A foothold . No. It would have been possible. Because everyone will have access to evidence and everything will be clear. It turns out to be possible. And it turns out not only to be possible but it can be possible in a really politically powerful way. That really has an impact. I thought that would be i that you that couldnt happen. I thought that couldnt happen. The way out of that to help people not lose touch with reality, when theres just so Much Technology everywhere, and theres so many incentives to manipulate it, is to make these interfaces that are clear as possible so people can have as much access to expertise and understanding their information as possible. And i think we failed at that. I honestly do. I think that we have an Information System now thats all about manipulation. Because it has perverse incentives. So theres the way journalism has been about click bait and being centralized around the top servers and all that kind of stuff. I dont want you can read my books if you want to hear my argument on that. But and this is a beef i have with the Artificial Intelligence world. Because if you say, oh, heres siri or qutana deciding what you should read or whatever algorithm it is, cibc were social creatures we tend to defer to them. But what it does is it creates this obscurity. Because if were honest, what it is is its some stupid algorithm that none of these algorithms are that great yet. Im very proud of what our field has done. But at the same time we have to have some perspective. And recognize that its still pretty crude. And what we should really be doing is visualizing for people what the algorithms are doing. Giving them access to understanding the mechanism as much as possible so they have an opportunity to understand their world better as doug would have expected them to. We should expect more from 0 you are people rather than weve automatically chosen these things and chosen like the latest one from facebook is what things from your past you should remember. Well, thats ok. But i dont mind i dont mind facebook offering that service. But i want them to make visible that algorithm so people can look at the mechanism and see what the corpus is thats driving it and play with it and understand it. And, you know, open source in itself doesnt do it. We need a new kind of Computer Science that visualizes and makes clear what algorithms do or we cant use them intelligently. What could be more clear than that . So thats the answer to the mediation issue, i believe. More visualization or more explanation, less fantasy. You know. Less manipulation. And then the second question about the power distribution, of course, is tremendously concerning. And here, like in the personal computer era, from the 1970s into the early 1990s, before everything got networked, well, there was a really interesting thing that happened with personal computers which is like little shops. Like some dry cleaner or something. They would buy a little they would buy an apple ii or a mac or an early p. C. And they would own their own data. The data quobcying on their desks. And the the data would be sitting on their desks. And the data would allow them to be entrepreneurs and im convinced that the personal computer era did a lot to raise the middle class because it gave so many people the ability to have unique information powers as small players in their market. Which is what capitalism is all about. When we have entered into this cloud era, where its one of our Big Companies that owns peoples data, and colates it and gives some algorithms to people no longer own their own data and thats the mechanism by which technology has been hurting the middle class. Thats absolutely correctable. Thats an engineering issue that we can actually solve. And i we have to. Its not what were doing is not sustainable. One last question. Think we have time for. My name is laurus and a friend of Doug Engelbart back in the day. We used to Exchange Visits to each others labs. I was managing the stanford Artificial Intelligence lab. I admired his work. A good demo he gave was a very good presentation of the state of the art in interactive computing. However, i disagree about the appraisal of it. It was called the mother of all demos, i believe. By some reporters who didnt know the state of the art. There was one new idea introduced in the talk. It didnt work. The thing that got the most attention was the point and click interface using the mouse. The mouse was a less expensive way of pointing and clicking than the prior state of the art. Which was socalled light guns and light pens. But it was not a new idea. The point and click graphical user interface had been around for 15 years at that point. It was introduced at m. I. T. On the whirlwind computer. And later widely used in the sage air Defense System which i helped design. But that was not a new idea. T was became popular. Especially after the they introduced the introduction of the personal computer. T now the new idea that doug showed was the onehanded keyboard. Didnt work out. It was it was dropped. And of course the mice are now sort of fading. Being replaced by touchpads. And the like. So while that was a very nice been somewhat blown up in perspective beyond what it really accomplished. So im sorry thats the dissenting view. Jaron yeah. Well theres a couple of things i want to say about that. Assessing the value of contributions in Computer Science can often be tricky. Because i would tend to agree that isolating a single contribution of dougs like often hes introduced for the mouse. And i dont think thats thats the important thing he did. What he did is he did a holistic sensibility and demonstrated an overall approach to technology in a scenario for using it that was fresh. And i think youre teasing it apart into elements. I agree with you on the points of history. I do want to say that if you were going to apply the same standard to the a. I. Field, a whole lot of a. I. Achievements would fall into nothing really fast because a lot of that is puffery. If you want to play that game i think your own field would suffer pretty badly. But i dont think that that is thats not thats not the important field of play. I have to Say Something else. Back in those days, the stanford a. I. Lab was such a charming, amazing eccentric place back in the hills and this sort of weird decaying ultra modern arc building and loved it back then it was so strange. So a lot to remember about that wonderful lab as well from the period. But i you know, theres there are levels of achievement that cant be described in terms of the atoms that need to be described in terms of their molecules. And doug was a molecular innovator and ill defend him on those terms. [applause] henry i think were going to go with one more question. That would be you. Hi. My name is andre mekert. Henry, i would like to go back to your last question. Would like to go back to henrys last question if you had to name out about three or four things which you two would think would change the world most in the next 15 to 20 years, could you do that . I know its difficult. But three or four industries or key things in the next 15 or 20 years, please. Jaron the most important oin vegases of the next 30 years . Is that what you guys think from today might change the world the most. Jaron i think youre not holding the microphone close enough or something so i couldnt quite i think youre asking what do we think are the most important innovations to seek in the next 25, 30 . 15 or 20. Sebastian can i think nor 20 years . For 20 years . Ive always been so wrong in predicting these things. Its amazing. So i can tell you things that i would love to see happening. Something obvious like were moving from a sharing society from an Ownership Society and the car being shared through uber and also personal belongs and moving to an Ondemand Service and your clothing for the evening you push a button and it comes on a machine. Your food will come out of a machine and dont have to worry about going shopping anymore. And maintaining your refrigerator or other things will go away. Theres a Company Called calica and about longevity and on making people live longer. So maybe the time between us and our death in 20 years will be the same as it is today. Because we lived 20, 30, 50 years longer and maybe 100 years longer and maybe we crack that code. I believe in medicine, a whole bunch of changes will take place. That between personal medicine and preventive medicine. That will probably render half the deaths today completely survivable. Easily in my opinion and that will be very massive for society. Transportation. A hyper loop which makes a lot of sense. Flight. I believe were going to change the basic mode of transportation. Memorization. As we fuse the devices into our daily life we will rely more on them and can exploit the fact that they can remember everything. And we can share things with other people easier. So we have this conversation, theres no need to have the same conversation again with somebody else. Because we just know about it. I think the other thing thats going to help is many of the basic necessities become basically free. Food will become much cheaper and our living will become cheaper and transportation. Already happening massively. So that were going to have a situation where where a lot of things, used to be very expensive. But as a society a different question. If you all worked less would be better for us because we could share better. We tend to work more and more. But all the things that are happening today. Theres nothing really new here. And you might move to mars. Who knows . At least a few of us will move to mars like maybe one or two people. Jaron ok. 20 years. Oh, gosh. If i was going to put them top on my list, ive come to believe we need to take charge of our climate. That we cant we cant take a standoff approach to it. And the thing that some of you might not coopt to is we can no longer treat it as the thing that we only try to not harm but have to actively engage with it and start to guide it. And thats still a controversial idea but i dont think we have a choice. Fresh water supply and take charge of having clean safe water for everybody in the world. Very touch. Tougher politically, maybe than technologically at this point, i if were going to have a sharing economy, it has to be authentic and actually support everybody. Not be a phony thing where it makes hyper billionaires and a bunch of insecure people. [applause] i suspect the math doesnt actually work out. And we have to whether we chose a more market based or social system, either way it has to be an honest one. As we have more and more technological options it becomes trickier to sort out that we must do it. I love the stuff like 1 16 thiesing new synthesizing new clothes and efficiency and i think its great and totally worthy to make technology becausethefun and beautiful and you adore it. I think thats a legitimate reason and want to see 20 things like that that i dont anticipate. Im a little less interested in extreme longevity if we dont have an Overall Societal solution. The trend right now is to create fake longevity for people where you have like these simulations of peoples personalities after they die for the poor. And then actual biological longevity for the rich. And that if we create that, that distinction. This is actually you see these projects now. Thats not sustainable. That will cause that will make a liar of Steven Pinker and i never want to do that. In a way what i want from the world more than anything else is a way for you each person to find such diverse ways of succeeding that its too confusing to conflicts anymore. That might be a slightly complicated way to put it