Futurist Gerd Leonhard - The Good Future/Technology & Humanity at Capgemini Spark 2023

Great to be here today. I made a very special presentation for you. We're going to see more change in the next 10 years than the previous 100 years. This is crazy, right? When you think about World War II, the Internet, the nuclear bomb, all the things that we've gone through. But now we have accelerated in this really crazy sprint where it's not just AI, but six kingmakers. And then people alerted me that kings are macho, so I call them the queen makers. Now there are six of them, and it's really amazing to see they're all happening. So first, of course, AI, then quantum computing, nuclear fusion. Billions are going into this. How far away is that? Some people say 10, 15 years, not 50 years. Climate change with nuclear fusion. Yeah, we can solve it. It's amazing when you think about that potential. Genetic engineering, synthetic biology, building materials that used to exist only in nature, like spider silk. And of course, genetic engineering, preventing diseases, not curing cancer, but preventing cancer. Diabetes, mRNA, the COVID medicine, the same direction. And finally, geoengineering, changing the earth to work again. All of these are hugely contentious. And many countries have said whoever rules only one of them, like AI, maybe quantum on top of it, rules the world. So this could be heaven or it could be hell, because if we were to rule the world together, we would collaborate to make this all work, which we are, in a way, doing. But right now we have a bit of an AI arms race. Of course, the source of all of this eventually is military, but we have all these discussions about how we can use this for power, more money, or for collective good. And that is the real discussion behind AI. Clearly. I think the power that we can gain from this and the financial gains are huge. Stuart Russell, UC Berkeley professor, said, basically, if we play our cards right with this, we can look roughly at GDP growth of 4 to 8x of today. We're talking about $165 trillion. I mean, if GDP can grow because of AI, it's probably the biggest development pretty much ever. So now we're here and we're saying, okay, what does that all mean? 2021, I went to Lanzarote, Canary Islands, and I made a film called the Good Future. This was in the middle of COVID because I wanted to point out to people that there is a good future. Is the future going to be good or bad? Most Americans are pessimistic about the future. This has nothing to do with politics. It's a general thing. Terrified for the future. If you talk to millennials, people between 25, 35 40, climate crisis, AI coming in and robots will come and take our jobs and then they will harvest our bodies for energy. In Europe, it's very much like 71% of European young people between 20 and 40 have the sentiment that the future is going to not be good. I've been wondering, how does this picture about good or bad being composed? And there's two big waves that are currently there. One is climate change, the other one is AGI, Artificial General intelligence. And climate change is the funny part. We can actually fix it. We have all the scientific and technological tools. We also have the money. We just have to make the right decisions. It's not that we're short of science and tech. We have all of that. In most countries that are in the Southern hemisphere, it's cheaper to put up solar and other kinds of renewable energy than coal. That's already a fact, like in India. So we just have to take the two and a half billion dollars profit of the oil industry every single day and turn that into a different development. Basically, it's fixable. Twenty years, I would say, suffering, it's going to be tough. But we have ways of dealing with that and we have possibly ways of rolling it back. We just have to decide. I mean, America has already decided, which I like. And now all of a sudden we have a climate corpse announced by President Biden, like a Peace Corps for the climate. Artificial General intelligence. That means machines that can do a majority of tasks better than humans. That's what AGI is. This is the declared goal of OpenAI to invent a machine that does that. Not a machine that does better Google Maps or better CRM or any of those things. We talk about a machine that is superior with possibly an IQ of a billion. An IQ parenthesis, because they don't have emotional IQ or so. But yeah, intellectual iq we have these four prongs of. So the first one is of course assisted intelligence, IA followed by automation, then to augmented intelligence, and the last one, autonomous intelligence. And I believe the first three are extremely useful. They're going to increase our gdp. They give us a chance to solve our biggest problems. They make us smarter. But they're not intelligent like we are, and they're just better tools. And that is a really big difference. This part of it I don't think is a good idea. Why in the world would we want a machine that's conscious? Logic alone is a terrible thing. Some of the biggest rulers of the world in the past had amazing logic and intellectual facilities, but nothing else got us into some pretty Serious wars and life threatening situations. So the question of course is control. And not just control of machines taken over or machines going rogue or whatever. Control controlling the environment, for example, Manipulation of opinion. What if machines write most of the narrative that we see on media, which they already are doing on social media? That's one done by machines. What would happen with our social narrative? So when we think about the good feature, there's three recipes here that are starting to be quite obvious. Three revolutions, as I call them. The digital revolution, the sustainability revolution. It's 100x of the digital revolution. This is in fact the next 1000 unicorns. Billion dollar companies will be in sustainability, climate, technology. Because that's where all the money is going. Big blue, big green, they go hand in hand. The last one is a tough one. The purpose of evolution. People my age, the baby boomers, we didn't really ask for a lot of purpose. I think we've been doing that lately. But it's mostly the millennials and the Gen X who are saying, what is the purpose of all of this? What good does the world do when the top 5% are richer and everybody else is dying? Seems like an unfriendly atmosphere unless you can eventually migrate to Mars like Elon is planning to do. Big question about purpose. The economic logic, why are we doing things? What is the final destination? I call that the good future. Going back to the good question, I go back to Maslow. What is good? How do we agree on what's good? Guess what? We don't have to agree on having one wife or two wives or three cars or four cars or a house or those kind of more granular things. We just agree that having physiological needs and some safety, if we all had that, that would already be good. The rest of it, love and belonging, self realization, not dying, having family, having some freedom. That would be considered good, I think, by most people. And if we move this over and we say, okay, what about the rest of the pyramid? When we're coming to an interesting spot? For example, with artificial intelligence, we spend 98% of the money on capabilities, 98% on building better stuff. We don't spend a lot of money on alignment, making sure that it actually will be useful. And why is that? Because, yeah, it's hard to see return on investment, on alignment, nebulous kind of human things. So that's a real issue. That's really what we want. We'd like to be human. We'd like to have self esteem, self realization, happiness. And it's not really the department of technology that's in charge of happiness. There's an interesting angle here, the disparity between alignment and what we invest on everything else. And I would say if we keep going this direction, we have a lot of growth here, but very little here. That's classic misalignment problem. So we're going to end up in a place where it's all working but does the wrong thing. This is like social media. It's working beautifully. It's an AI mousetrap. Facebook makes $150 million profit a day by essentially dismantling democracy because their engine is an engine of regurgitating manipulation. And Twitter is about to follow in that direction. So we can safely say that's really misalignment. If Facebook remained as it was in the beginning, it could be more human, actually pay journalists, then it would be great. But now it's completely misaligned with what we wanted, but the stock is still doing great. Then we have this argument here, which you've seen many times. Our money is growing. Our money, the top 10%. It's growing, by and large. As you can see on 17 mile drive. Human capital is growing a little bit, but natural capital is tanking. Is that the kind of legacy we want to leave our kids? In other words, here's my money, but you have to go somewhere else because the place is messed up. How much sense does that make? World Economic Forum research shows that almost all of the issues of today are green issues, environmental concerns, and some of the other ones are about technology. Those are the two things, the two waves. And it's our job in business to look at both of these, to make sure that we create the good future. We have to tick those boxes. We have to figure out the ultimate destination of what we're trying to do here, which direction we're going, what it does and what it doesn't. Great example, climate technology. I mentioned earlier, where we have all the tech. This is the next two to 10 years. It's all happening. Look at all these things. Battery recycling, tidal power, battery storage position, agriculture. I mean, just endless. World economic forum says 100 million new jobs in climate technology. Do we have to worry about jobs? If you look at this, that's where all the money is going to. No wonder Biden came up with this climate corpse. We have hundreds of thousands of people that will be happy to work here if there was a fund to pay them with. We see here, for example, innovation in general leads to new jobs. Always has. Will it be the same with AI? I'm not so sure that it's going to be about jobs, but about new professions. The hardest thing for us will be that AI takes care of our routines. And some people like their routines. Maybe they're comforting, I don't know. But if your job is 95% routine, like in a call center, you are in deep trouble. This is really a big problem for developing countries. But generally speaking, this is the trend. More innovation, new things, new jobs, new occupations. Basically, the good future design. It's all about this kind of new narrative. Let's get away from this terrible narrative. The future sucks, and the future is not going to happen. It's not going to be good. There's going to be war. And yes, we have a lot of problems, but our solutions, they're exploding. We should look at the future like we look at New York, the worst place in the world. In the seventies, really bad reputation. An ad agency came up, I think it was 1996, actually, where they said, hey, I love New York. People said, what are you talking about? New York is the most terrible place you can go to. They invented this from scratch. And it led to people accepting New York as weird as it is and loud and stuff. And now New York is a happening place and people love it. We have to reinvent the story of the future and say, okay, the future can be amazing. We just have to play our chords right. It's not that it's doomed to be bad just because we have lots of issues. Barbara Hubbard, famous futurist, rest in peace. She died two years ago. As you see the future, so you act. As you act, so you become. What does that remind you of? Therapy? As you see your husband or your wife, so you act. That's exactly what it is. We have this impression as to what we think the future is, so we act accordingly. And basically ends up being what we had feared. We need to open up and say, maybe it could be better than we thought. The future can be generally better than we thought. And there is a challenge. We stick with this paradigm, we're toast. The new paradigm is larger and it's not new. I mean, Al Gore has been talking about this for 30 years. We have to branch out with a larger view of life, of real life, people, planet, purpose, prosperity. That's the new narrative. And in that context, it's utterly useless to go back to the old world and use the old phrases communism, socialism. No, it's about a new narrative. It's not about going back to Marx and Engels. This is a question of finding a design that that will work in the future. This design works for a while and it crashes in the most abhorrent way. 20, 50, approximately, because then we're going to merge with machines so we can keep the world running. Transhumanism, singularity. Probably not the kind of world that we want. So that's kind of the recipe for the future. And of course, ultimately, it's based on collaboration. That's why we're here, who are looking to collaborate, to invent not just technology, but our logic of the future. And this is why we need. I've been talking about this for 10 years. An international artificial intelligence agency, like the agency that runs nuclear issues, the atomic agency, the UN is looking at this. Many companies are looking at this. We need an entity that says, okay, what exactly are we doing? What are the rules? How can we not encumber science and technology and technology companies too much? I know legislation in this country is frowned upon in all of these things. I tell you what, if we don't have that, we don't have standards. And you know what happens when we don't have standards. We can't work together. We're going to need standards to identify generative AI. Is this video real or not? Do we need a flag? A watermark? Can easily be done. We can't just let that grow. If we do this, then we end up like social media, but a thousand times as bad. We're going to figure out what the rules of the game are. If you print fake money, you go to jail. You print fake videos of people, you get praised on social media. That's an odd situation that we're in right now. Let's talk about what happens with humans and machines. Hi. And AI, human intelligence and machine intelligence. Really what's happening here is that we have this kind of convergence and it can be scary when you're not 15 years old and a gamer. So you're looking at this kind of transition of basically what's happening between humans and machines is back and forth. That's happening everywhere now. And some of the most bizarre things, like connecting your brain to the Internet with electrodes, or uploading your brain to the Internet, or giving birth outside of your womb called exogenesis. And this is where it all starts. We're going to talk to machines. They're talking to us. Our interface typing using these. No, we're just going to speak to the wall, to the wristwatch, to a little buttonhole device. Hey, who should I vote for? Where's my date? Is this healthy food? That's where we are going, ChatGPT can now speak to you. Who are you?

I'm ChatGPT, a language model by OpenAI. How can I assist you today?

Cool voice. Thank you.

The chatbot now has a voice, actually five.

Hey. Hey there. Hey. Hi there. Hello. Who's in control of those answers and are they actually real or is it commercial answers that are commercially viable? Is it going to be all those things that we feared the most? The ruling of machine. So intelligence is embodied. Every psychologist will tell you, we think with the body, not just the brain. When you see things with your eyes, you see them with your ears and your nose and your touch. That's what we do. That's why even the most advanced camera captures 3% of real life, because we don't see with our eyes. Say digital intelligence means as if it was like us, which it clearly is not. But now we're inventing machines that can understand reality and they can fake it. They can actually act as if they were like us. That's what ChatGPT does. But in the end, ChatGPT has no idea whatever the sense of, of its answer is. And it doesn't want to. Because the priority of ChatGPT complete the answer, get the most logical combination of words, provide an answer at pretty much any term. Not about truth, not about accountability, none of that. So it's very useful in a Google Maps kind of way. Google Maps objective is not to make sure I don't feel sick when I'm driving a mountain road that has showed me it's just, it's the shortest distance. I'm looking for the shortest distance. But we don't always want the shortest distance. And we use Google Maps like we should use AI. We look at Google Maps and say, oh, it's interesting, but no, that can't be true. Or you have questions, you're questioning and we're still using it. That's how we should use AI. And of course, Google Maps is AI. This I fear a universal genie in my pocket that becomes my digital brain. This here is already my second brain. For some of our kids, it's our first brain. Imagine if I have this and it's utterly cheap and 4 billion people have it. What are the rules for this? Can I still do things myself? Can I get out of bed in the morning without connecting to that? Replacing humanity is the biggest business ever. But is it wise? What we need to do is to figure out how to use this as a tool like a hammer. And like a hammer, this tool can kill people. I can Go take a hammer to my neighbor and kill him. Or build a house. Same thing here. We have to figure out how to use it as a tool. And then we have to think about the other side of that. Our human, our biological intelligence, which is complicated, social, kinesthetic, emotional. There are so many types of intelligence, we don't even know how to really define it. And somebody can be utterly unintelligent in logic and very intelligent in something else. Try that with a machine. What intelligence does a machine have? Numbers, data, logic. And there it is, unlimited. And hence it's so useful to take these two, put them together. But let's not make a mistake about the priorities just because this machine can show me everything it sees. Parentheses, 3% of the world. That's what it knows. So I'll give you some examples about digital intelligence. I asked Stability AI to figure out Silicon Valley's green and sustainable future, and it gave me some interesting pictures. So it's interesting that most of it looks like Apple headquarters, but that's the future of Silicon Valley, according to the AI. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry, but thankfully it did put me in the future. And I was thinking, like, no, that's not me, obviously, but this is what it thinks. It's me. This tells you an example of what's going on here. And then it went a little bit further and said, okay, in this future, Gert is going to be very rich. So I did like that. But here's the bottom line. There's a huge gap between interesting, funny, good for something entertaining, and actually good. The gap is huge. We're not talking about two or three steps, we're talking about a thousand steps. So you want to use the app for this, that's good, but to make it really good, like human good. This is why machines can make music. They can. But is it really good? Or maybe you don't know enough about music to know what really good is, so you just use it. That's also fine, but we should not confuse those things with how that works. Very important bottom lines here. Creativity requires emotions. Machines don't have emotions, and they damn well shouldn't. The second one is that meaning requires existence. How would you know the meaning of anything if we don't exist? You can simulate it, of course. Great proverb here from a country in Africa, Malawi. It says, knowledge without wisdom is like water in the sand. Knowledge without wisdom can be very useful when it's about simple answers. How do I connect my cable to my HDMI input? Okay, I Don't need wisdom for that. It's quite clear what's happening here as we're moving into that future where this pyramid is completely changing. The pyramid of work. We're completely somewhere else now in that the lower part of this pyramid can and will be taken by intelligent machines. That's basically data, information and simple knowledge. Simple knowledge. And that is the biggest change in our lifetime. The bots aren't coming for the factory workers. That's already done. They're coming for knowledge workers. That's us. And if we're smart, we're going to say, okay, great, then what we do is we focus our intelligence on this. We put ourselves where we should be. Deep knowledge, tacit knowledge, understanding, wisdom, purpose, intuition. I think it will be a long time before we have machines that have wisdom, purpose, intuition, imagination, consciousness, beliefs, values, religion, ethics and so on. Because they're not structured data. They're not yes or no scenarios. And this one you must protect. Imagine a world where you can't do this because this has taken over. So you do an interview with an employer, they scan your face and the machine says, I can read Gerd's real interest in this job, and it certainly isn't to work nicely with you. Number one question of life, of course, is ultimately the purpose question. So as we're moving in this pyramid, we're basically going to see a lot of changes there because routines are going to be done by machines. Routines means data and information. If it's really structured, simple stuff, nuts and bolts, commodity work, or dirty, dull dangers. The three DS machines can do that. Intellectual knowledge, I think we'll keep some of that as well. But this is what machines are doing. We're going to move in here. That's why you're here. You're not in here to understand the intellectual part of what I'm saying. You could just read my book. You're here for this, to connect and say, ah, there's a moment where I understand something. If you work as a radiologist, you're like the coyote that's already over the edge of the cliff, but hasn't yet looked down, so doesn't realize there's no ground underneath him.

People should stop training radiologists now.

Geoffrey Hinton, famous AI researcher, brilliant guy, just quit his job at Google so he can talk about this. But this was in Asilomar, actually down the street just a little while ago, where he said radiologists will be useless because machines can do it. Basically. We have to realize it's not untrue what he's saying, but it isn't happening yet because radiologists use technology to improve their game, not to give up their game. That probably can't be done in a sales center or customer service center. But this routine thing, self driving cars, do we have this? Okay, San Francisco, right? Many things happen in San Francisco. Not all of them good, but yeah, in principle it should work. But we don't really see that everywhere. It's a long road to self driving cars. In the meantime, we have assisted driving. It's going to be all those things. And basically this is the reality.

You've probably seen them on social media videos going viral of driverless taxis in San Francisco causing traffic jams.

This is what she's come to.

And as the frustrations grow, the oversight seems to be on its own. Jerky ride.

It's interesting to see we are not socially prepared for any of this. I think it's great that it's being done in San Francisco, but this is not going to happen in Rome anytime soon. Probably lasts about four minutes. The experiment until the ambulance are coming. So the question of purpose, why are we doing this? Where is it going? This Guy is the CEO of an app called HeyGen. HeyGen makes videos without cameras. You upload images and you dictate text and you put in your audio and. And it makes videos for you. Lip synced. This is what he does. That's an actual lip synced video.

What if AI could generate video? We've created AI technology at Heygen to replace the camera layer, unlocking 100x. More creativity. This video was 100% generated with AI with my avatar and voice clone without the camera.

That's amazing. Then we have Samsung Neon Digital Humans. Not the same thing, but in the same direction. Mostly for shop displays and those kind of things. Right. Also very interesting. Probably not quite as ambitious as the heygen idea, but I do wonder about this. I wonder about heygen for example. What happens if this works? We're going to get, I don't know, 5 trillion videos a day that are even worse than the ones that we see today made by humans. That would be a great accomplishment. And who's to say that this is actually me? So it seems like a business idea, but I think really what we need is for technology companies to make a pledge. I call this a technocratic oath. The oath says, I hereby pledge to place humanity over technology in every instance. That also means I pledge to put human collective benefit over income. And many companies have done this in technology. IBM, Google, Microsoft. To make their pledge in A sort of less obvious way, because here's the problem and this is a real challenge for us. Technology is morally neutral until we use it. William Gibson. It has no ethics. And my argument is it shouldn't. It's a tool, for crying out loud. How can we expect the tool to understand values? Values are fuzzy. Classic misalignment. We have to figure out how we translate our expectation of what we want into the tool and how to regulate how to run social contracts. Nobody likes the word regulation, but seems like insurmountable. Otherwise we're going to end up here. We're being reduced to data flow. This is Facebook. You're nothing but this. Reduced to zeros and ones. We should be careful what we want and what we ask for. The King Midas problem. You heard about the King Midas problem? King Midas here on the left with an old video. King Midas wanted everything he touches to turn into gold because he wanted to be very rich. And he got granted one wish by whoever's up there to turn everything into gold that he touched. Turns out he can't eat gold, so he died. That's the King Midas problem. And here's our King Midas problem. The robot does the work. Is that really what we want? Are we really going to be that happy with it? Our kids working in virtual reality? Apple provision. I'll be the first one to buy it. I'm an Apple fanboy. You can imagine where this is going. Am I going to be capable of the real world after I wear this? My kids and my wife are going to be utterly boring when I take this down. Because they will not be as fancy as this. Here's a great quote by this company called Inflection. They have a personal digital assistant called PI PI PI AI. And this is what the CEO says, where that's going.

Everybody is going to have an intelligent assistant. A personal intelligence that knows you, that is super smart, that understands your personal history and can actually hold state. It can preserve things in its working memory. So it will be able to reason over your day, help you prioritize your time, help you invent, be much more creative. It'll be a research assistant, but it'll also be a coach and a companion.

This will be very interesting. You're going to make trillions of dollars, I'm sure. If this system can be everything. First we shape our tools and afterwards our tools shape us. Marshall McLuhan in the 70s. Of course, all our tools will shape us. But within reason, if AI is going to be so smart giving Us constant answers from above. That could be useful, or we could end up. Larry Gensler says the next stock market crash will be caused by AI because it will give us the answers from the top. And then we decide to do things that are completely based on non facts, causing a stock market crash, not because the AI would do stuff intentionally, but because it's completely fake, like Brexit and Turkey. That could cause a stock market crash because the system is a black box. Open the pod bay doors, Hal. I'm afraid I can't too. You all know this film. We're going to all stand there and scream, please open the po. Of course, we're pretty far away from that happening because there's many safeguards. But we need to think about this. When you think about your business, always keep the human in the loop. Even if it's more expensive, if it's less efficient, if it seems clumsy. Keep the human in the loop. That's how we shore up our value. That's how we make sure it's real. That's why social media should be rehumanized. Hire 20,000 journalists. Facebook would have the money to hire 100,000 journalists. That would be the solution for Elon. But no, he wants to build a giant machine that spits out money and inputs people. So this is something we have to think about. How do we keep humans in the loop? What do we do next? I made a film about this called Look Up. Now, here's the QR code if you have your mobile ready. Easy to remember. LookupNow TV. I'm gonna talk about the human, the purpose, revolution, and then close up with some remarks. The most important part of this, of course, is the millennials. As we heard earlier, they're taking over. We're giving them our money. And if you look at the charts here, it's totally obvious. The money is moving to the millennials from us. And they have different demands. They are looking for purpose. They like money, clearly. But the shift is humongous. Some people predict In Europe, roughly 70% of all executives positions and half of the political positions will be taken by millennials between roughly 25 to 40 in the next five years. So huge shifts coming up. You see all of this here. The economic impact of AI. I think Millennials will appreciate that. But they're going to ask why and who? And is it fair for everybody? They're going to ask why and how and who's in charge? Who's mission control? Humanity? How do we get this idea transposed into this world? So I made A little calculator for the 4Ps rating companies based on the 4Ps. Since I like to beat on Facebook, I'll do that again now. Meta, of course, this is the meta score. Eight on Prosperity, Great. Stock, Purpose Planet, little bit people, little bit. Adding up to 16. Then I took the most. Next company that's closest to Facebook, Saudi Arabian oil company Aramco Prosperity. 10 purpose one planet. If there was a zero, I'd put a zero. People four. Adding up to what? You guessed it, 16. If we rated companies based on this, what would your company rate like? That is really the key question. And in technology that's the number one question. Because now we're thinking about how we're going to attract more people, how we're going to build a new logic. I think we're moving from this idea of a NASDAQ to what I call a sysdack, the sustainable stock market. And there is in fact one, of course in San Francisco, the long term stock exchange that's trying to do this long term thinking. And this is where all economics are switching to. And America is particularly hard here because of the corporate structure of what we're doing here in Europe. We have many discussions about this and of course in Asia as well. But clearly this is going to lead to an entirely different future. What I call the good future in so many different ways is going to materialize here quicker than we thought because we're also going into a new world where it's moving from the emphasis on economy to the emphasis on climate. I know it's hard to believe when you think about it, but this is what's happening. And then of course, millennial centric, the system in general, moving at a policy level into this new world where there's more than one objective. Great technology should not aim to replace humans, says Dr. Edelbart. It should amplify human capabilities. And I see this reflected in so many things. I see these days that people are looking at ChatGPT and they're looking at that as if it was a person. No, it's a box of cables, for crying out loud. It's not human. It can fake to be human pretty well. We can use it as a tool, but it's not God, it's not a religion, it's not something we can't talk about or touch.

Today's generation of AI is all autopilot. In fact, it's a black box that is dictating, in fact, how our attention is focused. Whereas going forward, the thing that's most exciting about this generation of AI is perhaps we move from autopilot to Copilot.

Autopilot to copilot. I think Microsoft gave a presentation here as well. That was Satya, of course, very important. Autopilot means we do nothing. It just does whatever Google Maps does. Copilot is helping us to pilot ourselves. What we do not want is technology to be the pilot and we just come along for the ride. I think that would be taken it a step further. We have the digital revolution and many people talk about what's happening here versus China. So I wanted to enlighten a little bit on this. If you're looking at this chart, China is at its top actually off the line here with many things like research and of course the model size and so on. But America has of course a leg up on the chips and on the investment. So if you're looking at this pie, this is actually scary, right? The investment in America, in technology is bigger than the entire world together. This is why this kind of ironic charity on the left is to be taken with a grain of salt. Europe is all about collective benefit and humanism. And this is really a money issue, of course. And Scott Galloway, Professor G, he says something really important. He says basically, America is a magnet for the world because 2/3 of people who come and work on technology are not American, they're foreigners, 27% of them are Chinese. So this is of course what's happening. People think that America isn't going to be the major driver. I think it is and it will remain so. Also, the dollar is still there. The dollar is the currency, despite of all the discussions about the central bank, digital currency and all of these things are still there. We're going to publish the slides later so you can take another good look at the statistics. Sustainability, very important to think about this. The facts are clear, right? We are moving into a world where sustainability. Green is a business. It's going to cost money. Sure, it's investment, but overall it generates new money and new jobs. And this is the death nail in the coffin for the oil industry. And clearly the investment is exploding. And the curves are all like this. Electric vehicles, I mean, they're all exponential. It's irresistible. You're not part of this. You won't be around to witness it. So we're looking at a situation where basically green is the new digital and everything we do should connect to this because now impossible is the new normal. It's a bizarre story. When we look back, we say, no, no, that's not possible. Nobody will agree to that? No. We learned that in Covid things that we have to do to make it work. In France, you can't fly anymore. From in Paris to Lyon. Take the train. It's mandatory, Forbidden France. And then they have work here. We don't have enough trains here. And here on the left, you see how much CO2, the computing industry is putting out computing, especially AI and of course Bitcoin and so on. Is causing more CO2 than the entire travel business. That's going to have to change. At the World Economic Forum, much of that was being discussed. Basically the idea of impossible becoming the new normal. The new business models are about working together to create creative solutions. They're basically in a world like this. When a carbon coin becomes something that we are looking at. Great idea by this guy, Jim Stanley Robinson. So the carbon coin is basically a currency that is being invented by the central bank. That's a proposal stage right now to pay the southern countries not to take the carbon out. That's the only solution to this problem. I know it sounds wildly optimistic, but this is the Wall Street Journal code. You can find the article there. That's a radical concept. Would roughly create about $5 trillion of funds a year to get Brazil and India to not take the CO2 and pull it out. California suing all the major oil companies. That's a ballsy move by a guy who's not a socialist. Clearly this is what he says.

I think it's time for us to be a lot more clear. This climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis. This climate crisis persists. It's not complicated. It's not complicated. It's the burning of oil, it's the burning of gas, it's the burning of coal. And we need to call that out for decades and decades.

The governor of California. We're entering a future where being in the oil and gas business is akin to being in the crime scene. I know it sounds radical, but it's obvious. We're moving from the age of carbon to the age of renewables. And technology beats commodities because this world is different. So that is going to be an entirely different scenario as we're moving forward in this future with artificial intelligence and as machines are becoming more part of our lives and they can see the real world, maybe, and give us real advice. We must pursue AI with competence, not with consciousness. That is the key to our future commercially, successfully. All of the things that are just better than before using AI, but they're not going to replace people. The goal of creating a machine that is conscious Superhuman. This is not a ticket to our future. It's a ticket to disaster. In my view, we need to think about this and what that means for us as we're moving into this new future, the good future. Three things. You have to engage in all three of them, not just in one. If you're a tech company, you can no longer just go here, you have to go here, and you have to think about purpose. Bottom line on our future is those three things connected, smart, green. And you cannot just pick one of them. You can't. It's a question of credibility. It's a question of what the audience wants, what the millennials want. It's a choice that we're making between those two worlds. It's a choice that we make. And we got to think about things like the automation tax, like retraining, like mandatory requirements, or we make the other choice that says, hey, a world of 3 degrees warming. This is what it looks like. Look where California is. So many days above 30 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the death zone, basically. At high humidity, 3 degrees warming looks like this. This is a choice we're making. Just like the other choice about AI is to say we do nothing. Everybody fights for themselves. The future that we can create here is made by optimists. Despite of all the bad things we have. Not less problems, but we have more tools, more capacity. We choose to look at this and say, what's our capacity to fix this? What do we need? Rather than saying, oh, my God, another disaster. Your mindset contains your future. You'd be surprised when you open up your mindset as to what is possible and how we can actually collaborate and how humans aren't evil. Contrary to the popular belief that humans can't get anything done, we actually have, and we are, and we will. Antonio Gramsci, great Italian philosopher, he said, we need pessimism of the mind, of the intellect, optimism of the will. And I would add to that optimism of the heart. We can be critical and say, no, that's not going to work, or ask questions, but we have to remain positive and say, yeah, we can make something work, because impossible is the new normal. So keep that in mind when you look at all the stuff I talked about. I want to thank you a ton for your time. This is my motto. The future is better. Let's discover it. And please do have a look at my book, Technology versus Humanity. Thanks very much.