna be replaced by a machine.

And you know, I tend to be on the optimistic side that historically we've absorbed new technologies on people find that new jobs were created, They migrate in.

Our standards of living generally go up.

I do think that we may be in a slightly different period now, simply because of the pervasive applicability of AI and other technologies where high skill folks do very well in this.

In these systems, they can leverage their talents.

They can interface with machines to extend their reach.

Their sales there products their services.

Low wage, low skill individuals big come more and more redundant, and their jobs may not be replaced, but wages are suppressed.

And if we are going toe successfully manage this transition, we are going toe, have toe, have a societal conversation about, um, how do we manage that?

How are we training on ensuring the economy's inclusive?

You know, if in fact, we're producing more than ever, but more and more of its going toe a small group at the top.

How do we make sure that folks have a living income?

What does it mean in terms of us supporting things like the arts or culture Or, uh, you know, making sure our veterans air getting cared for eso the social compact has to accommodate these new technologies, and our economic models have to accommodate them.

The good news is that that's not gonna happen overnight.

Let's say that's a 2030 year process.

If we're making good decisions now, then we can build the runways so that by the time AI is fully incorporated in tow, our economic life people welcome it as opposed to reject it.

But we can't assume that.

And if we continue on current trends, you're going to continue to see these populist movements both on the left and right that believe that technology, globalization, ai, the the you know, guys who are off on their own.

Uh, you know, starting a computer screen turn to figure this stuff out, that all of that is threatening to, um, the day to day lives of ordinary people and the values that they cherish and notions of community.

And we have toe have to guard against.

That starts with making sure the economy economic implications or worked at it Z actually, though non intuitive, which jobs get displaced?

Because I would bet that if you had a computer that understood the medical system and it was very good at diagnostics, the resident nurse or the pharmacist at least least likely to be, Oh, and maybe the amount of school they have to go to is just a community college and medical school.

In my rule of thumb is if the person looks like they're doing work that a robot when a I could do, they're gonna be more likely displaced.

And there's actually a very high level jobs, maybe some categories of lawyers or auditors that might disappear.

Whereas ah, lot of the service businesses Arts e think that things that involve things that computers just aren't well suited for, And I think Thio president Obama's point.

I think that we have some time and I don't know what you think about universal basic income, but e.

But as we start to see people getting displaced, there's also this.

This idea of work provides the structure for people.

It provides the purpose.

And so can we look at other models, like academia or the arts, where people have purpose or or people who take care of kids at home?

And can we somehow because we don't calculate moms into GDP.

That's crazy, right?

So So I think one of the problems is there's this general notion, sort of, on Wall Street.

How can you be so smart in that money, right?

And and and and now, going into academia, I realized a lot of smart people with money, and so so So.

I think that also this ties into the values of society because as we start to see other work that may have actually viable work, it just isn't viewed, is working well, you're exactly right.

And that's what I mean by redesigning the social compact.

Now, whether ah universal income is the right model, is there gonna be accepted by a broad base of people, you know that that's a debate that we'll be having over the next 10 years, Next 20 years.

Um, and you're also right, that the jobs that are gonna be displaced by I or not just low skill service jobs.

They might be high skilled jobs, but ones that are repeatable and computers can do.

Um, what is indisputable, though, is that, um, as a I gets further incorporated, and, uh, the society potentially gets wealthier, that the link between production and distribution, how much you work and how much you make gets further and further attenuated because the computers were doing a lot of the work, and as a consequence, we then have to make some tougher decisions.

Were we already have this problem.

It's just it's been so it's not as hyper charged as it's going to be.

We underpaid teachers, despite the fact that that's a really hard job.

That's really hard for a computer to do well, to replace a really good teacher.

But we don't value teachers because it used to be primarily women's work or because, uh, it their whole host of reasons why we don't for us toe re examine what We value what we collectively are willing to pay for, whether it's teachers, nurses, AH, caregivers, moms, dads who stay at home artists, all the things that are incredibly valuable toe us.

But right now don't rank high on the totem pole.

That's a conversation that we need to begin to have and enjoys identified.

I think they the ways in which this could be solved, but it's going to require, I think, a new way of thinking and and that's not gonna happen right away.