Good Afternoon.
It's a pleasure and an honor to give the last talk in this fantastic conference
that Ursula and her team have organized.
Also, the conference, because we're celebrating the 200th
anniversary of Ada Lovelace, looks back at the history.
But part of what makes Ada Lovelace really
significant today is what happened over the 200 years.
And the fact that the information technology today so much permeated
influence in life make the contribution from 200 years ago look so significant.
And before I'm say it is up to close this conference, looking into the future.
And looking into the future we should use Ada Lovelace criterion,
which is are we doing things for the use of mankind?
So this is a wonderful quote and I'm grateful to Betty too
that she closed with this yesterday and gave me a fantastic opportunity to open
with it today in which Ada Lovelace, in a letter to Babbage writes.
I mean I shortening, far be it from me to decide the influence and
foundation of fame.
I wish to add my mite, I presume this is the spelling of the time,
she's not talking about insects.
To the total, the most effective news of mankind, or for mankind.
So the questions I want to put forward, is technology that we're developing,
is it really, ultimately does it benefit mankind?
And the lengths for which I want to examine it, is the length of jobs.
And we're just coming out of a recession,
that economists now call the Great Recession,
which the the deepest recession we've witnessed since the Great Depression.
And to appreciate the depth, to appreciate the depth of that recession, you look at
the plot here that shows on one dimension, time, from the beginning of the recession.
And on the other dimension, the loss of jobs.
And you can see, that, that this,
this, this is the last recession we emerge out of.
You can see, it was the longest and the deepest since World War II.
So, really if you want to see some equivalent,
you have to go all the way back to the Great Depression.
But, what I want to do here is not talk about what happened over the last few
years, but to take a longer look at the issue of jobs.
And for that we're going to look at what economists have been calling
the great coupling.
So what drives economic growth overall is economic productivity.
And if you look from roughly post World War Two,
this is from 1953, labor productivity consistently increased.
And it dove, it produced benefit for everyone.
GDP grew, and with growth of GDP,
jobs were created, and income, it family income rose.
So you see that we have, these are four separate indicators.
But they kind of go up together in harmony.
And they've done it over a period of 30 years.
So much so that we kind of think well, they must go together in harmony.
This is an economic law.
But it turns out that this is not the case.
And what happened since, roughly 1980.
Is becoming known as the great decoupling.
Because now we can see that productivity can continue to grow, and
as productivity continue to grow, the economy grows, this is GDP.
But somehow the benefits are not spread uniformly.
You can see that the two bottom lines, one is private employment.
These are non government jobs, flattens.
And even wars, is median household income.
To sharpen this, we can, I've, to sharpen this,
you can zoom in on this, and you can see how really things are breaking apart.
And there is this phrase that many economists used to believe in.
That the rising tide lifts all boats.
If the economy grows, everybody will benefit.
And now it seems that the tide and boat have parted company.
And this is leading to a furious debate between economists and
the question is, what is causing this?
So, on one hand there is something,
there is a group that calls itself almost proudly the Neo Luddites.
And as the name suggests they blame technology.
So, bring your cell phone and coffee from MIT.
Productivity growth and
employment growth started to become decoupled from each other.
We're creating jobs but not enough of them.
Saks and Kotlikof, what if machines are getting so smart thanks to
the micro-processor brains that they no longer need unskilled labor to operate?
Or Krugman, nobel prize winner, a famous New York Times columnist,
can innovation and progress really help large number of workers?
Maybe even workers in general?
The truth is that it can.
It seems economies have been aware of this possibility for almost 200 years.
And so the new Luddites.
On the other side, you have the people who call themselves neo-classical economists.
And they say hogwash.
Since the dawn of the industrial age a recurrent field has been
that technological change will spawn mass unemployment.
Neo classical economists predicted that this would not happen because people
will find other jobs albeit possibly after a long period of painful adjustment.
By and large that prediction has proven to be correct.
So, why should we think that this time it will be otherwise?
And this is a naturalist debate.
The new Luddites are saying this time it's gonna be different.
And the neo classical are saying no, why should they be different this time?
So who is right?
Economists cannot agree, and I'm not even an economist, so
I want to take the view from computer science of this question.
And to let this view we go back to
the belt of artificial intelligence attributed widely to Alan Curing.
Who in the very famous, 1950 paper, which I think is his most cited paper.
Even more cited is the paper that where he introduced tooling machines.
And, in this paper, he discusses the questions, can machines be intelligent?
The paper is very famous for the Turing Test.
But the Turing Test in my opinion is the weakest part of the paper.
The strong part of the paper is this philosophical analysis for
the feasibility of intelligent machines.
And queuing comes very strongly, yes.
It is feasible, and you're right I believe, that the century use of words,
and generally you create an opinion, would have altered so much, that one will be
able to speak of machine thinking, without expecting to be contradicted.
And in the paper, he go through all the different kind of objections, and
one of this objection came to be known as the loveless objection.
So what is the loveless objection?
Going back to her famous notes, where she writes.
The analytical engine has no pretention whatever to originate anything.
It can do whatever we know how to order to perform.
And most people say yeah, you write a program and
the program will only do what you want it to do.
Except that Turing already understood that even if every program,
predicting how that program would behave is impossible.
And this is really the essence of his 1976 paper that deciding how a Turing
machine would behave Is not, is undecidable.
And the right, machine takes me by surprise, with great frequency.
[INAUDIBLE] Argument did not appeal to the contest, or to [INAUDIBLE].
The reality is, neither the [INAUDIBLE] nor
[INAUDIBLE] actually executed programs.
[LAUGH] Anybody who wrote the program, and
then let it run knows, it never behaves, [LAUGH] the way you want it to behave.
We're surprised every time we run a program.
Now, Turing was a techno-optimist, and this techno-optimism is used,
you see it reflected very much also in the early age of AI, 1958
Samuel within ten years a digital computer would be at the world chess champion.
Minsky in 1967, within a generation, the [INAUDIBLE]
critical artificial intelligence, would substantially be solved.
Okay, generation, take it 30 years, 1997.
Well here we are 2015, we've not quite sold it yet.
[LAUGH] And this early optimism was followed because of the very
often AI [INAUDIBLE], somehow it's endemic to the field, there are periods which we
have been called especially [INAUDIBLE] in the field, AI winters.
And what is an AI winter?
One, it's slow progress.
But slow progress we can tolerate.
Funding, absolutely not.
This is very bad.
We should never tolerate it.
And there have been at least two kind of periods of it.
The late 70s, second half of the 70s and
then mid 80 to 90s were both periods of AI winters.
But in the late 1990s AI seemed to have turned a corner.
An event that was deeply influential was IBM's Deep Blue beat Kasparov in chess.
Kasparov was then the reigning world champion,
still considered by many to be the best chess player of all times.
The competition took place in New York City.
IBM invited me, and pay travel expense, and hotel expense, couldn't say no.
Even though I'm not a big chess fan, and my original conception would be watching
a chess game that takes several hours, would be like watching the grass grow.
[LAUGH] But they've actually made it very interesting, and I watched the first game.
And in the first game Kasparov was white, was black.
And even Kasparov was in a very disadvantaged situation
because while could study Kasparov, Kasparov has no idea how plays,
this is a fresh player you've never seen,
never the less Kasparov played the Briggen defensive game and won the game.
And I remember thinking to myself,
well, one day computers will win in chess, but the time has not come.
And I left my wife in Texas, so I'm going to go back to Texas, and
I skip the second game.
>> [LAUGH] >> Done.
The second game, [INAUDIBLE] was white.
And the blue went on the offensive and beat Kasparov and
Kasparov was so shocked psychologically that he has never recovered and
he has lost a six game match.
So this was one milestone and then in 2005, there was something called a DARPA
gun challenge which is about having autonomous vehicle drive in this valley.
In 2004 when they did it no car went more than I think seven miles.
And everybody said oh this is too difficult but in 2005 the Stanford car was
able to complete 171 miles in an uncharted desert completely autonomously.
And two years later they have the Oben challenge.
And the CMU team will able to drive 55 miles in an urban city
while obeying all traffic laws and avoiding hazards.
And then in 2011, another really shocking milestone,
again IBM what's on the the two greatest Jeopardy players of all time,
Brad and Ken Jennings decisively, decisively.
And this is answering all kind of clever, I mean, the questions can be very
clever response and seemingly you really need to be intelligent.
If you look at the question, it's quite amazing.
You can do this purely by brute force with no how what we think of intelligence.
And so today we see that the [INAUDIBLE] continue to make progress.
This is a [INAUDIBLE] called the big dog.
[SOUND] And this is not new, this is ten years old, and this is something,
obviously you can imagine the military would have very much
would like to have mechanical news.
[SOUND] And you can see what happens when somebody gives it a kick.
And very, you know almost like a real animal,
it somehow find it's balance again.
And we all heard now of the Google driverless car.
[SOUND]
[MUSIC]
[SOUND] Look ma no hands.
[MUSIC]
So, what are the [INAUDIBLE] that we can go back, to queuing questions.
What are the prospects for intelligent machinery?
I would say very good.
AI is making [INAUDIBLE] progress, you can go back to [INAUDIBLE] analysis.
It's a very compelling analysis,
why it's hard to argue that, one cannot have intelligent machines.
And, they're lots of intelligent machines.
Except not biological machines.
And somehow they think they have made in God's image.
But if you take the meta physics out of it,
we are all existent proof that you can have intelligent machinery.
Maybe silicon is not the answer, maybe we'll find a different
way to build machines, but [INAUDIBLE] machines.
And in fact, if you just now go and go to news.google.com and
tried to do a search for robots jobs something.
You see that every time something happened.
Robots are performing more and more jobs that people used to do.
Being a pharmacist.
The biggest challenge of being a pharmacist is reading the prescription.
After that, the rest is mechanical.
The boning chicken that your mother used to be very proud of.
[INAUDIBLE] To be mechanized, I cannot do it, but it seemed to be mechanized.
Prison guards, a sedation,
a bartending, more and more jobs to today, we are able to mechanize them.
So the fear of intelligent machines, is really it goes back,
you can find it all the way back to in some sense, the questions,
go to the questions what are the essence of humanity, go back to Frankensteins, and
the invention of the world war by Carl Trapik.
And this is very much in the news today,
in fact just around us Oxford has the future of humanity institute and
one of the risks that they are worried about is the risk coming from strong AI.
Cambridge seems to have the center for study of essential risk and how people
think of AI as some kind of essential risk and we have recently Stephen Hawkings and
you all kind of Bill Gates, everybody's talking about the risk [INAUDIBLE].
But other than think of this [INAUDIBLE] risk,
I want to be much more precise, and talk about the impact on jobs.
And because we went through a recession that had such a significant impact
on jobs, this really got people attention back to the concept of jobs.
And in 2009, Mountain Fold published a book, The Lights at the End of the Tunnel.
And I think the metaphor has to come with, when you are walking through a tunnel,
and you see lights at the end, is it the exit light?
Or are these the lights of a truck coming towards you?
And so he writes, it's it possible that auxilurating computer technology
was a primary cause of the current economic global crisis and
that even more disastrous impacts lie ahead.
When the book came out it did not receive much attention,
partly he's not a brand name.
He doesn't come from an institution with a pedigree, he was a software entrepreneur.
But in 2012, two really blue chip economists,
Brynjolfsson and McAfeee at MIT publish a book, the Race against the Machine.
In there they made the case very powerfully, technological progress
is accelerating innovation, even if it leaves many types of workers behind.
And so now the debate between the new Luddite and
the new classical is raging on.
And the new Luddites are marshalling a huge amount of data on their side.
So I want to spend a few minutes just going through hardcore economic data.
So one of thing is manufacturing.
This is US data and
we all heard how all of manufacturing went to China, China is doing all
the manufacturing and manufacturing in United States has been destroyed.
Turns out this is completely false.
If you look at manufacturing volume and here you'll see data from 1950 to
2010 of course it zigs and zags, but the general trend, it goes up all the time.
The US is a manufacturing giant, but employment peaked somewhere around 1980.
But since then it's been going down.
Okay, all the jobs have gone to China.
If I'll put here a Chinese data, it would do something similar.
Except what you'll is that the peak of manufacturing employment is not in 1980,
but is maybe around 2005, and
then it peaked, and now it's going down also in China.
A DOS almost pride itself in being as opposed to UHaul, a job creation machine.
And in fact if you look at the 1940s, the 1950s,
the 1960s the US really generated many, many jobs.
But then you see some of the job machines start to slow down around 1980.
So it goes down to 20% in 1980, another 20% in the 1990s.
If you look at the first decade of the 21st century the whole decade
net job losses.
Overall between the boom and the bust and
recession we have not created new jobs in the United States.
Now couple of years ago Piketty's book came out,
assumed that if you are walking on this planet you have heard of Piketty's book
and so because of inequalities very hot political topic.
And so you can see that even if you look at income,
then you can see the top 1% is way up there compared to everyone else.
Or if you look at share of income, you see the same picture, and
of course the numbers always zig and zag especially at the top.
The people top 1% are much more in fact sensitive to the economy in
terms of percentage then people at the bottom.
But you can see that, in particular.
If you look at the shelf, every time you see the zig zag,
but you see the only, the top 10% are gaining.
Everybody else has lost in share of income.
Now, I assume that most of us think of ourselves as the 99%.
And then we're looking way up there and we see the 1%, but
even if you slice it into the 1% you see the same phenomenon.
So here you see the bottom 90% has just flat lined it, right?
Above it you see the top 1%.
Above it you see the 0.1% and way above it you the 0.01%.
So even within the 1% the people there can complain about the top 1% of the top 1%.
>> [LAUGH] >> If you
look at the economy, the period of the economy contracts and expands.
And to expand,
you can see, okay, where will the benefit go when the economy expands?
And you can see that in earlier period,
most of the benefits went to the bottom 90%.
But you can see this is decreasing and
now most of the benefits go to the top 10% when economy grows.
Now you could say, well, this is class war.
Why you complaining because other people are doing better?
Just focus on what you have and if other people get richer, what's the big deal?
Turns out that you can tie inequality to all kinds of problems in society.
For example, social mobility.
We would like to think that maybe not everybody's born equal but
everybody's born with equal opportunities.
And so economists measure how easy it is for
people to move between different socioeconomic strata.
And it turns out that when you have higher inequality, you have lower mobility.
So you can see here, for example, that US and
Spain have very high inequality and very low mobility.
In the Scandinavian country, at the other end have lower inequality and
much higher mobility.
A higher inequality means lower growth.
Again you can see the points are all over the place but generally,
if you have higher inequality, then you can see that economic growth is lower.
The middle class which is considered to be the main stem of liberal society,
of democratic society,
you can see in this [INAUDIBLE] that the middle third of income.
You can see how over the start of 1971 how the middle class is gradually shrinking.
Typically, when we look at unemployment, the question that we're asking,
how many people are looking for jobs and are not finding jobs?
But more significant is economists measure what percentage of the people 25 and
older are actually working, and
you can see that in 1980 it was over 80% of the people over 25 were working.
And now these numbers are going down, and
now it's somewhere around 75%, fewer and fewer people are working.
So if they're not working, what are they doing?
Again, we see wages fell through GDP, it goes down.
Long-term unemployment.
People don't employ I think more than two years.
You see again it zigzags but overall this numbers keeps going up.
More and more people are unemployed for more than two years.
So, we saw all these economic indicator that tell us that's something wrong happen
in the economy over the past 30 years.
What exactly happened?
But because these are hard economic data points, in 2013 Gardner,
which is a very mainstream business oriented consulting company write
a report and the title is Smart Machines Will Have Widespread and
Deep Business Impact Through 2020.
So this is now, it's not just the communists that argue that,
this is Gardner a very, very reputable company and they write most business.
And thirdly, there's underestimated potential smart
machines to take over millions of middle-class jobs in the coming decades.
Job destruction will happen at a faster pace.
And in a 2014 report,
among about 1000 active economists, and pose to them the question,
the [INAUDIBLE] technology and automation, are essential reason for media majors.
Have been stagnant in Russia set over the past decade despite rising productivity.
Among the thousand economies, about 43% agree, 30 are uncertain,
25% disagree, only 4% strongly disagree.
That means you have over 70% think that it's actually quite possible
that this economic situation is caused by information technology.
And, now I kind of follow
the newspaper all the time to see what they say about it.
These are now titles from the main stream media and
you'll find them now on a regular basis.
More jobs predicted for machines, not people.
Will always [INAUDIBLE] your job, marathon machines,
men versus machine, robots are winning, the rise of the robots.
This is from last year.
This is a cover of the economists magazine.
Very solid, very business oriented magazine.
This is the cover [INAUDIBLE].
The theme of the issue is the rise of the warlords.
So, is this time going to be different?
So, it is true that, if you go back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolutions,
a technological change always destroys some kind of jobs, but
it also create new jobs.
So what's different this time?
What's different this time that we are working and
the computer scientists here are working on building machines and the goal is to
build machine that will be able to outcompete us in anything that we can do.
I mean, just think, imagine that we are extremely successful.
Right now, where [INAUDIBLE] AI and information technology and
robotics were a challenge.
We could not yet emulate the physical dexterity and
the situational awareness of people or even animals.
Okay?
Just take a juggler and think of the eye-hand coordination of a juggler.
We cannot yet do it with machines.
And we cannot yet
do with machines the high level cognition that is required in many, many jobs.
But there are many,
many jobs that do not require such physical dexterity on one hand.
And do not require high level commission on the other hand.
Just as you go about your day, look at the jobs around you, and
just think what kind of intelligence and physical dexterity they require.
And that's why more and more of the jobs are being automated.
So just last month, a study came up, here from Oxford.
And they looked at the question, is okay, technology destroyed jobs,
is technology also creating new jobs?
So they want to look at that.
What are the new jobs?
And they found, they wanted to know between 2000,
they looked at the United States.
And asked himself in 2010,
what percent of jobs in 2010 were jobs that did not exist in 2000?
And the answer is half a percent.
It's not as if there is this massive job engine.
I mean IBM still probably has about 400,000 employees.
IBM is so called IT legacy company.
Facebook is the new company.
How many employees does Facebook have?
I think it's under 10,000 employees.
And so the new technologies simply not creating these kind of jobs that we
need them to create to keep the economy humming.
And it was very useful to imagine a conversation between horses
somewhere around the beginning of the century.
So one horse is a pessimist.
He's watching the coming out.
He says oh my god, now they have horseless carriages.
They have this automobile,
what we now call autonomous car, they call it automobile.
We have this automobile, and
all this [INAUDIBLE] machinery, what will happen to horses?
And the other horse is an optimist, he's new classical horse.
>> [LAUGH] >> And he says look, yes,
technology always destroys job for horses >> But
the clergy always get new job for horses.
Not to worry.
There will be job for horses as far as we can imagine.
As it happens, 1915 was the peak employment, so to speak, for horses.
Because for horses, if you don't have a job, why should you exist, okay?
>> [LAUGH] >> You are consuming resources.
So today horses exist mostly, with few exceptions, as pets.
Okay?
And so fortunately for horses, they found a niche employment.
>> [LAUGH] >> Being a pet.
And so, it turns out that all this argument that said don't worry,
technology will get new jobs for people.
>> Completely analogous, you can say they will create new jobs for horses.
So the question, I think, really to me it's
one of the most fundamental questions I can think of about the future of humanity.
Going beyond what happens when AI takes over.
Something much more.
Something coming out much in the near future.
If machine can do all the work, or almost all the work, or
even 50% of the jobs that we used to do.
What will people do?
Now, some of the other analysis go back to what will
happen in 100 years, in 200 years.
What makes it so difficult, especially by the field shown.
Also for many of us, [INAUDIBLE] beyond our imagination is our great,
great grandchildren, it's a bit too hard to wrap your brain around it.
But if you think about 30 years, 30 years is
we can imagine where in 1985 we are making a project for the next 30 years.
And if we don't think we are going to be around in 30 years,
we think our children are gonna be around, our grandchildren gonna be around.
30 years is something that we're concerned about.
One of the problem with global warming is it's gonna happen around 2100,
30 years, he say that is almost, it's coming.
So let's talk about what happened in 30 years.
So, people tried to come up with many answers including we will immigrate
to other planets which is probably this point seem it like a fancble answer.
But the most common answer is wow.
Actually, what you're describing is a wonderful future.
We won't have to work anymore.
We'll have new type of slaves, we'll have who do all the work.
We'll be able to engage in meaningful leisure activities.
This is the leisure answer.
[SOUND] So there really two issues, big issues with this.
One is we will need a huge economic adjustment,
to move to a world from the current economy that we have, and
this [INAUDIBLE] 30 years, 30 years is not a long time for huge economic change.
If you look for example at the industrial revolution, so
it started in the 17th century.
When have we fully adjusted to the Revolution and I would argue that
the full adjustment of this revolution is the creation of the modern social
democratic state with a social safety network and when that did happen really?
World War 2, so
it actually took us 200 years at least to adapt to the Industrial Revolution and
now we're talking about changes that are going to unfold in 30 years.
So just economically adapt to a thing is going to be very, very challenging.
Just have to imagine what happen if we saw that labor
party participation rate is dropping down to now about 75%.
What happen when it gets to 50%?
50% of people are not working, and continue to drops.
But beyond the economic issue, I think there is a deep philosophical question.
What is the meaning of the good life?
And the good life is a philosophical term,
goes back to the classical RF, Greek philosopher.
They wanted to know, what is the life worth living?
And, in fact, there are some people in history that people did not work
for a living.
If you go back to some periods in the Roman Empire, where either you
are patrician and you had a lot of money, or the slaves were doing all the work, and
the plebian somehow subsidized bread and entertainment.
And that seems to me a dystopia.
Turns out that this question which is what will people do if they don't have to work
was raised in a beautiful play by Theodore Herzel.
So if you have heard of Theodore Herzel at all,
you've heard of him as the founder of modern political Zionism.
But he was a writer and he wrote a play in 1904 called Solon In Lydien.
So Solon is in And he's perceived to be, everybody thinks he is very, very wise.
Athena ask him to devise a new legal system.
He writes a new legal code.
He said you must follow it for ten years.
You cannot change it for ten years.
And he knows the adjustment will be hard so he leaves Athens for ten years.
He goes to visit Lydia.
Lydia is a very rich kingdom.
A old [INAUDIBLE] we still say [INAUDIBLE] and [INAUDIBLE] arrived at [INAUDIBLE] and
[INAUDIBLE] said oh thank you for coming here.
I can use your wisdom.
I need some advice.
This young inventor called invented a way to make flour
without actually having to raise the width.
So time to figure out how I should reward Uksomos,
I'm thinking of giving my daughter to him for his wife.
And Solon said no, no, no to the contrary you should kill him.
And Kasmov said you're out of your mind.
This is a wonderful invention.
People don't have to work.
I need to [INAUDIBLE] and get out of here, I don't want to listen to your advice.
Okay he says, so Uksomos is given permission to go and
deploy his new invention, so now you can get a flower for free.
My guess is the women still have to work to make bread out of the flour, but
the men did not have to work anymore.
So the men became lazy and restless, and so
they get impatient and start complaining about everything, and became quarrelsome.
And eventually they start complaining about Krasus, and
there is a rebellion actually going in the ranks of the population.
And so again there is an urgent meeting in the palace, with Krasus and
Uksomos and Solon.
And Solon says to you Uksomos, well you Uksomos,
you are still of the opinion that you can make the people happy.
You hear the commotion down there?
Do you want him to steal, to have bread without worry, without work?
And he gave them a chalice of poison wine
because it's not enough that you stop your invention, it's in your head.
People will get it out of you.
The only way to destroy this invention is for you to kill yourself.
And he said drink it for the welfare of mankind and Ukosmos drinks the wine.
This is the end of the play.
So this is really the question, if machines can do
almost everything that humans used to do what will humans do?
[INAUDIBLE] In his paper,
which is all about the possibility of machine intelligence,
is actually very excited about the possibility of a machine intelligence.
He writes, we may hope, that machine will eventually compete with men,
in all pure intellectual field.
We can see plenty that needs to be done.
So he's like a researcher, so wow, there's going to be lots of funding,
lots of opportunities, this is great.
And there is no trace in the paper of any
worry about what implications of this means, and
notions of social responsibility, is this a good direction to go to?
Now I think this is comparable to probably the biggest technological change,
the [INAUDIBLE] over the [INAUDIBLE] evolution, is we found a source of energy,
which is not either human level, or animal level.
And this has enabled us to live, if we look how we live today.
Just incomparable to way people live you know 300 years ago.
This [INAUDIBLE] label in such a way, and now we all realize.
They were paying the price, was climate change.
And how to get off the fossil fuel train, is incredibly hard.
Now there's a palace meeting, there was a [INAUDIBLE] meeting, the [INAUDIBLE]
meeting, they come and go, and we as a society have an incredibly hard time.
Dealing with the change when it's about to happen.
Maybe this time we need to think it before it happens, not after it already happened.
In closing, I want to again quote [INAUDIBLE] and
they say there is no economic law that says that everyone or
even most people automatically benefit from technological change.
There's no economic low.
It happened over the 300 years,
we don't know what's causing the current problem in the economy,
there is a very good possibility that it is caused by technology.
[INAUDIBLE] researchers from Harvard, [INAUDIBLE] report called
Dancing with Robots Trying to think of how will adjust to a society.
And I'm using [INAUDIBLE] as a metaphor for,
generally for computing technology in all of its forms.
And the right, the central domestic policy change, challenge, of the 21st century,
is how to ensure middle class prosperity, and individual success.
In an era of over intensifying globalization and technological upheaval.
Michael Cameron in a very nice article, I think summarize it very succinctly.
Will a world without work be heaven or hell?
Now is the time to think it through.
Thank you very much.
>> [APPLAUSE]