and if the information is available, i really couldn't even blame enemy for doing it. so, therefore, for merck it should be any my control as to what information they can get from me. >> representative capuano, what kind of response have you gotten from your colleagues? >> the "we are watching you" has garnered some support. most people look at it the exact became i did. the first thing you read, you have to think it's a joke and then you think it's science fiction and a million years ago, and that's why the release i put out to my colleagues near the congress, actually attached copies of the patent itself. not for any reason other than to show them this is real. didn't make this up. this is directly out of an official patent filed bay major international corporation. the problem is a'll of this information, even to members of congress, they just don't know it.
i think you can walk down the street and tap the shoulders of 100 people on any treat in america and my guess is 895 95 to 99% don't know their car has a black box and it can be used against them. so until people know it they can't have an honest discussion about it and exactly what the society wants. >> what about about when i couples to cell phones and tablets and the tracking? have you looked out those issues? >> only tangentially. a lot of these things people know cell phone is claysic. most people know that when you turn the gps device on you can probably be tracked. i think the whole panoply of invasions of privacy are long overdue for discussion. and i hope we'll have that discussion, because once i file these bills i've become more aware of other device is didn't know about. so i think that as america looks
at these bills, my hope is they wonder, what is it that we as americans want to do about sharing our information with the government or with sharing information with companies? and i think that the discretion will be a begun in my opinion it's overdue, and might even come to a conclusion i disagree with but a least a thoughtful one and one that people have participated in. right now the silence is deafening. >> do you have bipartisan sponsors and what about a senate sponsor. >> we have some bipartisan sponsors in the house, and i just had two people on the floor of the house today just before i came here, and they said i heard about this bill. cue get me on this still in -- on this still in so we have some bipartisan support. notice. about bicamera support. it's more a lock of anything else. >> did you introduce this prior to the revelation thefts nsa? >> i've been working on the, "we are watching you" bill the or four months. i found out a last year.
the black box bill has been introduced for the last three or four year. >> we have been talking with representative michael capuano, a democrat of massachusetts. sits on the financial services, transportation, and infrastructure, and ethics committees in the congress. thank you for your time, sir. >> thank you very much. >> they had a tremendous role. i feel talking about martha, the thing she gave george, without going to camp every winter was huge, and he thought so. it wasn't just valley forge. it was every winter of the eight long years of the revolutionary war, and she hated it. it was dangerous. the reads were dangerous. she was a prime object of hostage-taking.
but she was key to troop morale. and he felt that very strongly, and she would organize the other officers' wives, and they would have -- they would cook for the soldiers, sow for the soldiers, nurse the soldiers, pray with the soldiers, put on great entertainment for the soldiers, and during the war the washington's genius was keeping the army together. washington would say he couldn't have done it without martha. and he begged her to come to camp every year so that she could work with the -- the troops adored her. lady washington is here.
first-time author randi zuckerberg. new book coming out in the fall. >> double author. how exciting. my becomes are "dot complicated" for adults and "dot" for children. i spent the last eight years working at facebook, billing my own company in silicon valley. one thing i realized there's this whole world that people are fascinated in, entrepreneurship, technology, and someone just needs needs needs to key-demystify it for everybody else. so "dot complicated" looks at this crazy world we live and how it's changing our career, lives, families. >> hough do you dot that? >> i talk about finding tech life balance. there's a lot of talk on work life balance but if you go home from work and still buried in your cell phone, sitting on your lap tapp next to your husband at
at home, you're still working. so i talk a lot about how to find deck -- tech life balance in your home, your job, your love life, all areas of communication. >> are you saying turn off your devices, go off facebook? >> you know what, i think there's a time and place for everything, but i do think that if you take a little bit of time to unplug, to remember there's a world when you look up from your screen and you can enjoy it, makes you all the more productive, refreshed, relaxed, and you return to that online world also. >> there is a danger of too much technology? too much online-ness. >> i talk about the phenomena of being closer to friends but farther from friendships, because we now live in this world where you can literally keep in touch with thousands of strangers, anyone you ever met but if you're buried in the device you're ignoring the people you love next to you. so we have to be conscious of
technology. we can do amazing things with technology it's so powerful. facebook is such an incredible tool. we just have to remember we own the devices, not the devices owning us. >> are people recognizing that today? >> i think so. i think i've recently started hearing in the past few weeks and months a lot of chatter about the pendulum going back from become 24/7 connected all the time to people wanting some time to unplug to disconnect. digitally detox, and there's a hotel in d.c. that locks your phone up when you check in. >> people are responding. >> people are paying for that. so i think people are really seeing, they're recognizing that we're almost kind of tech addicted and tech affected in our culture and we need to reclaim a little of our life back. but that also drew me to write a
children's book because it's not just the adults that are tech-obsessed. my own two-year-old son will walk up to a picture frame and swipe and it ask for elmo and barney. so we live in this culture, even our tad -- toddlers are tech-obsessed,. >> when it comes to the children's book, how do you approach it? >> the children's book has a strong e-mail, ticket character named dot, really spunky little girl. she has her phone and tab president and she is skyping and talking to everyone all the time, and her mob kind of force -- hi mom forces her to go outside in the real world in and the second half of the book she has amazing adventures in the real world that echo what she is doing on these digital devices. so it has a very happy lovely ending. >> as the former marketing director or facebook, are you
being disloyal to your old company? >> no. i think facebook is an amazing, amazing tool. i think it's used for so much gimp had a front row seat shaping elections in olympics, in responding to natural disasters. even if you look at what happened with the tornado last week and the ability for people to go on social media and immediately provide relief. there's nothing leak that in the world. i just think that we need to always remember to find the balance, because you have people who you love in your life, right there next to you, real people, and so it's all -- everything in life in moderation. >> what does your brother think of your approach? >> i think he's really excited for the book. we are just putting the finishing touches on it right now so no one has read it yet. so we'll see. >> where did you grow up. >> right here in westchester new
york. my parents are both doctors. my dad is a dentist, my mom a psychiatrist. my dad was very tech savvy from very early on. take not any book, my first introduction to the magic of technology through my dad and his office, and just really the impact it had on our whole family. obviously the impact it had with facebook and how it changed all of us. >> when did you had get involved in facebook? >> in 2005. i was look -- working for an advertising agency in new york city, and i started to really hear about this amazing site that my brother created. how much it was taking off, and i was working in digital marketing at the time. he need someone who had some knowledge in digital marketing, pretty new space, and i came out to california, was blown away by what i saw. so i think when you read my book, it's -- i had amazing experiences at facebook.
i use facebook all the time. the book is an extremely -- it's a positiveod story about how technology can make our lives so much more amazing. but at it also a little reminder to find balance. >> you also have a web site, dot complicate.com. >> dot complicated. so in the book, because of kind of the long lead time of publishing i didn't want to put specific apps and webses and lists you. never know in technology what might be outdated by november when the book comes out. but also launched a companion web site where people can get updated recommendations, breakdowns of latest apps, pitch your in your big sister guide to the modern world. >> if somebody goes on the web site, what are they -- and they register. what are they able to do consolidate or be able to -- >> first thing we have a twice weekly newsletter you'll get that breaks down everything
that's going on in the modern world, the latest tech, how tech can help your family and life and career. we're also going to be launching a broader web site, and you can get lots of great content from our team, guest writers and join the community. >> and dot is also coming out in november? >> right, both coming out november 5-inch. just in time for the holidays. so hopefully folks who are considering what to get for their tech-obsessed family and friends, can have an adult and child picture book. >> we're talking with randi zuckerberg. >> next, jaron lanier, discusses the book "who owns the future." and at 10:20 eastern talk about
a world where everyone is digitally connected with the book, "the new digital age." >> making a transition from journalism to books is exhilarating and completely overwhelming and frightening but wonderful. >> why did you make that choice? >> i made that choice because dish had long wanted to be working on a become just because the freedom it allows you to really dive into a topic and lose yourself and go off on tangents, and have enough time to really explore it full. >> now, jaron lanier discusses the book "who ownes the future"
which looks at the rise of digittality kneltworks and they're effect on the economy and middle class. >> thank you so much. try not to fall off the back of the stage. my god, it is bright. wow. >> is c-span audio okay? good. i used to live here, of course so this is an extremely familiar book store to me. i used to haunt it when i was younger, a time so long ago, and i cherish this particular store, and i thank you for supporting it. we just lost the last significant book store in north berkeley where i live, and to not have a book store really changes things. it's extraordinary. i'd like to believe the net makes up for it but it doesn't. it's not the same. so these are really precious
places. so, this book. pardon me. the other thing about pollen that i'm allergic to at this time of year. these extraordinary wafts of pollen that come over from the ocean, born by our thought. okay. 30 years ago, or so, 30 and some odd years ago, i was part of a circle of young techies and i bet there are other people from the circumstance whole are here, who were just on fire with this idea about how we were going to improve the world. we were going to get digital networking to happen. we were going to get amazing user interface experiences to happen. we were going to make commuting easy and accessible to everybody and it would create a huge wave of well-being. i remember anticipating that's so tangibly i could feel it.
we're going to do a wonderful, wonderful thing for the world. and i still believe that we will, and we have a little bit. but in my view, in my experience, something started to go wrong, and has gone really pretty bad. i want to explain what that is so you can understand my motivation and how i came to the position i have now. when huge new waves of technological efficiency have appeared in the past, they've often been imperfect, often created little power centers or disruptions, but generally, the appearance of the interstate highways, plumbing, electricity in the wall, of nitrogen fixing fertilizer, vaccines, clean water available with the turn of a knob in your home. when these things appear, what is undeniable and really
apparent -- it was there after -- is a wave of improvement and well-being for people. of vast portions of the population start doing bet and things are opened up. i would certain that was going to happen with digital networking, but it's not exactly the way things went. starting around the turn of the century, i started to notice a pattern that was really bothering me, which is that my friends, who worked in the industry that were most affected by digitat networking first -- i'm thinking of musicians and journalists and photographers -- were not finding the world avenue opportunities i had for so long anticipated would appear. instead i ended up almost every week having to be part of a fundraiser to help somebody get a crucial operation they needed when they didn't have insurance, or something like that. and i'm talking about people who are well known and not the unknown, not the unfamous, well-known musicians who were
ashamed to admit they needed help. and that had not been true before. that was new. but then what really hit me was the financial crisis. the whole developed world -- i'm focusing here on the developed world exclusively for the moment itch'll get to the developing world later thankful whole developed word, at approximately the same time, got itself tangled up in financial absurdity. you had the most powerful countries lieu losing credit rates, social mobility, jobless recoveries, hole -- hollow ode out markets, fraud or sued to fraud and most of owl, -- most of all there was an intense concentration of wealth and influence, and a loss of the broader middle of wealth and influence, the decline of what we call the middle class. and this happened in societies
all over the world, not just here. all the developed ones and this just blew my mind. now, when i look at this, i noticed something that, sent chills down my spine, which is that all of the newly powerful -- all the people at the center of the game dish have to mention i've done pretty well in this game myself so i'm not talking talk talking about some remote. i'm talk about my friend and people who have done really well, my buddies. but every single one of us who has done well is somehow close to one of the biggest computers on the net, and i started to realize in the new system we have created, power and influence were accumulating around the biggest computers on the networks. this happened in finance, in insurance, in electoral politics in media, it happened with
nation states. it was happening all over. so, i thought back on my idealism from when i was younger. i i've been kind of fire-breathing, open culture person for years. helped make up a lot of the rhetoric. and what we always believed is that if you made information available as an ambient resource it could create so many opportunitys and so much efficiency and so much creativity that we weren't sure what would happen, but surely the incredible sprouting of benefits from that would overwhelm any problems. but we failed to consider something. if you want to create utopia where people are sharing information and everything is available. computers nor created equal. computers are vastly different from one another. some computers are giant server
farms in utah, collecting information for american intelligence organizations. some computers are giant server farms powered by their own power plants and cooled by rivers or glaciers. all these exotic ways to deal with these giant things we have to build. some of them belong to financial schemes. some of them belong to social media or search companies, some belong to financeeers. some run by criminal organizations but they're all basically doing the same thing. so, so what happened is if everybody shares equally, whoever has the best excite gets -- bet computer gets advantage that are so profound that they seduce the owners of the larger computer into,
well, -- when you're gifted, when your privileged, you don't notice it. a form ol' failure that sneaks into people, and you end up essentially taking advantage of your position without ever intending to, without ever knowing, because it's the most natural thing in the world. one way to explain what it's like to have the biggest computer on a network is to go back to a thought experiment creature from the 19th 19th century. you're going to notice i'm going to go to the 19th century a lot in this talk but the 21st 21st century is in a way an echo of the 19th century. in a multitude of ways. so there's a creature i'd like to introduce you to. actually in a town like this, so educated, most of you know about this but maxwell demon, how many of you have encountered this demon? oh, okay. you never know. so, mask well demon is somebody
who you will meet if you take a class in intro duke trithermotaxes. >> oh, no, he's going to talk about physics. run. it's really simple. james maxwell had this human named after him. imagine a little demon who is opening and closing a little tiny door, just big enough for a molecule to slip through. the demon is watching molecules in two chambers next to each other and this little door connects the chambers. each chamber is filled with a fluid, water, air, something like that. and the demon is watching the molecules approach the door and if there's a really hot one on the left side the demon will let it through the door and if there's a cool one, the demon lets got to the left side and just by observing the molecules and opening the door carefully the demon separates the hot from the cold. once you have done that, you can do something rather nice which is you can open up a bigger door
and let the scold hot mix again, running a turbine on the way, and then repeat the process and you have perpetual motion. right? global warming solved. now, perpetual motion machines don't work and the reason is interesting. the act of discrimination, the act of viewing information is real work. it's never purely abstract. never separated from reality. so the act of opening and closing the little door and observing the molecules in itself takes more power and generates more waste heat than you attempt to save by running the temperature boundary in between sessions. so this is known as no free launch and you -- no free lunch and you can never get ahead of the game. every perpetual motion machine is a maxwell demon. what happened with big computers is that over the big computers without even mean meaning, to without any bad intent, pretend
they can be maxwell's demon but instead of in economics. so here's how it works. the most familiar example is probably american health insurance, right? that most cherished on american institutions. so, health insurance used to try were professionals act -- to calculate risks and there actuaries and they had to work with poor information, roughly gathered and they would try to set the rates of policies. there are job wasn't to exclude people by surprise, however. that only became possible when there was so much data and so much computational power to work with the dat a a, you can start to pretend be to maxwell's demon so you gather statistical correlations to predict who will need insurance and then open the little door and say the people unlikely to need insurance gather over here and the people likely to need the benefits of insurance we put them on the other side of the door. and thereby, by having the
biggest computer, we create the perfect investment. we create the perfect scheme that can't fail. because we're only insuring people who need it and we know for sure we'll make a great profit. there's a story i perhaps shouldn't tell. i'll tell it without naming the specific people. this is in the book onlily anded the it didder's lawyers cut it. -- the evidence did for's lawyers cut it. there's a little island used by the republican establishment in terms of large corporations for planning retreats and i won't say where the island is and i had a consulting gig helping the largest american insurance concern figure out how to operate they're big computer when they first got them. and i remember the ceo of the concern talking about how, well, we really love to not insure people who are going to turn out to need insurance and we should be able to avoid doing that.
and at that moment, there was this weird rushing sound, and then this enormous -- and it was like a little earthquake and turns out it was meteor strike right next to us, and so -- anyway, those of you who -- [laughter] >> those who are astronomers interested in meteors seeking a device to attract meteors in order to be able to study them should look to the population of health insurance executives, and you will fine what you need. so, the metaphor i'm making between maxwell's demon and the so-called perfect insurance scheme you can get with a giant insurance should be clear now...
guess who bought it? google. i love google still. i'm sure there are some google people tonight. we will get to google. [laughter] so the then the thing about it is that even though maxwell demon illusions always break after a while, that's in addition is so great because at least in the first phase it does work.
if you have the biggest computer and a connected network you can calculate a little tiny ways to improve your game so that other people take the risk and you get the benefit. you just -- everything seems golden imperfect. but what happens with finance and insurance will happen to silicon valley if we keep on doing things the way we are. what happens every other area of life that we try to organize this white. this is the fundamental pattern that we have to figure out a way to transcend. it is not going to be easy because it is seductive. i have been on the other side of this. it's great when it works. it is like carolina something. it's information heroin. we have to find some way to get off it. now, i mention that i will be returning to the 19th century again and again. and so i will return to it now. in the, a lot of things happened. there was a 000 years there.
there was the civil war, and lots of new technology, lots of new science. but in terms of human thought there was a unifying theme that was so powerful and so present that the expressions of it remain dominant today. and the theme was robot anxiety. the 19th century was defined intellectually to an amazing degree by a fear that people would be made obsolete by improving technology. you might not think of that as being an 19th century concern. you might think of it as being a more contemporary want, but let me give you a couple of the signposts of the century. first of all, riots by textile workers concerned that they would be made obsolete by improved textile machinery, improved looms. that was very ugly early battle
that resulted in public executions and one not. that, in turn, strongly influenced the 19th centuries the thinkers and in particular aptitude. you read early karl marx, 1840's, he was really at that time a technology writer concerned precisely with this issue. i realized, i was driving bond alma listening to kate tsa, but i did not know. and there was somebody going on and on about how there were going the blow of barriers to market access and capital was going to flow and there would be all this. oh, god, another one of the silicon valley start-ups. i can't listen. it was actually a reading of karl marx. it was the strangest thing. i went back and reread it. if
those who rule facebook and is examined kugel. they formed. the interesting thing is that both sides of that div robot anxiety. so an interesting thing happened in the 20th-century. in the 20th century we did not see massive waves of unemployment because of improving technology. and, of course, the reason was that new jobs were created when
machines get better. turns out there were usually more desirable, safer and cleaner and easier and more dignified and more intellectual and all that. did not happen automatically. this little thing called labor movement, and it was no small thing. it was a gigantic, bloody, difficult movement. the labor movement in a sense was fighting for their right to get paid even if your job is not as miserable and dangerous as old jobs. that's something that is often forgotten. sober let's imagine for a moment that this book store is located in rochester new york instead of menlo park california. if we were in rochester we would remember that in the 19th century it was the center of manufacturing. the buggy whip went obsolete because motorized vehicles came along. i love horses, but dealing with horses as a necessity just to
get around is really a pain. i don't know if you have done it . the feeding, the poop, the kick, the fact that not all that nice. the whole thing is really a big nuisance. having a motorized vehicle is not only cool, but so fine, you wonder why people would not just pay to drive it. and so why the teamsters union is a tough union, it's because it had to be tough to assert that even though all you're doing is putting your foot on a pedal and steering wheel, you still deserve to get paid. that is why cabbies' get paid. and every time they use the job that is not utterly miserable and dangerous but still pays, you notice something about that job which is that there was in the past some struggle that created some sort of will ratchet our structure that helps those people get paid despite the fact that they are not constantly risking death.
there is either or a union for academics to something because there's always some kind of the mechanism. and this is the reason why in the 20th-century we get better jobs to go with better technology. it was so much a question of whether people were still going to need it. it was a judgment. even if the new rules for people or more pleasant than the old, you can still get paid. that's what happened in the 20th-century. unemployment crisis averted. middle-class strong, especially in the postwar years. now, at the turn of the 21st century we suddenly decided several big on that covenant. we suddenly decided, you know what, screw that solution. we will let people go obsolete.
let me explain how i see this happening. the magical little tools available for us a seemingly for free, language translation, approximately which translation. you can upload and get back seemingly automatically turned into a spanish. not perfect, but readable. go, microsoft, and a few others. the first company to demonstrate was actually ibm labs. it's a pretty common thing at this point. the way we talk about a service like this most commonly is as if there is a giant artificial brain and we are privileged to get the services of this artificial brain for free. isn't it a wonderful world in which you can benefit from this artificial brain and can translate between languages for free. now, there have been times when there was a hope that this rain might be created. goes back to the 1950's when
some of the pioneers of a i where i really sure what would be involved and just -- one of my mentors, one of the founders, assigned some grass since the summer projects in a thicket right the products to translate between languages. smart mathematician might be able to it, but the formula. that doesn't work. famously does not work. what does is what we call the big data or giant corporeal, whatever terminology you prefer. what happens is we gather up large numbers of examples of real translations done by real people. then we pattern matching those against your new example to find little points of coincidence, and then we match up bits of old translation into sequence to form a new transition. and several works. that's of the game works. the this cumbersome it is
not a magic, artificial brain. a matchup of real people who we pretend don't exist. so what we're saying is as the technology progresses and gets better and better, if you are a translator, multilingual, that job of translating is not like being a truck driver or cab driver, even though it is not miserable. this time you don't get paid for it because we have pretended you don't exist to create the illusion of a giant electronic brain. so this is yet another example of what i call a siren server or maxwell demon where we are creating this illusion that all the value goes to one side, going to let all the value from the translation of the one side but all the people who actually did the work go over to the other side. we will try to make the perfect scheme where we on this electronic brain. so when they did is involved,
you hear the words artificial intelligence or something like that or even the word automatic, what you should hear is instead the words accounting fraud. what is actually going on is that the real people who did the work of being forgotten, hidden behind a curtain. there is an active magic, stage magic that has gone on, not real magic. so what is crucial about this is that as long as we keep thinking this way, if we decide to renege on the covenant that allows employment to continue, even when the misery of many jobs was reduced and the 20th-century the 21st century will see of the 19th century that people will be made obsolete by our machines. there is absolutely no need at this happen. it is not based on reality but judgment about how we're willing to a knowledge each other. so what i am hoping you can see here is that there is a
connection between the kinds of roles that people can get paid for and the tendencies of whoever owns the biggest computer to naturally benefit from the possibility of trying to calculate a perfect scene for themselves. two sides of the same point. every time you happen to find yourself with one of the biggest computers and use it to improve your situation, the way it works is that you are gathering data for people, and the key is that you don't have to pay for the data. if you have to pay for the data, if there was a market it would be more like raw material. you would have to pay more for more valuable information. is the fact of the animation is free that creates the illusion that you could be the demon. information is never free. as we learned. okay. now, we are in a cultural situation right now where in
order for me to talk about these things i have to us speak against the people that i like the most. this is awkward because write-down if you're on the side of the angel, if you're a good person and of course, you're supposed to love open culture an open information and all this. i have been really struck at open source code has become the msg of our culture in the sense that he can take any really boring thing and say this is open source software. you know, used underwear is being collected in poughkeepsie. i don't want to click on this. i don't want to know about the story. please. i will read about anything. but then hope, open source software is being used to sort use underwear, oh, you know, that sounds really innovative. i wonder if that will help
global warming. [laughter] it's like -- the thing is, in this position of having to speak against the thing that so many people are sure will help. and it's not comfortable. and i myself helped make this thing up. i believe it would be true. i don't think the open source people of the biggest problem right now. they do create the kind of hipness of legitimacy to a problem that is mostly exploited by entirely different people. right now the form of free information and disenfranchisement that goes with it that people experience on a day-to-day basis is the kind brought to them by silicon valley -- and once again, oh, god, you get a free online course, but you know in the back of your mind that your prospects for getting a job have just gone down and that those two things together. and it does not mean the course is not wonderful and education
is not necessary and wonderful, but and particularly, it does kind of on to our long-term prospects in exchange for short-term benefit. you might say, oh, but all that new information out there, surely all those trained people, it will turn around. that's what i thought about now working as long as the benefits are routed through computers, which there will be. and whoever owns the biggest computer will gather all the benefits and generate the rest in the cost of to everyone else. in the book ago through many examples of this and talk about a hypothetical artificial plants that you will be allowed to insert inside your tattoo like a little cliff accent that will synthesize chemicals for your body about how that could create a wave of health and well-being but at the same time but doctors and pharmacists and chemists and all these people out of work depending on how it's done because it could be done in such a way that although real work for people that make it possible gets to monetized and not
acknowledged. whoever runs the routing computer becomes infinitely wealthy. there is just no boundary. the greatest and fastest fortunes in the world are being concentrated. it certainly not what we had intended. so we might ask how we get out of this, we do instead. i mention that the way people experience this, the way it is his sardis -- artists is that financial world, high-frequency trades, the world of weird leveraged bundle derivatives hedging, there's actually a whole other glasses of financial schemes that run on computers and are not that familiar. fantastic logistical schemes they use the cyompute around att so as toward paying tax city
were in turn interest of your of once. these kind of things are very,, a place in gigantic. there is an absurdity to them. i have a bunch of bodies who worked out the math for high-frequency trades. it's cool. the thing about a high-frequency trading machine is that it is making trades so fast that there is not time for him permission from the real world to get in. it is technically impossible for these things to be optimizing based upon events in reality. this other argument, there optimizing the function of the market itself. and that i actually think can be legitimate, but only if there is only one monopolistic high-frequency trade. if they're is a multiplicity, what they do is read their own algorithms and create residence between each other and the fluctuations they detect are just created by each other so
they collectively milk money and of the world, radiating rest everybody you will find this again and again where they're will be of little local framework in which what you are doing when you own of the computer seems to make sense but if you look at the bigger picture it never does because there is never a free lunch. i can go over many examples of this. fascinating variations. so how do we get out of this? one way is to pay -- you know what, this is it. we can't keep the market going anymore. we need some kind of other way to up organize human affairs. give everybody a stipend when the machines ticket or just not use money and have some perfected political process and finally get socialism. i have gone down all those roads, and i don't think they go to pretty places. there are those who disagree with me. i have all lot of kind of critics.
one kind is the person who says, wire you trying to keep markets in all? what you just get rid of money. i think the problem with that is that politics also screws over people if it's allowed to function on its own terms. i think what happens with politics is that the same kinds of power and influence concentrations that we see in certain kinds of unbridled capitalism occurs in a purely political weight. communist party's seize power or whatever it is again and again and again. people are difficult creatures. i don't know how many of you -- i remember being a young hippie been trying to live in a group household and finding it to be terribly difficult. and number of these were right down the road here. it's very hard to make politics between people really work. it's not because there was a
lack of an internet, but because people are just ornery. we are just difficult creatures. a purely political sues -- solution won't happen. people are perverse and difficult and all over the place the use of markets and money should be understood as something that balances the tendencies of human society to become dysfunctional. money also can be terrible and concentrate power and wealth that lead to terrible and fairness. these dual magisterium of society and balance each other. they can blunt each other's points to some degree. a bit of a complex topic, but i hope i treated reasonably. what i'm thinking is what we can hope for is away to not create a
perfect society and think any attempts at perfection always ends in tears. but add to this process of balance of different systems of that number up to five none of them can go too badly. i think of the way america is a balance between the legislature and the judicial branch and the executive branch. it's an interesting idea where the hope is that each province the other from going off the deep and too much. at the for the most part it works. sometimes we wish they would work together in a more positive sense, but i think lend to each other's tendencies to go entirely bad. economics and social processes are a little different because economic is more abstract and numerical and these two systems can balance each other. competition is the third one and maybe these three things in balance each other.
what i'm trying to do is find that balance. people who have socialist tendencies sometimes think i'm trying to elevate capitalism. i don't see it that way. let me give you a specific example about how bringing money into the world of their permission might create balance instead of extreme capitalist evil. one of the trains that is concerning me and a lot of people is the proliferation of cloud connected cameras. governments already benefit from having cameras on every corner in densely populated areas and software, some of which can promote and track people by face or date or all kinds of things. all of a sudden you have a system where government can know where everyone is and what everyone is doing. wars were fought precisely to keep governments from giving this power, but now we think it's cute.
that's problematic. that's really problematic. so how do you and do it? the usual way is you have some sort of advocacy group like the a lot -- electronic frontier foundation or something like that and have lawyers that argue with government officials and try to sway candid it's to enact regulations. here i am looking at a bunch of clever programmers with use computers and connectivity coming up with schemes and then i am looking at government bureaucrats trying to come up with prohibition. i do not see a fair fight. another example is regulators trying to control high-frequency traders. the way high-frequency trading algorithms go, if you try to slow the frequency or put caps on them, the algorithms will adapt and use that as the system that there optimizing against. so what can possibly be done?
i don't think you can use a prohibition regime, but you can have some effect. every nation costs money then the picture changes. i don't think having it cost money is the complete solution, but it is part of it. one of the ways that people, it costs money to do things. the control of texas creates a constraint . hen n so the police don't get to have free cars. they cannot go to an awful lot and say i want cars. you can't do that. instead, they have to argue for taxes to pay for a budget and go buy them like everyone else and it creates a constraint. if you have to pay money once you recognize somebody on a camera all of a sudden you can't just do it without restraint but have to stretch as an
prioritized. what it does is instead of just automatic gathering of information to create a perfect scheme, it creates a much more honest situation in which you are using an amount of information to create a balance beam. the cost is real. information is never free. paying for it only reflects the reality which is that it has to come from somewhere. always comes from people. information is always people in disguise. that's a philosophical point that we can go into any questions if you're interested, but it creates at least a baseline that it does not tend toward infinity because they're is a cost that balances the. so i think that monetizing the information is actually friendly to civil liberties, friendly the balance in government. now, there are a huge questions about how to do it, gigantic questions, and i don't pretend to have all the answers.
we go over a couple of topics about the prospects for information costing money instead of being free. one of the first questions is, does this exclude people from access to information? a lot of the rhetoric of free and open information is that even the poor have access. i just have to point out that we have tried it and it has done exactly the opposite. the middle-class is thinking wealth and power is concentrated in smaller numbers. every time you tweet a complaint about the 1% to enrich them. you have to understand the reality that the system is not working. it's having the opposite effect. so if this is something that is interesting to me, if i look at how outcomes are sorted for people and some information systems, i see a winner-take-all. if i look at the people who do well in an information network connected around a central hub
like youtube or amazon or a cake starter or something where there is one gathering point and everyone has to cycle through it , what you get is a tall tower , and in a seated neck, and a long tail, a tiny numbers of people who do well that is problematic because people are primed to want to believe and hope. so going back to the 19th century this was what was called a horatio story. the idea that since there are a few people who do well : of other people are still living with their parents and running on hope , always within a hairsbreadth of that success, but they won't get it. this bugs me. they're is a commonly held belief in this illusion of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of musicians who are doing great because they can promote themselves on-line and
sell their t-shirts and promote their gigs. i have gone out and try to count the musicians are doing well, and there are just handfuls. the numbers are tiny. it's not real. i'm struck that even the people at the top of the new regime, was considered to be great success is kind of like what used to be considered getting into the middle class. how many people know who jen a marbles is? she has a billion hits on
at some point of lot of these people who were living on the fumes of hope will have a midlife crisis when it doesn't work out a and i think it is a shame and the tragedy waiting to happen for the facebook generation. at some point the facebook generation, more likely there kids will say we are sick of this and every financial scheme being a giant computer. we are sick, i'm living of also and i often hear the tear i have to pay for information i have to pay to look at somebody's facebook page? [laughter] you pay to go to do stupid movies and people go to the jackass movie. people pay for dumb stuff all the time phew aicher
gauge when industries are based needs. of and the wind shifts between the want and the need. sorts, i don't even know where to begin. of fast and now to the economy is paid on based needs and wants in there is no reason why there could be a society in which we get paid for social media that other people do and then what is the point of that? here is where there is a leap of faith required. capitalism can work. the markets can work. they work when they start helping people coordinate to create more wealth and more positive effects of the rise. when you have a market that grows as a result more people do better than a
sharing system. that has happened again and again and it is entirely appropriate for the information networks. you pay but you also get paid it is unlike any other form of payment experience before we use to the ada you paid for stuff more often than you get paid but you only get paid every two weeks for your salary if they knew always grab a copy but in this world you get paid in a little dribs and drabs all the time and different people would find a different systems that they find how they get paid if you wanted feeling homage you ought to be paid with information stolen you could keep track of the discounts when you allow somebody to spy on you. look at your club card when you shop for grouchy stand your differential, look at
the frequent flier programs and damage would have to spend and you can start to calculate there is a fair amount of money if it was real money instead of a bargain if you are in control of the many you might be making decisions that would put you into participation of growing instead of concentrating wealth. thank the dozen go to the central hub in interesting effect comes out that instead of a few superstars with the long neck and tail uc ethically connected they were they are in interest to a lot of people. this is work that has been done funded by facebook to protect itself from critics that say it is just centralizing influence. but what it means is that it is monetized to see the
middle-class a hump like facebook because it is just possible the monetized information network it would yield middle-class in a new way instead of off through the levees like the cosmetology license and union membership there may be a natural distribution of wealth to create a thicker metal. saying something about the middle-class i notice that my hip friends and a part of me are a fronted by a the term middle-class because it means peridot oriented horrible loss of fitness. [laughter] everything we must renounce is the middle-class. but i am talking us a different thing that the aristocracy that occupy the founders of the united
states but you need to have a preponderance of people in the middle of the outcomes of human life that have more influence. that is what you need. then it'll pass to out clout with the tips. you need that if you have been a democracy, india becomes a shame. i am not happy with what is going on with money and politics in the u.s. legally. i don't know who is but if you like market dynamics, a libertarian, you need the middle because otherwise you don't have customers otherwise you end up with the petrus day over plutocracy with a feudal system that pretends to be a market that isn't. is essential to every humane
system has that has ever appeared. you cannot count on somebody who is wise end charitable of the e. lee to. this brings up silicon valley the to might have been the basis one's ever to appear in history. but we can let that enter our thinking. you don't have to try to imagine the capt. no matter how young are evil. but i still think sergei is great to think we're cutes. we hear great. but the problem is who will inherit the power? and exhibits a is hp that started the pattern and i am sorry for saying this but
what a tawdry think this is normal will happen to every human institution that things go through periods of decadence and corruption we have to plan a society with that kind of realism that is not equally benevolent, the pier and intelligence e. lee to. elite. i am attempting a little stunned in the book is experimental that i make myself vulnerable in order to get a point across. i couldn't stop the book halfway through with a scathing critique how power is concentrated with big computers then i could have stopped and then i think cool people would say what a cool block and it would be adopted in humanities departments.
of what a french scholars would like to. [laughter] it would have that cachet but then i try to talk about solutions even though i know for certain my first pass and cannot be rights even though i know that i will read it myself to think i was naive. but i laid my neck out before you because i think it is essential we have the courage to be perfect in the attempt to improve ourselves and want to be first in line to take on that vulnerability. all of my friends were very technical and run the biggest computers are people of very good will who were open to these ideas. i found extraordinary warmth from everybody in the silicon valley and to even in the centers of finance in
the spymasters, all the world's one of the good things is it is one of the more pleasant you leets in history and we have an excellent shot to fix this. the final thing i will say is humanity needs to speak to the biggest terms right now we are indexing of our own fate. we change our own climate and raised your souls over more than any other creature and we are in charge of ourselves. the only way to the we can see it is the data. and would-be even better if it was not corrected combined with big computers so what we have seen is the almost perfect inability to separate the truth from big data from the corruption. climate science, the people
who first discerned were subjects to the of wikileaks types and conspiracy theorist poured over them and those who put up economic theories it took time to get there revealed so we have not established a way to use big diva -- data we have not connected it with the truth and as we live our lives to concentrate money and power through perfect investments and perfect schemes after the demonic attempts to make everybody else take the risk to concentrate the benefit
benefit, we are used to the idea of the data the nonsense. i almost used a bad word. for instance we are happy with big data algorithms we date people who are recommended possibly the most intimate decisions we ever make even though we decide these algorithms don't work they are not scientifically valid but people who have a contingent of the logarithms themselves are nonsense and in the back of our minds we know it is a big game. what i am hoping, my deepest hope is if information cost many you have to use it more carefully and it might give rise to businesses that took
seriously that to give rise to a culture with trees from nonsense and if not our survival is threatened and to be connected to the bigger picture in order of the big picture that the head. i would now like to take some questions. [applause] >> thank you for coming tonight. you discuss rewarding people for putting bits of information as a way to make the middle-class more robust.
how does the creation of the informal economy was collaborative consumption fit into the model to monetize information and monetizing our assets to renting out to our homes? our bicycles, power tools, a to have a second income? does this contribute to make the middle-class more robust or do we need more information? >> i talk about similar things in the book. in general the informal economy is not a good thing. informal economies are great that we will always have parents to support you if you are not human there is
the illusion they are information knows and wealth is the opposite. i am sure there are engineers and it means that you have some staying power of their own. so in the case of the many other schemes that they pretend to be taxi drivers you will notice people running the big computers avoid all risk. we are at arm's length. it is maxwells demon all over again. said to have a perfect system for what happens on the ground people in the informal economy have to take the risk themselves.
after 30 times nobody rips you off but there was no insurance schemes no risk pool there was no planning for it. if you are participating in the formal schemes sooner or later you will be sick on the day somebody needed your apartment. something will happen. in to get away from the central hub that has no risk just organizing people and everybody takes a risk with no planning but i will create an insurance service for people who rent out in part -- apartments but then that is another example of the computer that takes no risk it just appears again
and again. the to have that demonetized it monetizes information so with that sophistication and then everybody is forced into an security. >> first locating at a lot of the issues and 84 a brilliant presentation in a short time that in addition tear technology, there is the aspect of education and personal health if you have a population that is not educated and the problem of personal health in the food
that we eat and the fact that the laws have been passed to make the world biggest manipulator so fit is not that well educated or that healthy fashion how can that populations think for itself in between itself away from you to borg twitter or facebook four to the entertainment purposes? on the other side you need to bring in those people like facebook to get them to your type of thinking because without that they will not see through their own actions. so how do we individually take the baby steps? >> i have a lot of friends
who are writers. but to give the things that you can do. you can cook can buy things intelligently. part of me wants to do that. have not found a good way to do it honestly. but the reason i haven't is a lot of the things that it is very hard to address this because bottom-up feeds what i am concerned about. every time you tweet about the 1% you enrich them and it is a conundrum. i am working on this problem of what you can do. if you are highly technical it is a different story then you can do all kinds of things they knew cannot operate your facebook privacy settings.
[laughter] can you can use tools if you want to change the food system just having your local organic market where it cost 10 times more does not solve the problem in the same way that problems of the technical people can take advantage of does not address anything. i am stuck at this point. i get proposals every single day many from people who have ideas about this. i have to tell you honestly i don't know how to use your question but i want to know.
i noted how you go back to jefferson and the notion of the yeoman farmer but everybody has a chance to get some way and if they can be independent to be their own boss with self, a sturdy, you can grow your own food, you have a great family. so i oppose will this be possible with the internet? kim we have millions of jenna marbles? what i admire about your work is you pose the question can the internet we a virgin land quote-unquote that america was supposed to be when the first europeans arrived when they wanted to slice and dice it up so everybody could have their own plot. but as to whether the internet can become that although i like your idea
very much that everybody should buy and sell just by clicking. but what you think of the vision of the yeoman farmer? >> oh my god there is so much to say about this. the brings up so many points. the original design for networking was monetized starting in 1960 from before we knew how to make networks. of the original idea including what i am talking about the loss gradually an a series of tawdry incidents described in the book. we were there in the reason that happened was because of the tradition in america and yet i grew up in the west of southern new mexico where the roads were still dirt and it was the tail end of the old west.
there is a lot that is not a breach of people that are self-made. it does favor the strong and create a world of mobs and gunslingers and it is not a pretty world. what happened in america in particular the land was free except we pretended the native americans had not been there but then you have to get through the monopolized railroad and gradually lost the romance and then went into real estate and agents and a little romantic and energy but it creates more wealth and coordination. it is a better world overall.
innocents that transformation as much as i like the romance of birth of america, the truth is the transformation is probably not a bad precedent for what ought to happen with the world of information that might lose a touch of romance. >> can we get a new deal? >> there are other people. if we're willing to have a world war we to get a new deal. i would rather not go there. [laughter] >> i agree that bottoms up solution to changing things to monetize intimations seems very, very difficult. have you given any thought that to the meeting of minds to those you own big computers and a hug you given thought to how big of a prototype would have to be
to make it meaningful? and could that possibly end up being stratified between people who produce quality information and those who consume white kid than running into wall videos? [laughter] in the book i fantasize the hackers get together and created new system then invent a tattoo robot just like go we are defense like the googleplex over the weekend and i propose a few different routes were we could have a transformation but it is a faith change. i am not pretending it would be easy but i have to say how much financial suffering does it take until people realize the current regime
is now working? how many times do we have to go through this? we did it with savings and loans, securities coming mortgages now a student dead and sovereign debt and again and again and how many times does this have to happen? how many times must the big computer failed before recall if? -- call it crap? >> i guess it is a lot but to those to make the good information i don't see empirically if they are interested in each other in a general way there is a middle-class or a for a conference of the people get a medium amount of attention but the number of it doesn't happen in the network but
like facebook. i am not convinced i think we should give each other credit and i will remain optimistic that most people have value but if it is true then it is except those to program the thing that is one of the central ideas and the recurring theme settle see the evidence. i am more optimistic about people i don't think it makes me naive but i think we're overall more interesting and valuable than we give ourselves credit for. >> figgy very much. i am one of the open source people. discussing from lead different level of obstruction and i thank you
talk about the 21st century if i were to characterize that i think the main achievement main understanding is equalization of information of matter that is one in the same. i think 3-d printing will have that be the case. when you talk about value of information, it is the same thing as putting property. >> it is not. i go into that whole lot. let's say that 3d printing its big because i hope it does. everyday ephah you have a new alpha it because it is made perfectly for your body you never do laundry costs and all those designs have to come from somewhere. it is not the ownership of the object of people are paid for the design.
the key thing is that i have friends who have great careers who have done very well for themselves they go to poor neighborhoods in what to the kids are wearing then translate that into expensive fashion. there is an incredibly broad base of people who come up with designs. the existing terminology is awkward maybe a design but not holding the object because them more or the better 3d printers work, but though less ownership means. but that is a totally different question. but the question is those that contribute the value are they remembered were treated as being real or do we come up with an allusion to pretend they are not there? >> when i equate it duration i do mean that decided not
the object. so one in the same thing in to produce wealth overtime but you try to address our a tactical problem in tel machines are better than humans. >> machines don't exist is only people pretending of the people don't exist. you we're doing great but you made a huge logical heir but then fell off a cliff. [laughter] in the question is that. there is a whole train of thought that does not think the way you t