 Okay. Okay. Good afternoon everybody. Thanks for coming. My name is Matt Murray. I'm the executive editor of the Wall Street Journal. It's a pleasure to be here with all of you for what I'm sure is going to be a lively discussion on technology today. It's been interesting, I think, this year to be at Davos for a lot of us and hear the technological discussion. In one sense, we were just discussing, you know, before the panel. Everybody's feeling probably as good about the economy as they have in a long time at Davos from the time I've been coming. In America, the economic headwinds are feeling pretty good. In Europe, people are feeling better about the state of Europe than they have in some time since I've been here. But there's technology angst in the air in a way that I haven't seen here before. And there's been a lot of talk about technology issues here. You've heard some of it on some of the stages here and issues like that we're all dealing with, that we're all thinking about as technology changes and as the speed of automation and AI and what that means for the workforces and how that feeds our societies. Industries everywhere are being disrupted, retail, heavy industry, my industry media is one of the ones that's felt a lot. Fake news is obviously high on the agenda. Antitrust has been talked about a lot this week. You know, among the remarks that have stood out, I think this week have been remarkable, was Mark Benioff of Salesforce comparing big tech now to tobacco. And then followed up by Martin Sorrell not to be outprovoked, comparing big tech to standard oil in the heyday of oil industry. And yesterday, Sundar Pachai at Google talking about these issues and saying we've got to solve it by thinking ahead and worrying. So what I hope we have is a panel of thinkers and warriors to talk about some of these issues. And I want to introduce them to you. Ulrich Speesoffer of ABB is to my left next to him. We've got Yaqin Zhang, the president of Baidu, the search engine giant in China. Ursula Burns is here. She's the chairman of the supervisory board of Vian and of course the former chairman and CEO of Xerox. We've got Dan Schulman of PayPal. It's good to have you here. And finally, Vittorio Kalao, the CEO of Vodafone. So thank you all for coming in. I'm going to start by talking about one of the topics that I know you're interested in, Olia. That's automation and ABB has a big business in automation. You have been, I think it's fair to say, a bull about what technology can do for the workforce despite displacement. So knowing that you've said that over time, you think technology and the technological revolution will create more jobs than it displaces. Talk a little bit about, though, there's no doubt that real displacement is happening and that real pain is happening. So how do you see, particularly the middle tier workforce changing and evolving in the next 10 or 15 years? How serious will the kind of displacement that they face be? And what specific things can we do in terms of retraining or offsetting as new jobs come into being? How do you see the challenges there? Yeah, thank you very much for the question and thank you for having me here today. We run one of the largest robotics businesses in the world and we're number two in industrial automation. So we get confronted with that question every day. And I just want to put it in context quickly. If you look at where mankind was in 1990, we had one third of mankind living below the extreme poverty line. And today it's 8%. And one reason that this was possible, that shift was possible, was the smart use of technology in a way to drive productivity. Wealth and prosperity. And that's what we need to have in mind when we have a North Star in front of us. Where do we want to go and what do we want to achieve? It's very clear that the fourth industrial revolution has a couple of characteristics that are absolutely unique and therefore are challenging as a little bit different than the previous ones. Number one, this is the first revolution that leaves the factory door and goes into every single job. Number two, it is faster than ever before. So in the past we could really say technological advance, no problem. The dad learned one job, the son learns the next job, no problem at all. We get that covered. Today it's intra-generational change at a pace that we have never seen before. So what does that really mean for our workforce? What does that mean going forward? We are actively in our own enterprise constantly improving productivity, whether it's in the white color area or in the blue color area. Nobody in the blue color area is concerned about the fourth industrial revolution. Everybody in the white color area is really concerned about that part because that's the part where not much happened in the past. And what do we need to do there? We need to redeploy people. We need to educate people. We need to make sure we create enough additional demand through the output what we're doing with our companies to make sure we safeguard employment at a certain level. Let me give you an example of our own robotics business. We used to do castings where people were grinding the castings for the robot arms and make sure that they go out in the right quality. These jobs are gone. They're out. We used to do a lot of administration. That's all done with the fulfillment. But we have today more app developers to put the purpose on the robots than we have ever had before. And a lot of people think an app developer and a solution developer needs to be an engineer. That's not true. We use very often skilled workers that are used in certain manufacturing processes that know how a process works and we redeploy them in app development and say you go together with a couple of digital natives and you show us how you develop solutions in the environment where you used to be. So I think we really need to take the people with us to get going in that direction. I want to press you on that when you say we take the people. I mean at Davos we do go to panels and you talk about sort of broad ideas of moving forward together and retraining the workforce. Who does that. Our workers on their own. They all have to do that themselves. Do companies have a responsibility to governments have a responsibility. How do you make it happen because there's no doubt that that while in the abstract I don't think people disagree with what you're saying. Hundreds of thousands of individuals feel left out and don't know what to do. So how do you how do you who owns that. I think first it starts with us as leaders. We personally need to take a responsibility and say how do I shape the future there. Second we need to make sure we work together between government education and companies. It's very clear when we say education lifelong we don't mean a school bench in brick and mortar where people sit down and go to school. We need to have new formats in there all together. I give you a case and I mentioned that this morning in another environment we had a situation where we significantly reduced our white-collar workforce in the administrative areas through using really smarter digital processes the right software support and whatever. At the same time we worked with the HR people and looked at the age pyramid of our people and on the people that were leaving the workforce. Now one option would have been let's fire the people in this example it was Germany pay 100000 bucks each get them out and hire new people. The option that we choose was we look carefully who could be drained into our job we spent 35000 bucks per person retraining into new jobs or in jobs where people were retiring. We asked the people you need to contribute for half a year. You go to two nights a week and one Saturday you go to school. When you when your job goes you go into new new role and off you go. You cannot do that with everybody but you can do it in more areas than you think. Well and quickly on that Germany has a pretty tough labor law. It's pretty hard to fire people. All executives know that arguably the economic incentive you describe that's a better path in Germany than in many other countries. So do you favor that kind of that kind of legislation even if I wouldn't have to pay it honestly the impact that it had on the workforce was something that I totally underestimated because the morale of the people was OK we need to become more productive but the company is doing a lot to re-employ as much as we can. And that I think is an effect that we shouldn't forget. I'd like to ask Ursula to jump in because at Xerox you you lived with restructuring and challenges for quite a long time. And yet I have to say it may be maybe that this makes sense. Anxiety among workers broadly on these things has grown. Not a beta even though we've been talking for a long time about what workers need to do. And even though it is a fact that some workers are being retrained and adapting. So so when you think about how you really do that and make workers involved and and and and and sort of quell the anxiety and really pull off this transformation. How do we do it? Who's responsible? I think I think I agree with Uly in a lot of ways in that it's a it's a coalition of responsibility. Clearly the corporations and it's not always the corporations looking at their P&L at their bottom line. Most of the time it's a lot softer views even though people don't think that corporations run that way. So one is at the corporation level is definitely at the employee level. And often time it's at the government generally state and local level that puts a lot of pressure on where in the United States at least on where you take work from and where you put it in depending on government contracts. The interesting thing about all of this is at the end of the day we have to fire a lot of people. At the end of the day even with all the retraining automation productivity without automation just a general move in doing work better will acquire required Xerox every year every year to retrain but also restructure a significant amount of people. And it's very unsettling for the workforce. Well I mean that that's that's part of the economic argument right for the companies need to make money and automation means efficiency. But it's also it's more than even making money. It doesn't make sense. We're not charities right. And so it doesn't make a lot of sense to do things inefficiently just to keep people working. So there is a there is a natural there's a mirror that we're going to have to look at as a country and as a world when we actually are faced with the fact that I can actually answer phone calls. We had a big call center business with 50% of the people that I currently have because automation so I can say OK I can slow that down and I'll cut my profits a little bit but it's totally against human nature to do. It's definitely against business. So that's the problem. What's the solution for those. And this is where I this is where I don't know the answer fully right. This is where we're all struggling because we're going to miss this. There's a whole generation of people who are waiting to enter the workforce and people who are there that we're going to literally displace. We're going to have to figure out jointly governments educational institutions companies. What do we do with these people. Because as only said the pace at which this is happening is faster than ever before. So we're not flooding the space with these people where before it was a trickle. We could deal with it. And Vittorio you've spoken about seeing that wave coming as well in some overseas markets where that had benefited in the last 20 years from off-shoring but automation having a reverse effect. Yeah in a big way and between I agree that everything that Ulrich said is great but I am a little bit more on Ursula's side. And I really think this is not really a corporate kind of thought it's more of a political social thought. We are at the point where I truly believe we need to think how to use the progress of technology to change some of the basics of our societies in terms of what we define a public good that citizens are entitled to and technology through big data through a much better understanding of how things go can deliver this. I'm referring of the kind of we call populism very often the self defense that normal people have against this fear of technology. Can we turn it into something that gives them a gain is there a way to use technology to improve environment to improve health to improve the classic public good security education. Now I do believe that the opportunities are immense but of course this requires a redefinition of what is the role of the state what is the role of the NGOs or the sector and also how we make cooperation work through technology to improve so that those who are displaced but also the others who fear to be displaced start saying well maybe this technology is going to take away something from my job but maybe I will live in a better environment maybe I will have better health maybe I will have you know better education and I know it's a hot political topic for example but so much that technology can deliver in the next 15 years we need to get organized to deliver to the people otherwise self defense IE populism will stop and we'll get hiring freeze and you know you cannot the robot tax all these things that honestly we know they are short term. Well really between the lines it sounds like you really are wanting a different sort of fundamental shift in government's role and how they think about these issues as a new society emerges because you know obviously I do that's that's that's I do I do I mean we had this morning an interesting panel it's very interesting we find that for example mayors so mayors of cities which are contained environments are more progressive more advanced in thinking how can I use technology to improve the life of my citizens why because they know that you know they see the citizens they are mayors they see you know they see that every day they walk home and somebody tells them hey why don't you do this there is a tremendous opportunity there who's going to deliver that we cannot deliver to bigger states it has to be a cooperation public private I do believe NGOs can evolve a lot and we are working with some NGOs social entrepreneurs people who want to make a living out of technology and social good the opportunity in the next 10 15 years is huge but the states are not organized for that if I may industry isn't either right so and we are not yeah right so we have to actually figure out a way to have a conversation as industry groups or as a big industry with government so we say that the government's not organized and they're not but neither are we so we and the people definitely are more organized than either the government or or the industry well I think that that I know you want to weigh in but one quick one and I think I fully agree with because I'm in tutorial nobody talks about charity here but you have to grow in a new shape so what it just give you our example we had about eight years ago we had about a billion service business today it's eight billion and it eight billion was a fantastic opportunity to redeploy people that already knew a bb if you don't grow in a new shape you need to restructure and you need to get rid of the people that's very clear productivity will be demanded by your shareholders will be demanded by everybody that's part of a normal commercial enterprise but I think this this ambition to grow in a new shape that's one thing that can help to mitigate the impact if you don't do that as a leader then you start if you're a constant and you start because you're not creating new employment opportunities that's a good transition to one of the big drivers maybe arguably the biggest driver now in tech which is China and I know you recently told us in an interview China now has a structural advantage on AI and interestingly at least from the outsider perspective when we talk about government business aligning and jobs in many ways China seems to be moving ahead now and and pushing on this front and obviously that comes from the western perspective with serious shortcomings including surveillance issues or facial technology but China has been moving ahead not as hampered do you think we are to hung up on these things in the west do you think China is a model for the rest of us and that China is now setting the pace of where we'll all end up yes but nice to be back I remember in two years ago precisely in Davos and I think it was this room to talk about technology talk about AI and talk about and also all the concerns come with machine learning and AI and things have involved quite a bit in the last two years you know in fact I like the session is it's a high tech high tech high impact and will add high responsibility of big tech big responsibility if you look at in a first time in the history all the biggest companies in terms of market cap are technology companies are AI companies and in the last few years and China has progressed so much right now for all of the top 10 companies internet and technologies are from China and you know I mentioned about talk about the structural advantage of China it's it has several dimensions if you look at in the last in the last 20 years United States was the only country that has all the pillows in place to nurture a large single companies and obviously talent technology and markets and and of course in all the regulatory or capital or the capital and plus the regulation policies and China for the first time has all those pillows I would say for technology and the talent in an AI area China still has a gap if you look at all advanced in a machine learning algorithm that's a gap but gap is quickly the closing I talk more about that later on in terms of a scale in terms of the capital China actually are probably a little bit ahead and also China has a more I would say more friendly regulatory environment well yeah I want but I want to press on that a bit you were at Microsoft a long time you lose the US you know you know how how people view things in the last and I mean even as people acknowledge China starting to advance there's obviously a lot of concern when you say friendly regulatory environment a lot of people think yeah the state dominates individual rights are not worried about there's a lot of data that the state collects surveillance technology is really not well no no but that's what I'm asking if surveillance technology is more freely deployed in China so that's what that's exactly what I'm going to press you on are we just to hung up on those things and it's not it or are there are just China able to do some things that would not be doable in Europe of the United States yeah you know things are changing if you look at in China you know there's a lot of application for face recognition and live cast monitoring civilians from a number of companies but we see the awareness for privacy is rising and you know there I wouldn't name company a few months ago the company was installing the live video camera in different places and in the users were shopping they were in the gym they were live casted to the social network and there was a lot of complaints a lot of issues and then they had to disable their service so I think things are things are changing when I say China has a structured advantage there are a few one is China has actually you know if you look at the just internet in the PC internet China was a follower technology and products and in the mobile internet actually China I will see technology-wise still follow the US in terms of application in terms of infrastructure use experience China is probably ahead and talk about payment China is it's actually you know a cashless society well yeah I want and I do want to bring in I do want to bring the vast amount of the data and application scenario are the prepare where for China to for the AI age and you know and by do that's why we put a lot of investments and R&D into yeah I talk more about that we actually transform the company into AI company yeah I want to come back to that but Dan I'm sorry to interrupt there but Dan you've spent time in China recently and obviously PayPal is about being cashless and you can go to Shenzhen and never need any currency at all is China our future too do you see the same kind of model as Shenzhen emerging in the West should it should it or will it be modified or need to be well I think as I travel around the world there's sort of a more similarity and there are differences in a lot of ways and there's a universal truth that I see as I go around the world and that is it's expensive to be poor and we talk about populism we talk about anger but that's really true in financial services if you're excluded from the system things that we take for granted just paying a bell or cashing a checker sending money to somebody you love getting credit you know they're either impossible to do or they're incredibly time-consuming or cost a ton of money and whether you're in China or the US you might think of those as two very different markets you have tremendous numbers of underserved populations on the US 50% of US adults have less than 400 dollars of savings they're struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month and we wonder why they're worried not just about technology but they're worried about their future the word whether their kids will have a better future than they do in the UK 40% of families have less than 100 pounds of savings and so my view on this is you know technology can be something and you talked about this can be something that radically changes the way we serve underserved markets and you know technology is a tool like any other tool if it's used the right way it can be very productive and if it's in the wrong hands it can sometimes be harmful but my view is we should be able to democratize financial services through the use of technology that managing and moving money should be a right for every citizen and not a privilege for the affluent and we should be able to save a tremendous amount of money in the US this is the US 141 billion dollars was spent on fees and interest for the underserved market that's 10% of their disposable income we should be able to with technology to do that anywhere from 40 to 80% less imagine if you could return half of that or a quarter of that to those underserved populations what you could do to their psyche what you could do for training what you could do for savings so I think that technology I think we have the obligation to assure this that technology should be a force for good and companies need to stand up and make sure that that happens but what are we okay can you give any specific thoughts on on on what we would need to do I mean I think yeah she and I think it's fair to say in China that when you talk about structural advantage part of it is that right now in a place like Shenzhen you've got the government and the private sector working together actively on these kinds of initiatives we don't really you know the the situation here is not really the same as that and of course in China people want to get things done they get them done is that a model that can work for us or do we need a different model is what's your what do you think needs to happen to bring about the vision your painting yeah honestly as I go around talk to regulators around the world I came speaking to the PBOC to the CFPB to European regulators what do they want they basically want to protect their citizens they want to make sure that there's a safe and secure and sound environment that there's transparency and what we're trying to go do and you know when I go to Washington and I talk about financial inclusion I talk about democratizing financial services I say all the time it's not a red issue or a blue issue it's a red white and blue issue this is something that's universal this is something that I think every regulator supports and wants to accomplish there may be ways that we need to create sandboxes in regulations to experiment we can use data and information now through AI to look at modeling and right now just our models at PayPal are 16 to 19 percent more effective than traditional FICO scores what does that mean it means that we can responsibly lend credit to more and more of those populations that really desperately need it and do so responsibly and do and they can responsibly take on that credit and I just think that technology can spur a number of innovations small business is another great example small business we have loaned three or four billion dollars now to small businesses 25 percent of our loans have gone to the three percent businesses in the three percent of counties where 10 or more banks have closed branches and the average sales go up 22 percent versus the control group that goes up 2 percent where we lend that money and by the way it's in neighborhoods where the the income average is below the national median because that's where banks close branches because it's hard to be profitable in those stages and therefore we're loaning to more minority owned businesses women owned businesses so yeah I happen to be very optimistic and actually very determined that we should be able to make a difference with technology it's interesting you say that though because jp morgan for instance with its tax windfall that other companies doing is spending part of it building new branches and I think that's great by the way because the less banking deserts we have the better off we can be I want I want to bring you in Ursula because you you ran a big company in America dealing with this for a long time and so you've seen things through the American lens but now you're also at beyond going to some of these new emerging markets and seeing things so I mean I guess I I mean I guess I how are things viewed differently in those markets are we in the in sort of the developed west and the United States too hung up on some of the privacy issues and other things I actually think countries are countries for a reason meaning they have their own practices their own history their own personalities so this idea that there is a better that china is better than the United States so that somebody's going fast and slow I actually throw that all out the window I think that one of the ways that we're going to do things is there are different models all over the place and we're getting a little bit too wrapped up about who's faster or slower it's fine I actually don't believe it's a it's a big issue I'm hoping that China is very successful but I also hope that we are and so is Armenia in the ways that they want to do things right or we'd have a a borderless world and that I don't think is coming anytime soon so that's one area I think the other area is what what Dan said what we have to actually figure out a way to do is to make the bare requirements of life available to as many people as possible and the way to do that is to actually have competitive models right and generally in the world the competitive model the best wins so some societies have cash we have branches we'll have paper lists and pay lists I'm for it all and eventually we'll figure out in these very specific economies around the world what's best for them at the time that they are in if we have responsible governments and and over time we do it's not always clear that the best the biggest nations have the most responsible governments but so I do business today Vian does business in Armenia and Russia very Pakistan and Bangladesh Algeria and all when you go place to place it's extremely different every one of these countries are different different paces different models and I respect them all and they'll and they mix one of the things I'll say as well fast these guys go really slow and then fast and then really slow and then fast so they jump over they you go to Armenia and you say my goodness this is a country that's living in the past and you look at how they actually do commerce how they go how they do telecommunications they are jumping over a large amount of mistakes or infrastructure that developed economies did so this slow to fast I think is indefinitely in financial services they're doing that India China are a perfect example of that leap frogging leap frogging older technology I also think there's this need for us all to be like the same yeah it's an important I do think it also demands we rethink our business models a little bit I believe right now that there has to be cooperation amongst many companies to really think about how do we take the best of our assets the best of another company's assets bring them together to hyper serve consumers and technology allows us to do that I think for instance you know we're not trying to disrupt the financial system we're actually trying to work hand in hand with banks and take the best of what they have either it may be their assets their branches best of what we have which may be digital distribution and put them together into unique value propositions I think the power of platforms is that you can through tool sets and APIs you can actually start taking assets mixing and matching them together where you really actually that the enemy in my view financial services is cash because it's inefficient there's tremendous leakage in that in India alone already they believe that they've saved billions of dollars of welfare benefits that go to the to the most underserved and so to me that's the promise and I think we have to do this thinking about ecosystems coming together to serve that now that's hard and we've got to do it in private private partnerships and private public and Victoria was speaking about that a little bit earlier about this idea that we can create the future we're going to have to create the future they're not these machines and I think and I think that you know when you talk about it it's it's compelling and yet there's the displacement issue the unsettlement that people feel those royals that's going to be with us for a long time to come really and this is where government can help this I mean because the policy that we the policies and the distribution of wealth through a social network is not something that companies do very well they actually just don't do it at all very well we absolutely do have to have a lot more collaboration between companies and governments to figure out how do you smooth some of these transitions because this this problem happens in the transition time right once you're settled it's everybody kind of figures it out I want to know except for women and girls by the way we have to start talking about women and girls because they don't participate evenly at all they are left out of the system across the board in just about every country in every country so we have to figure out a different way to engage women and girls the reason why governments and businesses want to work together is if you're in a democracy a democracy needs to be more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner right so think about that that means you have to rise above your own self-interest and if you're worried about making ends meet you're voting against the system that's what you're not necessarily voting for something but you're voting against the system and you're angry but if we can make those basic human rights that you were talking about more affordable take away some of that anxiety I think we can have like better functioning economies better functioning societies and I think that's incumbent on us as businesses to help to lead I think businesses can't stand on the sideline anymore they have to be a force for good it's a great point I want to pivot it we've got two more topics I do want to try to hit here and I want to go back because I promise you at Cheen we do it talk about AI and again you hear AI here at Davos AI AI AI companies are excited about it I'm not sure they all really know what's coming or what it means I think if anyone does it's by due and when we talk about change as well as some of the anxiety it brings if you looked out 10 years on the horizon in terms of our everyday lives what will AI mean for us how transformative and will it be for us well you know there is a little bit of hype and bubble AI and I admit but AI is real and is transformative and if you look at it's not about future it is it is now for example by due we use AI to elevate our existing search engine to make our contents more personalized you know using live feeds we use voice recognition to you know voice search is a video to search and also we create new categories last time I talked about time-striving this is not only about a business opportunity it is it will bring in tremendous social benefits when we do the accident rates right now in China 500 people are killed every day time-striving will bring that down to a factor of of 10 and it's it's and most of the accident right now is caused by human error 90 percent human error and also will increase efficiency of just the whole transportation how might I feel my job and my life I mean is AI and a lot of people want to know is it a threat to me is it a threat yeah now of course there are concerns and you know we are building for example a face recognition system in the Beijing airports when we go there you don't have to you know do all this all this check and it will accelerate the whole pace and in our company you know you don't need a badge you can pay your sandwich with with your face and you know so things are happening that will benefit of the society tremendously yes there are there are downsides there are concerns we all have to face it and let me let me just go back a little bit philosophically and we are the only spaces who are able to understand decode and transform ourselves so human being will become better being a better version in in the next 10 years or 20 years and this enclose ability to create innovate and there's no no limit at all but also this enclose ability to resolve problems to solve the issues we talk about you know as in fact that the we are talking about this issue is a it's a great starting point and this you know two years ago I made the the point I believe AI is the engine for the false industry revolution and you know if you look at the first three revolution steam engine electrification and or an information none of this revolution has delimited jobs it has dispersed jobs create more jobs more creative jobs more in a higher quality jobs and the more honorable jobs I just don't know what job will be created I'll give you an example in China they're small street vendors and you know they have to close their their jobs but then they move to Taobao and then they actually make more profit more money and you know at one point the their factories the bicycle factories in Tianjin they all lost their jobs they just closed close all the plant and with the ride sharing and all the bicycles hundreds of thousands of people you know actually working to produce bicycles a lot of examples are like that I actually don't know exactly what jobs will be created and with e-commerce that a lot of people actually you know doing logistical deliveries in China which is against a problem you know creating all the congestions and in Baidu we create hundreds of thousand jobs using AI for example there are a lot of people doing annotation labeling for for data whether it's for tons of driving or it's for for you know face recognition there are a lot of people just doing that job that job are better probably than some other you know physical work so overall you know I'm confident but as a company as a society we need to be conscious of that then we need to have the right education training to reskill people in fact in the school education just the knowledge itself is not enough it's ability to adapt to learn new things and I want to and I want to take to go up the panel and then we'll go to questions out there but but that's a good place to take me uh to a question I want to ask each of you so I think we we've covered some ground about the promise of technology and also you know sort of the perils or worries about it as we said that's been in the air so Oli I want to start with you and I want to go down the panel if there's one specific thing you could do that would affect the course of of our development in the next 20 years whether it's you know a regulatory kind of a thing or another approach what do you think given where we are now what do you think needs needs to happen to get us on the right path on this and on this and avoid some of the perils here I think I think we need to we need to make sure that the anxiety doesn't hinder us driving the future and developing the right out of the future we have at the moment so much anxiety we have so much fear that we lose a little bit side of the opportunities that we can really create jointly together Baidu is creating a lot of jobs we are creating a lot of jobs we need to make that right that the mindset of our environment at the moment out of the sudden has swapped towards a very negative one against technology we need to reverse it again and say yeah it's a different pattern it will be a different pattern of employment it will be a different pattern of growth but we can make this world better if we use technology that will be my one wish and I will tell the panel now as we go down I'm hoping everybody will be given different answers so Victoria by the time we get to you it'll be tougher but yeah Jean what would you what would be your what would you think was one thing that we really need to focus on to stay on the best path here and avoid some of the perils I will see education absolutely can you can you just say a little more about what specific kinds of things you you you you were looking for the education yeah yeah one is just education the curriculum as you know what's being taught in school I will you know encourage more students learning about stamps especially girls and and the women I will encourage people to learn about ethics in fact I think the day before yesterday there was a panel and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadala talked about you know school should teach machine learning computer science and ethics together right right now in the elementary school or high school math physics literature they are all there but there's no computer science so I believe computer science the ability to code should be a basic curriculum and in elementary school just like math and Ursula and literature I think we have to take a purposeful measured not measured counting but measured organized approach to increasing participation and access for women and girls you know I look at this all the time every year every month and it is amazing how poorly we are doing as a governing society as humans or how well we are doing as humans in excluding and victimizing and in many ways abusing 50.4 percent of the population in developed economies around the world women still get paid now we've moved it up a little bit it used to be 78 percent now it's 82 percent great literally educational attainment for women and girls is significantly lower we count on men to protect us we count on men to include us and if we look over this over time that counting hasn't served us very well this is women very well so I I think that men and women but now I'm talking about men who are leading we have to actually take a purposeful and measured approach to literally break this problem and around the world we are falling way behind for 50 percent of the population we have to fix this if we don't then the next revolution will be the revolution from this either big burden revolution so they will be too expensive for us to take care of or they will come up in arms and figure out a new societal end and we have to do something about this and let me just add you know this can be done it's a great great point and I was talking with Eric Grimsey you know is the the provost at your chance of MIT right and he was telling me 15 years ago the the ratio of FEMA engineers FEMA students and the men was 19 percent below 20 percent at the EECS department MIT which is the top department engineering and now it's 48 percent and you know the women students doing as good as men students so we as the business leaders need to be conscious and and do that from universities from Dan Shomer's I want to you're up thank you for giving me more time and I I will build off of Ursula's remark which I think are right on I think as leaders what's incredibly important for us and I used to think differently about this when I was younger and I I've come full circle to this that we need to lead through a set of values that are constant and true and to me these biggest values right now are around diversity and inclusion we need to be sure there's no discrimination of any type we need to make sure that our companies are a force for good that our brands stand for more than just making money because when you make a difference you attract the very best to your company and I think the more you are values led as a company the stronger you are as a company and as a force in our society so to me that that encompasses a lot of what at least I'm thinking about Vittorio it's up to you I guess to articulate the regulatory solution unless you have something else in mind yeah you read my mind listen I'm the last one so I need to I must be allowed to say two things instead of one the first one I come on otherwise we'll give you that thank you and actually the first one builds really on Ursula's comments I do believe that there is a huge potential for unleashing positive energies from technology but in order to have that regulators must ensure competition and avoiding dominance dominance kills innovation and eventually takes away the bottom-up springing of things so I really believe that and they make a distinction between regulators and policymakers you treated them a little bit like the same thing regulators at the end of the day that must ensure avoiding dominance and ensuring competition now policymakers instead they go back to my earlier comment I do believe that since this is going to be bottom-up need to create experimentation spaces where profit non-profit and public administration can experiment both public and private goods and see what works and create enthusiasm I'm on early thing we need to win the instinctive opposition of people who are rightly so worried I have a small we are of course all talking about 5G in this moment in the country of my passport in Italy we are running experiments by city I don't know why Italy decided to do this but it's very smart so we have groups and we have universities hospitals startups industrial companies blue blood industrial companies media companies all together thinking about how can we redo what we do and sometimes is the remote emergency room i.e. the connected envelopes on wheels which becomes a neighborhood hospital if you think about it which becomes something else or you know media or reallocating public space not calling staff roads parkings or whatever but dynamically reallocating for the benefit of people so but we need these experimental spaces which today kind of don't exist and this is really the policymaker job not the regulator job that must be a competition of course otherwise why would i do it great are there we've been gone a little long are there questions here i see a lot of hands so well why don't we go right if you identify yourself please thank you so much everyone and to this amazing manual i mean panel one woman on on the panel i guess that's more than none but certainly appreciate your afternoon i am in jadeca harry and i'm the chief executive of youth for technology foundation we're an international non-profit organization and we work at the intersection of appropriate technology in the corridors of education and entrepreneurship i definitely second and even third miss burns and mr zang's expressions about the need to include girls and women in technology i would say you know with the advent of the fourth industrial revolution which is an extension of course of the digital revolution and with artificial intelligence like we've heard and we know taking over a lot of the jobs that historically woman have typically held in corporate you know the low paying customer service type jobs and it is essential that we equip our young women and girls with the necessary STEM skills for the future of work but most importantly when they do have those STEM skills and they come into the companies whether it's Baidu paypal or what have you we need them to have not just mentors which are both men and women but we need them to have sponsors as well in these corporations to ensure that they're not just getting in the door but they're rising up the ranks and they're staying and actually you know i'm having a very fruitful career the difference between mentors and sponsors is that mentors talk to you and sponsors talk about you and that really helps women in the workplace women in technology in the workplace thank you thank you thank you do we do we do a question maybe up up here or why don't we go up to the front here we've got with the beard on the end thanks very much I'm Pranoy Roy from India we are founders of a media company and I really enjoyed the discussion but I felt your last question was very critical about what to do over the next 10 years 15 years and while everybody touched on it they didn't quite I think hit the point that we see as the big problem today and that is trust we don't trust media we don't trust the government we don't trust big corporations it's broken down we think you have our data we think you're misusing it how are you going to isn't that the focus build trust again it's at this low all the pure research around the world finds trust at its lowest ebb ever I think it's a great question and I think we've all lived that anyone want to take that question of can big tech and its advancement can it get trust back or are we just in two fractured a world now today do you want to in our example I took over 2013 and at that time the share market had lost trust in our company we couldn't explain where we are going and the portfolio was blurry so we said we're going to re-establish trust by doing three things identity direction and momentum and on the identity side we said clearly what is the purpose and we defined what the purpose of ebb is in one line and on the other side of the of the metal we set up a set of five value pairs and we gave our people these five value pairs we hardwired them into evaluations we hardwired them into training we hardwired them in all kinds of people development agenda and it was amazing how this and we did the same for the direction of momentum but it was amazing how the trust came back people knew the purpose of the company people knew the value of the company and then you have purpose and value then you can also give direction and have trust in the company if I may though if I understand the question I think you're asking a broader societal question right which is we understand of the company but we all know all institutions including all of our institutions including mine are wrestling with a lack of trust that's undermining it's exactly the same later on when we have certain politicians on stage what is the identity what are the values what is the direction and what can we believe in yeah that's something I think we need to have that pattern better we need it for a company a country a whole set of or any community should have this necessary not sufficient yeah because then we need to have more transparency especially large companies our problem was we are complicated we don't have anything to hide but we are complicated to explain you have a lot of and you do have a lot of data you have a lot of customer data what we did in a couple of occasions where we had real problems tax Snowden this whole area of privacy and so on the approach we have taken is listen why don't we open up and I have to say a couple of colleagues told me you're completely crazy you're gonna be taken to the cleaners if you open up actually it's the opposite you open up you engage you engage with NGOs you engage with the public the problem is that our companies are complicated and our people are very good at doing the thing that Ulrich was describing which is necessary but then when you have to be transparent hesitation because it's complicated how can we explain then we'll be every time we have opened up and we have used transparency as a way to create trust it flies it flies now of course you have some short term issues but in the long term it flies I know I know more panelists want to speak but I want to get more questions and can we take this gentleman here Anna Dabura from McKinsey we did this amazing work with the World Economic Forum on the future of production and how we can drive technology adoption and diffusion and it's clear that for the next decade 3.7 trillion dollars of impact are there so the manufacturing sector will be the one that is maybe the biggest impacted and there's also a lot of fear so we want to get prepared we discussed a lot this week around this so I would have the question to the panel is we are seeing the innovations are there the technology is there the problem is that only a little of the factories are really seeing them we are so so to say stuck in pilot purgatory that's what we're saying and so my question do you have one kind of out-of-the-box idea on how we as trisector collaboration can kind of drive the diffusion because once clear we want to have kind of inclusive growth we want to augment the worker in the workplace we want to make a better workplace and for that I think we need to get going here so out-of-the-box idea to get going I don't think that there is I won't answer the question because I don't think that there's one and I think it's just not it's a great idea we have 7.2 billion people in the world and these 7.2 some are at the very high end very few and many are at the very low end and then the rest are sprinkled in the middle I think we have to both Vittorio and Dan said something that was amazing to me which is this idea that we have to collaborate and companies nations societies not for profits educational institutions we have to actually start working together absolutely and we and by the way we just don't it's not natural governments and companies my goodness it's almost at a it's a total breakdown so one of the ways that you get trust is you actually start talking out loud about what the heck we're doing and what the problems are making them clear making it clear that automation is going to be a problem in the short term let's talk about ways that we can deal with this problem we're actually trying to avoid the very obvious that people are feeling and they're sensing because they're not done and we're just not talking about it I think I have to say I think that that in part goes to the trust question as well which is people feel it and leaders don't talk about it but there's a this woman has been very patient so hello thank you very much my name is Sona and I'm a global shaper from Armenia so thank you Ursula for bringing up the point about Armenia and for underlying the potential that I actually went to Armenia not too long ago I was in your event if you can believe that I do believe and you're always welcome to Armenia I hope you have felt the hospitable spirit of our nation so big tech, big impact sounds quite loud and quite strong I would like to ask all the panelists to define what does impact mean to you can you please keep it to one word or a sentence maybe you should be moderating I don't know but let's talk one term Olli's ready to go one word or sentence now you have to think about it with our technology we will help to run the world without consuming the earth create more jobs and have more responsibility impact is positive or negative change in your life you want to go well I'm thinking about it thank you you're welcome can I have a second yeah any second I would say in order not to repeat generate optimism it's so important to have optimism about the future then I think I heard a semicolon in there but that's okay okay Dan you're on the spot yeah I think we need to take care of foundational needs and to me that really starts with democratizing financial services I think we've got time probably for one more question we've got a gentleman right here we can Arun Sharma I'm a member of the Board of Adani Group and Deputy Vice Chancellor at QUT I want to go back to your earlier question about tech being the new tobacco and I think the question of trust that Pranoy said is the important one and perhaps if I look at it AI robotics automation it's all in the future it's happening but strong AI or artificial intelligence is the one which will really create disruption and I think we can have the imagination to come up with services to bridge that gap the important question that we have today is the platform companies with two-sided networks we all know who they are they take our data we are very convenience by that data because they give us some service but eventually they monetize that data to make huge amounts of profit and the profits are going there so the fundamental question that the tech community can do is address the issue of ownership of data and monetization of people's personal data and I'm quite hopeful you look at technologies like blockchain it is now possible to have a third party an independent party that looks at if a company is using my data to come up with a decision that generates revenue then in a transparent way a micro payment can be made if they stop using my data I don't get anything paid and I think if this is there then it will take away some of the solid criticism that we are getting today and that's how we start building that trust I'm glad you brought it up it's a great it's a great point and one we wanted to get to and didn't have on time but we do have on the stage and at the end especially several companies who you do have a lot of data you have a lot of personal data we all live with the hacking risk and the model of many of the big tech companies is free services in exchange for your personal data which causes a lot of unease and of course has been a big driver of regulation so is there a model or a fix that can get all of us more comfortable with the fact that data is that kind of currency I don't know if Dan or Victoria you have a comment I'll start up and then Victoria you can jump in I think it's an incredibly important issue and I think we have to be very crystal clear about what the acceptable user policy is for that my view is you can never sell anybody's personal identifiable information ever and then if you want to use their information you need to opt in to go and use that information and I think we also need to realize that we've got new form factors that people are using to consume information and right now we have terms and conditions that are sometimes 30 and 40 pages and we're trying to look at them on a screen this big so has anybody ever read any of the terms and conditions in this room no nobody has you you just say I agree how does PayPal do it so we have longer terms as well and my view and I'm working with regulators on this is how do we create a one screen kind of I agree and to me that needs to be we protect your data and information you know we never sell it transparency of pricing whatever that may be and then you only give we only use your data if you opt into it something like that where somebody goes oh okay there it is on the screen if you want more information like where we store it and that kind of thing you know click here to get more but you can agree to something that you understand I think it's very important that we start to shape and work with regulators to be able to create this trust and understanding by by making it crystal clear and transparent great there's a small other this is the individual side and the societal side which let's call it what it is there is an issue with taxation at the end of the day if Indian data is you know what somebody makes money on there should be some you call it return you can call it redistribution to the Indian society under the form of taxation and my recommendation to the big two-sided platform is guys engage with the government otherwise it's starting in Europe governments will do something that then will be very complicated to handle so they have instead of doing passive resistance they should engage and accept that you know this is required society need also that side we we could go on for a long time there's a lot of issues here we're out of time thank you panel for a great discussion