 It's an honor to be here. But please don't get me hacked. I have KGB on my tail. Machines already hate me. So I need as many as good human friends I can find in this room. Yeah and I can't help teasing American audience saying that oh there's one little piece of free there from my biography that in fact I was born and raised in a deep south right next to Georgia. Actually it's true. Oh wait a second. It's just okay. Machines hate me I told you. Yes they just missed up. One slide is missing but look it was really deep south of the USSR in the republic of Georgia. Yeah. So and speaking of my homeland it's just a funny story that my latest book Deep Thinking was about AI, my own experience, fighting, working with machines and the book before two years ago was called Winter's Come. It was not a synopsis of Game of Thrones. It was about Vladimir Putin and the elements of the free world and while I was on the book tour everybody wanted to ask me about chess and IBM Deep Blue. Now when I'm touring with Deep Thinking everybody wants to ask me about Putin. But I'll try to stick to the topic. I'm sure there will be a couple of questions afterwards. So I would be very happy to answer them. So I'm not a politician I don't duck questions. So it might seem strange that the Game of Chess ancient game, fifteen hundred two thousand years old God knows. It's you know it's a perfect analogy of artificial intelligence because we talk about when we talk about AI we should remember that there's a lot of eye intelligence and what could be better than chess to demonstrate that. Surprisingly a lot of people believe that chess is kind of the odd game played by nerds in the dark corner of the cafe. But to the contrary when just you look at Hollywood. Hollywood always used it as the shorthand for smarts for their characters. You know aliens play chess, X-Men, wizards, I can even mention vampires not in the picture. Humphry Moggard it's an opening stage of Casablanca one of my favorite movies and for the chess gigs if somebody plays chess here I can tell you because I studied this position I looked inside. It's a real opening as a French defense that was popular in the early 40s. Humphry Moggard was a decent chess player. So and I can also mention that Alfred Binet are one of the co-creators of IQ test at the end of the 19th century. He was fascinated with chess class minds and he studied it for years again looking for some shortcuts to the secrets of human intelligence. And it's not surprising that also game of chess attracted those who wanted to build intelligent machines. But as usual the first one is as you can see it's the Turk, Von Kempelins Turk was a hoax. It was a big miracle at the end of the 18th century. It was touring Europe and America. It beat some decent players and also some very famous weak players like Franklin and Napoleon. But of course it was a hoax. It was not a real playing machine. It was an ingenious system of panels and sliding panels and mirrors and a strong player was hiding inside. The funny thing is that today more than 200 years later almost 25 years later the problem is the opposite. In the tournaments we have other kind of hoax when the chess players are trying to hide a device in their pocket. So now you have to look for computer hiding in the human body. And the Von Kempelins story is famous but the second one is the story circulator. It's a very little known story about a mechanical device. Mechanical device in 1912 was introduced. It could play only with one piece but it actually could make a mate with a room. But still it was you know it was you can say the prototype, the first computer. The most interesting thing is that the founding fathers of computer science like Alan Turing and Claude Channon they were both they had great interest for the game of chess and they believed. They believed that the game of chess could also could be an opener for this ultimate secrets of human intelligence. And if one day chess computer plays well against the world champion or beats the world champion that will be the moment of revelation. Few remember that Alan Turing actually rolled the first chess program all the way back in 1952 and it was a great accomplishment but the most important one that there was no computer. So it was just an algorithm that he used to play this one game and he acted like a human CPU. So now it's important to remember that the founding fathers thought that the way AI will manifest itself is basically following the same path as humans. So it will be kind of the replica the way we work. To the contrary the expectations actually moved in the opposite direction with brute force. So now I entered the competition against machines in 1985. You could look at this picture it's not 10 actually 32 boards and I played humans but as a matter of fact the real game was against computers. There are four leading manufacturers of chess computers at that time there were some dedicated chess machines maybe some of you have them still like you know a piece of antique. And they had eight models each and I played 32. And I won all 32 games. But what's very important it was not a surprise. Everybody thought it was a very natural result and every time I look at this picture and look at these games I have a sign that was a golden age of chess. Machines were weak and my hair was strong. 1985 June 12 years later I faced just one computer just one computer. By the way people tend to forget that match in 1997 was a rematch because I won the first one in 1996 in Philadelphia. And okay I love this match but just to be fair the watershed moment for the computer chess was not in 1997 but I would say 1996 in Philadelphia. Though I won the match but I lost game one. Then I fought back and I won three more games winning the match 4-2-2. But the fact that machine was able to be the world chess jumper in a normal chess game that was already like a big sign on the wall. The rest was a matter of technique though I didn't expect IBM chess to do so much work and just to come back a year later with a stronger machine. But the biggest mistake except not asking for stop options. Two weeks of the event and it rose something like 11.4 billion dollars in value. Okay but the biggest mistake was not reading the fine print. Because one of the problems in 1996 that I faced while playing blue was it was a black box. I didn't know anything about the opponent and while preparing for the game whether it's a chess game or soccer game or whatever. You always look at the games and some strategies used by your opponent. Now deep blue no information. Now I tried to be smart and I said for the next match we have to make sure that I will have access to the games played by deep blue. They said absolutely. But the fine print set played in official competitions. And of course deep blue has not played a single game outside of the lab. So in 1997 I faced a black box. Unfortunately I won the first game and I lost the match. By the way where were you hackers 20 years ago when I needed you? So I think that looking at Fran Rose some of you maybe might not even be born. So the problem with that match was that I still treated the match as the great scientific and social experiment. Because I thought it would be great just to actually check at what point human intuition could be matched or even just over shadowed by the brute force of calculation. And again deep blue even with this phenomenal speed 200 million positions per second pretty good speed for 1997 was anything but intelligent. The way deep blue played that offered us no input in the mysteries of human intelligence. It was as intelligent as your alarm clock. They were losing to 10 million dollar alarm clock didn't make me feel any better. And I just realized that I remember opening ceremony of the match when actually the press conference when the man who led the project said it's the end of scientific experiment now it's about winning. That was definitely about winning and losing. So when I lost to deep blue of course I wanted to play another match and IBM retired the computer. I said they killed the only impartial witness. And I was actually trying to find out what's happened with deep blue just I couldn't. But lately I discovered now it has a new career. It's making sushi in jet blue terminal in JFK. I love sushi but I don't eat there. Some I don't know why. So again the story was over for chess and that's very quickly because I'm sure some of you playing chess. Whether it's chess we talk about gore about other games humans are vulnerable because we don't have steady act. We make mistakes. So even the great game played by the world leading players at the very top world championship match say 15 moves 45 moves for great moves one tiny necklace is inevitable. In the human game it doesn't matter. In the fighting machine you'll be punished. Not losing maybe not losing the game but definitely not winning. So machine will escape. So I just realized at one point that it just will matter of time because we cannot reach the same level of vigilance and precision that is required to be the machine because machine does the steady act. Again we saw the same in gore many years later actually. Lately machine conquered the game of gore as well. But again it was just about the game of chess. And it's a game proved to be vulnerable to the brute force. But it's you know it was not it was not yet an AI as it's been from patents by IBM and by still people remember the match saying oh it was the dawn of AI actually not. And later on I played few more matches with the machines because when these days I analyzed these games using the modern chess engines you know it was quite a painful experience traveling back to the past revisiting it and recognizing how poor I played in this match. I had to blame myself. But also that the blue was not strong enough. This is something that you may not believe but a free chess app on your mobile device today is stronger than the blue. Yes trust me. Yeah and of course if you have a chess engine like you know stockfish or camo dough and you have on your laptop it's much much stronger. And I just you know run these games and it's one of the moments I think game five just look at the end game and the blue safe game by Miracle and everybody talked about the great escape and phenomenal quality of chess today you put it in the computer it's it's it laughs. It shows within 30 seconds to a minute depending on the strength of your of your of the speed of your laptop is that first it was a draw the blue made a mistake then I made a mistake missing win and then the blue saved the game. So it's okay that's the that's that's a more law I guess. And there's nothing wrong about it. And those two more matches I played in 2003 the both match and in the draw I played actually I forced me to wear the glasses to play on X3D as if playing machine was not you know tough enough. Yeah I just did I did well so I was quite pleased with with with my accomplishment but again the story was over. So I knew it and I just was thinking in the future and just what gave me a good thought just look at this picture this is the kids so you have the 90s you have the the beginning of the century the century and then modern days. So kids you know they just they have to look at the it's like piece of antique my kids will not recognize it. So then this is more sophisticated keyboards and now they just they're sliding their fingers. So what is important that is it's it more intelligent machines make our task easier. I'm I'm telling you that so you know better than anyone else. So unleashing our human creativity by clearing away their repetitive and technical tasks. So then I had a story. How about combining the strengths of machine and humans. And let's use chess as the as as an example because in chess you have the result. You know exactly where machine is strong and you know exactly what machine cannot do as well as humans. So I came up with with a concept that I called advanced chess. Okay following the famous Russian say you can't beat them during them. So I call this advanced chess. Man plus machine facing another human plus machine. So and in 1998 I played another elite player. You can see this picture with those had pieces of antique. Now the interesting thing is that we did not do well because we were not we were not able to maximize the effect of work with the computer. And I just don't know why great players. So what's wrong with that. So why we didn't do well. And then again the answer came later with the introduction of the so called a freestyle chess tournament on intimate or I call invitation for cheating. You can play an internet being connected to the supercomputer. You can have your own computer. You can have many computers. I mean do whatever you want. Now as predicted human plus machine always dominated supercomputer. Again the reason is very simple. Because machine compensates for our weaknesses. So we get we get a good position then you can switch to the computer. So no more vulnerabilities of humans that can be exploited by the other machine. But the trick was not this that's that was not a sensational result. The sensational result was that the winners of the competition the first one and it was repeated later were not top players. But actually relatively weak players. Working with ordinary machines but having superior process. And that led me to to make this a formulation which I think is quite important because it's it's hard to understand and sounds like a paradox that a weak player plus an ordinary machine plus a superior process will be dominant in the game against a strong player even strong computer and inferior process interface decides everything. And it's quite amazing that it's just you you don't need a strong player. You don't need Gary Kasparov just to be at the at the side of the machine finding the best moves. And the answer is simple. Because when you look at the relative strengths of humans and machines today and I will go beyond chess but let's start with chess because in chess we have numbers. If you are aware with the with the ratings and the rankings in chess world just to give you an idea when on my my top rating was 2851 when I retired was that dropped out 2012. Magnus Carlson is traversing the 2800 territory as well. There are about 50 players or plus in 2700 early 2800 category. That's that's that's that's an elite of the world of chess. Now today is the strength of the computer. It's about 3200. Now and on dedicated software it will be 33 to 3400. Now we understand why you don't need a strong player because strong player like myself will be tempted to push the machine in this direction that direction. I will be challenging machines evaluations while to the contrary have to be an operator. So a decent player that doesn't have the same pride the same honor as the world champion or strong player will be far more effective in creating the human machine human machine combination. I think this is this isn't it's very important discovery in chess and I believe it goes beyond chess. For instance in medicine we know today that in many cases machines are far more accurate in giving diagnosis than the best doctors. So would you would you like a good doctor to work with a machine or a good nurse that will just follow instructions will do little guidance but not will interfere because if I don't know the exact numbers but say the doctor will be good in 66% of cases machine 85%. Numbers are on the other side but psychologically if you're a good doctor you cannot accept it. So when we look at the at the progress of computers these days is just basically we should realize that machines can't whether it's online translation medical diagnosis you name it could be good at climbing at 80, 85 maybe 90% but now that's that's that's where we belong to humans the last decimal places and it could make a hell of a difference it's like you know when we shoot a bullet just you know one degree difference in the angle and it could you know be 100 meters gap you know on the wide on the target. So the same as here it's it's it's about our ability to actually channel this massive computing power and just to find the right right direction for that. So and so I still believe that with all the fears that machines are just going to replace us and just you know it will be the end of the world that are my get them. I believe there's room there's plenty of room because as I said it's about human creativity and these unique tools intelligent machines will enhance our creativity unleash our creativity if we know how to use it. So one of the actually looking for the answers sometimes you go off off site not in the not searching in the world of science but in the world of art and I found quite a good paradox that was allegedly said by by great artist computers are useless they can only give us answers. I think it's a piece of wisdom again you don't expect you know Picasso to be on the side of philosophy but I find it I find it quite quite encouraging because machines find answers and answers and an end and Picasso not accept ends he was an artist it's he had constantly reinvent he had to reinvent constantly his art that's what we do so this is exactly where we where we have to start asking questions. Can machine ask questions once I I pay the visit to the bridge water this is the largest one the reason I wanted to talk to this routine the father the founder of Watson and we talked about machines asking questions and where they will debate and he said yes machines can ask questions but they don't know what questions are relevant. Thank you so that's exactly the point so we are we are still you know still in the game we're still in game we still have a chance to move on and again that gives me a lot of a lot of confidence that the game the game is not over and just few pictures so I some photos from the future of autonomous machines and machines that essentially program themselves so one picture there is Demis Chassabis and these alpha go actually this is a problem the first machine that that could be called a prototype of AI as I said deep blue brute force Watson still it's it's maybe it's a transition but it's not AI now alpha go is it's it's a deep learning program that keeps reinventing itself by looking for the patterns while playing millions and millions and games now I can tell you that's the first time that we are dealing with with real black box because with the blue for instance if you had 100 years to spare and and you will be willing to look for thousands of miles of of of logs you'll definitely go back to the original idea why this decision was made now with alpha go I don't believe that even Demis Chassabis can tell you why version six place better than version nine or other way around so it's it's a great accomplishment one side but on other side it might be challenging because if there's the if there's a bug so how we need to find it out but again that's moves that that that's a move in in in this AI is AI direction and while I just you know I was I was I spoke at Google's HQ at a mountain view and they gave me a tour of Google X this is an interesting observation because obviously there are many challenges for self-driving cars and for other projects for for the drones flying drones dropping goods but the biggest problem actually comes not from another problem problem as big as a technical one comes from regulations and this is an interesting question people say oh machines are just killing jobs you know that's a replacing humans so what are we going to do that's called history of civilization that that that has been happening over millenials hundreds of years I think to the country the problem is not that machines are replacing replacing human jobs now on on the intelligent intellectual side I said now machines are going after people with college degrees and Twitter accounts not too fast I think too slow and let me tell you why because it's a normal cycle we just don't recognize that disruption means that the new technology breaks through technology before it creates jobs that kills jobs it it it renders whole industries redundant obsolete and then it creates new jobs this is a process this is a cycle now if you try to portray the agonies by sticking with the old technologies by whatever printing money or just creating some artificial advantages for the old industries you make this process slower and more painful it's going to happen anyway but the problem is that with so many regulations we're just facing that many things that just as being intentionally slowed down and I believe this is this is even bigger problem than than the challenges we're facing and it's psychologically people say oh how can we see it in the driver's car really I just looked in our back and this is found that hundred years ago one of the most powerful unions in New York City was the union of elevator operators really 17,000 strong yeah it's because people by the way technology to push the button was there already but people didn't trust it you know how can you get in the elevator and just to push the button you know what's you know why why this union died and when what people switched on because one day they decided to go and strike in the Empire State building they decided maybe you're rather push the button and I'm thinking now just 20 or so years from now that our kids our grandchildren you see I was crazy guys they were driving cars look at the statistics this is one of the greatest causes of human death how could they afford to do this and of course you know this is it's pure psychology so so many accidents we know people being killed in car accidents but if you have one accident in the driver's car that's a big story any any glitch any mistake you know maybe with AI with new technology that's a story you know front page of newspaper but against statistically come on this you know simply don't just look at numbers yes I understand it's bad if you are in this you know in this tiny percentage but as the as a humanity will all win if we just move forward you know just without being paralyzed by by this by this field so and it's a picture of the it's a vast security center and you know another question is now because we talk about fake news and we talk about cybersecurity this is this is a big political issue and there are many calls so how how are we going to fight hate speech for instance so I do regular blogs for a vast my new one that will be released in a couple of days is it's about hate speech as I say it's the fight and hate saving speech because we just we should realize that this problem did exist before it's not that they're being invented they're being magnified because internet just involves millions and actually billions of people in again I think it's good news and just we should simply realize that it's trying to stop it trying to outlaw it you know it's not going to work because you'll still have to solve this world you have other you know bad guys sitting elsewhere that they will use our technology created in the free world against us so I think we should just embrace it that's my view so I always say it's about us the answer is inside us it's about our own strengths and our own confidence and I say that intelligent machines will not make us obsolete our complacency might so I think that is just you know we we should just realize that again there's certain limitations in these corporations of human and machines but there's plenty of room just plenty of room as it happened before it opens new opportunities it destroys the own world and creates a new one and soon we move forward better we are now it's just now let's move to more of just so it's a science fiction world it's an interesting paradox that when you go back 50 60 years the science fiction was all positive it was all utopian and then gradually it moved from utopian to dystopian you we don't want to hear about this future by the way it didn't happen just overnight it was a time when people decided maybe it's too it's too risky to to do the space exploration actually what it is to risk you just imagine that in 1969 1969 when America's land on the moon the entire computing power of NASA was less than a computing power of any device in your pocket here so this device is thousand times more powerful than crazy supercomputer 40 years ago so just imagine for a moment how much power will carry with us and how we use this I'm not sure just this that apple iPhone 7 is the same as Apollo 7 this has the same effect and I think there's many great things that can happen if we start looking for you know just for the sky for for the stars again deep ocean there's so many great things we can do and again we should realize that machines they offering us an opportunity to take larger risk and just I wanted to end up on on a positive note is it positive actually it is no by the way the picture in the bottom yes it's not it's not a photoshop it's a real one yes I was in the office of the terminator in 2003 yeah but you love the game of chess his kids you know had this kind of mandatory lessons and we play the game of chess yes ended in the draw very quickly and he was I'm sure he was so excited that six months later you run for the governor of California and one now you think why the picture is there why it's why it's why I call it positive because you know set aside the first movie in the rest of the of the series series it's it's not just you know Arnold we always is always on a winning side you know all but not obsolete beating new machines but actually it's a combination of what I described humans earlier it's a human plus an old machine plus a superior interface dominating newest machines so I guess it gives us a little bit of you know just of confidence that working with machines and having the best interface and I'm sure you know you guys are just the best in the world can do that so this is how we move forward and and then for those who say yes but machines will eventually get everything done so this is no matter what they'll calculate everything because machines know the odds they will calculate oh it's not about calculating everything by the way the game of chess for instance is technically you call mathematical infinite 10 power 45 number of legal moves that's more than enough for any computer in the universe but the most important thing is this again is this in the games it's all you know just it's it's can be not calculated but machine can be always ahead of humans it's all about playing by the rules and you know the rules are fixed you know that's machine can you know just find the best best path in in in in this jungle but now if we move into the if we move into the just normal situation in our lives are you sure that machines can can be helpful all the time let's look at the very simple ordering situation one day you have your computer running your budget and you are in the store you buying a gift an expensive gift and machine beeps ah you're at the limit machine knows the odds but just one more one slight change you have your kid next to you and it's his birthday or her birthday now how does it change the equation it changes everything it could be a wedding gift or whatever I can start adding these little things that will change everything and I don't think you can simply you know incorporate it into in this equation so definitely we have you know we have we have a lot of room it's like asking the question it's because the situation changes and this is this is something that you can call ordinary but I had something that's falling the movies I have something more dramatic let's look for something that is extraordinary in Pius right back you remember this this this little episode the answer is is is is directly ship into the field of asteroids and the C3P always just the chances of surviving in this field are 3,720 to one never tell me the odds now it's interesting it's just just let's go from the humorous part to a real one who was right technically C3P was right the chances of surviving were slim to none and maybe technically being caught by Imperial Guard was a better option was it because humans could recognize that even if technically for the computer in the computer eyes the chance of being caught by by Imperial Guard it's all for the better all better odds that was not an option at all so this is very important that in many cases again both simple ordinary and extraordinary highly unusual so we still have room we still have room to move on and just to to make all the difference I'm saying that's human leadership is still required and sometimes sometimes it that will mean go going against the computer recommendations so the essence of human leadership is not a question of knowing the odds but a question of knowing what really matters not just today or tomorrow but for the distant future call it human guidance or you may even call it human interference interference with our intelligent machines and I believe that will set the course for this century sometimes it surprises people that I'm such an optimist about intelligent machines considering my personal experience but I am I'm an optimist it's uncured optimist by nature I have to say and I believe that you all too are optimistic about the future of humans and intelligent machines because we should remember our technology is agnostic it's neither good nor bad and it could be used for good or evil the machines will keep getting smarter and more capable and it's up to we humans to do what only humans can do dream and dream big so we can get the most out of this amazing new tools thank you 10 minutes yes exactly as planned yes so hi hi this is a distant player yes management time hi here can I ask you a question now yeah here I have one so I recently saw a reddit post about a composition that the stock fish couldn't solve is possible to create a machine learning system that detects what problems are more likely to be solved for a human than any computer do you hear the question it's the sound is somehow I don't know why but the sound is just it's quite in your left I'm in your left it's this again this is where it's just that's the DEF CON conference and the yes yes here here oh yeah okay I can hear this okay all right so I saw a composition that couldn't be solved so for a stock fish so yes I mentioned stock fish but there are many other problems it's possible to create a machine learning classifier that detects what kind of opposition is easier to play for a human or more likely to be played better for a human look I see it's the first of all you don't expect in a machine to make a first move and to announce and made in 17,555 moves so and I think definitely we can you know we can use machines just for for the best recommendations for specific styles and that's by the way what the top players are doing they're always looking for machines as the sort of as the as the as the guides to help them to get to the positions that they like most so and because again you have to just recognize that machine evaluation is in nine out of ten cases is is far superior to the humans all right thanks hello would you agree that real yeah would you agree that real intelligence requires free will and free choices that only humans can make and deep blue and any computer program is actually written by people and when you lose to deep blue you don't lose to a machine you lose to a programmer programmers of those programs oh so my question is do you think we are in any danger of any kind of intelligence until computer can have free will it's a yeah we're moving now from the scientific domain to to philosophy as for deep blue is very clear it was a product of of of a great war by by humans and I you know I in in most of the cases we dealing even with alpha god and with them it's the same it's still the result of the work of of human intelligence now what the machines could have a free will or not I don't know I used to I used to believe that anything that we do while knowing how we do that machines will do better but there are many things that we do without knowing how we do that without even recognizing it's why it's happening and I don't think it will be easy for machines if possible at all to grasp it so for instance we have purpose but we don't know what purpose is so that's why I think it's just if we talk about free will which is somehow connected to the purpose so I think it's it might be very very distant future for machines to to get on close to that over here yeah what are your thoughts on human characteristics such as bravery and morality and the decisions that artificial intelligence can make related to that for example a vehicle choosing to hit a child or go off a cliff and help kill a driver that's exactly this is that states you may call it passion because it's all different you know human characteristics that cannot be quantified at least easily quantified and that state that's why I use the unsolid example because at the end of the day when you saw when you were talking about bravery it's it's very often go against the odds so I think this machines by definition we are not be able to grasp it since since they are basic they they they based on on on sort of the best defining the best patterns and sort of the best evaluations and being brave and being passionate very often in most of the cases go goes against the precise calculation. Mr. Kasparov I have a question a computer would not consider important what's in your flask and may I try something? What is contained in your flask? I actually have the stoly that you pulled out of your pocket I think that's what he wants to know. My pocket? That's not an advertising. So you know I just dropped it. Who will be the next human world champion and do you think the young Chinese player Wei Yi has a chance to dethrone Carlson? Currently Magnus Carlson is this is the number one player just not a world champion he's still the dominant player he is 20 he will be turning 27 this year so he's still quite young though but not very young by the modern standards I think he's 18 or 19 so I think Magnus will be facing younger players there are two young Americans like Wesley Sohn, Fabiana Karawana and Wei Yi by definition makes a potential challenger to be the world champion requires more than talent and being young and energetic you need probably the element of luck but Wei Yi definitely is in the category of those who can and most likely will challenge Magnus Carlson. You discussed primarily deterministic algorithms or even basic machine learning when you were talking about using machines as tools to supplement our intelligence. However what do you say to the immense amounts of resources being poured into creating a strong AI or even putting a human brain into a computer? Yeah but again I always have to confess you know my ignorance and sometimes I just I'm not sure I'm in position to answer the question but something that always you know was I was always struggling to understand whether human brains let's imagine you can just separate it from our body what it can function separately because I don't know and this is probably you guys know better so how the brains functioning outside of the body whether the fact is that it's moving so it's connected to our body makes it makes it work the way it works maybe not we don't with the end this is a kind of an experiment that definitely we'll see maybe in the future but my view is that it's the combination of the movements and other human factors and emotions create the mind that is just it's bigger than just simply you know taking the brain and freezing it and using it as the device full of neurons. Thank you. Yep. I was wondering in light of the trend of machines eliminating human jobs what are your thoughts on the idea of universal basic income? Yeah. Just this again is the. Any other question? Sorry. Okay. What are your thoughts on the idea of machines sorry of universal basic income? No it's the I think it's a very important question because clearly we are moving at just moving reaching the point where a lot of people will be just left behind since it's kind of a paradox of the technological progress on one side we have great new technologies that make that gives huge competitive advantage to younger people just you know every new generation is far more sophisticated just by dealing with this with these devices on other side we have a progress in medicine and a diet that helps people to live longer and just to keep their just you know ability to work for many for longer years so but obviously my generation at 50s and of course 60s and even in 40s it's just it's can hardly be competitive with the young kids just moving in so we have to look for this paradox and for this growing gap because we just have a gap that from history we know always led to big explosions a gap between the social infrastructure society and the technological progress and what you said is probably it's a part of the part of the solution but the problem is that the politicians they are just trying to dump it you know just to to to to the next to the next elections nobody wants to talk about it because it's painful because it basically challenges the very foundation of the of the sort of modern world although it's much easier to do quantitative easing you know and keep printing money so thinking that somebody else will pay so there's many many paradoxes that that make me feel uneasy because for instance the piling debt will have to pay by younger younger younger people but will it be willing to do it and keeping the social guarantees for the old generation that made this debt I think we are just you know it's no it's again I there are more questions that what I can ask them then then then then answers that I can produce hopefully I can help us with that but at the end of the day it's it's it's very troubling that the political class in a free world for for for years if not for decades is trying to to to ignore the problems that we are just discussing now because these problems will if they're already manifesting they're already on display and just you know ignoring the fact is that yet as we have this this the technological progress the the huge development of in many areas is inevitably changing our lives it's it's extremely counterproductive and and it's the best basically neglecting our future thank you that is all the time we have for questions thank you very much everybody