# Untitled recording ## Summary This short recording is an audience Q&A response, likely from Eric Schmidt, covering US-China AI competition, Europe's AI strengths including Mistral, and the long-term role of humans alongside AI. The speaker argues US-China collaboration is unlikely because China fears partnering more than the US does, and that most human functions will eventually be doable by computers. He uses a Waymo thought experiment to argue that AI systems must preserve human freedom and allow exceptions for human needs, or people will revolt. ## Key points - The speaker was the first investor in Mistral and notes Mistral cannot raise money like its US competitors. - After five years studying Chinese peer competition, he concluded the Chinese were more afraid of partnering with the US than vice versa. - He believes the US and China must coexist but are highly unlikely to become close partners. - Humans are social animals and some services like medical care will still be delivered by humans. - Most other functions will be doable by computers, though whether we allow that is an open research question. - He uses a Waymo thought experiment: a fully optimized autonomous traffic system must have an exception button for emergencies like a pregnant woman needing a hospital. - If AI systems impinge on freedom of thought, motion, and assembly, humans will fight back, and he would lead that fight. ## Notes ### Europe and Mistral - The speaker was the first investor in Mistral and describes himself as a big Mistral fan. - Mistral cannot raise the money its US competitors can, and they are working on solutions to that problem. - Europe has enormous strength and talent despite being somewhat disorganized. ### US-China Relations - Prompted by Henry's work, the speaker spent about five years looking at Chinese peer competition. - He initially thought closer partnership with China was possible, but discovered the Chinese were more afraid of partnering with the US than the US was with them. - "It takes two to tango" — the two systems must coexist but are highly unlikely to become best buddies for the obvious reasons. ### The Long-Term Role of Humans - Humans are social animals and want to be around other humans. - Some things, such as medical care, will still be delivered by humans. - Most other functions will be doable by computers; whether we allow that is a question for research. ### The Waymo Thought Experiment - Imagine New York City with only Waymo and competitor autonomous cars, with traffic mathematically optimized for maximum street loading. - If a pregnant woman has an emergency and needs to get to the hospital, is there an exception button in the car? - If there is no exception button, that is dominance of humans by a computer, and humans will revolt and see it as oppression. - If the system instead reasons about the emergency and adapts to get the person to the hospital, it will be more accepted. ### Freedom as the Deciding Factor - The key question is whether AI integrates with human experience and needs, and whether it limits or increases freedom. - Preserving freedom of thought, motion, assembly, and gathering is really important. - If AI systems impinge on freedom, they will be fought, and the speaker says he will be leading that fight. ## Transcript [00:00] of humans such as you and me in the very long term with regards to AI what's our what does our role become and also um we often frame you know because of the value systems the US China debate as a competition but is there is there value to thinking about that in terms of a collaboration and maybe more interestingly you know you mentioned Europe being maybe somewhat disorganized but they also have enormous strength and enormous talent like Mistral and France and so on is there something to do there with um collaboration Um, so, so a couple comments on Europe. Um, I was the first investor in Mstral, so I'm a big MRO fan. Mistral cannot raise the money that they're US competitors. They have the same problem [00:43] and they're working on solutions to that. Um, with respect to US and China, the um, I started because of Henry, I I spent about five years looking at Chinese peer competition. And I thought that it would be possible to get closer to China. And I eventually through his work and others discovered that the Chinese were more afraid of competing partnering with us than we were with them. So it takes two to tango, right? And I think it's highly unlikely. I think you're going to see in your lifetime um hopefully understanding that we have to coexist but it's highly unlikely that the two systems will become best buddies for the obvious reasons. I think on this this other question about what does what [01:33] are humans useful for uh in the very long term um it's very very clear that humans are social animals and want to be around other humans. It's also very clear that there are some things that we need medical care and so forth which will be delivered by humans. I think that the it's a rough way to say this is most other functions will be doable by computers. Will we allow them? That's a question for your research, right? Is where is that line? My my old example was the following. This is back when we were building Whimo at Google. So the thought experiment is New York City is nothing but Whimo and competitor automobile cars and the engineers at Google and the other companies have figured out how to [02:20] completely optimize the traffic so that there's the streets which don't change. You have the absolutely mathematically true highest loading per street ever and it's seamless. And then you have somebody with an emergency, a pregnant woman, you know, whatever who has to get to the hospital and needs an exception. Is there an exception button in the car which says you have to violate all the rules because there's something now if there is not an exception button in the car then that's dominance of humans by a computer and humans will revolt if I go back to the pickaxe versus religion humans will fight that that will be seen as oppression by the government in this case in the governor New York City [03:03] whatever metaphor you want and the computer companies themselves If the system on the other hand is adaptable to human needs and says, "Ah, we have an actual, you know, medical emergency and not somebody who's high on drugs or, you know, whatever who's just goofing around or some kid who's, you know, playing with the buttons." Um, and it reasons and it says, "Oh my god, I've got to do everything I can to get the the person to the hospital." Then it'll be more accepted. So, a lot of this depends on whether it integrates with our human experience and needs. Does it limit our freedom or does it increase freedom? I've come to the view, I'm old enough now to believe that preserving our freedom, our freedom of thought, of [03:42] motion, of assembly, of gathering, you know, if all of the things, right, u are really, really important, if they impinge on our freedom, then they will be fought and I will be leading that fight. >> Please