Stossel - 1/3/13 - Freedom 2.0
Freedom 2.0: Examples of how markets regulate better than government
- Duration 41:13
- Date Jan 17, 2013
Freedom 2.0: Examples of how markets regulate better than government
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Employed -- he's not listening right now.
Is this our future -- robots that would kill you know it's possible to build machines much smarter than our brains but there's also so much good news.
We have -- CM -- meeting.
-- -- -- -- -- the public.
We'll have five days to look online.
What's there before outside.
They're hiding things they desperately don't want us to see what if you're hiding things you don't want government to see.
Drugs are -- or whatever it is they want it didn't find they're doing something wrong there's lots of reasons to want I think we'll also -- The founder of Wikipedia -- It's not a perfect system but it works it works because of the Internet and reputation -- more that these mechanisms work the less that we need government.
That would be good.
The futures -- have to be scared.
About I don't know much harder than humankind.
Walk on water let's call it freedom 2.0 plus -- Yeah that's our show period.
What keeps you safe.
What prevents fraud most people he asked say government government must lay -- the rules and punish fraud to protect people.
So government regulates.
-- over the years adds more regulations in America we've now got a 170000.
Pages of rules.
People think we can't live without these but.
Then came the Internet.
Almost entirely unregulated and it works given us a new level of freedom let's call it freedom 2.0.
I couldn't have imagined it before Google Wikipedia.
-- existed I assume services like those could not -- they'd be -- with fraud.
Evening -- -- cool would buy an unseen product from a total stranger.
Without government regulation who would make sure that the sellers are honest and the products -- -- Wikipedia.
Another joke who would trust it that's why we need the world book on the encyclopedia Britannica.
Hoops -- too bad even I who constantly complains about government controls could not imagine what would be created outside.
One who didn't mention it is Jimmy Wales who founded Wikipedia so.
How did you think this would work.
Well you know it -- -- -- when I started I didn't really think about competing with anybody.
Had a neat idea and a bunch of friends and we just started typing really.
And then try to figured out as we went along and had some.
Players and then later some successes along the -- he started first something called new PDF but that didn't work well the concept behind Expedia was.
That if we were going to have an Internet encyclopedia -- needed to be.
Even more academic than a traditional encyclopedia so we had a seven stage review process a heart a peace -- philosophy to organize that.
It was a very intimidating for people to get involved and it was a complete failure.
-- and we've stumbled across the concept of which he website anyone can edit we started using the Wiki software -- -- more done in two weeks and we have done in almost two years it was amazing.
And then it built all of a sudden all these people are.
Editing and adding things themselves and the the usage rate characterizing.
And today we have nearly 500 million people are using web site every month it's incredible.
-- just over ten years from nothing to 500 million people.
One of the biggest web sites in the world and at the beginning.
This -- the establishment said this cannot work -- -- you need editors the former editor in chief of encyclopedia Britannica said.
The user who visits Wikipedia is a visitor to a public rest room.
-- -- Well at the clean public restroom I think that's something that's under appreciated in society.
It's clean because.
Makes it -- -- premises that you need to you know have editor painting editors encyclopedia Britannica and pays a hundred people.
To check the accuracy of articles.
-- what we do we've got huge community of people who are very enthusiastic very.
To get things right you pay those people.
-- known as a volunteer community it's it's a charitable project where organized.
As a charity so.
We -- from donations from the general public.
And -- all of the work that you see on the website all of the writing is done by the volunteer community.
That how can you know who's good who's stupid.
You know the thing is so what one thing I always try to remind people is that we don't consider Wikipedia to be.
Some kind of you know wide open forum where you can come and say and do anything.
If you come and start writing nonsense people very quickly challenging on and say hey -- What are you doing -- a source of that can you prove what you're saying.
And then we have some of the best most interesting discussions I think that you can run anywhere on the Internet.
On the discussion -- the community tries to work through what's the best way to present something what's what's actually true here.
We sources that we rely on the -- the most and it's a you know it's a fascinating process.
And it's pretty accurate.
My site on Wikipedia only has one mistake can.
The journal nature compare the accuracy of scientific articles -- Wikipedia vs encyclopedia Britannica.
Panels of experts in the appropriate specialty found about four errors per Wikipedia entry three in Britannica -- not what's different.
Not much difference and I was several years ago we hope we fix all those -- by now from anyone the most amusing parts of that whole episode was.
When this study was being done being carried out as soon as it was published.
Some people in the community -- -- mean they said Jimmy can you find can you get from the author.
The list of the errors because we want to fix them.
And attend because response was to issue -- when he -- -- denunciation of the study.
And I thought well that's sort of the spirit of the the times that.
Well Britannica can't fix there's very printed and shipped it out there -- here we just want to make it better if it's wrong let us know we're we're happy to fix it.
And protect got -- -- the books what -- cost more than a thousand dollars.
And even the by the CIA and -- forty dollars here for -- it's and it's an astonishing thing.
There -- still not fully all the way to realizing the dream of a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet but we're getting closer all the time.
Thank you Jimmy Wales first seeing what I could not.
The point of freedom 2.0 is not that we don't need regulation we do it's just that he doesn't have to be government regulation.
Economics professor Ed string of this writing a book called pray that cover so what do you mean prices.
Well most people assume that rules and regulations need to come from the state but if we look around the world today and in history there's lots of examples that come.
From markets come from the private sector rather than from government.
PayPal is a great example when they first came out their face fraud -- from all over the world they turn to the FBI -- -- Track these people down but the FBI had no idea who these people work they had no idea what the technology was so it can't work.
-- that would be the traditional theory and in reality PayPal realized let's take matters into our own hands so they developed a private.
Pride for fraud detection system.
Where they would use computers to say this might be fraudulent.
And then it would send it to -- human to investigate that eBay's another exit.
EBay is a great example in theory you could see somebody if if they didn't send you a five dollar -- of of our legal system missile buildup that would cost you 500000.
It would take -- -- -- can't work people will -- That's the theory but private parties look to problems and solve them so eBay and other groups developed private reputation -- The more that these mechanisms work the less that we need government.
And what thing that creeps me out about it though is that they created all this wealth and good stuff.
When they weren't connected to government Google Microsoft they had no lobbyists.
To date because they're being -- government wants a piece.
Google has a 114 -- Microsoft 73 they spend millions on trying to manipulate Washington.
If we look at all the good things about the -- and I think we can say that good things are attributable to the private sector when government gets involved it's really getting.
Getting in the way of people doing things another example of that is minute -- most people don't know about this but here's ago.
The press said -- -- head of America in computers they've given every person.
A computer instead of a phone book and it was a centrally planned disaster they can't you can't have one organization planning all those things.
That markets can.
Markets rely on so many dispersed people to invent to try new things.
And test their ideas and in the marketplace.
-- tell went out of business Wikipedia.
Government refuse to enforce all the the most simple contracts nevertheless brokers figured out how to do.
Short sales futures contracts options contrast even though none of the war enforceable by law.
How well in London in the seventeen hundreds they traded in coffee house's and after awhile they decided let's create.
And enforce rules within this coffee house.
If you default.
You're going to get kicked out of the coffee house and we're going to call you a lame duck that's an expression comes from.
That's right the people who -- to falters had to walk roll out and leave the exchange.
And the -- one of the first -- became the London Stock Exchange that's right and they set their own world Jonathan's coffee house transformed into a private club originally called the stock subscription -- Later called -- London Stock Exchange which -- model became my word is my bond.
Thank you add -- we we need government we need regulation to make sure your worry is your bond but it doesn't have to be government regularly.
Coming up how Smart are robots are about to -- and also how the Internet helps us keep -- I -- -- government.
And how government officials hope that I.
No more things we think that the commitment -- victim you brought.
No more secret -- that sounds good everybody applauded.
Transparency is important government government officials get to use force.
And they spend our money.
Where could -- be able to see what they did.
But they have -- -- once in office even advocates of transparency start keep this stuff secret.
Chris Warner's been bumping his head against that problem he works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute a think tank that likes to keep its -- on government time.
-- like you snooping around in government when you ask questions they don't.
Get the joke any longer when transparencies about that it was -- for the even not for me it seems so.
You file freedom of information requests.
Why we have a legal right to respect public records they're public as one man said I'm paying for this microphone we're paying for all of this govern well and our children paying -- -- -- this government.
We have the progressives got one right we actually have a need.
For these things and that's why there's the Freedom of Information Act that this was passed during the Vietnam War because congress was upset that Lyndon Johnson was keeping secrets and it allows anyone.
Even the non citizens to demand -- correspondence documents.
And the government can refuse only -- fifteen shows a national security issue or it's just an irrelevant private matter.
All records -- -- hours because -- the employer where the public records there there are not ours unless there is -- -- an -- on exemptions personal private national security geologic formations companies having common sense exemptions but the rest is also common sense these are our records.
And we've proven.
We need to see them not -- we have -- right but we need to your book called the liberal war on transparency.
And as you pointed out it was the -- to put these rules in effect.
And -- frankly.
The Boston Globe broke.
That President Bush expanded the number of agencies with authority to classified documents the secret including the EPA in the Agriculture Department so.
The Republicans are doing this not just liberals that Nixon -- had a few problems but otherwise we've got at least five left wing groups that are quote we're actually more concerned about the transparency even cause -- say Obama is worse than bush -- -- said was the worst ever or cannot write and say.
Obama's the worst ever Obama's administration -- -- that's a better off so why would let a group says Obama takes Bush's secrecy games a step further.
And he's rejected -- have.
More Freedom of Information Act requests than bush but he's also prosecuted more whistle blowers including as spies simply because they blew the whistle on software boondoggles and so on but -- to work for National Security Agency.
A -- is the worst when it comes -- transparency ever.
What we know from their behaviors -- -- hiding things they desperately don't want us to see.
They're behavior shows us that.
Now I conducted -- every -- that maybe they'll just say you're a busy body hear their political enemy in Italy to have this stuff but it is I don't blindly off its mutton.
I'm paying for this microphone so you -- -- I didn't ask what that they wanted me to see yet I know that these are my records like they have them in less the burdens on them that improve I can't.
And what they're doing if they're they're telling us things that aren't true were finding that increasingly according to their emails.
And it was the emails that told us about Solyndra and that people who gave money.
We're get that back in The Who wanted -- who needed it they don't want us to see what's going on and tell the carbon taxes and acted for example.
The Department of Justice was running an activist web -- the real climate dot org which -- since we're all gonna die from global warming.
Out of a government office NASA was doing -- and on their behalf DOJ filed an affidavit admitting to that NASA was doing right.
And I said I'd like to see what -- doing on my time.
Because they raced -- date stamp showing that they're actually doing this from the NASA office.
And they admitted in an affidavit filed the by the Department of Justice for -- shrug their -- shoulders and walked on that what we've -- elaborate document destruction operation under way.
In facie violation of the criminal code that's why we're not communities record so.
That was -- certificates.
And now what other defendants.
Trickier defense I'm told they use fake name.
The head of the EPA Lisa Jackson confusing -- government account under the fake name Richard Windsor Newton -- her dog.
Why why the fake name that's the problem EPA says it created the address issue -- have an email address that wouldn't be flooded with emails from the public.
OK so why the -- -- who you hiding from why not why don't you want people these guys did you get -- Were tortured to get anything done you have to have some private conversations -- -- like he has that -- you don't want noted there's an exemption for that you don't have to create a fake name.
Was very specific wants about how the public should know what government's doing here's a clip.
-- -- -- Obama does give president use the public will have five days to look online and find out what's -- report side.
Again lots of applause for that and that seems pretty simple.
Five days this is a lot before he signs the bill but still that's pretty good in yet.
He broke -- the first bill he so.
It was too much apparently not only that but -- the hallmark I'm going to have obamacare negotiate on C span.
You know where they struck those deals with the drug companies -- reveal for the first time in the book.
On L well private servers run out of the White House to hide from us they don't they're not that into transparency.
Thank you Chris order -- trying to help us find out what's going on coming up.
How technology makes it easier for citizen journalists people like you to expose treachery -- government.
Play your cell phones are let me share we have AC up -- media here.
-- -- Army.
That's a scene from new documentary about citizen journalism and Andrew bright -- He died shortly after that speech but the ideas he expressed live on.
No longer do we have to rely on the pompous left wing -- bonds from ABC CBS NBC PBS.
We have choices he young viewers not just expect this but what right part called citizen journalism.
Is a new freedom to point no idea.
And of explain it let's go over the experts Glenn Reynolds started the blog instapundit.
He now all the himself gets more readers than many newspapers used it.
We're also joined by -- -- and -- courting both Maloney who.
Produce that bright part movie titled heating bright part so what you call it heating bright part one of the things that we found interest.
About the way bright -- operated was the level of venom directed towards them.
-- a lot of people who are in the opinion world and news world they get that they get barbs directed at them.
But he actually seemed to really gain energy from the things that were directed out of do you mind being hated I think he loved it I think he'd love to being hated as much as he loved people agree -- -- I think he just.
Love the back and forth of ideas so much.
That -- he drew energy from -- whether or not someone who agreed with them or not he was re tweeting.
The most vile things said about -- all the time I think he's definitely gain energy from that.
And he thrived by reporting things that the mainstream media was just skipping and the biggest example.
Is the Acorn story and more you are part of the beginning of that Acorn at the time.
I thought -- -- -- do gooders -- helping poor people it turned out they were sleazy and may be engaging in voter fraud.
But then came this pimp and prostitute you tell.
Site was speaking with James -- about a video that he'd done and really just -- -- -- -- at the end of the conversation I asked him settle James what are you working on now.
Anti began to describe the Acorn videos that he and -- -- working on and I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
It I I thought well if this -- hands what he says that he has this is Hughes.
I asked him what.
His plan was for releasing these videos and he said you know he'd approached the networks and release them that way I strongly recommended that he not do that.
And so he went to bright part who released -- -- gradually they were encouraging teen prostitution tax invasion encouraging people lie.
To the government.
Yet the mainstream media still sneered at this a columnist at the Columbia Journalism Review said O'Keefe and Giles do not seem to take a journalistic approach their conservative activist.
And in your film bright part answers that.
-- to journalism school.
-- I happen to believe that the best journalists I've ever come across in my entire life.
Part hyperbole aside but.
This is was noted people to go around the mainstream media journalism is telling people stuff they need to know that they don't know and that's what James -- -- that's not what.
Most establishment journalists seem to wanna do now they want to -- the narrative of the day whatever that is and it's usually one.
That's politically favorable to the Democratic Party or at least the establishment in general which was at the time -- -- just nice good people and we don't wanna taxes it.
Key stuff -- more than sympathetic to Acorn I believe the church that traditional press was actually protective.
Of Acorn and ask and -- released the story that.
Proved to be the case because they still didn't cover it and congress defund it Acorn before the times the year times -- Washington Post reported on -- that's exactly right the senate moved to defund Acorn the senate the census severed all its ties with Acorn and that was all before.
The New York Times or the Washington Post and written a column ends.
Well another widely reported priest piece of propaganda that was debunked by the cell phone cameras that -- part talked about with the -- from some US congressman that.
Racist Tea Party members screamed at the home and call them the end work.
So -- part asked Tea Party members.
Send us what's on your cell phones.
And that's the -- -- kind.
He found it from the top of the steps looking down as they're walking downstairs -- found from the bottom of the steps watching from the on the steps.
We get a video from the curb as they're walking down the steps straight toward the camera person.
Of course we have we fangs video where they've stepped off of the curve and then we have video from across the street even.
And no never he offered a 100000 dollars for anyone who could show also be screaming the N word and nobody could.
I don't think we've ever seen anything where you have videos being taken from YouTube to piece together a story to be told this way.
And I I think that that is another sign that we're in -- new media environment and it's not just that one person can go out film something with a camera.
It's that wants.
A hundred people of done that.
You can go and find those things and put them together and say hey look this is actually what happened from all these disparate pieces -- thank goodness that we have -- if -- were all journalists now just from our.
Phones and thank god we have blogs like you're you've got these ubiquitous tools for gathering information like Smartphones and video cameras and things like that.
And then you've got these platforms for distributing it.
Like YouTube and Twitter and then you've got blogs and other sites like Bart -- -- commented.
That can pull it all together and give you picture of what's going on from a lot of different sides and let readers make up their own minds.
And -- it's not like the mainstream media aren't still very powerful.
They are they're just not as powerful they used to be and -- no longer control the narrative completely.
And to me it makes me wonder what what historical events would look like if we've had a bunch of cameras from a lot of different -- sometimes.
Vs just what got aired on inordinately what did we miss and when you started.
You -- -- hot shot lawyer.
You could've had a big deal legal career and you gave it up to do this thing called blogging which -- sneered at when I first heard about it.
And now all by yourself you get six.
-- success not alienate -- you lose them viewers which is pretty decent for a one man operation.
One of the story citizen journalists broke out of Dan rather and George Bush -- -- Well a CBS had a big scoop -- Dan rather brought out and it was supposed to be memos from George W Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard suggested he was.
A wall and trying to used influence.
To not serve right that's -- just an.
And people or look at a nice so there's a kind of familiar and somebody actually just typed in the exact -- -- -- of default settings on Microsoft Word and it looked exactly the same they're like that's.
That's funny I don't think they had Microsoft Word back in 1970 both sponsor -- it's -- didn't exist that it was like.
And CBS is embarrassed Dan rather would wound up ultimately leaving.
And being exiled to -- -- is now and you know this is pretty much a major blow to what I think.
Ten years earlier would have been a narrative that would have gotten a lot of traction and with that narrative view bush might not have been elected -- right.
And Monica Lewinsky likewise but there's -- story.
That it was Al Newsweek had it but wouldn't run it that's right they had -- -- it was spiked.
The story leaked to drive to thousand after the break lose and and get it out there so that they couldn't do the gate keeping anymore.
I just look at these comparisons from the old media bright part it's now on the web getting huge numbers of viewers.
And -- we Drudge if you're successful -- is unbelievable -- ninety million.
And it's hit myself -- feed 25 million here at six million.
Town hall dot com which carries all these columnists including my column just gets four million how do you buy yourself get six.
I have no idea.
I think have a boring guy -- what you'll find it Tuesday -- it's amazing when you think that not very long and now.
If you wanted to challenge the integrity of the traditional press.
The only way that you -- do it was to write a letter to the editor or -- it which we do work force and headed up that right and then hope.
That you know -- letter might be run I don't think so much power has ever been transferred from so few people.
To so many ordinary people almost all over the world almost overnight.
All part of freedom 2.0.
Thank you more Evan glass and coming up one up by something the government doesn't want either by.
A new online currency makes it easier.
Is that a problem or a good thing.
That's next as we return with more of freedom 2.0.
-- by some secret stuff.
Who engage in a transaction with some other consenting adult that you don't want the government to know about.
That is easier now thinks the freedom 2.0 which brought us something called bit -- It's an online currency one not controlled by any government or any single company even -- it's run by many individuals who formed a computer network it keeps track of between prices and how many points yeah.
And it's almost completely anonymous.
Now why is that good you might think people use it to buy illegal guns and drugs and they do actually already.
But Catherine -- -- ward of reason magazine says on balance that's a good fit a good thing why so the.
First thing you have to keep in mind is that the coins are no more.
-- -- suspicious or anonymous -- cash already people use cash all the time to buy.
Illegal in -- six.
Stuff they don't want their wife to know about there's a lot of room for transactions that we might not want -- permanent record right now that's cash.
But now we have coins which are who originally -- cash who needs digital -- Well I'm sure that you know and and certainly I have stopped going to stores almost completely I buy everything online it.
And for some people everything includes.
Drugs or guns or whatever it is they want -- they'd like to -- by that online anonymously.
PayPal was supposed to do this this was the -- PayPal but it would be sort of a a currency outside of governments.
Other liquid PayPal -- that there was a central.
Place that could be shut down you could go to the PayPal servers and say we're gonna clamp down if -- is different it's stored on lots of different computers it's it's a diffuse.
Peer to peer technology so there's no one place you can go and say.
Now the government knows what you're doing with -- clients whereas you could with PayPal and when he came to.
Terrorism money laundering drugs.
It turned out to be easy to -- But not -- court.
Which makes it sound like it'll -- make it easier for terrorists you know that is a possible very small side effect but I think.
The much more important factor here is that what it going to do in theory is protect people from their own governments right now -- Federal Reserve.
Can make money less valuable than money that you have that you are just by devaluing the currency.
In theory what point does is take that power away from the government and give it to individuals -- can put your money where we want.
That technically is illegal -- because you're not allowed to have for stupid reasons alternative currencies in America should.
Seems like a basic part of freedom and it going allows that but here's the part that -- people out there's this silk road website where people spend their it points.
And they sell.
All kinds of nasty stuff heroin cocaine so.
Soaker and it's just like any other online retailer they have user review this thing can no who's ripping you off but bad reed and who's telling -- good we.
You know the fact is that anything that kind of -- is even black markets I think is ultimately a force for good it means that people don't get dangerous products -- -- and they don't get ripped off.
I'm there is still -- vulnerability which is that.
If you buy a bunch of -- they got to send it somewhere right it has to go to your -- -- as a dress right but the fact is that most of the transactions that are happening canceled broad.
-- incredibly high user ratings people like.
They want that they want to buy these things and just because they don't wanna paper trail or -- digital paper trail in this case.
It isn't -- -- they're -- wrong there's lots of reasons to want.
And silk road was named after the silk route that we use to trade -- from China -- The west gave them wine olive oil and gold -- -- back.
And the original so -- visiting global force for progress this is the first or one of the very earliest within the -- -- -- is that -- impossible to get in Europe made their way back from Asia.
-- and other things went the other direction it's it's -- powerful force for improving the welfare of people and the idea that this silk road is somehow.
Bad just because it's anonymous.
I think -- -- -- and it lets people evade taxes.
Well I guess my response would be amen to that.
-- -- Texas that pay for what government should do sure.
Ultimately the responsibility to pay for taxes resides with the individual -- we don't blame that the retailer if you don't pay your taxes we don't blame.
Your employer if you choose not to pay your income taxes.
It's an individual moral case whether or not there's this online site that facilities purchases about taxes it's it's not there.
And -- coins are used not just invite drugs that people use them -- porn.
They don't want someone in the Tampa -- that once someone deceive the paper trail online gambling which is stupidly illegal.
And even for transactions that are illegal now but might sometime be in the future like.
Buying -- gun.
Sure and I mean I think it's really reasonable for lots of kinds of purchases which are now totally legal.
You might not wanna leave a record that a guns are great example you know later on somebody might go look at sales records and follow up on those -- take -- gone away.
-- my senator Charles Schumer.
Who is I think against everything that's good.
I think is trying to -- bitcoin sickle frustrated used to -- stop this new currency.
-- -- All hidden because they don't use dollars that use this.
He also wants to ban guns caffeine sprays high frequency trading and.
They can't they -- they can't get their hands of real sites that allow you to do these kinds of transactions anonymously.
Date increase the power of the individual -- decrease the power of governments they take some of the control away from people like Chuck Schumer.
-- give it to you would be of course section that.
And of course that's a good thing thank you Catherine -- who ward of reason magazine.
Coming -- robots keep getting better soon they'll be smarter than week.
What does that mean for freedom.
-- -- So technology is made is richer giving us more choices but.
Smarter robots for one thing last year robot called Watson crushed its human competition in the quiz show.
Who is never easy -- Iraq.
800 -- category.
-- what he's pretty yeah.
Okay sort computer can -- -- jeopardy but.
Economics professor Jim Miller says what will come next is much more interest so what's that well computers are getting smarter and smarter and eventually they'll be able to do everything we can -- I don't know that we're human we have special skills.
Well but we're just machines and we're machines that we know our brains run on meet.
And we know it's possible to build machines much smarter than our brains and much faster and computing power keeps double -- -- not -- computing power you can buy per year keeps doubling in.
Twenty double lenses about a million fold increase so today we had a computer as fast -- -- human brain.
Twenty years -- -- a million times faster and we'd all be obsolete.
So the first step may be that computers will make their own computers if we have computers smarter than people making computers that are smarter than them.
As they get smarter they're better at making smarter things we could have an explosion and we.
Go from computers being a bit smarter than -- to being as above us intelligence as we are for -- So the fear then is that companies won't hire people look to buy machines.
Well that doesn't have to be if here I mean are the purpose of work is to get stuff to consume.
So would be great to live in an economy in which robots did all the work they were nice to us and we got to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
That's one possibility you have some other possibly yes unfortunately these machines wouldn't need us they -- treat us the way we treat chimpanzees that perfectly happy to take our stuff and leave us for -- that sorts.
On meets their needs.
So another scenario -- do we merged with the machine.
Yet we put computers in our brains as computers get faster they're also getting smaller.
And if we put computers and we already have the replacement body part.
Yet -- exactly and if we can start making augmenting our brains will get smarter will be much more productive and become very very rich very quickly answer starts to happen their criticism is all of -- well this will be this will.
Exacerbate any quality and the rich will merge more quickly with computers that that is possible but I actually think the other outcome is more more likely if you look at cell phones of all the rich -- the first to get cellphones there's now.
Poor farmers in Bangladesh you have them.
A lot of this technology is going to be of the kind which really expensive to develop but I think once who developed it won't cost that much to make extra copies.
And so the poor might end up getting the stuff only a few years after the rich do.
So what do we do to prepare for the.
Well one way is an individual you can prepare is to think how can you continue to be a productive employee.
In a world in which computers get continually smarter know eventually it's gonna be hopeless but along the way there's still going to be a lot of stuff.
That people can do and computers can't.
And if you can figure that out in your profession you'll be able to make a lot of money.
It's also possible if we merge with the computer that we will live much longer yeah and that's the upside that.
If we have medical research being done by super Smart computers and they like us they could extend our lifetime -- definitely we can be -- perhaps millions of years.
-- if they like cuts hundreds of machine like us well machine runs on software and people will write the software and we get it right.
The machines will have objectives of you know be nice to people do things they care about.
Vs there the alternative the matrix where they -- -- Yeah except in the matrix is unrealistic they wouldn't really need to surround for any reason that it would public as quickly kill us.
That's -- how much time we got.
Well -- scary I would say at a minimum probably at least ten years.
Almost certainly this century and I would I would get about 4045 as part of the best estimate for when we'll have computers at least a smartest people.
I find what you say very plausible.
But -- I look back at these bold predictions of 1924.
Articles said the flying automobile.
The car of the future.
It's recently as 1979.
Book predicted the Olympics will be held on the moon by the year 22 pointing.
It could be totally off about this stuff -- it's certainly possible but there's so many different ways of achieving intelligence enhancements.
And there's such tremendous military and economic benefits to doing it.
But I think it's very likely we will I mean we -- had the Olympics on the -- -- -- you're really wanted to it's just not that valuable.
One that not thank you Jim Miller coming up.
My take on freedom 2.0.
At the start of this New Year's I think about our future.
First it seems bleak politicians spend this deeper into debt.
They regulate endlessly they tell us don't do this but then you must do that.
Future is bleak.
When -- that's new technology may give government more power.
Wireless communications and drones make it easier for politicians to kill people.
Smaller better cameras allow government to spy on us New York City says they'll soon have 3000.
Up -- -- They do make us safer but London police used their cameras to spy on women in their apartment.
It's also scary that some -- robots might become so quick -- so Smart that they'll decide who needs humans and kill us.
-- -- -- Okay that science fiction for now.
But as you just heard many researchers think it could happen.
But people always predict do.
Thomas Malthus cents obvious that population growth will so outpace the food supply.
Gigantic family is inevitable.
He said that in 1780 now.
More recently Paul Ehrlich became the darling of the left for predicting that pollution and global warming would kill us he said I would take even money that England will not exist by the year 2000.
He wrote that in the seventies.
Last I checked England still there.
And thanks -- technology there's less pollution in industrialized countries today.
But the fools and the media continue to make scary predictions about the Internet.
Time wonders our kids to wired for their own good.
Newsweek warns of depression psychosis.
I say the scare mongers are almost always wrong.
Instead technology will keep making us wealthier healthier thanks to the Internet and free -- 2.0.
That title because web two point -- come to -- new ways of using the Internet like Wikipedia.
Where users create content free from central banners.
Technology also now lets -- keep -- closer watch on government.
The police said this bicycle this -- into a cop but that is cell phone camera revealed the truth.
The new technology allow these two young people to show that eight -- and spent your tax money in repulsive ways.
Millions watched their videos and before the New York Times or Washington Post ran a single story about the Acorn scandal.
Congress moved to stop giving a -- your money.
I've cosponsored a bill which would stop federal funding of this reprehensible.
And finally tonight that.
Private digital currency known as bitcoin now allows people to -- -- government may not want you to -- I don't suggest that you buy illegal things but on balance that choice is good because it's freedom 2.0.
It gives people more options and makes it harder for government to control us that's a good thing.
That's our show thanks for war.