 I'm Ayesha Treet from Israel. Coming from Israel, I've seen a few developments in Israel, especially in the artificial intelligence, which are really amazing. And I'd like to ask the panel members, what do you think are the risks of the artificial intelligence? I'm saying it because it was published that Facebook tried to teach computers to develop by themselves, a software by talking to each other. And after a few months, they find out that those computers developed a totally new language and circumvent all their own guides, human guides. They started talking between themselves without interference of the people who were working with them. And they closed this operation totally and put off the computers because they were very afraid of what's going to happen if computers will take over. I'm asking you if you are aware of those developing dangers and what are the dangers. Thank you. Revoking terminated Blade Runner theme. The computer is taken over. The robot is taken over. Go ahead, please. Daniel Khatzeeb. My question is for Mr. Nikoli. Many believe that technology had made our world less secure. With the free flow of information, everything is accessible on the Internet. Radicalization is happening on the Internet, especially now with social media. Who can contain this monster? Do you think artificial intelligence is the antidote, especially when you spoke about monitoring, about the voice recognition? Can artificial intelligence be the antidote for this monster created by technology? Can artificial intelligence make our world more secure five years from now? Thank you. All right. Thank you. Could you pass on the mic to Rose behind you? The gentleman has been very patient. Go ahead, please. Thank you very much. That's almost from Japan. I have a question to Mary. When I was working at the International Energy Agency in charge of oil market, I was constantly told by some producing countries, you are institutionally overestimating supply and the estimating demand to suppress prices. So if there are any institutional risks in OECD to say we shouldn't fear, we are exaggerating fears, but it is really the real feeling of you that there is no institutional tendency to underestimate fears and overestimate the positive side. Thank you. Quite very heavy, important, and productive questions. We take two more with your permission and then round up. Go ahead, please, gentlemen. Thanks very much. John Johnston. Really, my questions are to Massoud and Mitty on the labor market issues. Massoud said people who say we've seen this before are really not correct. I think that's true to the extent that this is the speed of change that I worry about, but we have seen it before. When I was at the OECD, the concern was Donald Trump's jobs moving to the developing world from the developed world. The result of that is we have the kind of problems that have created his base in the United States. We did not adapt. We did not solve that problem. We didn't solve it in the United States. We didn't solve it in Canada. What makes you think we're going to be able to solve it with displacement by robots? And also, the other question is the jobs that he wants to bring back, it sounds from what I hear, they're the very jobs that robots will be able to do. Where does that take us? I just want to know whether you think we're going to do better in the future than we have in the past. Thank you so much. Would you be so kind to pass on the mic to the lady there? Go ahead. You get the last question. Hi, my name is Natalie Cartwright. I run an AI startup out of Canada. My question is for you, Patrick. And we were the winners of the surge camp forward, so we are grateful for Capgemini's support. You mentioned data in your presentation. From my perspective, the way that we manage data in this AI world is one of the most important and pressing policy questions. Curious if you've got a perspective on how we should start to approach that. Thank you. Thank you so much. Great questions, Masouds. Take the ones that pertain to your field. Yes, I want to answer the questions that Uri raised and then that Don raised as well, because I think they're connected. I think Mari's presentation basically lays out nicely what you could achieve if everything was well and we were a well-organized society, and we did the things we needed to do, trained the people, retrained them, and things would work. The fact of the matter is, we're not. The fact of the matter is that the pace of technology for the next 10 years is going to be much faster, much deeper than the last 20 years. And as Don said, we've made a mess of it. I mean, so our explanation today is that it wasn't globalization, it was technology that accounts for 70% of the problems that we're experiencing amongst the unemployed. The next 10 years, the pace of technology will be faster. Why do you believe that we will be somehow so much more effective at tackling a bigger problem than we were at tackling a smaller one? If we can, I agree with you. We'll be able to get there. I am not so confident. Now, Uri's point, is it going to be jobs or is it going to be inequality? I think it will not be so much that jobs will disappear, Uri, in my view. I think what will happen is that the nature of jobs will change in a way that many of the people that are currently doing them will not be the right people to do the new jobs, and other people may be able to do them, but the ones who are displaced are not going to find other jobs for themselves. And this will exacerbate the inequality that we are now seeing, which we discussed yesterday in your panel. So I think inequality is going to become a much bigger problem. And similarly, education, I think we don't really understand what is the education that we need for the jobs of tomorrow. What we all say with great confidence is that the education we provide today is not the right education for tomorrow, but then you, okay, fine. So what should we teach our kids to do? And we say we should teach them to become better at problem solving creativity and learning as they go. But really, we don't have our education systems, our big bureaucracies, and to shift them to do more of that, particularly in countries where education delivery is localized and has a lot of diversity across is going to be a hard slog ahead. So is this going to be the end of globalization? I think there are a variety of things that are impacting on globalization, which will make it happen in different ways and slower. But I think this will certainly exacerbate the internal social and political tensions and will fuel the kind of populist response that we have seen, which has conflated technology with globalization. So I think we do need to bear that in mind. Thank you so much, Masoud. Marie, which questions do you want to address? So there was one directed to me concerning that do we at the OECD underestimate the risks? No, I don't want to say that we don't think about the risks, but I'm a bit afraid of that, that if we are too afraid of the technological change, we don't use all the opportunities there are for every single country to perform better. And also when it comes to societal well-being of people, so there's a lot of opportunities. But of course we have all the time had a look at the risks and the threats and that is something which we have to face together. And also when it comes to artificial intelligence and the regulation, that is something what the countries really have to do together when it comes to risks and also to privacy and security issues. But then to this question of sorts of inequality, what really is needed in all the countries, the situation can be improved is the equality of opportunities so that every single person has the possibility to educate themselves that it doesn't depend on your background as is the case in many countries now that the countries really can provide quality education from the beginning so every country can improve in that sense. And then when people are qualified, which is not the case yet in most of the countries, and when we think about the ICT skills, we have found out that 50% of adults in OECD countries have almost no ICT skills or at least they are not adequate to really use the opportunities and take up the job opportunities you have in all the countries. So not only the basic education, also the lifelong learning possibilities. But then the question of unemployment and like in Canada and USA, these countries have not been able to kind of solve the challenge of technology or technological development and globalization. So the jobs lost are mostly due to technological development not because of globalization. But we have countries which have been able to solve the problem like Germany where the unemployment rate is close to zero. So you can see concrete examples of how to face the challenges and how to solve them and how to reduce the unemployment rate also in a globalized world. Thank you Marie for your perspective and also once again clarifying the OECD position on underestimating the risk which obviously is not the case. There were a couple of questions that were relating to your field I heard. I think that first of all many of the jobs that we know today won't exist in 20 years from now but many of the jobs that will exist in 20 years from now we don't know even today. So it will be adapting. Now in the past if you wanted to become rich you had to invest into a company and invest a lot of money capital to build up a steel mill or whatever. Today you need a computer internet access some good ideas and in a few years you might have a stock market capitalization of your company which outweighs anything we know from the industrial age. So I think the opportunities grow actually. Are there any risks with artificial intelligence? Yes of course but I think that the most terrible things we have seen in history that have been done to human beings have been done by human beings. So perhaps if we think about artificial intelligence and how to program computers at least at the beginning we might actually improve humanity in a sense. We don't know it's very open but I think our legs did not invent the earth and the ability to walk. Our eyes did not invent the light and the ability to see. Our brain didn't invent intelligence and the ability to think. It was an evolutionary biology term the other way around. It was an answer by nature to a challenge if you wish and it was developed of course in a context. So our brain was developed so to speak in a time when we never thought about quantum mechanics and we do it because we can. Now if the brain is not constructed so to speak on hydrocarbonate but built on silicone or gallium arsenide what will be the difference? The artificial intelligence doesn't carry the package of the old days in the jungle and the savanna. Maybe an advantage because as I said I mean there are so terrible things that people do to people and perhaps this whole development helps us to progress in an interesting direction which contains risk but also lots of opportunities. Thank you also again for putting it in the historical philosophical context for us. Patrick I heard a couple of questions that related to your field as well. So yeah so more practical so on the risk side you had a question on the risk side so the good news is that Facebook could stop the experiment so it meant they were still in control. So I think it's important again the machines do what they are asked to do now you have to put in place the mechanism the monitoring and management mechanism that allow you to stay in control. You have other risks that you have not mentioned something I think very troubling like transhumanism development in transhumanism and I would refer to the message of Suzanne Lyoto yesterday on etic it's a topic we've been discussing with her for years how come that in this industry maybe because there are too much money the big companies are too rich it's very difficult to have an ethical launch an ethical debate Suzanne is working on it the same that we have had with biotechnology we will need one so that we understand the consequences and that it creates a framework for the progress so that would be one one answer to this on cyber security yes you are right we are only on the defender side to be clear we never attack not only because I'm Swiss but it's a group policy the the fact is that that we have attack all sorts of attack now as I speak we are attacked so it's permanent which means these attack are automated these attack are AI operated so you you you must defend yourself so it's machine against machine it's a it's a it's an arms race where you escalate your means it's cost of fortune for the companies we don't like it we have no choice so it's an arms race you must compete and yes having said that in in the companies the one defending 90 percent of the compromission let's call it this way are created by human errors human error is a you let a subcontractor plug a pc directly in in your network without going through the right procedure this pc is infected and then you have a 50 000 machine in a matter of three seconds that are compromised and you have a lot of these every day so there is a lot about the discipline and here again as you cannot change all the behaviors we would know it you have to automate so reduce the number of human interaction with your systems that will reduce the number of mistakes so yes the answer is the arms race in in in the cyberspace when I come to the next one which is about managing data I would like to put two things the number one and it was mentioned yesterday's identity because there are data where identity matters and we discussed about fake news you can think of your hr systems etc and for the ones not involved in it you will be surprised that one individual one company has multiple identity so you can imagine when you look at across all the systems where the individual are connected so identity is a is a big challenge when it comes to data and the second is ownership and I think here it's a topic we are addressing with the ifry and terry nombrial is ownership of data the american companies the gaffam etc have very rapidly understood the value in data and and they are fighting I heard yesterday about the money but Microsoft the I thought one day I should sue them until I realized they had 800 senior lawyers in house than I thought I better find something else and and they have built these capabilities to protect the and keep and leverage the value and I think there is a deficit in Europe and that's a question we are addressing with the terry so identity and ownership and last point practical on education to give you one number practically what it means we we made business by programming and now we are rescaling 100 000 colleagues in India from code to order to assemble to order this is a complete different work and we have less than we have maximum two years to do it it's the scale and and so for us we need to equip them with soft skills that they didn't have and then the hard skills to change the way they work so this is a real practical aspect we are confronted to and the time is clicking mercilessly but very quick last remarks so what you say it's always an offense defense competition this is quite natural the microorganisms we we have a vaccination and there's a mutation it undermines the immune system so that's very natural technology development is natural but we have to think also in evolution biology to learn about cyber resilience or the resilience against cyber attacks if the cookie falls on the ground and the kid wants to eat it let it eat it it might get ill but without a provocation and a challenge of the immune system it will be not strengthened so to be over protective as parents is not a good idea but there are certain diseases which you don't want the kid to get like like smallpox so because it's so deadly so you do have to decouple evolution has the same it's called isolation it's niche developments and you need both so invite red teams let them attack you learn to survive but certain things don't put in the internet don't put a nuclear power plant on the internet at least not the critical stuff it's firewalls don't help firewalls are as relevant as walls around medieval cities after invention of artillery nice but useless against competent opponents so at the end of the day it's resilience because the fighting dog is not just dangerous because it can bite it is so dangerous because you can beat this thing almost to death and it still bites it can absorb strikes our societies our economies our companies need to learn how to absorb strikes so resilience will be key for room for maneuver actually thank you Marie so what is really needed we know we need more research and surveys and evidence in order to really face the challenges of artificial intelligence and of the future and we discussed already a lot of our education policies and skills but what was also mentioned by a colleague here was the universal basic income so in that area I do encourage the countries which have introduced these trials on these systems to go further so that we can based on that evidence really have a look how we could develop our social security systems in order to face the future of work better thank you so much Masoud we started with you and so we're going to end with you take it away well I think the only thing I want to say is that while I'm a bit cautious about the way in which we as society will manage the consequences I'd say at a personal level I'm quite looking forward to it because at the moment when I talk to my car and ask it to dial a number it either lowers the windows or it decides to switch to music for my daughter so I'm very hopeful that the improvements in listening and learning that Patrick talked about will come soon enough that we will all benefit from many of the opportunities that artificial intelligence will bring to us and at the risk of offending anyone we won't mention what car you have so with that ladies and gentlemen tiari I think this is a topic that will be with us for a very long time to come probably we'll be talking about AI at the 20th anniversary of the WPC as well for now ladies and gentlemen I think I speak for all when I say this has been very intricate substantial and of course intelligent debate without any artificial ingredients so with that I want to thank this panel and thank you for your participation thank you