 Dobro bedro, nice to be back. 2018, it's a different world today. Mind boggling how the world has changed. Not just because of COVID, but because we're thinking of the future differently. In many ways, you could say the future is already here. We just haven't noticed. And we're now waking up to that future, for example, with artificial intelligence, which I'll talk about. I have two topics today, the sustainable future, first topic, of course, environment, energy, people, planet, it's an obvious topic. Fortunately, it's a topic that we can solve. I'm very optimistic on global warming and climate change because we basically have all the tools to solve this. We just have to make up our mind to actually do it. That's the good news. So we're going to suffer a little bit for 15 to 20 years in the process of fixing this. But we're now getting ready to do this. And I think when the Russia-Ukraine conflict is winding down or maybe calms down in some way, there'll be a lot of new energy going into this very question. The second question I want to talk about is sustainable technology. This, in my view, is actually a much bigger problem and also a big opportunity. We are addicted to these. But they're still outside of our body. If I have an AI assistant that sits on my ear and I speak to it, that's different. If I connect my brain to the internet, that's very different. And is that still sustainable? Is it healthy? Sustainable, healthy, quite similar word. So really what we're doing today when we're looking at the future, a lot of people tell me that my idea of the good future is an illusion. First of all, my kids tell me this. My kids are millennials, you know, 27 and 33. And they're saying, didn't you notice that the future is like this? It's not looking good. Wars, tyrants, conflicts, geopolitics, climate change, the machines will take our job, and then they will harvest our bodies for energy. So it's not looking so good. In fact, 71% of people around the world recently asked between, say, 20 and 35, I think it was, believe that the future is worse than the present. So a lot of young people in Europe in particular think that their future is worse than their parents' future, present, actually. I mean, imagine this. So we have to think about this a little bit like Buckminster Fuller said. Buckminster Fuller, my favorite futurist and a kind of a mentor of mine, mentally speaking, he says humanity is requiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons. I would upgrade this a little bit and say we have all the right technology, but we're using it the wrong way. This is our main problem. You know, we're inventing technology every week, quantum computing, nuclear fusion. That's roughly 10 to 15 years away. Unlimited energy by nuclear fusion without toxic side effects. Solar technology is now 97% cheaper than 15 years ago. We're inventing all the time. We're inventing technology to solve cancer. Human genome editing, CRISPR-Cas9, that's all a lot of issues there, but we're quite busy inventing. So we're not short of science and technology and we're not short of money. Remember how much money we put into the COVID crisis? So if climate change is going to cost roughly 2% to 3% of global GDP in the next 10, 15 years, that's 150 trillion a year, we have that money. We have to decide to spend it because it also makes money, which I'll show you in a minute. But of course, the other problem really is that we're looking at this future, my view is the future is better than we think. And the bad part is that when we think about the future as bad, then we tend to recreate it in such way. It's like when you're in a bad relationship, you think of your husband or your wife as not sufficient or not good enough, or, you know, then it perpetuates until you solve that problem so you can see what is actually there. So let me introduce you to the three revolutions in society. The first one is obvious, the digital revolution, which is now the AI revolution, really. The sustainability revolution, which is green, everything's circular, everything, this is roughly 100x of the digital evolution. And Croatia, in my view, has some great initiatives on the sustainability revolution but should do a lot more on this because this is the future. When you take them together, big blue technology and big green, that's the ticket, right? The next 1,000 unicorns, billion-dollar companies, will be in sustainability climate technology. And that is a fantastic opportunity where not just resetting energy because we have to, we're also resetting because we can. It's all right here in front of us. The last one is the hard one, the human revolution, the purpose revolution. Many people, roughly between, say, 20 and 45, are now asking questions after COVID and hopefully after war very soon. The question really is, what is the purpose of our economic system? Is the purpose more job, more growth, more money? Or do we have to look deeper? People, planet, purpose? That is a question that my generation didn't ask very much. Now, we were quite happy to grow and grow and grow and collect money and enjoy our lives. This is why in the last 25 years, 50% of all CO2 around the world has been generated by my generation. We knew about this, but we didn't care. So we haven't been very good ancestors in this regard. And now we have a new generation, the Gen Y and the Zillennials, the kids, coming up and saying, I want to have a job with a purpose. Did you know around the world, there's already about 10 or 15 universities that don't allow any more recruiting from companies that are in the oil and gas business. They are banned from coming to college and looking for people to hire. I mean, these are developments that we're seeing absolutely everywhere around the world. And the digital revolution has become so huge that the tech companies are now saving themselves with artificial intelligence. There's four kinds here. Information tech, biotechnology, which is also very big, energy and climate tech, and artificial intelligence. And artificial intelligence is not new, but now we have the Sputnik moment. You remember the Russians putting out the first satellite? The Americans freaked out. The Russians would win the race. And OpenAI put out chat GPT and that was the Sputnik moment. Now, everybody wants to go to the moon with AI. That's an interesting story, which I'll comment on later. But with all of these things, we have a key question emerging. How do we create a world that's about more than technology? Of course, last time I looked, we are in technology. Some people would argue that. Some people say organisms are algorithms. Well, that may be turning out in 50 years to be somewhat true, but right now it's far from reality. I think organisms are really a quite different range of existence and algorithms, but here we have to decide what the purpose of technology is. You know, when you look at around the headlines these days about artificial intelligence, there's lots and lots of headlines saying the companies will try to have less people working for them by outsourcing their work to intelligent machines, right? Increase the margin, have less people. So a telecom company would say, you know, I'm going to have an artificially intelligent telecom operator, a network operator, and therefore I need less people. If they do that, and if it actually works, which is highly doubtful, if it actually works, should they pay an automation tax? And who likes taxes? Nobody likes taxes. I live in Switzerland. I mean, we pay taxes, sorry. But it's different. We vote on everything that we do every three months. So I'm from Germany originally where taxes are a difficult topic, but here's the bottom line with technology. It could be heaven or it could be hell. You think about your own life, let's say if you're my age, 20 years, if you're lucky, it could already become hell, but think about your kids. What kind of life do you want your kids to have? I think it's unrealistic to expect like a nirvana, you know, utopia. Utopia is beautiful because it never happens. But if you look around today, what we see on television, Netflix and Hulu and Amazon, we have dystopia. 98% ends badly. We should not have a vision of like that for the future. I mean, that would be detrimental because we're thinking always like there's gonna be all these big issues. So what we need to define a good future is not just technology. Technology will not save the day. Print this out and put it on the wall because we can have great technology and use it wrong. I mean, I can take a hammer and build my house or I can go kill my neighbor. I can use AI to be better in healthcare or I can invent a superhuman soldier, same technology. We need what's called in Greek tell us, wisdom. How to deal with this enormous power. It's like nuclear power. We can make a bomb and we did, and we did have two bombs. After we had two bombs, we said, oh, that's probably not a good idea if everybody has a bomb. Took us 15 years to figure out an agreement for not everybody having a bomb. But it has worked because we had to tell us the wisdom to collaborate comes back to purpose. If the purpose of society is to make more money, no matter what the cost, we're going to face the end of humanity roughly by 2050. Because we're on a trajectory to having more money, less planet, less humans. I mean, what kind of world would that be where people like us, because we're in the top 10% roughly, but the very fact that you're here, we can make more money with this, but everything else declining. Nature, equality. So now we've come to a reset, much like 1968. 1968, I was 70 years old, so I don't remember. But what happened from 1968 to 1973 is a global reset of everything we believed in. Politics, music, the sexual revolution, the change in global politics. In five years, we're in the same spot now. This year is the beginning of a two or three year period where everything that we believed in is changing. And I think that's really amazing opportunity, but it can be really confusing and causing anxiety, of course. Looking at this chart here, this chart showed you how generative AI, artificial intelligence, I explained in a minute, will change work. We're gonna publish the slides later. You can take photos if you want, but we'll definitely share those. This is from Accenture, shown that basically office and admin support has 57% higher potential for automation all the way down to building and groundskeeping production. I mean, the green bars, they should be red, really. They're higher grounds for automation, out zero in a little bit so you can see better. But you know what this means? It doesn't mean the jobs are going away. This is a common confusion. It means my routines in the job are going away. The way I do the job, and we have to get ready. I mean, why are we teaching our kids in school that you're going to download information for later? You get an MBA today, you learn old case studies and old rules from the 70s. Why don't we teach our kids to be creative? To make up things, that's what they need. I always say, if you work like a robot, a robot will take your job. And not too many jobs work like a robot, but we all are a little bit robotic sometimes. But the worst part is, if you learn like a robot, you'll end up working for the robot. And we're teaching our kids to work and study and learn like a robot. And that will never work here in this world because the robots aren't stupid anymore. That's unsustainable, this kind of education. So this is really the issue. Machines will come and they will take our routine. Any job that can be digitized, virtualized, robotized, AI-tized will be. But you'd be surprised how many jobs can only be partially robotized, of course. That's the interesting part, like driving a car. Remember 10 years ago, everybody would say, we're gonna have self-driving cars. Now, do you see any self-driving cars here? I haven't seen any. You can go to Palo Alto, California, and drive a Waymo, but, you know, in Palo Alto, a five-year-old could drive. You have these kind of things, but we don't really have a car level of five autonomous driving only in trial stage because it's not all routine. So this is a real challenge, I think, for our society as we move into the future here. Here's a chart from just three days ago, also from, I think, PricewaterhouseCoopers. The green line shows that a person that's using AI learns much quicker than the person not using AI. Well, it is not surprising, right? So a person using technology like AI will beat the person not using technology. But the technology will never beat a person. That is the difference. And when we use AI, we have to think about what that does. For example, this chart here shows you what the real problem is, that we have more efficiency and productivity using artificial intelligence. For example, a paralegal can be four and a half times as efficient. A lawyer, a bookkeeper, can be more efficient using AI. But here's the problem. If companies use AI to say that I'm more efficient, because I work there with AI, then they can fire everybody else and just keep me. What is the purpose of that? It's like I'm still gonna work the same time, I'm just gonna work more. Rather than saying I'm going to only work three or four hours a day for the same money because I'm more efficient. Well, that's a big social discussion, right? Politicians will have fun with this. A World Economic Forum has a great chart showing you again the same thing. Any job that's routine and commodity will be automated by machines. Bank tellers, postal service, cashiers, entry clerks, administrative, call centers. Lots of call centers here in Croatia, I think. 23 million people work in call centers around the world. Do you not believe that an AI will learn 90% of that work? Not now, you can't speak to the call center in Croatia unless you're really slow, like a snail. It will probably understand a little bit. It's very frustrating, but that will happen eventually. So we have to think about how we can retrain for this. Great article, you know the writers in Hollywood are striking, right, the screenwriters. They're on strike because, and I write screen stuff myself so I can sympathize. And they're on strike because they're saying, what the studios are doing, they're taking all of our old scripts and they feed that to chat GPT and they say, make a new script for free, right? That's like a musician, we've seen this for musicians, right? Take all of our stuff and figure out which song is gonna be a hit based on algorithms. And then you write the song, right? So the studios, this is from Motherboard says, GPT-4 can't replace the writers, but studios are going to try. That's our reality, right? And that we need to think about. What are the guidelines for this? In which way is that sustainable? Well, I think it's unsustainable, of course, in the same way that we talked about what's happening here, she'll be playing, sorry, just one second. Don't wanna spoil my beautiful effect here, okay? You can start now, thank you. E. O. Wilson, famous biologist, nature reservist, inventor of sustainability, really. He said, the real problem of humanity is the following, we have paleolithic stone age emotions, medieval institutions, no comment on that, and god-like technology. We've got to work on this. I think we can work on our emotions, we're pretty much there. But the medieval institutions, yeah, we've got a way to go on this one, right? And god-like technology, we should not use technology to become as god, even if there is any such thing as god, which I'm not gonna comment on. But we should not use technology to be like humans. I mean, that's ridiculous. I want the technology to get the job done, to be a slave, not god, right? I mean, it's an interesting thing. And so we have these two things developing. First wave of challenge and opportunity, climate change. Second wave, artificial intelligence. The first wave is actually manageable, doable, painful, but we're gonna do it. I'm totally positive on this. I think in 20 years, we can go back and we can fix the planet by CO2 sequestration, by having abundant energy with nuclear fusion, by being able to fix what we've done in 20 years. The next 20 years will be hard to fix that. And we have to put lots of energy and money. The World Economic Forum says in their wisdom, parenthesis, 100 million new jobs in climate technology. I mean, if you're looking for a new job, that's the new job, climate tech. Anything to do with climate. The city of Rio de Janeiro just hired 400 activists that used to be on the street to work for the city, to report all of the things that are going wrong in the city with climate change and pollution. That's their job now, right? When you think of the state of Croatia hiring 500 people to make sure that we're taking care of pollution and the ocean as a job, a cheap job, right? I mean, but still a job. So this wave here is much more important. Machines that can think. This wave is going to be much harder to realize because we're not really seeing that very clearly now and it's kind of murky with all the discussions. So I'll talk about both and then we can have a debate on this in the end. So really the problem today is that we are making more money than ever for the average. Not everybody, but the top 10% of society is increasing in capital. Human capital education also, but natural capital going towards zero. In other ways, we're making more money of killing the planet. That is a great achievement. We're going to grow up in the world where we have more stock portfolios and more money but the planet is dying and so we'll have to go to Mars or something. I don't know to take our money to go with Elon Musk to Mars, right? Big problem here as we see for example, we negotiate and negotiate and negotiate about climate change. These are all the treaties that are created for the Kolkop and Haking Accord. While we're doing this, up and up and up and up it goes. You could lose faith in humanity when you're looking at this chart, right? Wouldn't blame you. Question is of course, what would have happened if it hadn't been for those events, right? How much of an increase we would have had there. But really this is the result, okay? In 20 years, not in 50 years, in 20 years, all of the middle countries of the globe will be uninhabitable because of heat. And this was projected to be in 50 years and now it's 20 years, right? All of the red ones, basically without air condition, you're dead, particularly India, Pakistan, Iran, North Africa, and you know what's gonna happen to all those people? They're going to come here to Croatia. No, just kidding. They're gonna come north to Europe, right? Are you worried about climate change refugees? We're talking about 500 million climate refugees. And that's 20 years and we're talking about our kids having to deal with 500 million if we don't put the brake on. And clearly what extinction rebellion is doing in the UK, the sort of semi-violent things against SUVs and stuff, we're going to see 1,000 X of this everywhere in the world because people are fed up with this. And I think this is going to be something that we see pretty much on a global basis. Oil and gas is becoming a crime scene. If you are in the oil and gas business, you're just about to be criminalized. Coal is already criminalized. South Africa, for example, people are saying they won't do business with South Africa because of 70% coal plants. If they don't change that, I mean, of course, the tough challenge is we can do anything we want in Europe. If these guys aren't coming along, we're still toast. We can be very successful with being green Europe, but if India isn't coming and Africa isn't coming, we're still burnt, so to speak. So that is a big issue. And of course now we're seeing that happening around the world in banks. Many people are pulling out their money from banks who fund oil and gas companies. I pulled out all my money from any fund I could find that would invest in oil and gas. And yet, do you know what the most powerful, the richest company of the world is as of this moment? Not Apple. Not Google. Aramco, the Saudi Arabian oil company. That's their last window and they're riding it as hard as they can for the next two or three years. That's the last window of big oil that we're seeing. So this world is dramatically different, changing fundamentally, and these guys, girls, people, other ones driving it, the Gen Y. Because they're juggling all these things and they're actually taking out their money. They're not going to work for companies, they work for oil companies. They're looking for a different definition of the future which is not just profit on growth. People, planet, purpose, and prosperity. And now we're seeing stock markets evolving. There's a new stock market in California called the Long Term Stock Exchange. That's based on this principle. So in the future, if you're the CEO of a public company, you have to take four boxes to get your bonus. Imagine that, then nobody would get a bonus, basically. Pretty much. I mean, imagine if you were a politician and you would have those, yeah, no comment. But there we can safely say that leadership will not come from politicians or from CEOs. It will come from people asking for that to happen. Just like happen every other time from the independence of India to the European Commission. This is something that people want and then eventually it happens. So that's where we're going and we're going to see this really interesting technology explosion. This is a huge opportunity for Croatia. I don't know why there isn't more action on this in Croatia or in other small countries in Europe. This climate technology curve is gonna employ a hundred million people in the next 10 years. I mean, battery technology, the integrate, new kinds of energy, new kinds of fuels for airplanes, new kinds of sustainable tourism. Green hydrogen, I mean, the story goes on and on and on. It's all here. This is not future stuff. It's here. So yes, it will cost money, but I will argue later that it's basically simple bottom line is green is the new digital. Croatia is not gonna be a leader in the world AI economy or in technology, even though there's more tech here than ever before, which is good. But this is the ticket. Green technology. And that's where we're all going. I think we're heading to a world where that's quite obvious. The transition is painful, but a sustainable economy doesn't just cost money, it makes money. That's the good news. Yes, it is costly to have transition, but this chart here from BlackRock, one of the biggest investors in the world, says that basically the green line of infrastructure spending, the climate damage avoided and transition costs, and in the end, we end up with more, not with less. And this is good news and it's also kind of new that we can see it this way. The chart from the World Economic Forum, one trillion dollar new revenues, they say 395 million new jobs in 20 years. That's a little bit optimistic. I don't even count three in the 95 billion new jobs but many new jobs, okay. So we're shifting in our thinking, in our world, from extraction and exploitation that goes from oil and gas to Facebook, which is essentially extracting information from you, to the world of creation. And this is the ticket for Europe for our future. We can be global leaders in sustainability. We can be global leaders in also protecting humans from being extracted, as we see with the Digital Markets Act and other ones. And clearly, this is what's involving sustainable is the new profitable. Again, if you go to a CEO today and you say this and thinking like, you know, what are you smoking? Because that's not the reality that we have in the stock market today. It's the opposite. The worst things you do, the more money you make. But this will not last very long. It's collapsing. This is the old Milton Friedman agenda, you know, more growth at any cost. But what is the point of growth when disaster follows? And really, of course, what we have here is we're going to see a new stock market. Maybe we can do that in Croatia. No longer the NASDAQ, I call it the SUSDAQ. The Sustainable Tech Market. That's what we should have in Europe. I've been talking to the Swiss government about that forever. But you know, the Swiss government isn't known for cutting-edge actions. It's safe and secure there. Beautiful trees, but the thinking lags sometimes, right? A stock market that goes by the principle of the four-piece, where people put their money for this reason. And one of the biggest problems that we're having is that we haven't been successful enough at decoupling growth and CO2. Because it doesn't have to be the same thing. Look at the red line here. That's the CO2 that we put out. And this is global GDP, the red line. We can grow as humanity. We can have more people if we are able to use technology to bend the line of CO2. Because the problem is, if I stood here and said, we have to go to degrowth, right? That's this slide here. And not have babies, not travel, right? Not buy very many things, not make CO2, which having babies basically creates lots of CO2, right? Then you would say, oh, no, no, I'm not gonna vote for this guy, he's kind of out there, right? Because that's dehumanizing. So I think the idea of degrowth is interesting in some aspects, but not very realistic. I think what we need to do is decouple the growth from CO2, and we do that, of course, with technology and the right policy. Right, technology without policy is utterly useless. But we have the tech for cleaner environments, for less pollution, for more efficiency, for smart cities, for everything we have the tech. We just have to get off this idea of spending money on fossil fuel subsidies. You know, four months ago I was in Spain, in Lanzarote, driving, and I go to the gas station and I fill up the car, you know, regular car, unfortunately. And the guy gives me a coupon for eight euros, right? The government in Lanzarote is giving every person getting gas a refund, right? A refund on the gas because it's too expensive, right? What a crazy idea, right? I understand why they're doing it for poor people. Maybe they should get the refund. But this is like New Zealand saying, you know, every pack of cigarettes that you buy is taxed by, I don't know, 840%. So the cigarettes are $55 a pack. And why is that? So you stop smoking. We should think about our policy on this, you know, how we're going to actually convert this into real life without punishing people who don't have money. That is complicated. But by heading into a world where unthinkable is the new normal, right? Carbon tax will be absolutely everywhere. Again, nobody likes taxes. Our good friend Macron has decreed, you can't fly anymore in France, you have to take a train. That's tyranny, right? I don't think so, I think it's a good idea. We should say, if there is a train, which there is in France, for the most part, you got to switch. Because a train is 100th of the CO2 of flying. Sounds anti-democratic, you know, when you can just decree it like this. But it's a big story. I'm a proponent of freaking flyer tax. I think every freaking flyer like myself, I'm on circle, dovetails, you know, because I fly like crazy. I already do that all voluntarily. But I think every freaking flyer should pay the more tax, the more they fly. So it wouldn't hurt the poor people who can't fly anyway. Either fly once a year with Ryan there, oh my God. But anyway, so I think these things are coming. Unthinkable new normal. We're gonna have a global carbon tax. Some people call that the carbon coin. To fund all of this. It's coming, Albert Einstein says, if the idea isn't at first absurd, there's no hope for it. It's just so true. I think we're looking at this and saying, oh, I don't really like tax on paying money, but you know, somehow we have to solve this problem. Read this book here, all right? The Ministry for the Future. It's not my book, but it's still a good book. They do exist. Kim Stanley Robinson. He talks about exactly this. KSR, I'm a big fan of his writings. He's a great guy, talks about this. So let's talk about technology. We need to develop a sustainable approach for technology. Right now what we're doing is utterly unsustainable. The damage that we have received from social media is a damage to democracy. Now we're gonna get AI to make more social media with more garbage and more lies and more distortions to see even more things that aren't true. What's the point of that? Why would we have this? Unlimited technology by 2030. Any computing power, any amount of interfaces, and chat GPT right now has one trillion data points. In 2030 it'll be, I don't know, a thousand trillion. What is that, a quadrillion, right? Whatever that is. What about safety? Security. Look at this chart. Unlimited computing power is coming. That has a lot of good consequences like DNA sequencing. And it has a lot of bad consequences like security. And this will crack your RSA code in 12 seconds by running 15 trillion calculations. I showed this one before. This one is more interesting. This is chat GPT. In the beginning, chat GPT-3 had 175 billion parameters to search. The latest version has one trillion. One trillion parameters it searches about us. Do you know how many neurons a human has? 100 trillion. So give it two months and this machine will have 100 trillion. Can we still control it then? I mean, not that it wants to be evil, but it could by accident become evil. So here we have a situation where quite clearly societies are driven by their tech, but defined by humanity. We have to remember this. What we want is not more technology just because it's cool. That was fine 20 years ago, but now the stuff's actually working. What we want is a good future, not technology isn't a religion, at least not for most of us, if you don't live in Silicon Valley. So what's happening with technology is that it's taken an aim at truth because it's fabricating things. You know, social media basically emphasizes bad news, six or eight times as much as good news. And why is that? Because we click. So we are being told bad stories because it makes money. Facebook makes $150 million profit a day per day. Maybe it's a little bit less now, hopefully. Where does that money go? Doesn't go to the creators, the writers. Doesn't go to Croatia. It goes to six cities in America where Facebook people work. Who make an average of $287,000 a year. That is an issue when we think of artificial intelligence going the same direction. But here's the problem. We may see this, AI is developing like crazy, but in terms of our alignment, how we put AI into society, we're not paying any attention to that. Basically, we're saying that exactly the same thing, and with oil and gas, we want to drive the damn car, we don't care where it comes from, just give me the gas and I'll pay. We're saying the same thing about AI. We're gonna make more money, and in the end who cares what comes out the other end. But of course the issue is that the climate emergency is manageable. It's scientific, right? AI also has an emergency like this. Unintended consequences of technology. People are sleeping while they're driving a Tesla car. That's not the intent of the Tesla car. It's not Elon Musk's fault, but people are doing this. And many people of course crash and do this, and then we have even worse, right? We don't know what to do about these technologies. This is a police car stopping an automated car. We're not ready. I mean, police doesn't even know that there's nobody inside. I mean, talking about training. So we have an alignment problem. Here on the left you see the Expedia app that just came out. Expedia has an AI now where you can type in that you wanna go somewhere and it will suggest a whole bunch of things that you can do and make a portfolio for you using smart search. That's pretty cool. That's also very trivial really. It's just a better tool, right? But then we have other tools. Ah, my dear friend Bill. I see you have brought a device with you today. What purpose does it serve? Greetings, Socrates. This is a laptop, a marvel of modern technology. It harbors an artificial intelligence that can revolutionize heuristic education. Interesting. Imagine a world where students learn at their own pace guided by a tireless tutor that never urrs. Is this the MacBook you often refer to? No, no, no, this is a surface. You just need to remember that surface. Fascinating, but tell me what is the essence of this artificial intelligence you speak of? It is a machine that can learn and reason built upon vast amounts of data and complex algorithms. It imitates human thought processes to provide tailored learning experiences. I sense a shadow over this marvel, a hidden danger lurking within. Thank you, Socrates. I'll leave it here, you can watch this on YouTube, but basically it's in AI making videos. We're gonna get to the point where we won't even know that this is not real. We're gonna get to the point where we are already where the anchor person, the news person, sitting on the desk is a robot speaking with chat GPT. I don't know if that makes a difference compared to the current news anchors, but maybe it does. But some people are saying we should have politicians that are robots because they'd be much more intelligent. I'm not so sure about that. Anyway, we have all this debates about what's happening and I want to assure you today we're not at the risk of AI taken over. It's too early for that. The risk is today that we think that this thing is so marvelous we can just give it all that hard work to do and it will just do it. It's a little bit like Google Maps. All of you use Google Maps, that's great, but all of us, if you live here, you will question Google Maps and you'll say no, no, that can't be true. You will ask questions. So in the end, this is what we should do with AI. We should use it, but say, no, it can't be, that's not true. If we stop doing that, I think we can be in deep, deep trouble. So we may not just have a climate emergency, but also an AI emergency when we go to the last stage of AI. So in the beginning we have this intelligent assistance, I call IA, that's 98% of what we have today, like Expedia, and if you run a business, this is where you put your money. Just smart software, that's no longer stupid. Scheduling, organizing, filing, translating, it's obvious. We use that all the time now. The next one I'm not so sure about, that's already heading into a new direction, but a general intelligence? I mean, imagine a machine with an IQ of a billion, connecting to other machines with an IQ of a billion. It wouldn't take too much to imagine that this machine would not have bad intent because it's not alive, but it would just make a mistake. Or it wouldn't get the mission, like you would say, I want a coffee to your robot, right? And the robot would say, this is the absolute command of getting a coffee, and I would send out a robot to get coffee and run over everybody and kill everybody in the process because the coffee is important. It's called the paperclip problem. So we have the situation where we are, remember that film, Don't Look Up, you've seen the film, Leonardo DiCaprio, right? It's a little bit like this. We're looking up and we're seeing artificial intelligence coming. We're saying, oh, you know, now this is gonna make my job easier, so we'll keep doing it. But the reality is this, we want to pursue competence with machines, not consciousness. Any company that says that they want the machine to be conscious or sentient or super intelligent, I think is dangerous. That's completely different than using it as a tool. That's becoming a religion, a God, right? Because in the end, this is the biggest problem that we have in your day. We think that this machine is almost like a human, right? Like here. But really what it is, it's a damn parrot in a box. And we think it's real. We should always question this. We should use it as a tool and say, okay, it will save time. I use it all the time, it saves time, but I have to be critical. I have to ask questions. It's like the metaverse, you know? We don't want to escape to the metaverse just because Mark Zuckerberg can make more advertising money. We want to engage with real life. So if you take that together, the metaverse in VR and artificial intelligence, we could end up living in a synthetic world, you know, a made up world. A world where people are made up, like answering, like Samsung Neon, like replica, where you can talk to your dead husband, deceased husband using an app. It's very entertaining, I'm sure you'll enjoy it, but so there's a very big question. So here is my friend Gutierrez Antonio giving us a good piece of advice. We have a choice, collective action or collective suicide. It is in our hands. Thank you. He's talking about climate change. Totally clear, and we're doing this, we're getting shock therapy now, obviously, right? Good. But here's another pioneer of AI, Jeffrey Hinton. Right now, what we're seeing is things like GPT-4. Eclipse is a person in the amount of general knowledge it has, and eclipses them by a long way. In terms of reasoning, it's not as good, but it does already do simple reasoning. And given the rate of progress, we expect things to get better quite fast, so we need to worry about that. Right now, they're not more intelligent than that's as far as I can tell, but I think they assume maybe. Jeffrey is 75 years old. He quit his job at Google last week. He's inventor of deep learning. He came up with the idea of what's called back propagation, which is at the bottom of AI. And he says, when machine can start reasoning, this is what humans do, we could get into hot water pretty quickly. So we're going to need to discuss how we can prevent that, if we can prevent it, right? So the story has very little to do with what we do today with AI, but definitely a big issue. I think all tech companies need to come up with what I call the technocratic oath, like a doctor. They should say, hereby pledge to place humanity over technology, money, and revenues at all times. That's what I would like to hear from Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, Baidu, Alibaba, and so on. And that's really what they're always saying, but I want to see a pledge. I really would like that to come up because I think in the end, if we're going to build a good future, it's not going to be built by AI. It's a tool, right? We're not going to sit down and pray to the hammer. I mean, that is ridiculous, that concept. So this is the question we have to ask when it's about technology. Why are we doing this? Does it serve a larger good, or does it just serve to make more money? And does it take out the human? If we take out the human too much, we're going to end up in a dehumanized society. That's not the kind of world I would want my kids to live in. So I'm going to summarize and then we have a conversation. So the key bullets of today, those three waves, the future of Croatia, that's the ticket. Well, that's the future, of course, of every country, but in the end, you can say small countries like where I live in Switzerland, that's our biggest opportunity to stake that out as our future. And of course, then in the end, the paradigm that I talked about earlier, the question of why the wisdom, green is in your digital and sustainable is in your profitable. If you can realize that in your company, whatever you're doing, it will take a while to percolate, but that is the ticket to the good future. So my good colleague, Kevin Kelly, the founder of Wired Magazine, Chief Maverick, he says, we should be optimistic not because our problems are smaller, they are not, right? But we have more capacity to solve them. That's the good news. We can solve pretty much any practical problem, water, food, energy, environment. We can solve that. We just have to get on the same page, right? It's not that we don't have the science or the power or the money. Look at all the things that we're solving every single day, right? All the time. So I want to end by saying that the doors aren't closing. If you feel like the doors are closing to your future, that's just not the case. They are opening. Every time you have a big change in life, a door closes, it's painful. You have a loss. You have a tragedy or something. New doors open. So the bottom line is we have to pursue Antonio Gromsky's paradigm when he says, pessimism of the intellect, the thinking, optimism of the will. And to that I would add optimism of the heart. To stay optimistic because the future is made for optimists. It isn't made by people who say, no, no, no, it can't be done. Or pessimists, right? We don't want that. We have to flip this idea that we're living in the VUCA time. We are living in VUCA. That's basically volatile, uncertain. That's not going to change. We should stop crying about saying it's so volatile, it's so uncertain. I don't know what to do. And go to speed unorthodoxy co-creation. The good old American word, awesomeness. Creature is awesome anyway, right? So that's, I think, something that we can do in our own mind. I call that future mindset to create the good future. I made a film about the good future. You can watch it at TheGoodFutureFilm.com. And with a quote from Bucky, we are to be called architects of the future, not its victims. Think about that for a while and I'll see you next year in the future. Thank you. No, no, thank you, God. Thank you. What a lecture. Oh, Lord, bring us back a landline phone and a fax so we can rethink all things about. But you have some questions to answer, God, are you ready? Do you see a problem in the fact that profit drives innovation and there is no profit to be gained in fixing the environment? Can we turn off that music? The music? Yeah, the music can be. Yeah, that's very good. Almost feel like I'm in a disco then or something. But anyway, do I see a problem with profit? No, I like profit. I do this for profit, I give speeches, right? But I also do it for other reasons and I do give free speeches as well. I think profit is of course important when I talk about people, planet, purpose, prosperity. The prosperity part is crucial in a society that's built essentially on capitalism, right? But the kind of capitalism that we've had is extractive capitalism. It takes stuff out, it doesn't put it back. And that, when you do it for a long time, it becomes very extreme, it kills everything around it. It's like the burnt earth kind of concept, right? So what I'm talking about is innovation that's based on a mixed back. Some people innovate because they're interested in other people or the planet. You can't innovate without prosperity in the long run. It's a mixed thing. But I work a lot with startups and every time I see a startup that says we're going to vent in AI, for example, that is a therapist. That can be like a therapist. Lots of people are doing that these days. I'm saying like, I don't quite understand. Isn't that really what happens between people, what we do for each other? Do we need an AI now to, so I can marry a robot? There's people inventing that too. But anyway, the answer to that is it's always going to be a mixed back. And I think it's fine if some people are 100% for profit and other ones are 100% for people planet. That also works. But the stock market right now is dominated by GDP. And basically what's happening is you can make a lot of money doing very bad things. And as long as you continue in that direction, we're in deep trouble. So we make a lot of money doing very good things. That would be the key. When we talk about a lot of money, is it easier to slow down technology or climate change? Okay, I think it's very hard to slow down technology. But it's a little bit like, I live in Switzerland not too far from CERN in Geneva. And CERN said last year, they can invent nuclear fusion. They're ready. And they can do an experiment to see if it works. And if it works, climate change solved, unlimited energy. If it doesn't work, Switzerland is a crater. So we said, that's probably not so good. But we can see in principle how that works. That's basically coming towards us. With technology it's much more difficult because the Oppenheimer film that's coming out I think in two weeks, it talks about exactly this problem. Most scientists and technologists don't want to be restricted in inventing. And I agree that's important. At the same time, we have to look at the consequences. We are barely going to survive the green climate, the climate issue because of what we've done. We're definitely not going to survive doing the same with the AI. You know, just going forward and then saying, okay, oh shit, now we've got to fix. No, right? So I think this time is time for more pro-action. And that's why I think tech is a little bit harder than climate change. How to increase people's sense of connection with themselves and with each other in order to focus on achieving the brighter future for all humanity. On social networks, no. Yeah, well, we make an AI for that, right? Whoops. Now, I think in principle it's really quite easy. We have to invest the same amount of resource into humanity than we invest in technology. For example, the concept of saying that everybody should be an engineer and study science, technology, engineering. Yeah, in principle, of course, everybody should know how to do that, you know? And in principle, yes. But that's not the ticket to the future. You know why? Because machines will do that. Machines are already programming. Machines are already doing AI experiments in the cloud. They can do routine jobs. If you're a routine engineer, you're in deep shit because basically in 10 years, you're finished with your job unless you become non-routine. So the ticket to our future is to be more human, not less. This is of course the ultimate answer to this question. And we need to put more money into education, more money into music and ethics and art and everything else because that is what we do. Like I said earlier, let the machines be competent, but not conscious. A conscious machine would not be survivable for us. So we have like two questions. One is now very popular. You were talking about taxes for frequent flyers that only affect regular people. How to solve the problem that regular people usually watch celebrities flying on their private jets regularly. You know, I think the basic rule is we should start paying what it actually costs. I mean, as simple as that, right? If we're gonna rent an Airbnb on the Creation Coast, what are the costs of that Airbnb? They are also the costs to the people who live next to the Airbnb who are maybe put out of a job or can't afford their apartments anymore. So maybe we should have a culture tax like Portugal is looking at. I mean, taxes are difficult, right? But anyway, if you fly a lot like I do, you should pay a steep penalty because you can afford it, right? I mean, it's like, okay, I'm gonna find a Shanghai for one day for a speech. Okay, I'll pay a thousand euros in climate charge. That is logical, right? It's painful, but so I think there we clearly have to start paying what it costs and we have to look beyond the immediate result which is income. A lot of hotel groups around the world, they have the strategy of going somewhere like Costa Rica or Canary Island and so on. And they exploit the environment and the people as long as they can and then just drop it, right? And these kinds of situations, cruise ships, same thing, are completely unsustainable. So in many ways like cruise ships may be a bit of a mission impossible. You know, how do you make a cruise ship sustainable? I don't know. It seems by principle that we should not pursue that, but flying and traveling is human. So we want to meet and we have to solve this problem. Okay, so in the near future, I have to inform you that you will be still flying a lot of times to Croatia because if we send you with Croatian trains, you'll be late for the 2025, future times. Thank you, Gerrit. Ladies and gentlemen, clap your hands. Thank you, thank you. It was a near heart, it was a pleasure.