Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
I -- you employed or he's not listening right now.
Is this our future Smart robots -- -- we know it's possible to build machines much smarter than our brains but there's also is so much good news.
We have AC -- -- media here.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 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 -- -- or whatever it is they want it -- -- they're doing something wrong and lots of reasons to want I think we'll also tonight.
The founder of Wikipedia -- It's not a perfect system but it works it works because of the Internet and reputation the more that these mechanisms work the last that we need government.
That would be good.
The futures -- have to be scared.
About -- -- -- commitment of any human could.
Walk on water let's call it freedom 2.0.
-- That's our show.
What keeps you safe.
What prevents fraud most people -- asked say government government muscling out the rules and punish fraud to protect people.
So government regular.
-- 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.
EBay existed I assume services like those could not -- they'd be ridden with fraud.
-- to chill cool would buy an unseen product from a total stranger.
Without government regulation that would make sure that the sellers are honest and the products -- the Wikipedia.
Another Joseph -- wouldn't trust it that's why we need the world book -- the encyclopedia Britannica.
Oops -- bad even I who constantly complains about government controls could not imagine what would be created outside.
One who did imagine 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 and try to figure it out as we went along and had some.
-- and and later some successes along the -- he started first something called new PDF but that didn't work well the concept behind him PDA was.
That if we were going to have an Internet encyclopedia it needed to be.
Even more academic than a traditional encyclopedias that we had a seven stage review process -- -- -- peace team philosophy to organize that.
It was very intimidating for people to get involved -- was that complete failure.
We've stumble across the concept of which he website anyone can edit we started using the Wiki software coming up more done in two weeks than we had 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 in the the usage rate characterizing.
And today we have nearly 500 million people are using what's at every month it's incredible.
Scored just over ten years from nothing to 500 million people.
One of the biggest web sites in the world and at the beginning.
This stuff 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.
At that that both the clean public restroom I think that's something that's under appreciated in society.
It's clean because.
Makes it volume of the premises that you need to you know have editor painting editors encyclopedia Britannica 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 here.
To get things right you pay those people.
No no it's a volunteer community it's it's a charitable project where organized.
As a charity so.
We access 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 at and who's stupid.
You know the thing is -- what one thing I always try to remind people is that we don't consider which appeared 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 challenge you 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 page as the community tries to work through what's the best way to present something what's what's actually true here.
We sources who 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 -- 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 Jimmie can you find can you get from the author.
The list of the errors because we want to fix them.
And Britannica -- response was to issue a twenty page should denunciation of the study.
And I thought well that's sort of the spirit of the the times that quote Britannica can't fix there's very printed and shipped it out -- we're 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 had -- -- the books what -- cost more than a thousand dollars.
And even to by the CIA and -- forty dollars your -- Mean it's an it's an astonishing thing.
There were still not fully all the way to realizing the dream of -- -- like repeated 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.
-- think you.
The point of freedom -- point oh 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 -- it cover so what do you mean price it.
Well most people assumed 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 like PayPal.
PayPal is a great example when they first came out they face -- -- from all over the world they -- to the FBI the Tryon.
Track these people down but -- FBI had no idea who these people work they had no idea what the technology was so it can't work.
Well that would be the traditional theory and in reality PayPal realize 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 -- another exit.
It is a great example in theory you could see somebody if if they didn't send you -- five dollar pack of of what our legal system is so -- -- that would cost you 500000.
It would take four -- -- can't work people will cheat.
That's a theory but.
Private parties look to problems and solve them so eBay and other groups developed private reputation mechanisms and the more that these mechanisms work the less that we need government.
And one -- 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 in government wants a piece.
Google has a 114 -- obvious -- -- 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 the good things are attributable to the private sector when government gets involved it's really getting.
Regulating getting people.
Getting in the way people doing things another example of that is minute -- most people don't know about this but years ago.
The press Saint Francis -- -- 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 the things.
That markets can.
Markets rely on so many -- people to invent to try new things.
And test their ideas -- 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 -- enforceable.
How well in London in the seventeen hundreds they traded and cost the 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 are to falters had to walk -- out and leave the exchange.
And the coffeehouse one of the first ones 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 room.
Later called the -- London Stock Exchange which -- model became my word is my bond.
Thank you -- stringer 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 get.
Ourselves how the Internet helps us keep and I -- -- government.
And how government officials hope that I.
No more -- thing that took a little.
-- -- -- -- No more secret sick that sounds good everybody applauded.
Transparency is important government government officials get to use force.
And they spend our money.
We're going to be able to see what they do.
-- -- -- -- -- Once in office even advocates of transparency start -- stuff secret.
Chris -- been bumping his head against that problem he works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute a think tank that.
Likes to keep its eye on government time.
They don't like you snooping around in government when you ask questions they don't.
Get the joke any longer when transparencies about that it was four 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 is one man said I'm paying for this microphone we're paying for all of -- what and our children -- paying -- all of this government.
The progressive 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.
In the government can refuse only if it -- shows a national security issue or it's just an irrelevant private matter.
All records are presumed hours because -- the employer where the public records there there are not -- unless there is -- -- -- -- on -- personal private national security geologic formations confidence I mean 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 you know frankly.
The Boston Globe -- did.
President Bush expanded the number of agencies with authority to classified documents -- secret including the EPA in the agriculture departments -- 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 than cause -- say Obama is worse than bush should they said was the worst ever or come out right in saying.
-- the worst ever Obama's administration and I mean that's a better -- so why would let a group says Obama takes Bush's secrecy games a step further.
And he's rejected -- -- More Freedom of Information Act requests than bush -- he's also prosecuted more whistle blowers including as spies simply because they blew the whistle on software boondoggles and so on but happen to work for National Security Agency.
A -- is the worst when it comes transparency ever.
What we know from their behaviors that are hiding things they desperately don't want us to see.
Their behavior shows us that.
Now I -- Iraqi capital of the world that maybe they'll just say you're a busy body hear their political enemy only to have the stuff but it is I don't -- -- -- -- mutton.
I'm paying for this microphone so you know what I didn't ask whether they wanted me to see yet I know that these are my records I like to have them in less the burdens on them they can -- I can't.
And what they're doing if they're they're telling us things that aren't true were finding an increasingly according to their emails.
And it was the emails that told us about Solyndra and that people who gave money.
We're getting it back and who wanted -- who needed it they don't want us to see was going on -- the -- taxes and -- for example.
The Department of Justice was running an activist web site the real climate dot org which is this -- gonna -- global warming.
Out of a government office NASA was doing that and on their behalf DOJ filed an affidavit admitting to that NASA was doing the right.
And I said I'd like to see which -- doing on my time.
Because they raced -- the date stamp showing that they're actually doing this from the NASA office.
And they admitted in an affidavit filed by the Department of Justice who then -- -- -- shoulders and walked on that what we've -- elaborate document destruction operation under way.
In facial violation of the criminal code.
That's why we're not giving these records so that was -- defect -- -- And now what other defendants.
Trickier defense when told they use fake name.
The head of the EPA Lisa Jackson confusing her government account under the fake name Richard Windsor -- -- her dog.
Why why the fake name that's the problem EPA says it created the address so she have an email address that wouldn't be flooded with emails from the up.
OK so why the -- -- Who you hiding from why not why don't you want people to know these guys did you get were tortured to get anything done you have to have some private conversations -- -- like he has that maybe you don't want noted there's an exemption for that you don't have to create a fake name.
President Obama was very specific wants about how the public should know what government's doing here's a clip.
There's a bill that ends up on my desk of president.
Use the public would have five days to look online and find out what's in -- report -- I get 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 and yet.
He broke -- the first bill he some.
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 are revealed for the first time in the book on -- -- private servers run out of the White House to hide from us they don't they're not that into transparency.
Thank you Chris -- -- trying to help us find out what's going on coming up.
How technology makes it easier for citizen journalist people like you to expose treachery in government.
Play your cell phones are up in the air we have AC -- media here.
-- -- -- -- Army.
-- -- That's a scene from new documentary about citizen journalism and Andrew bright park.
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 who -- from ABC's CBS NBC PBS.
We have choices he young viewers not just expect this but what right part called citizen journalism.
Is -- no freedom two point no idea.
And -- 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.
We're also joined by -- -- and Evan Coyne -- Maloney who.
Produce that bright part movie titled -- bright part so what you call it heating bright part.
One of the things that we found interest.
-- about the way bright are operated was the level of venom directed towards them.
You know a lot of people who are in the opinion and 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 he didn't mind being hated I think he loved it I think he'd love to being hated as much as he loved people agree with -- -- think he just.
Love the back and forth of ideas so much.
That -- he drew energy from it whether or not someone who agreed with them or not he was re tweeting.
The most vile things said about him 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 were part of the beginning of that acorn at the time.
I thought of the -- do gooders they're helping poor people it turned out they were sleazy and -- engaging in voter fraud.
But then came this pimp and prostitute you tell.
Site was speaking with James O'Keefe about the video that he'd done and really just -- a pleasant -- at the end of the conversation I asked him so James what are you working on now.
-- began to describe the acorn videos that he and -- we're working on and I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
I I thought well if this kid hands what he says that he has.
This is huge.
I asked him what.
His plan was for releasing these videos and he said you know he'd approached the networks and release and that way I strongly recommended that he not do that.
And so he went to bright part who released them gradually they were encouraging teen prostitution tax invasion encouraging people -- -- To the government.
Yet the mainstream media still sneered at this a columnist that the Columbia Journalism Review said O'Keefe and Giles do not seem to take.
A journalistic approach their conservative activist.
And in your film right -- 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 -- did that's not what.
Most establishment journalists seem to wanna do now they wanna -- 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 acorn is just nice good people and we don't want to touch this it.
Key stuff -- more than sympathetic to -- -- I believe the church that traditional press was actually protective.
But -- and asked -- released the story that proved to be the case.
Because they still didn't cover it.
And congress defund it acorn before the times -- times and Washington Post reported on it.
That's exactly right the senate -- 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 -- written a column -- Well another widely reported -- piece of propaganda that was debunked by the cell phone cameras that right part talked about was the -- something US congressman that.
Racist Tea Party members screamed at them and call them the -- -- -- -- -- part asked Tea Party members.
-- that's what's on your cell phones.
And that's the -- -- found.
He found it from the top of the steps looking down as they're walking downstairs and found from the bottom of the steps watching from them steps.
We've got a video from the curb as they're walking down the steps -- toward the camera person.
Of course we have we fangs video where they've stepped off of the hurt and then we have video from across the street even.
And -- -- 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 any thing 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 a new media environment.
It's not just that one person can go out and -- something with a camera it's that once.
A hundred people have 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 so -- goodness that we have and if this were all journalists now just from our.
Phones and thank god we have blogs like -- We'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 bright -- 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 you know 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 had a bunch of cameras from a lot of different -- sometimes.
-- just what got aired on -- what -- what did we miss and when you started.
You -- a 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.
It -- successful alienating.
-- you lose among viewers which is pretty decent for a one man operation.
One of the story citizen journalists broke Dan rather and George Bush -- -- Well a CBS had a big scoop that 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.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- And people or look at the night so there's a kind of familiar and somebody actually just typed in the exact document into the default settings on Microsoft Word and it looked exactly the -- they like.
That's funny I don't think they had Microsoft Word back in 1970 both sponsor yet at -- -- didn't exist that it was like.
And CBS has embarrassed Dan rather.
Wound up ultimately leading.
And being exiled to we're -- is now.
And you know it's just pretty much a major blow to what I think.
Ten years earlier would have been a narrative that would've gotten a lot of traction and with that narrative -- bush might not have been elected there right.
And Monica Lewinsky likewise -- there's -- story.
That it was -- Newsweek had it but wouldn't run it that's right they had a -- it was spiked.
The story leaked to Drudge that that was enough -- to break it loosened 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 -- now on the web getting huge numbers of viewers.
And here I mean Drudge if you're successful Drudge is unbelievable -- to ninety million.
And it's -- myself buzz feed 25 million you're 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 I'm a boring guy -- to what you'll find interest do you think 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 can do it was to write a letter to the editor or switched it which we -- -- -- -- up that right and then hope.
That you know your 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 -- one up by something the government doesn't want -- -- 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.
I'm 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 court.
It's an online currency one not controlled by any government or any single company even instead it's run by many individuals who formed a computer network that keeps track of between prices and how many points yeah.
It's almost completely anonymous.
Now why is that good you might think people will use it to buy illegal guns and drugs and they do actually already.
But -- -- -- ward of reason magazine says on balance that's a good fit a good thing -- So the first thing you have to keep in mind is that the coins are no more.
And it's suspicious or anonymous and cats are -- people use cash all the time to -- 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 -- cash.
But now we have coins which are who -- have cash who needs digital okay.
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 dream PayPal but it would be sort of a a currency outside of governments.
Other -- PayPal at that there was a central.
Place that could be shut down you could go to the PayPal servers and say we're really clamp down.
It -- 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 -- -- whereas you could with PayPal and when he came to.
Terrorism money laundering drugs and 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 they're going to do in theory is protect people from their own government's right now a Federal Reserve.
Can make money less valuable than money that you have that you -- hurt just by devaluing the currency.
In theory what point does is take that power away from the government and give it to individuals you can put your money -- you.
That technically is -- legal -- because you're not allowed to have the stupid reasons alternative currencies in America should.
Feel like a basic part of freedom and bit going allows that but here's the part that creeps people out there's this silk road website where people spend their pick points.
And they sell.
All kinds of nasty stuff heroin cocaine so.
-- -- just like any other online retailer they have user reviews say you can no who's ripping you off a bad read and who's telling you good week.
You know the fact is that anything that kind of -- is even black markets I think is ultimately a force for good it means people don't get dangerous products -- off and they don't get ripped off.
-- there is still vulnerability which is that if you buy a bunch of -- they got to spend it somewhere right it has to go to your if I -- address right.
But the fact is that most of the transactions that are happening console crowd I've incredibly high user ratings people like.
They want that they want to buy these things and just because they don't want -- paper trail or digital paper trail in this case.
It isn't -- -- reasoning wrong there's lots of reasons to want.
And silk road was named after the silk route that we used to trade silk from China no.
The west gave them wine olive oil and gold cut -- back.
And the original so great visiting global force for progress this is the first or one of the very early and within -- globalization.
-- that were impossible to get in Europe made their way back from Asia.
Act and other things went the other direction it's it's a powerful force for improving the welfare people and the idea that this silk road is somehow.
Bad just because it's anonymous.
I think it's -- -- and it lets people evade taxes.
Well I guess my response would be amen to that.
We need Texas that pay for what government should do sure.
Ultimately the responsibility to pay for taxes resides with the individual we did we don't blame that the retailer if you don't pay your taxes we don't blame.
Your employer if you choose not -- income taxes.
It's an individual moral case whether or not there's this online site that facilities purchases -- taxes it's it's not there.
And it points -- use not just to buy drugs that people use them by -- and they don't want some of them have repeat that want someone to -- the paper trail online gambling which is stupidly illegal.
And even for transactions that are illegal now but might some time be in the future like.
Buying -- gun.
-- -- I mean I think it's really reasonable for lots of kinds of purchases which are now totally legal.
You might not -- -- 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 and -- take your gun away.
-- my senator Charles Schumer.
Who is I think against everything that's good.
I think is trying to -- bitcoin difficult frustrated he -- he can't 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 -- real sites that allow you to do these kinds of transactions anonymously.
Date increase the power of the individual and 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 get through -- -- who ward of reason magazine.
Coming up robots keep getting better soon they'll be smarter than week.
What does that mean for freedom.
-- -- So technology has made its -- you're giving us more choices but.
Smarter robots for one thing last year robot called Watson crushed its human competition and a quiz show.
Who is never easy what right.
800 C category.
What he's pretty yes.
Okay sort computer can win -- 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 do.
-- you don't know that we're human we have special skills.
Well but we're just machines and we're machines that you know our -- run on meet.
And we know it's possible to build machines much smarter than are bringing -- much faster and computing power keeps doubling.
He had not -- computing power you can buy per year keeps doubling and twenty -- is about a million fold increase so today we had a computer is fast to human brain.
Twenty years -- be a million times faster and -- all the obsolete.
So the first step may be that computers will make their own computers if we if computers smarter than people making computers they're smarter than men.
As they get smarter they're better at making smarter things we could have an explosion and we.
Go from computers being a bit -- -- -- -- to being as above us intelligence as we are from -- So the fear then is that companies won't hire people -- to buy machines.
Well that doesn't have to be if you -- I mean -- the purpose of work is to get stuff to consume.
So 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 possible yet unfortunately these machines wouldn't need us they may treat us the way we treat chimpanzees that perfectly happy to take our stuff and leave us -- -- 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 you put computers and we already have the replacement body parts.
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 as the starts to happen -- criticism is all of us well this will be this will.
Exacerbate inequality 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 cellphones of all the rich -- -- first to get cellphones there's now.
Poor farmers in Bangladesh who have done.
A lot of this technology is going to be the kind which really expensive to develop but I think once you've developed and it won't cost that much to make extra copies.
And so the -- might end up getting the stuff only a few years after the rich do.
So what do we do to prepare for 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 they'll eventually it's gonna be hopeless but along the way they're 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 and definitely we can be -- perhaps millions of years.
The women if they like cuts -- -- a 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.
The alternative the matrix where they take over.
Yeah except in the matrix is unrealistic they wouldn't really need to surround for any reason that it would public as quickly -- us.
That's -- how much time we got.
Well estimates here and I would say at a minimum probably at least ten years.
Almost certainly this century and I would I would get about 4045 -- part of the best estimate for when we'll have computers at least to smartest people.
I find what you say very plausible but then I look back at these bold predictions of 1924.
Article said the flying automobile.
The car of the future.
It's recently as 1979.
Book predicted the Olympics would be held on the moon by the year 20/20.
-- could be totally off about this stuff out it's certainly possible but there's so many different ways of achieving intelligence enhancements.
And they're such tremendous military and economic benefits to doing it.
But I think it's very likely we will I mean we could had the Olympics on the moon by no hope you're really wanted to it's just not that valuable.
One that not hate 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 us deeper into debt.
They regulate endlessly they tell us don't do this but then you must do that.
Deep creases with each of these laws and they keep passing more I look at this and I say this is why.
Future is bleak.
On top -- 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 a safer but London police used their cameras to spy on women and their apart from.
It's also scary that some day robots might become so quick and 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 -- sense obviously population growth will so outpace the food supply.
Gigantic family is inevitable.
He said that in 1789.
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 to technology there's less pollution in industrialized countries today.
But the fools -- the media continue to make scary predictions about the Internet.
Time wonders our kids to wired for their own good.
Newsweek warns of panic depression psychosis.
I say this -- mongers are almost always wrong.
Instead technology will keep making us wealthier healthier thanks to the Internet and freedom 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 us keep -- closer watch on government the police said this bicycle list rolled into a cop.
But -- a cell phone camera revealed the truth.
The new technology allow these two young people to show that eight -- and spent your tax money and repulsive ways.
Millions watched their videos and before the New York Times or Washington Post ran a single story about the acorn scandal.
Congress move 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 -- went 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.
Filter by section