 I'd now like to take some questions from the audience, if you would give us your name. And if you have any particular association that would be important for us to know, for example, if you have a question for Holger about Airbus and you happen to be working for Boeing, please tell us that, and I'll start right here. I'm Matilde Pak, I'm an economist at DOECD, working on the Korea-Sweden desk. I have a question for Mr. Barrow regarding his comment on the knowledge availability on internet. Completely agree with you. I mean, when I compare my very first presentation and when I was a young student and right now, I mean, there's a big, big gap. But this requires to have the digital skills. And for that, we have a big gap between the young generation and the elderly. In the case of Korea, which is a really high technology society, you have the young generation, which has almost no problem of basic skills, why the elderly do. So what would you suggest so that the whole population can benefit, make the most of technology changes? Why also be aware of the dangers that Mrs. Luto raised? What would you recommend? And I know that in that matter, we often recommend lifelong learning. And in that case, how should it be done? Should the government centralize and take care of lifelong learning? Or should it be taken care of the level of firms? And if so, how would firms get the right incentive to promote this life learning? Thank you. Thank you. It's a very good and interesting question. One of the obsessions right now regarding the proliferation of data is what I call digital inclusion. As you remember, when a few years ago, you have access to limited data, now it's huge and huge. Data without correlation or no meanings has zero effect. Now technology can help as well. Imagine you are on vacation with 25 people in a big home in the south of France and every morning you have a room full of socks, pants, trousers and whatever, those are the data, okay? If somebody who has no knowledge how to put things together in a house like me as an example, I will be totally lost. Now the new algorithm will put information together, socks with socks, with age, with family and whatever. So the next generation algorithm are creating correlation with datas. That means saying to the person, think about all the closers in a room. And most of the leaders in the digital technology have again an obsession which is to make data relevant to people or to communities. And the next generation algorithm does that. There is a huge effort right now in country cities to bring technology to people because before you had to go to technology and I'm very confident that it will help the older generation to have access to these fantastic tools. Well said, Francois. The next hand I saw was over here. Wait for the mic, please. My name is Stanislas Coson, Capgemini. Question to you, Holger. I was intrigued by this question of security versus freedom and the example you gave of crossing roads and autonomous vehicles and the behavior of people. I thought this is a profound situation. I mean, it's stunning. And my question would be, what is the role of education in helping people learn how to behave as free citizens in our civilization in the new world of new technologies? Well, education is of course the key and I wish everybody would be well educated and has good manners, behave nicely. But of course, human beings often don't and this is the question how then we deal with those who don't. Because we usually say, well, for instance, at the end of the day, the computers need to be controlled by the human being. I say by Mr. Hitler, by Mr. Stalin, by Mr. Mao, by Mr. Pol Pot, no, no, only by good guys. But who's that? Who defines that? That's the problem. And of course, if we say, well, this is something, you know, how human beings should interact well. If you look at the social structure of street gangs in Los Angeles or Mexico City, you would see this is a different behavior than we all have here. So yes, education, it would be great if this works and if we have only good people, you know, so to speak, but there are bad guys out there for whatever reason and we have to somehow deal with this or with people who misbehave and all that and a state that comes up with the rules but doesn't care about rule enforcement or law enforcement undermines the respectful law, which is a problem. And I want, you know, the local communities, if you wish, to discuss, well, should we have a speed limit of 30 kilometers per hour in front of the school? And if the people say by huge majority, yes, that's a good idea to protect our children, then I don't want people to speed there. So either you may come up with a rule there and then you have radar checks and you make sure that people behave or you don't care and undermine the whole respectful law. I wish everybody would respect 30 anyway, but we know how few people do if you don't have checks. Susan, you had one finger. I just wanted to address this very important question as well. There's a lot that we don't know about behavior. So for example, if you have a bot babysitter, is it okay to be insulting in front of your child to the bot? I mean, after all, it's a machine. Are we gonna be educating children to be disrespectful to Siri or Amazon Alexa even though we tell them that they should be respectful to adults? So these blurred boundaries of behavior with machines are quite complicated. And as was just said, who gets to decide in terms of the programming of these machines? There was an incident, many of you may have seen a couple of years ago with a Microsoft bot called Tay that was put out a bit too early and started spouting incredibly racist and anti-semitic remarks. And Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft promptly withdrew Tay and fixed the problem. But the reality is that many stakeholders have a say in behavior these days in ways that are unprecedented. And I think we need to watch out very carefully. How scary is that? We now have about 15 minutes left. So I encourage both speakers and the questioners in the audience to be very succinct. We'll come down here. The next hand I saw was here. Merci. Monsieur Laichoubi, ancien ministre, politologue. Je voudrais suggérer l'élargissement du spectre du débat avec une question essentielle de rapport entre science et éthique. Nous avons eu deux grandes phases. La première phase avec Newton, Laplace, Maxwell. Se chauffer, se soigner, voyager, communiquer. Puis les années 30, on a eu une poussée exponentielle des technologies avec des dérives. Le plutonium, Bopal, le sang contaminé, Tchernobyl. Des grandes désillusions. Et puis on peut additioner, vous l'avez évoqué, les grandes compétitions géopolitiques où les uns et les autres considèrent que les nouvelles technologies la rassurent la prééminence. 61 Académies des sciences européennes réunis à la commémoration des 350 années de l'Académie des sciences françaises ont estimé qu'il y a un risque de rupture entre la science et la société. Alors la question, bien sûr, on revient à la question de l'éthique, à quelle stratégie de recherche quand on sait que les Japonais ont décidé d'inverser totalement leur recherche, de la mettre à la disposition du besoin social. Alors, est-ce que nous sommes tous concernés par certains types, un angle géopolitique exacerbé? Est-ce que cela nous concerne la suprématie d'un tel sur l'autre? Est-ce que l'humanité n'a pas besoin de notre débat? Merci. Francois, would you take a crack at that? Je vais répondre en français à M. le ministre. En fait, j'en ai un petit peu parlé. Dans le type de projet technologique, il y a deux types de progrès. Il y a le progrès encadré. Et vous avez cité toutes les révolutions industrielles avec d'ailleurs des cycles de champetteur très, très long. Et en fait, on a la science cadrée, a mis en place un process, un framework qui permettait de faire progresser l'humanité. Et puis un jour, internet est arrivé, le smartphone, etc. et on a transféré cette puissance de feu à l'individu. Et je l'ai déjà dit plusieurs fois à la conférence, internet a été la plus grosse révolution industrielle en termes de création de valeur sans aucune gouvernance. Au début, internet était un outil de communication entre A et B, les universités, et devenu un outil de communication entre des personnes. Les SMS, on refait un juste un peu d'histoire. Au début, c'était un 9-1-1, c'est-à-dire un numéro d'urgence au Japon qui a été détourné par les adolescents japonais qui sont très timides, et ils ont utilisé donc, il y avait 300 caractères, à faire une sorte de jeu de séduction, etc. Et là où le babless, c'est à la fois inquiétant et fascinant, c'est que quand vous donnez un outil à des individus où vous nous contrôlez, débrouillez-vous, vous ne savez pas où ça va. On a eu le printemps arabe, on a eu les gilets jaunes, qui sont des nouvelles formes de démocratie. Je ne discute pas le bien fondé, mais ça a complètement échappé au système organisé et régalisé qui encadre. Donc, par rapport à ce que vous dites, c'est qu'il y a une ambivalence, c'est-à-dire que soit on continue à cadrer le progrès, ce qui a toujours été fait dans les machines, soit on donne aux citoyens des outils pour qu'ils se développent communiques, et là finalement, on ne sait pas comment ça va puisqu'il n'y a pas de gouvernance internet. Que vous gagnez 100 millions de dollars sur une transaction où vous demandez l'heure, on ne réinjecte pas la création de valeur là-dedans. C'est pour ça qu'il y a des dérives, absolument, et qu'il convient de les encadrer, mais chaque fois qu'on va encadrer quelque chose qui ne l'a pas été, on va nous traiter de rétrogrades ou de personnes conservateurs. John Sawyer's has a chip shot on this. I just wanted to come in on this point because I didn't mention much about Europe's role on this. There is certainly some very interesting and important technology development taking place in Europe, although we are falling behind both the United States and China in terms of both basic research and how we exploit that at the corporate level. But I think the European Union has an important regulatory role here. I implied a reference to the general data privacy, GDPR regulation that Europe pushed through a couple of years ago, which is now a global standard. We're seeing now the work at the European Commission on the taxation of global corporates in the technology sector. And I think this will also become a global standard, even though Washington is kicking and screaming about it. There is a certain role here in terms of regulating this rather wild world where Europe can play a role, but I think in order to have that influence we will also need to invest more in basic research and building up our corporates in order to enable the areas where Europe does have an edge and aerospace and so on is certainly one of those in the years to come. So in many ways, the biggest challenge that regulators will face over the coming generation is how we transfer the rule of law we have in the physical world into the virtual world. And I think there's an important leadership role that Europe can take in this. Kicking and screaming is the order of the day in Washington now, John. Johnny, have you had a brief, brief remark? Yes, but I agree because when we are at the US and China are the first and that Europe is behind them, I don't agree because there are numerous fields where Europe is number one and what is really of interest is that we have less money, it's of use, and we have also real capability to organize and to cooperate because when Europe works in Brussels or in other intergovernmental agencies, you have 20, 25 countries working together and in my opinion it's a real asset of Europe. Afterwards, for instance in space, when I see my China counterpart, he tells me, how many are you in CNES? I answer, 2,500. He loves and I ask him, how many are you in China? 110,000. But okay, we are 67 million in France and 1.6 billion in China. But in spite of that, on many fields, we are at the same position as in China and so we don't have to be shy because Europe is today at the front side in the research and technology. I have a series of hands in the front row. Just at one point, please. Yes, please. I mean, of course, Russia sometimes is geopolitically a difficult partner to handle for Europe but the true competitors are indeed China and the US, of course, but you know that Europe can do something. You see, if I may, with my own company. In the 60s, nobody would have believed that I was could ever compete with Boeing and see where we are now. So if Europe wants to get its act together, it can do so. Go to Karl Kaiser in the front row and we'll stay in the front row for the next two questions. Karl Kaiser, Howard Kennedy School. I have a question for John. John, toward the end, you seem to suggest there's a difference between autocratic regimes and democracies when it comes to cyber threats. Democracies, for example, their cap, their banking sector can collapse or they're great. Whereas in autocratic systems, the regime is at a threat. But couldn't you also argue that democracies also have a regime problem? Some could argue that Putin put their man into the White House, destabilizing the United States. Indeed, the Western liberal order. So democracies are also threatened as regimes through cyber. Is there any difference here? I think there is a difference because there are more checks and balances in democratic systems than there are in autocratic systems. I think one of the driving concerns of President Putin is that the Russian system has totally collapsed twice in recent historical memory in 1917 and in 1991. And the reason he's so fearful of things like the colored revolutions and what happened in Ukraine in 2014 is that he fears a third collapse of the Russian system and will do everything he can to prevent it, and so far quite skillfully and ruthlessly. I think in the West, we do have more checks and balances than that. And the American system and the British system in different ways are both going through a populist moment, a period of crisis. But our fundamental structures of the system are not in jeopardy. We're not about to collapse as a society. And one of the reassuring aspects, we'll talk about Trump on a panel tomorrow, one of the reassuring aspects about America's response to a character like Donald Trump in the White House is that the system by and large is holding up despite the strains and the cracks within it. I mean, I do think it's interesting that the most aggressive users of cyber in a state-to-state level have been countries like Russia against the former Soviet Union countries, Israel against Iran, and Iran in retaliation. And to some extent, North Korea as a way of sort of trying to get some money, some rent seeking out of the international system. It's striking that although China has used cyber very extensively for intellectual property theft, and of course, there's a famous stealing of the Office of Personal Management Records in the United States, the using it as a weapon of war, both China and the United States and European powers have been very reserved about how you use that because in part, because of the threat of retaliation and vulnerability, which I think as I say, all powers face. But I think I would still say autocratic countries have that much extra vulnerability because they don't have any checks and balances. They basically don't have broad systems of consent. So the stakes are even higher for autocracies than they are for democracies. John, in this phase, the system is not only standing up in Washington, it is fighting back. But more about that tomorrow. I saw a prime ministerial hand down here. No, all right. Yes. Daniel D'Iano, the Romanian Central Bank. Checks and balances, they are essential for democracies. And we see quite clearly, it's not only, but it was in the case of Nixon now and this case. But let me ask you, checks and balances are not sufficient. If the political establishment is strange from the owner and citizen, okay, then we get into trouble. And this is a big, big issue in the liberal democracies. Now, secondly, it seems like, and you have not alluded to, but it's clearly that we are moving into a block-based global system. I shouldn't call it a system. It's not a system. And this is very unnerving. What kind of an order? Geopolitics, security concerns, clearly. The US versus China. But there are global public goods which have to be provided. It's about climate change, dealing with machines. Some of them maybe turn into very obnoxious beings. So there should be a global order. And what should be done? What should be done? The other thing it may have, the United States may have to strike a deal with China. I mean, however, let's say unpalatable it may look like. I'm asking you because you... But I'm not sure this has much to do with the topic of the panel. We can talk about this in other sessions. I just make two points. First of all, the populist moment that Europe, continental Europe, Britain and America is currently going through is partly a correction of elites having become out of touch with ordinary sentiment. It's a violent correction and it's having some very unwelcome consequences, not least for my country. But nonetheless, there is a sense of ordinary citizens reasserting themselves. And the conventional leaderships of the elite are having to make corrections, both in terms of wealth distribution, in terms of power, in terms of responding to the concerns of people who feel excluded from democracy. And that's what we're seeing now. It's painful and some of it is very negative, but nonetheless, I think that's basically what's happening. At a global level, I entirely agree with you that we need some global commons. We need some means to develop global public goods. And that was the triumph of the post-1945 world, was that under American leadership with strong European support, we created a system which did deliver on that. It is now in really struggling and I think your reference to climate change is exactly right. The capacity to address climate change problems has sharply reduced because the United States and China in separate ways have both distanced themselves from the Paris goals and are going in their own direction. We will have to rebuild this. And frankly, not optimistic, the thing's going to change in a year's time, but we will discuss that tomorrow. I have just gotten the hook from Cary de Mont-Brialle, meeting we're out of time and I dare not risk his wrath. So we will wind up here with thanks to you, a very well-informed and timely audience. Thanks so much and to the panel. Thank you.