 Guten Abend allerseits. Heute haben wir das perfekte Wetter, das bedeutet, dass wir hier die richtige Größe der Audienste haben. Die Lehrzeitserie hat sich für eine Zeit begonnen. Es ist immer eingefügt. Ich kann nur sagen, dass nicht jede Stadt die ganze Zeit verabschiedet ist, wie wir es gemacht haben. Es ist typisch für uns, dass es möglich ist, für uns zu mobilisieren. Die Lehrzeitserie startete am Ende 2017 mit einer Präsentation von Manuel Castells. Seitdem hat die Federal-Agenz für die Stadt-Education und die Alexander Humboldt-Institut für Internet und Society seitdem die Lehrzeitserie von 6 oder 7 europäischen Schollern und Lehrzeiten zu uns präsentiert hat. Sie haben den Blick auf die Entwicklung der digitalen Gesellschaft gefordert. Seitdem haben wir dieses Jahr die Theatreserie für das Theater, als unser Venue, das ist ein sehr spezielles Ort, wo der Kritik der Gesellschaft immer ein wichtiges Thema war und in dem wir eine neue Audienste haben können. Der Dirk Becker ist unser speaker tonight, einer der wichtigsten Sociologen in Deutschland. So lange ist er einer der wenigen Menschen in seinem Rahmen der Wissenschaft, die nicht nur in Digitalisierung interessiert ist, sondern auch mit der importanz der digitalen Medien für unsere Gesellschaft. Tobi Müller wird unser Moderator sein und er wird ein paar Wörter von der Introduktion sein. Er wird uns auch durch die Diskussion nachdenken. Er wird auch eine kleine Diskussion mit Dirk Becker folgen. Ich wünsche dir einen stimulatenden und interessanten Abend. Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank, Jeanette Hofmann, für diese Interduktion. Bevor ich die Spiegel introducee, will ich ein paar Wörter auf die Organisation sprechen. Wir haben die Lektion, dann haben wir 25 Minuten von einer Diskussion zwischen mir und Dirk Becker. Es ist dein Turn, es gibt Mikrofonen, es gibt die Audienz, ein Raum hier, und ihr könnt auch auf Twitter ein paar Kommentare oder Fragen sehen. Alex Tiffau, ihr könnt uns auf Alex Tiffau sehen. Diese ganze Lektion wird auch auf der Website der Humboldt-Institut und auch der Federal-Agenz für die Universitätsentwicklung streamen. Sie streamen auch diesen Event, weil sie das zusammen organisiert haben. Es wird auch ein Podcast in den nächsten paar Tagen sein. Nicht von diesem Abend hier, aber es wird eine separate Diskussion mit Dirk Becker. In der Mitte 1990s und in unserer Kultur von Erinnerungen auf ein Ritter- und Fruturistisches Phänomen, wie Techno-Musik oder die Sprecher von E-Mail, vieles von der ergeblichen Artistin und der Kultur- und Medienelid und der starken Influenz der Post-68-Ehrer des persönlichen Fulfillments oder des Kriterismus des Kapitalismus, die nicht mehr auf Marks oder auf das Wort sagen kann. Ich sage das, weil ein Buch, wie der Post-Heroik-Management, also hier, ihr könnt es sehen, dieser Buch wurde von unserem Gast in 1994 gelobt. Das war von den Theater- und Theater-Präsidenten als etwas wirklich seltsam, aber auch etwas Faszinierende. Was ist die Managment-Organisation? Kontrollkommunikation? Es waren die Wörter von Menschen in Office-Blocks und Suits. Nicht alle in der Kultur-Sektion wussten sofort, dass die Systemstheorie, in der Zeit nur ein paar Playwrights, nicht nur mit Niklas Luhmann ist, ist eine Super-Theorie. In dem Sinne von der Theorie, eine superordinierte Tote und die Resultatung ist eine sehr soberen Theorie. Die Systemstheorie hat nicht sich selbst für Fights verabschiedet. Luhmann hat seine Ph.D.-Inhabilitationen und Thesis unter Professor Luhmann. Die Post-Heroic-Management, in der er das letzte Buch ist, ist 4.0, oder der Gap, das die Computer hinterlässt. Er sagt, dass die Theorie nicht mehr konklusiv ist, sondern die Gesellschaft, zu der es appelliert. Er studierte in Stanford, at the John Hopkins University, at the London School of Economics in 1996. Luhmann ist ein Professor, in dem er in der Wur-Area war. Er wurde Professor für die Management, Business Ethics und Social-Changes. 10 Jahre später hat er die Theorie in Friedrichshafen in the Zeppelin University. Seit 2015 ist er wieder in Wittenherbeck. Er ist jetzt der Dean für die Hexikothek. Er ist auch Professor für die Theorie und ist auch ein Teil der Intelligenz. Ein weiterer Wort. Welche Schule hat er gedacht, fühlst du dich attraktiv zu digitalen Transformationen, mehr zu der Apokalyptik-Vue, die unsere Kultur verdäumt ist oder die Euphorik-Vue, oder eine moderne Person, die glaubt, dass alles existiert. Es gibt auch andere Streamplattformen. Oder du gehst zu den ganzen, die zurück und forth zwischen den verschiedenen Polen. Aber unser Gast heute hat nicht diese Polen als die Dialektik-Positionen, die er will, um eine Resolution zu bringen. Er ist ein Marsch von Konjunktionen und ist wohl der Wort, welcher die besten Charakteristin ist. Jetzt möchte ich auf den Boden passen. Vielen Dank für die sehr freundlichen Wörter. Vielen Dank für diese sehr freundliche Wörter. Es ist ein herzlicher Willkommen und für die Invitation, hier zu sprechen. Wir Soziologen, wir Theatriszen, haben schon viele Ups und Downs mit diesem Thema und auch mit der Humor-Soziologie hier. Ich bin sehr glücklich, dass ich dieses Rostrum hier habe, dass ich, wie mit den TED Talks, nicht von rechts nach rechts und rechts auf dieser Stelle gehe. Meine Damen und Herren, ich habe einen Plan für heute. Ich möchte dir ein Phänomener zeigen. Ich hoffe, dass sie klar und illustriert sie klar und illustriert sie zu dir, in Bezug auf die Pattern, mit denen die Soziologen im Moment über Digitalisierung denken und über was wir die nächsten Generation nennen. Ich muss auch über die Ressourcen sprechen, denn für die letzten 10-15 Jahre haben wir auf diesen Digitalisierung Phänomener von all den verschiedenen Kinden. Wir hatten Apokalyptik-Vieure, Kritik-Vieure, Visionäre-Vieure und Diskussionen über die Digitalisierung und die Digital-Transformation. Ich möchte nicht repeaten, was wir alle schon mitbekommen sind. Ich habe vier bis fünf Punkte. Zuerst auf die Issue, dann auch auf die Theorie-Ressourcen und dann auf die Issue, wie wir das definieren wollen. Das ganze Bereich und vielleicht auch Fragen. Und letztendlich, vielleicht auch Irritation. In der 90er-System-Theorist waren wir immer sehr nahe zu den Studenten, unsere Clients, die wir mitgegeben haben, um sie zu irritieren mit unserer Systemtheorie. Das ist etwas, das wir noch nicht mehr tun. Was jetzt mehr wichtig ist, ist, um eine kommunale Arbeitsposition zu entwickeln, despite the funny things that we come across, we need a sober serious discussion on that. Well, next generation, that is a slogan by Peter Drucker, he invented that. This means that currently we are in a kind of fourth media era, that is well known, I think. I am saying this only by way of introduction. A fourth media era, Marsha McLoone, Michelle Sayer and others have proclaimed that. They referred to that in a kind of standard way, in order to offer some kind of heuristics, which will make it possible to deal with the nervous atmosphere. The first media era was the introduction of oral language, about 5,000 years ago. The second era was the introduction of a written language, the alphabet, about 3,000 to 5,000 years ago. Then the modern printing, this was the beginning of the modern era, namely a society that became more and more literate and more and more people learned how to read and write. This brought a lot of momentum to social development ever since. Maybe something that we still underestimate, in the range of this development. Also made it possible for people to develop criticism. People were able to read and form their own opinion on the basis of what they read and were able to criticize developments. So this came about 500 years ago. What is important is that now with the introduction of electronic media, radio, cinema, TV all the way up to computers and AI we are now at the beginning of only the fourth media era and the assumption of cultural and media academics is that they have developed benefit from these three previous media era. So we indeed do not know what is happening at the moment, although this is happening to us. We, after all, digitalize ourselves. Society digitalizes itself and we in society digitalizes people. So we are the actors and the victims, so to say. And we can learn from the past how people dealt and handled written language and the printing era. Niklas Luhmann said with every new media of communication new possibilities of action of experience of communication of making sense of society of individuality of everything that is so important for human life comes about and things which the previous media era was not prepared for. So this is the principle of that with every era things become more complex growing complexity and then we have to deal with the question as to how communication is distributed namely the possibility that others in the same society are able to live and be successful with these media and with this new media and how is it possible to develop to a cultural idea of making sense within a society. And what I have done and what some others have done we had a look at these structural forms and the cultural forms of these fear media era in a systematic way. So some cultural scientists are not very happy when we try to distinguish try to separate and describe the development of humankind with these four media eras. So this is the fourth media era and there are two consequences from that that are important for us tonight consequences for sociology and consequences for the current AI discussion in particular the consequences for the current AI discussion are those that have prompted me to say that Sociology should not only follow the developments and deal with them in the aftermath but that sociology with its research on social intelligence should play an active role in this debate on intelligence. So what are the consequences for sociology? Well, afterwards we could have more in-depth discussion on that well, basically these are dramatic consequences for us sociologists and we could have a whole lecture on that there are two consequences this has to do with the kind of structure of our society and what kind of culture we have in our society in sociology from Max Weber to Niklas Luhmann we are used to this idea of a functional differentiation within our society a rationale of love and a rationale of education and art for example so and hope is that that all these differentiated segments of society will aggregate into a meaningful hole or become integrated into a meaningful hole which is then society so a functional differentiation which basically is based on a division of labour and an interplay interaction of highly dynamic individual and different systems the assumption which is often expressed in cultural sciences and media sciences and also in some social sciences is that through this functional differentiation like the division of labour and through an aggregation or integration based on reason that with this model it is no longer possible to understand our society in the last 150 years we had often very irrational irrational Phenomena again and again but they have not prevented us from believing in a reasonable way in the possibility to reasonably shape society and so with the Third Reich that reason is not a possibility but we got out of this so to say and currently the discussion is that reason or rational thinking is not an integration concept but now that we have faced with a new form of structures of our society which are more idiosyncratic rational more exclusive to the people who who have the possibility to part of that and similar to what Manuel Castells said that the functional differentiation is replaced by a network society there long debates about what we can understand by this network society also by Manuel Castells and so if you have a look at the the most really interesting thing about a network is that it is highly selective and highly exclusive a network is always determined by the fact that some people or organizations, places or stories are part of the network and others are excluded and this could be a dramatic difference to also these mentioned functional difference the systems based on functional differentiation at least based on the principles of the French Revolution means that everybody is supposed to be able to take part in everything in government, in school, in education and everybody should be able to take part in the arts should be able to understand that be able to go to theater understand theater plays or be able to do art themselves so this inclusiveness of modern era, we have all grown up with that and this is now replaced by this concept of a network society which still has not developed any norms for that but the structures are already there and the cultural idea that everything will aggregate in a rational way and that is what I will dwell on from now on this will be or is being replaced by the idea that there is no longer a culture of reason but a culture of complexity I think we all have heard of that I think we all have some feeling of what this could mean and everybody who is somewhat informed about that was hopes that there won't be that we won't mention the definition of that because there are 12 different definitions of this complexity like algorithmic complexity mathematical complexity and so on and I will give you more details later on because this brings me to the question regarding the intelligences that we are surrounded by so the consequences of the current AI discussion result from that and for the past 40, 50 years we there has been little public awareness for us and when I say us I mean industrial movements around the world when it comes to the automation so anything that can be described in technical terms from human to technical processes to automate that by using the media so that machines can do it autonomously so this is no longer the top the current topic of attention so this much heralded buzzword of industry 4.0 basically lives on the idea that there is again an autonomy and not only automation again an autonomy is a decisive step in the attempt to enable machines to have at least as much autonomy as human the human functioning system and markets over the past 300 400 years have learned a lot so for machines to learn as much what does that mean, that means that when we are surrounded by machines autonomy means the decision to deal with with their surroundings as humans have learned so what does that mean in terms of intelligence well I'll get back to that in a minute but it's interesting because this gain in autonomy shows that the title of my talk here is very much insufficient digitalization and the next society well it's really about automation the major challenge of AI and of the integration of AI in day to day activities and processes that help us in everyday life but also in institutionalized processes research science, religion art so in all these areas we are confronted with that task to combine digital computers that can be programmed using code to do what we want them to do to such an extent that we can no longer grasp those processes analogous computers i-computers that are not part of this medium if when Calculability of Processes but rather what Paul Watzlawik said about communication they are in the medium of contradiction so they shape their own processes continuous function is what we're talking about then they are aware of their boundaries and borders with their surroundings and not aimed at binary structures but contradictory structures combining this with social science again from my point of view it means that we are called upon i think to take this concept of negativity of human beings machines, cultural institutions technical processes so to develop such a concept of negativity so that binary, the binary character and generalized contradictions that don't tell us what we are turning against so combining these two elements would be the next challenge for example i do not want to have any water right now which i admit is not the truth in this mode but that would mean that i leave open the question so what do i want to drink instead it's a generalizing or general negation that opens up a whole range of possibilities but if instead i say and i can't think of an example for the other form of negation now and i really can't think of anything now so contrasting 0 and 1 male and female yes and no that is a direct negation which opens up room for contradiction, tension possibly a story how can we combine yes and no man and woman upstairs and downstairs etc but i continue to focus on this one contradiction that i have developed but instead if i say i don't want to drink any water i want to drink instead George M. Brown my favorite mathematician develop this concept of general negation and we'll see in a minute why we need that and in which way second point what does it mean theoretical resources well they are very few digitalization analogization i don't want to talk about that a lot but society describes both as medial and complex form Jack Derrida coined this term difference in a talk in 1961 during a presentation and it's supposed to refer to a phenomenon that is not predictable in terms of how we are able to deal with it and Derrida called this talked about being it being iterable like a virus repeatable without but without limiting its own dynamic development and can't survive so this medial form is a form so how can we describe this best it assumes an unpredictable form for example a sentence a phrase being expressed by means of words i can combine the words in different ways use more or fewer words i can invite people to use very different words you are listening to me formulating a sentence and you are probably thinking well he could have formulated it more precisely he could have used less sociological terminology and while i am telling you about this definition you are part of thinking about this medium so you are basically surpassing the medium that i am using looking at this space of opportunities so that is what a medium is about another example you get to know somebody you fall in love and if you are very unlucky you will have a sociologist tell you that it is your medium to move inside love so a declaration of love would be a form of communication in this medium and if your declaration of love fails or maybe not then this is a room of opportunity so it can be an ironic declaration of love an intimate declaration of love so there are lots of possibilities that will shape what you will experience but you have to make that choice first so i am inviting you to see digitalization as a medium form so as a room of possibilities where we have lots of possibilities of which only a few have been realized so far and this should not shock you or deter you but it should invite you to have a closer look at all the possibilities that have not been explored yet medium form is a complex form so this brings me to the definition of complexity the easiest or simplest definition the sense of European classicism is unity in diversity a system out of the European Union the most beautiful example however is complex numbers in mathematics where we have several solutions for one equation plus one minus one both the root of one which gives you a two-side complexity differentiating between men and women is also complexity because despite all the gender debates you can't reduce men to women or vice versa but in the variableization of scope for behavior we try to do just that and we can only attempt this here and here I don't want to talk about biological aspects or whatever but about cultural aspects because there is still something that differentiates men and women so unity in diversity two sides of formulation two things that cannot be reduced to the other and the next aspect is describing digitalization of society as complex forms so talking about them as scope of possibilities of used and unused possibilities on the one side and on the other side complexity that is being defined in terms of content as the encounter or the combination of what we can't control system references 4 to 5 situation like this one I'm giving a talk, you're listening to me later we'll have a discussion it's a complex form in the sense that we need a language to talk to each other common language we need simultaneous interpretation and I'm probably asked for the interpreters already now sorry and as sociologists say fluid systems of consciousness which you all have coming here and it's not the case for all talks because there are some presentations that you can give in an automated way even if not autonomously on the one side we have this thinking with the speaker but on the other hand it's completely impossible to say a sentence or understand a sentence without these two aspects communication and consciousness not being part of the equation and that is the general situation of the human form complexity of thinking and speaking this saves us a lot of trouble because we can say one thing and mean the other sometimes both conquer that has a lot to do with our hope for rationality but right now it's more about differences between the two and the crux is when we talk about digitalization and society as complex form is that further additional systems references are added to the equation possibly among them the organism so in the moment where somebody takes their smartphone out of their pocket then we have at least 4 or 5 system references the technical reference how does the smartphone work how does the panic system reference how will I be using my fingers and adolescents how much smarter with that I keep holding my smartphone in the right hand and use just one finger of my left hand to write on my smartphones so even people only 10 years younger they open it and use it with their right hand but I can't do that I know that my behavior is ancient behavior but it's my physical adaptation to this smartphone at the same time I try to keep up because my neural structures are well adapted I can keep up with the changing images on the screen so your body has to function I need to be able to understand to a certain degree what I'm looking at society as the always limited sum of offers of communication and this brings me to a total number of 4 systems cultural habits can also be added to this equation 4-5 system references that cannot be reduced to one another but in every concrete act of using such a device and please don't only think of smartphones now but also think of Bloomberg Terminals of stockbrokers think of the soldiers equipment think of nuclear highly complex programs used by nuclear physics to analyze and evaluate data think of hospitals where monitors are being used and I said beside with patients bed and both the doctor and the patient look at those monitors to deduce some form of treatment or therapy so far the authority of the physician had been the dominant factor in this equation so think of professional contexts where monitors software programs are being used and I think it is worthwhile and I encourage you to do so to just use those 4-5 references and look at why is this working in this context and how secondly it's also worthwhile to know that at the physical organic level we are much smarter and much more able to learn than on the mental level so we can all work our smartphones mailboxes etc. physically while we don't know what it does to us mentally so we are using media and we are already able that the necessity of us to use them is nothing that we understand but our the ability of our fingers to use it is already there 100% so there is a practical ability and in the international intercultural context when it comes to the difficulties in introducing new devices here it's interesting that we are able to say linking practical physical capabilities at the physical level with societal aspects attractiveness can become more functional more violent even than what the consciousness can imagine and consciousness we might see this as an advantage is hesitant and tries to understand what happened before it's not thinking first taking action then it's taking action first and then attempting to think and in many cases the thinking process will not take place at all the main point in this description is that we don't count to one computer scientists do that they just count technical systems sociologists only count society I say we need to count to four or five to combine those different systems references not only in that general building sociologist sociological super-theorie but in general aspects and what I just gave you as an example about negativity and negation what I tried to describe there can be reduced to the fact that the digital and analog medium that I am using I can only understand those if I am aware of the potential for negativity of all those four systems references I don't have to check my mails I don't have to use twitter I can say no to all of that my body can't say no to all of that can be overwhelmed, can be overly nervous, stressed out I can fall ill I can become addicted then there can be this in a revolt and then there can be legal institutions the European Union among others who say no to certain forms of networks and computer scientists keep saying no to because they are developing some things but not others they try to promote what they have developed and are not talking about what they haven't developed yet so of negation saying no system references referred to one another and compared to them the very few things that happen in this room of possibilities so I do encourage everyone to get away from the fenomenization of society not can get confused by that but really have a look at the products that have come to the market and that we are using so to give you a summary what does that mean for digitalization and the next society then the spread to the third point then I have to break down digitalization to something which I could then in specific terms subject to my analysis and the same was true for the next society the overall structure communication culture and so on break this down to something that I can then monitor, watch, analyze and for tonight I can say that it's nice that many pieces of work have been done in the field of sociology that have highlighted this and as a result of that I would say that digitalization has to do in particular with a complex form of data yeah data and is basically the concrete or the specific form the materialization of digitalization data that produced a process that one side wants to own the other side produces data from the right place to the wrong place and so let us look at data and we want to talk about digitalization why is data so interesting, well because they have a form they include something and you can look at where data is compiled where it is produced and this leads to some kind of predictability and data also excludes a lot every data says something about something and doesn't say anything about other things and so this is a very simple assumption and therefore my request is let us focus on data because they include certain things and exclude other things and they contain this kind of negativity let us look at data under the heading of predictability all ways also looking at what wouldn't make data unpredictable one of the thinkers of the MIT in Cambridge Alex Pendlin said that the most intelligent algorithms that make it possible to predict behavior used by Amazon for example, they have a hit rate with regard to the behavior that they predict of about 60%, so 40% is not predictable so would that be our scope of freedom, well yes but we have an even greater scope of freedom where no data is collected and where therefore no predictability is produced and what kind of possibilities for manipulation do data offer and where don't they offer any room for manipulation also with regard to data that can be used on stock exchange markets or investment decisions and where these data are not used so these are the questions that we have to direct at data which data does exist and which data is not compiled so the media form and the form of the next generation that is in regards to the in regards to the question what kind of action what kind of experience is made possible in a kind of network so what is possible in a kind of startup scene in Berlin in terms of action in terms of experience in regards to how society is understood and how society can be part of a project or not be part of a project a project that could go into this direction or a project that could go into another direction so that is my favorite question how are opportunities for activity coupled back to who experiences what in a kind of community be it a church or a startup or university or some other form of community so the question namely as to how things are distributed to what extent opportunities for making experience or having experience to what extent is that distributed across a society so we can put this question for example the federal agency for civic education how can we expand and extend opportunities for experience across a society not only focus on who does what on who experiences what and therefore this is to do with the possibility to convince such persons with certain experience with regard to expect what kind of action they will take, what kind of positions they will have and so on and so we live in a very complex society in a complex society we talked about functional differentiation and so networks offer different kinds of possibilities and opportunities for taking action and for having certain experiences and therefore our societies even more complex now than before and these two phenomena of data and the phenomenon of possibilities for action and experience this comes together the following point and that is something that I consider important when we talk about intelligence and research into intelligence namely the observation that with regard to all the phenomena can observe and that I just sketched out that there is a synchronization of these system references as they refer to data as we refer to life and so on that all this is already taking place sociologists like to describe that everything that is happening as Niklas Luhmann said everything that is happening is unlikely so the question is why also obviously certain thresholds of unlikeliness are overcome so Professors, for example, who believe that they are able to teach students something like theory or politicians who stand for election obviously these things exist and I don't want to refer to our Ministry of Economic Affairs that there is still the belief that we have something like national champions and we ask haven't they understood no it's the other way around we say that there is a synchronization of these four to five different system references regarding the data that we have referring to our own experience that this actually takes place so now we can have a look at how physical irritability so an Organism has been described as an irritable media means or structures of life that has neural activities then also a contingency of society and the non-triviality of technology that all this comes together so so system references come together and synchronized in something that is then successful although all these system references have their own momentum their own idea of time, their own time horizon their own fears, their own possibilities so this is really astonishing when we consider all that this is where sociological research starts so there are lots of examples in literature for that I don't want to overstretch your patience here there's one example that I think is particularly fascinating so if you have a look at art for example if we take pictures so a picture if you'll see that in the digitalization media that in front of us we couldn't live with them without any pictures and in Basel certain scientific criteria have been developed with regard to images or pictures and and when we come back to the synchronization question if we take it seriously then we have to look at pictures in a different way as we did in regard to modern art so pictures with the language of Immanuel Kant where today we would say well with beauty and a criteria that is sufficient for art and a criteria that is not sufficient at all for technical images so so these images or pictures make it possible to to understand what is visible and what is not visible in these pictures like Karen Byrne so from the semiotic level we move back to the material level and we have certain cuts in these pictures that make it possible for us to be fascinated with this picture and that call up social norms and then from this material level we move back to the semiotic level and and this materialization could be referred to for lots of other examples like protest movements or agility in the city and basically stop here and want to come back to irritation which I mentioned at the beginning a simple thing that you're all familiar with a question that is pretty simple the more artificial intelligence moves away from the human intelligence such as this human intelligence of which we always believe depth of understanding with coming up with a meaning with a sense that we manage to deal with ambiguity and so on on which we now also know that we have to break that down into neuro-organic social and other forms of intelligence because we do not only have this one intelligence but the more AI moves away from the human human intelligence and machine learning basically has to do with statistics this basically has to do with statistics and you're probably more familiar with that than me and so the more AI moves away from intelligence to statistical compilation the more we move away from the question as to whether AI will replace human intelligence because that is no longer the question and the more we will develop and detect the statistical characteristics of this human intelligence so what we understand or describe as learning is currently one of the hot topics that is let me try to understand this human way of thinking at a mental level so let me that with our superb intellectual achievements like reading the books by Kant or reading the book by Niklas Luhmann or similar books so when we do all this intellectual work we only work on the statistical coping of our own coping with that do I understand this book in this context what do I have to do in order to understand this book so we use theorems in order to be able to predict with what we are confronted with is basically a statistical work and it is a statistical effort that we make and maybe all this statistical intelligence and not more so irritation so we observe we watch a machine learning under the headings of creativity and see that this has nothing to do with creativity we look back at the human being and find out that we have nothing to do with that either with creativity or individuality so in most cases if we are able to understand a book like that it is only the result of all learning of our statistical effort so we have the irreducible complexity and we try to attack that with statistics with predictability theory and look at correlations and no longer at causality so the systems that we want to describe expect their own dismantling the networks that we deal with are networks that expect their own unreliability in order to be able to cope with the environment and these systems and these networks give us this unpredictability that allow us to be humans thank you very much for this presentation i'll now try to do two different things one is link up to our follow on from the things that i did not understand so what i heard during your talk and understood only partly maybe we can go into more detail there we'll have 22 25 minutes i think before you in the audience can ask your questions and formulate your comments so irritation is what you talked about at the end of your presentation before i want to take a step back so you said there's this co evolution of machine artificial intelligence and human intelligence or intelligences that you split into four or five different forms of intelligence means that we gain a new understanding of intelligence of innovation, creativity i no longer happening as part of human intelligences as you've described them so the question is this means that we ignore creativity innovation that we no longer need them or do they just appear in a different form at a different point in artificial intelligence will we no longer have to be innovative and creative well no not at all we are still dealing with these two things whether it's the ideas of a genius intuition it's a leading capability or skill when we talk to artists so a good playwright drama playwright has seen dozens of plays and co produced dozens of plays and basically calculates the probability to be successful with innovative we talk about this as creative work but it's basically just predicting something new so i set statistics well when i use this term statistics it sounds mechanical almost lifeless but statistics really is nothing else but the capability to to basically compare so to have this overall room of possibilities compare that with the possibilities we've realized and see the result so that is where we have creativity what do i do with this difference as an artist if i see okay there's a possibility that has not been realized yet and i realize that then this is innovation okay so let's talking about the example of theater so for example theater drama playwright processes such as creativity produced by that drama director for example seeing play etc for getting what i've seen not understanding what i've seen if i was an artist to forget parts of what i've seen or make sure i forget about those things productively not understand these things in order to be able to reach a point where i can formulate something new or something that i believe to be new so not knowing or not remembering is part of human intelligence while this is not part of machine intelligence can AI learn this ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?