Keynote Speaker Gerd Leonhard : Applause2017 Exponential Change, The Future Of Technology - Humanity

Hello everyone. It's a great day. What kind of weather we have here? It's amazing, isn't it? It's usually not this warm, so I appreciate you being here in this room. It's rather freezing, but it's a great pleasure to be with you. So I've been a futurist for roughly 15 years. I used to be in the music business. I did a bunch of startups here in San Francisco. So I lived here for 10 years. And in the last five years of doing, I do about 100 speaking engagements a year. In the last five years I've been getting one single question on every single engagement. Whether it's in Japan to Australia to the US and that is the question. What's going to happen to people? When we live in a world of technology and in a positive way, people are worried, but they also see great opportunities. So it compelled me to write this book, Technology versus Humanity. And the best thing about the book is that we have a hundred of them available for free outside later. So you can come in the coffee break and pick one up and I'll sign it for you and you can sell it for $5 on eBay. So what I do really is this, right? As a futurist, I don't predict the future. Some people can do that. Alvin Toffler, Arthur C. Clarke, maybe Ray Kurzweil can do that. I observe. That's my job in China. They say, if you want to know about the future, ask your children. Because children don't have to make money, they don't have to deliver anything. They can experiment. And so I observe the future. I observe all these topics around the technology manager thing. And I have one sort of mentor that I'd like to point to right from the beginning. Arthur C. Clark. This is an amazing speech of Arthur C. Clarke. You can guess what he's saying in this. It's a little bit out of sync, but you can hear what he's saying.

Well, it would be a high definition TV screen and a typewriter keyboard. And through this you can exchange any type of information. Send messages to your friends so they can read it. Not they can wait when they get up, they can see what messages come in the night. You can call in through this, any information you want. Airline flights, price of things at a supermarket, books you've always wanted to read, news you selectively. You can say, you'll tell the machine I'm interested in such and such items, sports, politics and so forth. And the machine will hunt the main central library and bring all this to you selectively, just what you want.

And the whole amazing. 1976. Right. So the bottom line is the key to discovering the future is to come back from the future, not to go towards it. And this is something that I work on. So I basically look at five to seven years, and then I try to apply the foresights to what we're doing today. And what we're seeing, of course, is quite simply the exponential scale, which is an old hat, really, but it bears looking at, because really what's happening today is that in this exponential world, we're actually at the pivot point. We're at the takeoff point. We're not in the beginning. When I first got started, I started a company, kind of like Spotify, around 2000. That was a big mistake because it didn't work because we were here in the scale doubling 0.01, you get 0.02. That's still not very much. But today we're at 4. On this scale, 4, 8, 16, and so on. Moore's Law, Metcalfe's Law, roughly in 7 years, 128, 30 times up the scale, 1 billion. The kids of my kids will live to be 100 years old. They will not know how to drive a car. They definitely won't know what a CD or a DVD is. They will live in a world where offline is a mental state. It's not something you do for technology reasons. And in this world, it's quite clearly, this is our main challenge. Technology is exponential, and we're seeing that right now, what it can do because of exponential power. But humans are not. We can learn, we improve, we go step by step. We think linear. We expect things to go step by step. But the reality is, it's very hard for us to imagine, even in 10 years, what a world could look like when 8 billion people are connected to the Internet, roughly 800 billion connected devices to the Internet of Things. So this is a huge challenge because guess what? Of course, the ultimate question is of control and the possibility of using technology for human purposes. How do we do that? How do we do that in a world where the power is technology and most of the tech companies are my clients? I'm right in the middle of that conversation about how we can use that. I mean, the power used to be oil and gas, nuclear, maybe the military. The power today is clearly data. And if we're looking at the overall ranking of companies, it's all about technology. Social networks, data companies. That's basically what this chart calls the age of tech. And again, we're only at 4 on the exponential scale. We're going rapidly in that direction. So in my book I talk about this thing called the mega shifts. And when I speak to clients, they always ask me about digitization, you know, digital transformation. Nobody knows what that is anymore. It's like social media, it's kind of a suitcase word. But basically what's happening here is that these things are all floating around across each other. So digitization, datafication, cognification, intelligent machines, robotization. This is why we used to call them the Asians, because they all end with Asians. But I'll give you sort of an overview of where that's going. Basically, it's quite clear that the future is no longer about tomorrow, it's no longer about the time frame. It's a mindset. And I think right here, of course, in the Bay Area, Silicon Valley, in the widest sense, we have a future mindset. But living in Europe, I live in Switzerland, it's interesting to see that our mindset is about the present and it really needs to be about the future. That's a huge challenge for us in Europe because now the other thing that's happening is not just exponential, it's also combinatorial, which means combining all the stuff that you read about every single day, whether it's AI, the Internet of things, cloud computing, autonomous vehicles and so on. It's interdependent and it's putting all the things together at the same time. So the speed, plus the combination of possibilities. Uber wouldn't exist without the cloud, it wouldn't exist without mobile, it wouldn't exist without virtualization. And one thing adds to the other on top of it. As has been said many times, science fiction is becoming science fact. I apologize for that. If you're a scientist, you may not agree, but it's the stuff we talked about years ago, like artificial intelligence, you know, there was several winters of AI, didn't really work it over, promised nothing much happened, but all of a sudden it's actually here. Language recognition, natural language interfaces, almost perfect computers understanding images. Very soon a computer can speak back to me in the language of my wife. Watch Black Mirror, the UK series. You can see where that may be going. I mean, mind boggling. So nanotechnology, for example, will make it possible to use any surface as a screen. We'll have the first human gene therapy called Kymria, available in the US. FDA approved, $475,000 for leukemia treatment. That's a gene therapy. The very first one of Course it's really cheap, it's affordable to everyone. But the key thing is, of course, it's a money back guarantee on this drug. So if it doesn't work, you die, you get the money back. That's one of the twists of this business model. Groundbreaking touch sensitive skin mobile devices that have the computing power of the human brain. That's roughly five to seven years away. The computing power, this is not the overall power of the human brain, which I'll talk about shortly. The Internet of things, of course, that's a huge financial story. Finally, longevity. I mean, how many companies do we have in the Bay Area that work on the end of dying, the end of death? I mean, it's mind boggling to see what will happen with that. 70 is the new 50, maybe in 10 years. 90 is the new 60. And then you can spend 50 years on a cruise ship when you're retired. But that means we've seen how we will fund that clearly. I think the other challenge in technology is this. Some of the stuff we have invented are what are called pleasure bombs. They're really interesting, they increase our lives. And then we have things that are also an issue in terms of control and governance. Artificial intelligence, quantum computing, human genome editing, virtual reality. I would say right now about 90% positive. But imagine if this grows exponentially. We may live in a world in 10 years where we don't want to get up without wearing our VR because it would be so boring. And we may not actually want to have real relationships because it's so much easier with the machine. That's kind of the same way already today. So we're moving into a world that's rapidly progressing. And the question is, how far will we go? And this is a real divide between, I can see in the discussion between the US and Europe. You know, in Europe we're much more about the collective good. And we're basically all humanists, right? That's what makes us a little bit slow. Not to say that we aren't humanists in the U.S. but how far would you take it? Verbal machines, machines that are creating interfaces, prostheses, whether it's mental or physical. And finally, the direct connection of man and machine and the singularity, which would basically mean that unlimited power of technology, infinite power of technology. As I say in the book, humanity will change more in the next 20 years than the previous 300 years. And now the key question is, is that a good thing, is it a bad thing, or is it kind of both? Well, obviously it's kind of Both, right? Depending how you look at it, if you have an accident, you have both of your legs damaged, you can get a really nice prosthesis if you have the funds that will actually do better mountain climbing than your real legs. But there are people who want to have their legs removed for that reason, voluntarily. Now, this strikes me as a strange combination of technology and human aspects. And we'll have lots of those challenges coming up. Here's a key question that I have for you and for myself all the time. How computable are we? Are we fancy machines? Are we basically put together with chemistry and physics and atoms and data? And are we just the same than what we create? Lots of debates about this. This is a key question. Because the key question is, how far do we go in this convergence? How much do you believe in technology? Of course, being here in this discussion about software, we believe in technology. So do I. But what makes us different from technology in this future? Sometimes I think maybe we are the last unaugmented people, people who live by themselves as humans without having to necessarily connect, without meaning, actually what offline means. So in this future, we're facing this discussion every day. All you have to do is open whatever, whatever magazine or newspaper, if you should so be inclined to read a printed newspaper. You see these articles all the time about how technology will basically make us unemployed. And this is one of the key reasons we're seeing political activities like in Catalonia and the separationists and the idea of looking at how you can deal with this in the future, because people are worried about the future in general. Depends where you go. But I have never seen as much concern about this topic, the future of work. So are we the horses of the digital age? You know, years ago we used to have horses to transport things. And we still have horses, some of us, but we don't actually use them anymore. Would that be our destiny? I don't think so. I think I'll show you some more examples. But if you. In general, I think that machines and technology is very good at taking our tasks, our routines, not our work. Of course, if your work is primarily routine, like the checkout in the supermarket or making a hamburger at a fast food joint, then I think that is definitely a future scenario. Threat, of course, or call centers, for example. So I'd like to say that basically this is quite clear that anything that can be digitized or automated will be. Some would call that digital Darwinism. I think that's the reality of looking at the slope of exponential technology today. If you ask your Computer parenthesis to do the bookkeeping for you. You can get a fancy software. There's one called zero from New Zealand I like a lot. It does a pretty good job, but it's still pretty dumb. It's not actually learning very much, very easily. But we can see where this is going. Five to seven years. Quantum computing, unlimited connectivity. Machines can figure out stuff. They can figure out how to drive, how to fly an airplane, how to do bookkeeping, how to write an NDA. It's all within reach. So the flip side is also true. This is the good part, of course. Ultimately, anything that cannot be digitized or automated becomes infinitely valuable. It's very important when you're in the software business because you're digitizing things. Ultimately, these are the things that matter to people. Brand, trust, relationship, emotions, understanding. And I think, as the Moravats paradox says, whatever is very simple for a human is very hard for a computer, and vice versa. And I think that's going to be true for a long time. This is why I'm not with Elon on his anxiety about AI. I think we have to keep a very good eye on this. But the day that a computer can do this is far away. That doesn't mean that AI couldn't be a challenge, not even without doing that. Obviously, that's the AI in the system right there protesting. But it's quite obvious if you have kids, you should not let your kids learn anything that can be replaced by a machine. And that is routine. And if you want to create your own value as a company, that's where you create the ultimate value. You have value that are of machine nature. But this on top is kind of, you know, it's quite obvious that trust isn't digital. Trust can be destroyed in a digital form. Happiness is not a program. Relationships are in code. You can't flip this, though. It's not that codes aren't relationships, they can be. But ultimately the question is, how do we combine the two? How do we combine technology and humanity in such a way where we don't think of our customers as algorithms? So when we go into this future, we're looking at simple realization. I think one of my colleagues, Luciano Ferridi, who is an AI researcher in Italy, came up with this really powerful quote that basically says that algorithms outperform humans. When it is not about understanding anything, that humans understand emotional states, intentions, deep semantic skills, consciousness, whatever that is, that's where algorithms come in. I think ultimately what we're seeing here is this is the reason for AI or rather, what I call IA, intelligent assistance, really 98% of what we're seeing today. You know, when you. When you see on the, on the web, people announcing that they're going to use AI, they really mean ia, you know, intelligent assistance. You know, very fancy advanced software. Google Maps, great example. Airbnb's algorithm for figuring out how much you should rent your house for. So what we see here is that, you know, if you're looking at what's happening in technology is algorithms are trying to get inside of figuring out what makes us tick. And some of that has been an issue lately with various manipulation of media and huge debate about this, and how could we actually be manipulated? I mean, those are big topics that are going to go in the future for a long time. So the other thing that's happening here is that this issue of efficiency. I mean, it's interesting when we talk about software, when I speak to my clients about technology, they primarily want to achieve what I call hyper efficiency. They want to be ultimately efficient. Of course, the CFO loves efficiency. The CFO is very much into saving, of course, people in general, less people would be more efficient. But ultimately, this is the truth. Efficiency. Efficiency is really for robots, right? Efficiency is something that we can build with machines. Efficiency is important. We all love efficiency. You've seen demos earlier. It's very important. But the real value of technology is not to build efficiency, but to build new things, to make new things possible. So we have to transcend. I mean, it's interesting, when I used to be in the music business, and the biggest plus of platforms like Spotify is not efficient delivery of music. It's the interface, it's the design. It's a social interaction. It's the ease of use, not just the efficiency. It's possible, it does new things. So basically what we see here is that in Europe, we're having all this debate about the likes of Uber and Airbnb, which I'm sure you've been tracking. And it's quite clear that the future is no longer going to be about disruption. The celebration of disruption has been interesting. It was a nice decade of doing that. But now we're moving in the future, where it's about construction, constructing new ecosystems. That's really what we want. I think if Uber and Airbnb are going to be successful, they will have to build ecosystems that connect to other systems. And I think that's ultimately the direction that we're going with this, is this conversion of the two. So Marc Andreessen famously said, software is Eating the world in 2001. And he was right. Software is indeed everywhere. Everywhere that used to be hardware is now software, Music, films, television, books, banking, transportation. And that has really been an amazing ride. But what about this? I sometimes call this Software should not be cheating the world. So sometimes when we have technical products and we use that to create the Facebook type problems, which means that we are essentially inside of a filtered algorithm, then I wonder if we're getting cheated by our software. This is very important that we look at this and say, well, how do we prevent this? How do we figure out a way to balance those two things to go forward? Where it's about eating is fine, but cheating, because ultimately this is the bottom line. I think you've heard this a million times. Data is the new oil. I've been saying that for 12 years and people used to laugh because the oil industry made about $7 trillion revenues per year until recently. And now data is actually beyond that. And as Andrew Nunji from Baidu said, AI is the new electricity. How much does data do you any good if you can't actually use that data in a larger way to make sense out of it, to use intelligence, they go hand in hand. And this is really interesting. You know, we have all this debates worldwide about data protection and all these things. And of course AI and Putin. The Russian Prime Minister, President. Prime Minister, said three weeks ago that AI, whoever figures out AI first, whatever he means with that, is going to be the ruler of the world. Of course, I suppose that means Russia. But then two weeks later the Chinese said the same thing, is that they're going to be the world leader in AI. And of course we got India there too, and the us. We should not let this become an arms race. This would be very unwise, be a very bad idea to combine those two things in such a way where it's going to be detrimental to our future. When you talk about AI, it's really not this. I mean, it's interesting to see that in Europe at least, many of our viewpoints are based on the sort of Hollywood picture of AI, which of course, as you know, is utterly distorting. This is really what we're talking about. Intelligent assistance machines that you autonomous driving. They are not human, they are not really intelligent as we are. They can do lots of things, but they're far away from ex machina and they're far away from other things. This is Google Lens. This is an intelligent system that can figure out what you're taking a photo of. I think it was just Released two weeks ago or so. Very powerful. Is that really intelligent? Like a person looking at this Picture could realize 100 different things in the same time. Google Lens says, yeah, it's a store. Well, that's interesting and it's very useful. But is it truly intelligent? The elevator that can think. This is a Coney elevator that is connected, generating data. Everything is now becoming smart. Generating data, that's also very powerful. But here's a Chinese system of street surveillance called Sense Video, which obviously is intelligent. You know, being able to tell who's a bicycle or so. Right. It does make you a little bit worried about would you want to go down that street and be treated in such a way? But that's really not AI, that's really just intelligent stuff. My favorite is this. The Artificially Intelligent Lawyer, a law bot. Essentially. This is an app called Do Not Pay and you can file to protest the parking ticket or compensation for delayed flight or to sue Equifax. And you can do the whole thing in a bot. So if you're a lawyer, you should give this a try. I think in New York they defeated already a quarter million parking tickets using this thing. I mean, talking about interesting software, I mean, this is obviously kind of low hanging fruit for airlines and hotels and travel business. Very powerful things. So now we're heading into a future. We sometimes jokingly call this the smart converter. We stick in the old industry and it comes out smart. Smart cities, smart farming, maybe even smart politics, who knows? Unlikely in the U.S. but smart health, smart insurance, McKinsey says, $62 trillion industry, the smart everything. So consider yourself lucky you're here now because it's going to take 10 years to figure this out. But basically what we're seeing here is this trend towards a whole bunch of things that are showing up every day, connecting everything, huge exponential data. This is driving the next iteration of the web. And the blockchain is a big part of that process of making everything smart and liquid. So here's the bottom line about all of this stuff. It's really tempting to look at this and say, well, we can automate everything now because everything is smart. But the key question should not just be what can be automated? Well, the answer is most things probably can be automated to some degree. But what should not be automated? Should dating be automated? I mean, it's interesting to see that people interact on those applications as if they were a bot themselves. Is there something that should not be connected? Is there something that should remain offline? Is there any need for such a Thing. I mean, if you look at financial incentives, AI is the biggest financial incentive ever. I would say that's probably bigger than oil and gas and nuclear combined. In fact, many people are saying the positive side of AI is just as big as the side of saying it could be potentially more dangerous than nuclear weapons. Big question mark about how exactly that works. But you see clearly the money is humongous. And if you see who is the market leader here, the top 20 companies, Chinese and American companies, of course. No Swiss company here, no German company. Are we going to need regulation like we did in the oil business? Where would we be today if we didn't have regulation in oil and gas? You know, we're at 420ppms. If that wasn't for regulation, would it be 650? Will we already be underwater? Hard to say. And who wants to be regulated? Nobody wants to be regulated. So those are big issues that we're coming to. And here's the key thing. We're building essentially a system that is a global brain. In fact, various tech companies have their brain projects. There's like a dozen brain projects to build a replica of us. Extremely powerful, extremely useful. But quite clearly, I think in six to seven years, the question is no longer going to be if technology can do something, but why Today we're sitting here and saying, can this be done? How much does it cost? Is it efficient? Can it be done on that scale? That's all good. In roughly six or seven years, the question is over. There's just going to be why are we doing this and who is in charge? And then we have systems like this, right? Amazon, Echo, Alexa, Google, Home. That could be cute and interesting. But you have to ask a question. Do we really want this? Why are we doing this? And what exactly is going to happen here in a system to where AI is going to whisper to us at every turn? And it's interesting, depending on which part of the week you ask me, I find this both exciting and superhuman and cool and convenient, or deskilling and creepy and biased. I mean, it's kind of a strange thing when you have these powers in front of you, you don't really know what to do with it. And how far will we take this? Isaac Asimov, famous futurist also and science fiction authority, said, the saddest aspect of life right now, that's 1988, is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. I think it's very much true today because our knowledge has just gone through the roof and we're only at the beginning. I mean on the scale of innovation, we're at four. So you know, 128, that's six years. And 30 times up the scale, that's 50 years, that's a billion. So what do we need here? What do we have to do to make this work? Take the Internet of things, I do a lot of work with Internet of things companies and it's quite clear connecting everyone and everything would be phenomenal. Energy savings, efficiency savings, smart cities, smart harbors, smart container ships, mind boggling opportunity, trillions of dollars. We're essentially building a meta intelligence. We're building a connected system that is intelligent, talking to each other, doing things on our behalf, that is kind of a brain, you could say that we're formulating. So there will be many questions. What do we do with information? Where does it stop? Where does it go? Who's liable, who's accountable? Are the companies that build the system accountable? Or do we have the gun lobby problem? Right. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. The Iot doesn't kill people. Bad people with the IoT could kill people. So there's a lot of responsibility, a lot of thinking about where this is going, a lot of questions about this. And ultimately, here's the key question. You're lucky because, you know, we're here in San Francisco, the question is, who is mission control for humanity, right? Who controls what we can do with this, how far we go? Well, right now, as I said, you're lucky because it's being controlled here. It's by and large, I think most of the mechanisms of how this works are invented in Silicon Valley and to some degree in China now. But the key question really is this, especially looking at AI, when you look at ethical issues, that used to be kind of a discussion like sustainability, dinner first, then ethics, now we've had dinner and now we have to think about what ethics actually is. And I think it's the difference between what you have a right or the power to do and what is the right thing to do. This is not an easy question to answer. I mean, ultimately a lot of things happening here. So the question is, do you agree that we must look at the externalities? What happens after we do something? Should they be part of the problem of the business model? What is the externality of Facebook and the US election? I mean, huge debate, not a simple answer, right? But are we responsible for this? In a world where this is the new normal that machines can do pretty much anything, the unlimited power of machines approaching, not in a very far Away time window. Elon says there should be some regulatory oversight on an international level. Interesting. Well, to that I would add, I think the most promising future is one where we don't hinder science and innovation, but we don't dismiss the exponential risk as somebody else's business. And we've been doing that. We've been saying let's make it work first, and then when it works, then we'll worry about what can or cannot be done with it. We can no longer do that. Whether it's the Internet of things or artificial intelligence or geoengineering or solar energy or desalination of water or human genome treatments, these are questions that we're going to have for our near future. So the question is, how do we achieve this? Some people have suggested, including myself, a global digital ethics council and God, you know, that's hard to figure out. How would that work? Don't we already have the United Nations? Whatever those guys are doing, is this utopian or is it what I call a realopia, you know, kind of reality, but hard to do? And would we agree on this ultimately, where would we take with this? I mean, quite clearly, what we see, as has been pointed out many times by the Singularity people, Peter Diamandis and many others, is that we're going to a world of abundance, right? Music is abundant, films are abundant, transportation is abundant in this town very much. Right. Books are abundant, Traveling has become abundant, Banking will be abundant. So in this world, do we really need to hang on to this economic system that only had one thing in mind? I think we're moving to a new future, roughly 15 to 25 years away of what's been called people planet profit. The triple bottom line. Technology forces us to think about this. And in Switzerland last year we voted on the guaranteed income, minimum income. So everybody was going to receive a mere measly $2,500 a month. Every Swiss citizen. It got defeated, of course. But same discussion. Where do we go with this? I think that's going to be an interesting question that we have to observe and find out where that's going. So bottom line is we're facing a future that's made up of two components, technology and algorithms. Everywhere, anytime. And then we have these things that I call the androidms, the human things. It's hard to describe what they are, but let's look at things like mistakes. Inefficiency, lies, imagination. We could easily say that humans are the most inefficient machine you can imagine. If we were to do away with all the inefficiencies of humanity, we would cease to exist. That's probably not something that we want. Because if we cease to exist, who would consume all the cool stuff that we create? The bots don't have to eat. They certainly don't need QA software. So my pitch has always been, you know, we have to really invest in both. And this is going to be quite a discussion about how we can do that and where that's going. I mean, obviously, I think the biggest challenge is not that machines will come and kill us or that machines will take over or whatever Hollywood wants to make us believe. The biggest challenge is that we become too much like the machine, that we can no longer fathom, that humans are actually quite different than code, that we treat ourselves as if we were code or algorithms shortcutting through each other, that we believe the technology is actually human. It's called anthropomorphization. That's a hugely crazy word. But we should not confuse the actual human experience with the technology. Simulation. Simulations are great. I love. You know, it's perfect to do that. But is it the real thing? Is it the same as a human experience? So here's some crucial new skills. The World Economic Forum has a great chart on this. We're moving from the 2015 skills, which were quite obvious then, to a new chart of skills. I think that's something we all need to work on. And on top of that list is critical thinking, creativity, emotional intelligence, and cognitive flexibility. Emotional intelligence is actually a new thing on this list. I think that's the future. Also, as software companies, those are things that build relationships and trust that have very little to do with product, with algorithms, and also with this. This kind of idea of saying, well, what actually makes me human? I mean, let's be open and clear about this. Technology will learn that half of my brain. Technology will learn the logical part of my brain. It's still pretty stupid, but it's going to get there. And so that part of my right brain, that's really, I think, ultimately what we're looking at to be our future. So, in summary, basically, I think that all great technology, as I'm sure you're aware of, is what I call hellven. You know, hell and heaven. I have my Twitter hashtag for this. That's not new. You know, nuclear energy, you can build a bomb or you can build a power plant, maybe the same thing in the end, but up for discussion. But technology has always done that. The difference is now that technology is changing us. When you Connect your neocortex to the Internet, you're no longer the same human. You're a superhuman. When you use AR VR, you get used to a different landscape around you that's changing us. When you change your genes, you change us. We don't change this device or car or it's no longer on the outside. So the Future of Life Institute, funded by Elon Musk, has come up with some very interesting proposals as to how we can keep that future. How do we make it humanly sustainable? I mean, that's the key question. If it's not humanly sustainable, then it won't work. It will not be to anybody's benefit in the end. First, all systems have to reflect human values. We shouldn't invent things that don't reflect human values. There are some people inventing a machine that can give birth to babies outside of the womb, essentially an electronic womb. Some people may think that's a good idea. I think it does not reflect human values, and it certainly wouldn't strike me as such. But shared benefit and prosperity. How do we make sure the technology doesn't increase inequality? And let's be fair, it has. Technology has done many good things to solve other issues, but inequality has been increasing ecosystem thinking, building something that works with all the issues. And finally, those that build it are moral stakeholders. That's becoming clear now, because the power of technology is exponentially larger and it actually works. So let me finish by saying that on this trajectory of technology, I remember years ago, Steve Jobs, rest in peace, every second sentence he said when he presented was about magic, magic this, magic that, and it was indeed magic. And it's magic that I can send messages to my kids in Africa through WhatsApp for free. And that's magic. Right. But the bottom line is we have to make sure that we don't move on. On the trajectory too far towards manic and then ultimately toxic. It appears that what happened with the essentially causing dissent on Facebook with what happened in Russia is clearly a toxic undertaking, polluting something that we rely on. So we have to focus on magic, discourage the manic and ban the toxic. And that's not really an easy mission. I think it's something we have to look at and see what exactly that does. But the bottom line is this. I think for all of us that build things, the question is, where do you position your services between the good part and the not so good part? And sometimes we don't do that by purpose, obviously. It just happens. I mean, basically, I would say almost nobody does it by purpose. But still, we have to ask the question, where do we go with this? What will it do for society, not just for economy? And recently I've been discussing with some of the fellow writers, like Douglas Rushkoff and others, about our need to stay on Team Human. We call this, basically, even if you make robots, you can be on Team Human. You can put human first in the relationships with the customers. So we have developed this little icon that we would like to suggest that you use. Not officially, of course, because some people may not enjoy this icon very much. But I think this is the key, right? When you build really amazing software, put the human back inside. Don't take it out. This strikes me that especially in your business, that's a key component of what makes a company successful, is to put the human back inside. So I'll leave you with a final word for my book. We need to embrace technology. There's clearly no other way, but we should not become it. And I'm open to discussion and I look forward to some questions. We're going to disseminate the PDF afterwards and of course, we have a video. Thanks very much for listening.