 There's a lot of talk about machines taking our jobs and robots, automation. It's all very concerning, but I do see it a little bit differently. I don't want to cast this as a us versus them human against the machine sort of drama or dilemma. I actually see that we need to work more closely with machines in our future. Rather than seeing machines as our opponent, what we ought to think about again is what machines do well, which they do, a lot of things much better than we do, but also bear in mind what do we as humans do better than machines? And if we concentrate on that, it becomes a different story for us to think about. Humans are very good at some things, and we often think of our big, relatively big brain developing for cognitive tasks and cognitive complex tasks and thermodynamics, etc. But it turns out other neuroscientists believe that our big brain was developed for complex tasks that were social in nature. Who owns the tribe? Where are the resources? How do we create intertribal peace? These are very complex problems that require a big brain, and our human development shows that we're able to do this. The question is, can we keep those human skills of collaboration, asking questions, curiosity, empathy? Can we keep those alive in an age where machines are much more pervasive? Humans have always used tools, and so to some extent we might argue that the current batch of technologies are just an extension of that. But there are some unique dangers. So for example, if we look at things like social mediation or the amount of screen time that we use, etc., that's taking us into a realm where we as humans are sacrificing some of our unique characteristics. For example, we know that social media, like the platforms that we all participate in, are actually not good for social empathy. We provide great information about ourselves, but we're not necessarily connecting with others in a meaningful way, not really understanding or wanting to know what others have done when we're taking pictures of our meals or our kids or whatever. So to some extent that might seem trivial, but it means that in a day-to-day sense, the media are weaning us away from the things that we as humans again do well, collaboration, empathy, and raising questions. If it were a straight-out competition where machines took our jobs, then that would be one thing. But in actual fact, we know that we will be working with machines. Very few jobs can be fully automated, so only a very small percentage. So most of us are going to be working with machines, and here's another risk. We don't want machines to dumb us down. So their interface is the things they require of us, the way they capture our attention. If that makes us worse as human beings, that's another problem. In the first industrial revolution, humans basically had to fit around the machines. The machines were installed, and people worked around them literally. And over the years, that's become more ergonomically sensible, safer indeed, et cetera. But now in this era, we should be able to work with machines in an entirely different framework. I mean, people need to be smart and fussy consumers of technology, especially at work. So for example, if an interface doesn't work well, we need to push back and demand that it works well for the purpose we're doing with it, and again, keeping the part of our work that's human, very much preserved and sacred, not moving around the machinery. And in this case, by machinery, I mean software, I mean interfaces, the visual screen applications that we might be working with, we again need to see this as a collaborative effort with machines or co-evolution, if you will, between our abilities and our intent and what the machines can do, constantly insisting that they become more natural, more supportive, and more effective alongside us. I believe personally that technology can actually make us better humans, in part because it gives us something to compare ourselves to and to remind us what it is to be human. Although again, I think that gets blurred in our fast-paced day-to-day life. But if we start thinking about what it means to be truly human, we can work and develop that. I mean, I've spent 40 years trying to develop human beings with and without technology. It's not an easy process, but it's really a process that's worth the time and effort. Gary Kasparov, who famously was beaten by IBM's Big Blue at chess, he's a chess master. He, in reflecting on that episode of his life, he had this great optimism and that human machines are going to do what they do well, in his case, beat him at chess, but we as humans still have great characteristics. And he says, you know, machines have processes and humans have passion. Machines can do analytics and answer questions, but it's the humans who ask the best questions.