Choice trump. Joins us as we try to find one of the to. Hello and welcome to. Technology involving at a cost make and Artificial Intelligence no longer just a hollywood dream as a path ahead of us a dangerous one will our lives still be a real while im here in Oxford University to ask all these questions to one of the most prominent bankers in this field nick bostrom. Nick. Its really great to have you with us youre a philosopher youre author who writes about whats going to happen to us basically possibly so one of the ideas that you put forward is this idea of vulnerable world yes so correct me if i were wrong but if i get this correctly its its basically that humanity may come up with a technology that may do this to extension and therefore we would need computer surveillance while that might be an oversimplification but the vulnerable world hypothesis. Is the hypothesis that at some level of Technological Development it gets to be said to destroy 6 basic things so that by default on
Surveillance but you want know that it is detrimental and something has gone wrong that the fact of surveillance wouldnt really prevent well so if if one thinks that the world at some level of technology is vulnerable in this sense one can then obviously wants to ask well what could we possibly do in that situation to prevent the world from actually getting destroyed and it does look like insurgents in our us. Ubiquitous surveillance would be the only thing that could possibly prevent that. And now would even that work well i mean pads on the specifics of this narrow so youd have to think just how easy would it be to cause destruction would you just snap your finger or say like a magic world the world blows up well then maybe surveillance wouldnt suffice but suppose its something that takes several weeks and you have to you know do build something in your apartment and maybe require some skill you know at that point. You could imagine a very fine grained. Surveillance infrastructure ha
Right so correct me if i were wrong but if i get this correctly its its basically that humanity may come up with a technology that may do this to extension and therefore we would meet computer surveillance well that might be an oversimplification but the vulnerable world hypothesis. Is the hypothesis does at some level of Technological Development it gets to be said to destroy 6 basic things so that by default one civilisation reaches the level of development. Well get that a state that. A couple of different ways in which this could be true one maybe the easiest way to see is. If it just because. At some level of Development Even for a small group or individual to cause must destruction so imagine if Nuclear Weapons for example instead of. Acquiring these rare difficult to obtain Raw Materials like plutonium or highly enriched uranium imagine if it had been an easy way to do it like baking sand in the microwave and you could have. An idea of the atom and that if that had turned out to
For example instead of for acquiring these rare difficult to obtain Raw Materials like plutonium or highly enriched uranium imagine if it had been an easy way to do it like baking sand in the microwave and you could have. The energy of that up and if that had turned out to be the way things are then maybe at that point civilization would have come to an end then. With surveillance from what i understand you cant really predict the future nothing can when you can survey people and watch what theyre doing but then they will be inventing things under surveillance but you want to know that it is detrimental until something has gone wrong that the fact of surveillance wouldnt really prevent well so if if one thinks that the world at some level of technology is vulnerable in this sense one can then obviously wants to ask well what could we possibly do in that situation to prevent the world from actually getting destroyed and it does look like. Denson are less. Ubiquitous surveillance would b
Preference that he has surprisingly clear differences with the government he so loved the wife of and he was known in. Some respects which uncloak him to complete so i think youre much just a few days before britain is due to meet the European Union johnson says he wants the deal to trust him i think of. All kinds are still possible. For us if you go down to the question too trusting. Its a little time to find an agreement. In the situation but there is trouble and development in the u. K. There are some proposals on the table but time for negotiation is limited i notice you dont so you do trust him you will forgoing that option. That hes willing to leave you if you will result agreement and for us and his mother good option but if it is not able to find a compromise and have a majority in the parliament for agreement i dont see an open its now clear that if theres no deal theres likely to be considerable damage not just to britain but to the e. U. Economies as well why do you sit in s