I travelled to Stanford to speak with Niall Ferguson about how technology is changing how we organise our society, politics, economy - and conflict. What are your takeaways from our discussion? What surprised you?

0:00: 🔍 Exploring the profound uncertainty and monumental transition driven by exponential technologies. 3:42: 📚 The video discusses paradigm shifts throughout history and highlights the Industrial Revolution and the printing press as rare moments of exponential change in human history. 7:08: 🌍 The video discusses the potential for a transitional period driven by AI technology and renewable energy sources in the global energy system. 10:48: 💡 The US and China are in a race for technological leadership in areas like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. 14:14: 🌍 The shrinking populations in countries like China and Eastern Europe, due to low birth rates, could pose challenges for sustained economic growth. 17:25: 💥 The rise of new technologies and changing demographics are driving a potential Cold War II between China and America, which could be more dangerous than the first Cold War. 20:42: 💣 The video discusses the need for an international convention to limit the use of new and powerful tools, similar to the non-proliferation treaty during the Cold War. Recap by Tammy AI

Off topic but beautiful lighting 🤩

“I don’t regard golf as a sport, but it’s the kind of thing you do when you hit your 60s.” What a great line

It's not about safety and régulation, it's about control.

Seems like a few people think we're heading towards a technological explosion, a singularity if you like, it does feel like that. Ray Kurzweil showed the cost of information tech, for a constant dollar, which seems to go back to the beginning of civilisation, and reaching a 'singularity' maybe as soon as 2029. As much as I love renewables, the new nuclear designs, I believe, will be the future.

When Brits discuss things everything sounds more interesting somehow. :-)

SO much to learn from Niall Ferguson.

I lived in rural area of Washington state for many years and really like it. It’s not expensive at all. Of course it’s not for retirees because of availability of health care.

amazing interview for AI

Would like that to have been longer.

That conversation was freaking awesome! An astute and articulate assessment of what's to come. 😎Prodigious

"Chimerica" by the talker lol 11:50.

Great talk - thank you. The biggest difference between the current and previous industrial revolutions is that new AI is broadly available and for a few dollars you may build your own AI apps. Still, the biggest obstacle is the human mindset - people do not want to try new things. I work for big pharmaceutical company and less than 1% of people are learning how to use AI in their workflow.

A fascinating and respectful and at times divergent discussion. Excitement for the future from Azeem tempered by historical constructs and proxys from Niall. Thanks for this great content.

Naturally, the historian made it impossible for the host to bring the conversation to anything related to AI, no matter how hard he tried.

Azeem's questions are too long which makes it difficult to focus on trhe specific issue he is raising

Azeem you are very clever and charming but the best interviewers are almost invisible

Azeem’s last comments are interesting. He says he believes there is a fundamental shift to exponential technologies and new power brokers, and away from nation states. So who are these new power brokers? Will the nation states stand idly by and let these new power brokers takeover?

Interesting conversation between a futurist and a historian ... both great thinkers ... nice back and forth. 🙂 BTW, Azeem ... there is no such thing as a 5 Billion member "community" ... even though human technology permits anyone of the 5B to communicate with each other, our human sociology says that will never happen. The human network is still fragmented, retains many long paths, and gatekeepers. (i.e.there is NO reason for me to talk to a rice farmer in Viet Nam ... although technically I can).

They should just let the new generation come up have the offer to not have to work if they don't have kids. That way they don't need to keep creating and dishing fear in our face.

AI technology continues to evolve at a rapid pace and with it comes the fear that it could potentially push humanity into a second Cold War. The implications and consequences of this are truly terrifying. It is crucial for governments and industries to carefully consider the ethical and moral implications of AI development to prevent any catastrophic outcome. Let's hope we can use this technology for the betterment of humanity rather than for escalating tensions. Thought-provoking discussion.

Collapse-collide-Colove?

It's important to use AI as an assisting tool, and not let it run independently. Doctors are among the first to use assistance from the intelligence inside the chip, but never let it run independently. Let AI ask questions, take monitor readings, suggest lab tests and differential diagnoses, like an R2D2 on Star Wars ⭐⚔⭐but not independently. 😊

Fascinating

No, AI don't have the power but 🇺🇲🇨🇳🇷🇺🇪🇺 have.

Is artificial intelligence like the public education system since they're both artificial intelligence

if golf is not a sport, ask Neil to hit a ball 350 yards. second non state actors make it impossible to agree among states. Civil Society is the great disruptor. individuals empowered by anonimity can make havoc

7:50 WHAT?? Gasoline is more energy dense than batteries in an EV car or any solar panel.

Ai designed for use under capitalism is the danger. Ai designed to facilitate egalitarian socialism would be orders of magnitude less dangerous.

If this video does get a trillion views…

🇺🇸 Hi Azeem! I appreciate your enthusiasm for the video! Your observation regarding AI is quite insightful. Indeed, the persistent rivalry among superpower nations remains a constant, yet it is agreeable that the concept of "Cold War 2.0" carries a substantially more delicate flashpoint compared to the initial Cold War, potentially holding the capacity to incite a global conflict of unprecedented magnitude, even a World War III.

I tend to distrust Ferguson as history is about interpretation. He did the same thing about the history of money. Hence he has a narrow view, unwilling to bend.

Ferguson begins by saying those who speak of 'polycrisis' just don't know history. He goes on to say that in fact, 1923 would have looked like a polycrisis at the time. Yes and No. The Treaty of Versailles was signed 4 years before 1923. If we count properly, it was a declaration of Cold War 0. The victors imposed a 'peace' which intended to keep German industrial development frozen. Some motivation came from the widespread belief that Prussians were genetically inclined toward expansion, authoritarianism, and violence. Swap China for Prussia and we see history rhyming in real time. The Cold War (CW) that began in the late '40s, had similar goals. This time there were two players: NATO vs. Warsaw Pact. We have a one-sided memory of CW 1 that goes something like: "We lucked out in '62 thanks to Kennedy and Khrushchev. Then Gorbachev came alone and the Berlin Wall fell." The impact on the world as a whole is omitted from this class of narrative: The devastation of Iran, Vietnam, Brazil, Chile, the Congo and more were part and parcel of CW 1. Whatever happens in Taiwan, this CW will be even worse because of artificial intelligence (AI) and synthetic biology as outlined by Suleyman in "The Coming Crash." I use the words "will be" intentionally. Even if CW 2 does not result in a catastrophic hot war, the climate emergency alone may well be worse than the collateral damage of CW 1. But, we are not dealing with climate emergencies alone. We are dealing with technology (nuclear, AI, synthetic biology) that was not present in 1923. Worse, we are dealing with their intersection with 1) terrorism and 2) wars between nation states. Stanford may be the heart of Silicon Valley, but the Hoover Institution is not the heart of Stanford.

Azeem, in this Bloomberg series, let the interviewee finish speaking and you just ask questions. You are indeed very smart and very interesting but we can follow your thinking through Exponential View.

One thing AI might do, either as a tool by others or of its own volition, is to alter information that makes its way to the decision makers, alter evidence to create a situation much like people upload videos out of context to alter the narrative of a current event, altered or from an old/unrelated source, but artificially generated and difficult to disprove. For example an AI might create an image or video of warcrimes being committed that provoke action but the event either never happened or was altered to incriminate a nation. Artificially generated satellite imagery, false radar contacts etc, remember that scene from wargames when the super computer showed and convinced the generals they were under attack with false detections, how would you know if the AI controlled all the sensory input, again could be as instructed to create a scenario that benefits them

AI + robotics = infinite cheap labor