Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Demis Hassabis On The Future of Work in the Age of AI | WIRED | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Demis Hassabis On The Future of Work in the Age of AI
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
It's a very intense time in the field.
We obviously want all of the brilliant
things these AI systems can do. Come up
with new cures for diseases, new energy
sources, incredible things for humanity.
That's the promise of AI. But also,
there are worries. If the first AI
systems are built with the wrong value
systems, or they're built unsafeely,
that could be also very bad. WY sat down
with Dennis Sabis, who's a CEO of Google
Deep Mind, which is the engine of the
company's artificial intelligence. He's
a Nobel Prize winner and also a knight.
We discussed AGI, the future of work,
and how Google plans to compete in the
Well, welcome to the big interview,
Dennis. Thank you. Thanks for having me.
So, let's start talking about AGI a
little here. Now, you founded Deep Mind
with the idea that you would solve
intelligence and then use intelligence
to solve everything else. And I think it
was like a 20-year mission. We're like
15 years into it and you're on track. I
feel like yeah, we're pretty much dead
on track actually is what would be our
estimate. That means 5 years away from
you know what I guess people will call
AGI. Yeah. I think in the next 5 to 10
years that would be my you know maybe
50% chance that we'll have what we
defined as AGI. Yes. Well, some of your
peers are saying 2 years, 3 years and
others say a little more. But that
that's really close. That's really soon.
How do we know that we're that close?
There's a bit of a debate going on at
the moment in the field about
definitions of AGI and and then of of
course dependent on that there's
different predictions for when it will
happen. Uh we've been pretty consistent
from the very beginning and actually
Shane Le, one of my co-founders and our
chief scientist, you know, he helped
define the term AGI back in I think
early, you know, 2001 type of time
frame. And we've always thought about it
as you know a system that has the
ability to exhibit sort of all the
cognitive capabilities we have as
humans. And the reason that's important
the reference to the human mind is the
human mind is the only existence proof
we have maybe in the universe that
general intelligence is possible. So if
you want to claim sort of general
intelligence AGI then you need to show
that it it generalizes to all these
domains is when everything's filled in
all the all the check marks are are are
filled in then when we have it we it's
yes so I think there are missing
capabilities right now you know that all
of us who have used the latest sort of
LLMs and chat bots will will know very
well like on reasoning on planning on
memory I don't think today's systems can
invent you know true do true invention
you know true creativity hypothesize new
scientific theories. They're extremely
useful. They're impressive. Um, but they
have holes. And actually, one of the
main reasons I don't think we're we're
at AGR yet is because of the consistency
of responses. You know, in some domains,
we have systems that are can do
international math olympiad math
problems, you know, to gold medal
standard with our alpha proof system,
but on the other hand, these systems
sometimes still trip up on high school
maths or even counting the number of
letters in a word. So that to me is not
what you would expect. That level of
sort of difference in performance across
the board is is you know not consistent
enough and therefore shows that these
systems are not fully generalizing yet.
But when we get it is then like a phase
shift that you know then all of a sudden
things are different all the check marks
are checked. Yeah. You know and we have
a thing that can do everything. Are we
then pow in a new world? I think, you
know, that again that is debated and
it's not clear to me whether it's going
to be more of a a kind of incremental
transition versus a step function. My
guess is it looks like it's going to be
more of an incremental shift. Even if
you had a system like that, the the
physical world still operates at the in
the in with the physical laws, you know,
factories, robots, these other things.
So it'll take a while for the effects of
that you know this sort of digital
imp theories on that too where it could
come faster. Yeah. Eric Schmidt who I
think used to work at Google uh has said
that it's almost like a a binary thing.
He says if if China for instance gets
AGI then we're cooked because if someone
gets it like 10 minutes before you know
the next guy then you can never catch up
you know because then it'll maintain
bigger bigger leads there. You don't buy
that. I guess I think it's an unknown.
It's one of the many unknowns which is
that you know that's sometimes called
the hard takeoff scenario where you know
the idea there is that these AGI systems
they're able to self-improve maybe code
themselves future versions of themselves
that maybe extremely fast at doing that.
So what would be a a slight lead, let's
say, you know, a few days could be could
suddenly become a chasm if that was
true. But there are many other ways it
could go too where it's more
incremental. Some of these
self-improvement things are not able to
kind of um accelerate in that way. Uh
then you know being around the same time
uh would not make much difference. But
it's important I mean these issues and
the geopolitical issues I think the
systems that are being built they'll
have some imprint of the values and the
kind of norms of the designers and the
culture that they were uh embedded in.
So you know I think there it is
important these kinds of international
questions. So when you build AI at
Google you know do you have that in
mind? Do you feel you competitive
imperative to in case that's true oh my
god we better be first? It's a very
intense time at the moment in in the
field as everyone knows. So many
resources going into it, lots of
pressures, lots of things to that that
need to be researched and there's sort
of lots of different types of pressures
going on. We obviously want all of the
brilliant things that these AI systems
can do. You know, I think eventually
we'll be able to make, you know, advance
medicine and science with it like we've
done with AlphaFold, come up with new
cures for diseases, new energy sources,
incredible things for humanity. That's
the promise of AI. Um but also there are
worries both in terms of you know if the
first AI systems are built with the
wrong value systems or they're built
unsafeely that could be also very bad
and you know there are at least two uh
risks that I worry a lot about. One is
bad actors in whether it's individuals
or rogue nations repurposing general
purpose AI technology for harmful ends
and then the second one is obviously the
technical risk of AI itself as it gets
more and more powerful more and more
agentic can we make sure we uh the guard
rails are safe around it they can't be
circumvented and that interacts with
this idea of you know what are the first
systems that are built by humanity going
to be like there's commercial imperative
there's there's national imperative and
there's a safety aspect to uh worry
about, you know, who who's in the lead
and where those uh projects are. A few
years ago, the companies were saying,
"Please regulate us. We need
regulation." And now in the US, at
least, the current administration seems
less interested in putting regulations
on AI than accelerating it so we can
beat the Chinese. Are you still asking
for regulation? Do you think that that's
a miss on our part? I I think um you
know and I've been consistent in this I
think uh there are these you know uh
other geopolitical sort of overlays that
have to be taken into account and the
world's a very different place to you
know how it was 5 years ago in many
dimensions but there's also you know I
think the idea of smart regulation that
makes sense around these increasingly
powerful systems I think is going to be
important I continue to believe that I
think though and I've been sitting on
this as well it sort of needs to be
international which looks hard at the
moment in the way the is working because
these systems, you know, they're going
to affect everyone and they're they're
digital systems. So, you know, if you
sort of restrict it in one area, that
doesn't really help in terms of the
overall safety of these systems getting
built, you know, uh for the world um and
as a society. So that's the bigger
problem I think is some kind of
international cooperation or or
collaboration I think is what's required
and then smart regulation, nimble
regulation that moves as the knowledge
about the research becomes you know
better and better. Would it ever reach a
point for you where you would feel man
we're not putting the guard rails in you
know we're competing that we really have
to stop or you can't get get involved in
that? I think the a lot of the leaders
of the of the main labs at least the
western labs you know we do it's there's
a small number of them and we do all
know each other and talk to each other
regularly and a lot of the lead
researchers do the problem is is that we
it's not clear we have the right
definitions to agree when that point is
like today's systems I although they're
you know they're impressive as we
discussed earlier they're also very
flawed um and I don't think today's
systems are posing any sort of
existential risk But um so it's still
theoretical but the problem is there a
lot of unknowns. We don't know how fast
those will come and we don't know how
risky they will be. But in my view when
there are so many unknowns then one I'm
optimistic we'll overcome them. Uh at
least technically I think the
geopolitical questions could be actually
end up being trickier given enough time
and enough care and thoughtfulness you
know sort of using the scientific method
as we in you know approach this AGI
point. That makes perfect sense. But on
the other hand, if that time frame is
there, we just don't have much time, you
know. No, we don't we don't have much
time. I I mean, we're increasingly
putting resources into security and um
things like cyber um and also research
into controllability and understanding
of these systems, sometimes called
mechanistic interpretability. You know,
there's a lot of different subbranches
of AI. That's why I want to get to
interpret that are being invested in and
I think even more needs to happen. Um
and then at the same time we need to
also have uh societal debates more about
institutional building. How do we want
governance to work? How are we going to
get international agreement at least on
some basic principles around uh how
these systems are used and deployed and
and and also built? What about the
effect on work on the marketplace? You
know how much do you feel that AI is
going to change people's jobs? You know
the way jobs are distributed in in the
workforce? I don't think we've seen my
my view is if you talk to economists
they they feel like there's not much has
changed yet you know people are finding
these tools useful certainly in certain
domains like things like alphafold many
many scientists are using it to
accelerate their work so it seems to be
additive at the moment we'll see what
happens over the next 5 10 years I think
it's there's going to be a lot of change
with the jobs world but I I think as in
the past what generally tends to happen
is new jobs are created that are
actually better that utilize these tools
or new technologies is what happen with
the internet, what happen with mobile.
We'll see if it's different this time.
Obviously, everyone always thinks this
new one will be different and it maybe
it will be. Um, but I think for the next
few years, it's most likely to be, you
know, we'll have these incredible tools
that supercharge our productivity, make
us, you know, um, uh, really useful for
creative tools and and actually almost
make us a little bit superhuman in some
ways in what we're able to produce, um,
individually. So I think there's going
to be a kind of a kind of golden era of
the next period of what what we're able
to do. Well, if AGI can do everything
humans can do, then it would seem that
they could do the new jobs, too. That's
the next question about like what AGI uh
uh brings. But, you know, even if you
have those capabilities, there's a lot
of things I think we won't want to do,
you know, with a with a machine. You
know, I sometimes give this this example
of doctors and nurses. you know, uh
maybe a doctor and what the doctor does
and the diagnosis, you know, one could
imagine that being helped by a AI tool
or or even having an an AI kind of
doctor on the other hand like nursing,
you know, I don't think you'd want a
robot to do that. I think there's
something about the human empathy aspect
of that and the care and so on that's
particularly uh humanistic. I think
there's lots of examples like that where
but it's going to be, you know, a
different world for sure. If you're you
would talk to a graduate now M what
advice would you give to keep working
through the course of of a lifetime you
know in the age of AGI? My my view is
currently and of course this is changing
all the time with with with the
technology developing but right now you
know if you think of the next 5 10 years
as being um the the most productive
people might be 10x more productive if
they are native with these tools. So I
think kids today, students today, my
encouragement would be immerse yourself
in these new systems, understand them.
So still I think it's still important to
study STEM and programming and other
things so that you understand how
they're built. Maybe you can modify them
yourself on top of the models that are
available. There's lots of great open
source models and so on. and then
become, you know, um, incredible at
things like fine-tuning, system
prompting, you know, system
instructions, all of these additional
things that anyone can do and really
know how to get the most out of those
uh, tools and do it for your, you know,
your research work, programming, things
that you're doing on your course and
then come out of that being incredible
at utilizing and those new tools for
whatever it is you're going to do. Let's
look a little beyond the five and and 10
year range. Tell me what you envision
when you look at the our future in 20
years and in 30 years if this comes
about. What's the world like when AGI is
everywhere? Well, if everything goes
well, then we should be uh in an era of
what I like to call sort of uh radical
abundance. So, you know, AGI solves some
of these key what I sometimes call root
node problems in the world facing
society. So good one examples would be
curing diseases, much healthier longer
lifespans, um finding new energy
sources, uh you know, whether that's
optimal batteries and better better you
know room temperature superconductors,
fusion um and then if that all happens
um then you know we should be it should
be a kind of era of maximum human
flourishing where we travel to the stars
um and colonize the the galaxy. Um
that's that's that's you know I think
the beginning of that will happen in the
next 20 30 years if if if if the next
period goes well. I'm a little skeptical
of that. I think we have an unbelievable
abundance now but we don't distribute it
you know fairly. I think that we kind of
know how to fix climate change right we
don't need a AGI to tell us how to do it
yet we're not doing it. I I agree with
that. I think I think we've been as a as
a species, a society, not good at
collaborating. And I think climate is a
good example. But I think we're still
operating, humans are still operating in
a zero sum game mentality because
actually the earth is quite finite
relative to the amount of people there
are now and our cities. And I mean this
is this is why our natural habitats are
being are being destroyed and and it's
infecting, you know, wildlife and and
the climate and everything. And it's
also partly because people are not
willing to accept we do now to to to
figure out climate but it would require
people to make sacrifices and people
don't want to. But this radical
abundance would mean would be different.
We would be in a finally like it would
feel like a non-zero sum game. How would
we get Jordan into that? Like you talk
about disease. I give you an example. We
have we have vaccines and now people are
some people think we should let me give
you a very simple example. Water access.
This is going to be huge issue in the
next 10 20 years. It's already an issue.
Countries and different you know poorer
parts of the world, drier parts of the
world also obviously compounded by
climate change. We have a solution to
water access. It's desalination. It's
easy. There's there's plenty of sea
water. Almost all countries have a
coastline. But the problem is it's salty
water. But desalination only very rich
countries, some countries do do that.
Use desalination as a solution to their
freshwater problem. But it costs a lot
of energy. But if energy was essentially
zero, there was renewable free clean
energy, right? Like fusion, suddenly you
solve the water access problem. Water is
who controls a river or what you do with
that does not becomes, you know, much
less important than it is today. I think
things like water access, you know, if
you roll forward 20 years and and there
isn't a solution like that could lead to
all sorts of conflicts probably that's
the what the way it's trending,
especially if you include further
climate change and there's many many
examples like that. You could create
rocket fuel easily because you just
separate that from seawater, hydrogen
and oxygen. It's just energy again. So
you feel that these problems get solved
by AGI by AI. Then we're going to our
outlook will change and we will be
that's what I hope yes that's what I
hope but it would that's still a
secondary part. So the AGI will give us
the radical abundance capability
technically like the water access. I
then hope and this is where I think we
need some great philosophers or or or
social scientists to be involved that
should hopefully um shift our mindset as
a as a society to nonzero sum. You know
there's still the issue of do do you
divide even the radical abundance fairly
right of course that's what should
happen but I think there's much more
likely once people start feeling and
understanding that there is this almost
limitless um supply of of of raw
materials and energy and things like
that. Do you think that, you know,
driving this innovation by profitm
companies is the right way to go? We're
most likely to reach that optimistic
high point through that. I think it's
the current, you know, capitalism or,
you know, is the current or the western
sort of democ democratic kind of, you
know, systems uh have so far been proven
to be sort of the best drivers of
progress. So I think that's true. My
view is that once you get to that sort
of stage of radical abundance and post
AGI, I think economics starts changing
even the the notion of value and money.
And so again, I think we need I'm not
sure why economists are not working
harder on this if they maybe they don't
believe it's that close, right? But but
but if they really did that like the the
AGI scientists do, then I think there's
a lot of economic new economic theory
that's required. You know, one final
thing. I actually agree with you that
this is so significant and it's going to
have a huge impact, but when I write
about it, I always get a lot of response
from people who are really angry already
about artificial intelligence and and
and what's happening. Have you tasted
that? Have you gotten that push back and
and and anger by a lot of people? It's
almost like the industrial revolution
people Yeah. I mean I think that anytime
there's I I haven't personally seen a
lot of that but obviously I've you know
read and heard a lot about it's very
understandable that's that's happened
many times you say industrial revolution
when there's big change a big revolution
and I think this will be at least as big
as the industrial revolution probably a
lot bigger that's surprising there's
unknowns it's scary things will change
but on the other hand when I talk to
people about the passion of why I'm
building AI which is to advance science
and medicine and understanding of the
world around us and then I explain to
people you know and I've demonstrated
it's just talk here. Here's AlphaFold,
you know, Nobel Prize winning
breakthrough can help with medicine and
drug discovery. Obviously, we're doing
this with isomorphic now to extend it
into drug discovery and we can cure
diseases, terrible diseases that might
be afflicting your family. Suddenly,
people are like, well, that's of course
we need that. It would be immoral not to
have have that if that's within our
grasp. And and and the same with climate
and energy, you know, many of the big
societal problems. It's not like we're,
you know, we we know, we've talked about
there's many bigish challenges facing
society today. And I often say I would
be very worried about our future if I
didn't know something as revolutionary
as AI was coming down the line to help
with those other challenges. Of course,
it's also a challenge itself, right? But
at least it's one of these challenges
that can actually help with the others
if we get it right. Well, I hope I your
optimism holds out and is justified.
Thank you so much. I'll do my best.
Thank you. [Music]
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Chrome Extension