Power. That is the word that comes to mind. We're the new technologists. We have a lot of data, so we have a lot of power. How much power do we have? Scene from a movie: "Apocalypse Now" -- great movie. We've got to get our hero, Captain Willard, to the mouth of the Nung River so he can go pursue Colonel Kurtz. The way we're going to do this is fly him in and drop him off. So the scene: the sky is filled with this fleet of helicopters carrying him in. And there's this loud, thrilling music in the background, this wild music. ♫ Dum da ta da dum ♫ ♫ Dum da ta da dum ♫ ♫ Da ta da da ♫ That's a lot of power. That's the kind of power I feel in this room. That's the kind of power we have because of all of the data that we have.
Moć. To je riječ koja nam pada na pamet. Mi smo novi tehnolozi. Imamo puno podataka, stoga imamo puno moći. Koliko moći imamo? Scena iz filma "Apokalipsa danas" -- sjajnog filma. Moramo dovesti našeg junaka, kapetana Willarda, do ušća rijeke Nung kako bi mogao krenuti za pukovnikom Kurtzom. To ćemo postići tako da ga ukrcamo u avion i ostavimo tamo. Ovako ide scena: nebo je prepuno helikoptera koji ga prevoze u pozadini je glasna, uzbudljiva, divlja glazba. ♫ Dum da ta da dum ♫ ♫ Dum da ta da dum ♫ ♫ Da ta da da ♫ To je puno moći. Takvu vrstu moći osjećam u ovoj prostoriji. Mi imamo tu vrstu moći zbog svih tih podataka koje imamo.
Let's take an example. What can we do with just one person's data? What can we do with that guy's data? I can look at your financial records. I can tell if you pay your bills on time. I know if you're good to give a loan to. I can look at your medical records; I can see if your pump is still pumping -- see if you're good to offer insurance to. I can look at your clicking patterns. When you come to my website, I actually know what you're going to do already because I've seen you visit millions of websites before. And I'm sorry to tell you, you're like a poker player, you have a tell. I can tell with data analysis what you're going to do before you even do it. I know what you like. I know who you are, and that's even before I look at your mail or your phone.
Na primjer, što možemo učiniti s podacima jedne jedine osobe? Što možemo s podacima ovog tipa? Mogu pogledati vaše financijsko stanje. Mogu reći plaćate li račune na vrijeme. Znam jeste li kreditno sposobni. Mogu pogledati vaše zdravstveno stanje, vidjeti radi li vam još srce, jeste li pogodni za osiguranje. Mogu pogledati uzorak vaših klikova. Kada dođete na moju web stranicu, već znam što ćete učiniti, jer sam već vidio kako posjećujete milijune web stranica. Žao mi je što vam to moram reći, ali vi ste kao igrač pokera, imate tik. Analizom podataka mogu reći što namjeravate učiniti prije nego što to učinite. Znam što volite. Znam tko ste. I sve to prije nego što sam pogledao vašu poštu ili vaš telefon.
Those are the kinds of things we can do with the data that we have. But I'm not actually here to talk about what we can do. I'm here to talk about what we should do. What's the right thing to do?
To su stvari koje možemo učiniti s podacima koje imamo. No, zapravo nisam ovdje da bih govorio o stvarima koje možemo učiniti. Ovdje sam kako bih govorio o onome što bismo trebali učiniti. Što je ispravno?
Now I see some puzzled looks like, "Why are you asking us what's the right thing to do? We're just building this stuff. Somebody else is using it." Fair enough. But it brings me back. I think about World War II -- some of our great technologists then, some of our great physicists, studying nuclear fission and fusion -- just nuclear stuff. We gather together these physicists in Los Alamos to see what they'll build. We want the people building the technology thinking about what we should be doing with the technology.
Vidim neke začuđene poglede, u stilu "Zašto nas pitaš što je ispravno? Mi samo stvaramo te stvari. Netko drugi ih koristi". Pošteno. To me vraća unatrag. Razmišljam o 2. svjetskom ratu -- nekima od ondašnjih velikih tehnologa, nekim velikim fizičarima, koji su studirali fisiju i fuziju, nuklearne stvari. Okupimo te fizičare u Los Alamosu da vidimo što će stvoriti. Želimo da ljudi stvaraju tehnologiju razmišljajući o tome što bismo pomoću nje trebali činiti.
So what should we be doing with that guy's data? Should we be collecting it, gathering it, so we can make his online experience better? So we can make money? So we can protect ourselves if he was up to no good? Or should we respect his privacy, protect his dignity and leave him alone? Which one is it? How should we figure it out?
Onda, što bismo trebali učiniti s podacima tog tipa? Bismo li ih trebali skupljati, grupirati, kako bismo unaprijedili njegovo online iskustvo? Kako bismo zaradili? Kako bismo zaštitili sebe ako bi on imao loše namjere? Ili bismo trebali poštovati njegovu privatnost, zaštititi njegovo dostojanstvo i pustiti ga na miru? Što je ispravno? Kako ćemo to doznati?
I know: crowdsource. Let's crowdsource this. So to get people warmed up, let's start with an easy question -- something I'm sure everybody here has an opinion about: iPhone versus Android. Let's do a show of hands -- iPhone. Uh huh. Android. You'd think with a bunch of smart people we wouldn't be such suckers just for the pretty phones. (Laughter) Next question, a little bit harder. Should we be collecting all of that guy's data to make his experiences better and to protect ourselves in case he's up to no good? Or should we leave him alone? Collect his data. Leave him alone. You're safe. It's fine. (Laughter) Okay, last question -- harder question -- when trying to evaluate what we should do in this case, should we use a Kantian deontological moral framework, or should we use a Millian consequentialist one? Kant. Mill. Not as many votes. (Laughter) Yeah, that's a terrifying result. Terrifying, because we have stronger opinions about our hand-held devices than about the moral framework we should use to guide our decisions.
Znam: crowd source. Idemo ovo "crowdsourceati". Za zagrijavanje, krenimo s laganim pitanjem -- s nečim o čemu sigurno svi prisutni imaju mišljenje: iPhone ili Android. Dignimo ruke -- iPhone. Opa. Android. Čovjek bi pomislio da ovoliko pametnih ljudi ne bi tako lako palo samo na lijepe telefone. (Smijeh) Sljedeće pitanje, malo teže. Bismo li trebali prikupljati sve podatke tog tipa kako bismo poboljšali njegova iskustva i zaštitili se u slučaju njegovih loših namjera -- ili bismo ga trebali pustiti na miru? Prikupi podatke. Ostavi ga na miru. U redu je, sigurni ste. (Smijeh) U redu, zadnje pitanje -- teže pitanje -- u procesu procjene što bismo trebali učiniti u ovom slučaju, trebamo li koristiti Kantov deontološki moralni okvir ili Millov posljedični? Kant. Mill. Nema baš puno glasova. (Smijeh) Da, to je zastrašujuć rezultat. Zastrašujuće je to da imamo snažnija mišljenja o svojim mobilnim uređajima nego o moralnom okviru koji bi nas trebao voditi pri odlučivanju.
How do we know what to do with all the power we have if we don't have a moral framework? We know more about mobile operating systems, but what we really need is a moral operating system. What's a moral operating system? We all know right and wrong, right? You feel good when you do something right, you feel bad when you do something wrong. Our parents teach us that: praise with the good, scold with the bad. But how do we figure out what's right and wrong? And from day to day, we have the techniques that we use. Maybe we just follow our gut. Maybe we take a vote -- we crowdsource. Or maybe we punt -- ask the legal department, see what they say. In other words, it's kind of random, kind of ad hoc, how we figure out what we should do. And maybe, if we want to be on surer footing, what we really want is a moral framework that will help guide us there, that will tell us what kinds of things are right and wrong in the first place, and how would we know in a given situation what to do.
Kako možemo znati što činiti sa svom tom moći koju imamo ako nemamo moralni okvir? Više znamo o mobilnim operativnim sustavima, ali ono što nam zaista treba je moralni operativni sustav. Što je moralni operativni sustav? Svi znamo da postoji ispravno i pogrešno, zar ne? Osjećate se dobro kada učinite nešto ispravno, a loše kada učinite nešto pogrešno. Roditelji nas uče: dobro treba hvaliti, loše grditi. No, kako razlikovati ispravno od pogrešnog? Iz dana u dan, koristimo razne tehnike. Možda samo slijedimo vlastiti predosjećaj. Možda glasujemo -- koristimo crowd source, a možda odustanemo -- pitamo pravnike da vidimo što će oni reći. Drugim riječima, to je nasumično, zapravo ad hoc, kako zaključujemo što bismo trebali učiniti. Možda je, ako želimo biti sigurniji, ono što zbilja želimo moralni okvir koji će nam biti nit vodilja, koji će nam reći koje su stvari ispravne, a koje pogrešne i kako bismo u nekoj situaciji znali što učiniti.
So let's get a moral framework. We're numbers people, living by numbers. How can we use numbers as the basis for a moral framework? I know a guy who did exactly that. A brilliant guy -- he's been dead 2,500 years. Plato, that's right. Remember him -- old philosopher? You were sleeping during that class. And Plato, he had a lot of the same concerns that we did. He was worried about right and wrong. He wanted to know what is just. But he was worried that all we seem to be doing is trading opinions about this. He says something's just. She says something else is just. It's kind of convincing when he talks and when she talks too. I'm just going back and forth; I'm not getting anywhere. I don't want opinions; I want knowledge. I want to know the truth about justice -- like we have truths in math. In math, we know the objective facts. Take a number, any number -- two. Favorite number. I love that number. There are truths about two. If you've got two of something, you add two more, you get four. That's true no matter what thing you're talking about. It's an objective truth about the form of two, the abstract form. When you have two of anything -- two eyes, two ears, two noses, just two protrusions -- those all partake of the form of two. They all participate in the truths that two has. They all have two-ness in them. And therefore, it's not a matter of opinion.
Stoga stvorimo moralni okvir. Mi smo ljudi od brojki, živimo od brojeva. Kako možemo iskoristiti brojeve kao temelj moralnog okvira? Znam tipa koji je učinio upravo to, briljantan tip -- mrtav je već 2.500 godina. Platon, tako je. Sjećate se tog starog filozofa? Spavali ste na tom satu. Platona su brinule iste stvari kao nas sada. Brinuo je oko ispravnog i pogrešnog. Želio je znati što je pravedno, ali je brinuo da je sve što činimo samo razmjena mišljenja o tome. On kaže da je nešto pravedno. Ona kaže da je nešto drugo pravedno. Dok govore, prilično su uvjerljivi i jedan i drugi. Idem naprijed-natrag; nikamo ne stižem. Ne želim mišljenja, želim znanje. Želim znati istinu o pravdi -- baš kao što imamo istine u matematici. U matematici znamo objektivne činjenice. Uzmimo neki, bilo koji broj -- dva. Omiljeni broj, volim taj broj. Postoje istine o dva. Ako imate dva nečega, i dodate još dva, dobivate četiri. To je istina, bez obzira o čemu govorili. To je objektivna istina o obliku dva, apstraktnom obliku. Kada imate bilo što dva -- dva oka, dva uha, dva nosa, samo dvije izbočine -- sve to sačinjava oblik dva. Sve to sudjeluje u istinama koje posjeduje dva. Svi oni imaju dva-nost u sebi. Stoga, to nije stvar mišljenja.
What if, Plato thought, ethics was like math? What if there were a pure form of justice? What if there are truths about justice, and you could just look around in this world and see which things participated, partook of that form of justice? Then you would know what was really just and what wasn't. It wouldn't be a matter of just opinion or just appearances. That's a stunning vision. I mean, think about that. How grand. How ambitious. That's as ambitious as we are. He wants to solve ethics. He wants objective truths. If you think that way, you have a Platonist moral framework.
Što ako je, mislio je Platon, etika poput matematike? Što ako postoji čisti oblik pravde? Što ako postoje istine o pravdi i možete samo pogledati ovaj svijet oko sebe, vidjeti koje stvari sudjeluju, sačinjavaju taj oblik pravde? Tada biste znali što je zaista pravedno, a što nije. To ne bi bio predmet mišljenja ili predodžbi. To je zapanjujuća vizija. Promislite o tome -- kako veliko, kako ambiciozno. Ambiciozno baš poput nas. On želi riješiti etiku. On želi objektivne istine. Ako razmišljate na taj način, imate platonistički moralni okvir.
If you don't think that way, well, you have a lot of company in the history of Western philosophy, because the tidy idea, you know, people criticized it. Aristotle, in particular, he was not amused. He thought it was impractical. Aristotle said, "We should seek only so much precision in each subject as that subject allows." Aristotle thought ethics wasn't a lot like math. He thought ethics was a matter of making decisions in the here-and-now using our best judgment to find the right path. If you think that, Plato's not your guy. But don't give up. Maybe there's another way that we can use numbers as the basis of our moral framework.
Ako ne razmišljate tako, u tome imate puno istomišljenika u povijesti zapadne filozofije, zbog čistoće ideje -- znate, ljudi su ju kritizirali. Aristotela, na primjer, to nije zabavljalo. Mislio je da je nepraktična. Aristotel je rekao: "Trebali bismo tražiti onoliko preciznosti u svakom predmetu koliko taj predmet dopušta". Aristotel nije mislio da je etika slična matematici. Mislio je da je etika predmet donošenja odluka "ovdje i sada" pomoću naše najbolje procjene u pronalasku pravog puta. Ako tako razmišljate, Platon nije vaš tip, ali ne dajte se, možda postoji drugi način na koji možemo iskoristiti brojeve za temelj našeg moralnog okvira.
How about this: What if in any situation you could just calculate, look at the choices, measure out which one's better and know what to do? That sound familiar? That's a utilitarian moral framework. John Stuart Mill was a great advocate of this -- nice guy besides -- and only been dead 200 years. So basis of utilitarianism -- I'm sure you're familiar at least. The three people who voted for Mill before are familiar with this. But here's the way it works. What if morals, what if what makes something moral is just a matter of if it maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain? It does something intrinsic to the act. It's not like its relation to some abstract form. It's just a matter of the consequences. You just look at the consequences and see if, overall, it's for the good or for the worse. That would be simple. Then we know what to do.
Što kažete na ovo: Što ako bi u bilo kojoj situaciji mogli samo izračunati, pogledati što se nudi, izmjeriti što je bolje i znati što učiniti? Zvuči poznato? To je utilitaristički moralni okvir. John Stuart Mill je bio veliki zagovornik ovoga -- osim toga, bio je dobar tip -- a mrtav je samo 200 godina. Dakle, temelji utilitarizma -- siguran sam da su vam poznati. Troje ljudi koji su glasovali za Milla ranije su upoznati s ovim. No, evo kako to funkcionira. Što ako je moral, odnosno ono što nešto čini moralnim samo pitanje povećavanja užitka i smanjivanja boli? Radi nešto svojstveno tom činu, a ne odnosi se na neki apstraktni oblik. Samo je pitanje posljedica. Gledate samo posljedice i vidite je li, u cjelini, to nešto za dobru ili lošu svrhu. To bi bilo jednostavno i tada bismo znali što učiniti.
Let's take an example. Suppose I go up and I say, "I'm going to take your phone." Not just because it rang earlier, but I'm going to take it because I made a little calculation. I thought, that guy looks suspicious. And what if he's been sending little messages to Bin Laden's hideout -- or whoever took over after Bin Laden -- and he's actually like a terrorist, a sleeper cell. I'm going to find that out, and when I find that out, I'm going to prevent a huge amount of damage that he could cause. That has a very high utility to prevent that damage. And compared to the little pain that it's going to cause -- because it's going to be embarrassing when I'm looking on his phone and seeing that he has a Farmville problem and that whole bit -- that's overwhelmed by the value of looking at the phone. If you feel that way, that's a utilitarian choice.
Pogledajmo primjer. Recimo da odem gore i kažem: "Uzet ću ti mobitel". Ne zato što je ranije zazvonio, već zato što sam napravio jedan mali izračun. Pomislio sam, ovaj tip izgleda sumnjivo. Što ako šalje porukice u Bin Ladenovo skrovište -- ili nekome tko je naslijedio Bin Ladena -- i zapravo je poput terorista, krtica. Saznat ću što se događa i kad saznam, spriječit ću ogromnu štetu koju je mogao izazvati. Od sprječavanja te štete imamo veliku korist, u usporedbi s malom boli koju ćemo izazvati jer će biti osramoćen kada mu pregledam mobitel i vidim da ima problem u Farmvilleu, jer sve je to nadvladala vrijednost pregledavanja njegovog mobitela. Ako se ovako osjećate, to je utilitaristički izbor.
But maybe you don't feel that way either. Maybe you think, it's his phone. It's wrong to take his phone because he's a person and he has rights and he has dignity, and we can't just interfere with that. He has autonomy. It doesn't matter what the calculations are. There are things that are intrinsically wrong -- like lying is wrong, like torturing innocent children is wrong. Kant was very good on this point, and he said it a little better than I'll say it. He said we should use our reason to figure out the rules by which we should guide our conduct, and then it is our duty to follow those rules. It's not a matter of calculation.
No, možda se ne osjećate ni ovako, možda mislite: "To je njegov mobitel, pogrešno je uzeti njegov mobitel jer je on osoba koja ima prava i dostojanstvo i ne možemo se u to uplitati". On ima autonomiju, neovisno o izračunima, postoje stvari koje su same po sebi pogrešne -- kao što je laganje pogrešno, kao što je mučenje nevine djece pogrešno. Kant je u ovome bio jako dobar i rekao je to malo bolje nego što ću ja reći. Rekao je da bismo trebali upotrijebiti naš razum kako bismo otkrili pravila po kojima ćemo voditi svoje ponašanje. Naša je dužnost slijediti ta pravila. To nije stvar izračuna.
So let's stop. We're right in the thick of it, this philosophical thicket. And this goes on for thousands of years, because these are hard questions, and I've only got 15 minutes. So let's cut to the chase. How should we be making our decisions? Is it Plato, is it Aristotle, is it Kant, is it Mill? What should we be doing? What's the answer? What's the formula that we can use in any situation to determine what we should do, whether we should use that guy's data or not? What's the formula? There's not a formula. There's not a simple answer.
Stoga, prestanimo. Upravo smo u srži ove filozofske zavrzlame koja se nastavlja tisućama godina, jer se radi o teškim pitanjima, a ja imam samo 15 minuta. Zato prijeđimo na stvar. Kako bismo trebali donositi naše odluke? Kao Platon, Aristotel, Kant ili Mill? Što bismo trebali činiti, što je odgovor? Koja je formula koju možemo upotrijebiti u bilo kojoj situaciji kako bismo odlučili što trebamo napraviti, hoćemo li upotrijebiti podatke tog tipa ili ne? Koja je formula? Nema formule. Nema jednostavnog odgovora.
Ethics is hard. Ethics requires thinking. And that's uncomfortable. I know; I spent a lot of my career in artificial intelligence, trying to build machines that could do some of this thinking for us, that could give us answers. But they can't. You can't just take human thinking and put it into a machine. We're the ones who have to do it. Happily, we're not machines, and we can do it. Not only can we think, we must. Hannah Arendt said, "The sad truth is that most evil done in this world is not done by people who choose to be evil. It arises from not thinking." That's what she called the "banality of evil." And the response to that is that we demand the exercise of thinking from every sane person.
Etika je teška. Etika zahtijeva razmišljanje, a to je neugodno. To znam jer sam potrošio dobar dio karijere na umjetnu inteligenciju, pokušavajući napraviti strojeve koji bi mogli malo razmišljati umjesto nas, dati nam odgovore -- ali oni to ne mogu. Naprosto ne možeš uzeti ljudsko razmišljanje i staviti ga u stroj. To moramo učiniti sami. Srećom, nismo strojevi pa možemo. Ne samo da možemo razmišljati, već moramo. Hannah Arendt je rekla: "Tužna istina je da najveća zla na ovome svijetu nisu počinili ljudi zato što su odabrali biti zli nego zato što nisu razmišljali". Ona to naziva "banalnošću zla". Kao odgovor na to, zahtijevamo vježbu razmišljanja od svake zdrave osobe.
So let's do that. Let's think. In fact, let's start right now. Every person in this room do this: think of the last time you had a decision to make where you were worried to do the right thing, where you wondered, "What should I be doing?" Bring that to mind, and now reflect on that and say, "How did I come up that decision? What did I do? Did I follow my gut? Did I have somebody vote on it? Or did I punt to legal?" Or now we have a few more choices. "Did I evaluate what would be the highest pleasure like Mill would? Or like Kant, did I use reason to figure out what was intrinsically right?" Think about it. Really bring it to mind. This is important. It is so important we are going to spend 30 seconds of valuable TEDTalk time doing nothing but thinking about this. Are you ready? Go.
Stoga, učinimo to. Razmišljajmo. Zapravo, krenimo odmah. Neka svaka osoba u ovoj prostoriji učini ovo: prisjetite se kada ste zadnji put morali donijeti odluku i bili ste zabrinuti činite li ispravnu stvar, pitali ste se: "Što bih trebao učiniti?" Prisjetite se toga i sada promislite o tome pa recite: "Kako sam došao do te odluke? Što sam učinio? Jesam li slijedio svoj predosjećaj? Jesam li izglasavao ili pitao pravnike?" Sada ipak imamo nešto više izbora. "Jesam li procjenjivao što bi bio najveći užitak, poput Milla? Ili sam, poput Kanta, koristio razum kako bih otkrio što je dobro samo po sebi?" Razmislite o tome. Stvarno se prisjetite, ovo je važno. Toliko je važno da ćemo potrošiti 30 sekundi vrijednog TEDTalk vremena ne radeći ništa osim razmišljanja o ovome. Jeste li spremni? Krenite.
Stop. Good work. What you just did, that's the first step towards taking responsibility for what we should do with all of our power.
Stanite. Dobar posao. Ovo što ste upravo učinili prvi je korak prema preuzimanju odgovornosti za ono što trebamo učiniti sa svom svojom moći.
Now the next step -- try this. Go find a friend and explain to them how you made that decision. Not right now. Wait till I finish talking. Do it over lunch. And don't just find another technologist friend; find somebody different than you. Find an artist or a writer -- or, heaven forbid, find a philosopher and talk to them. In fact, find somebody from the humanities. Why? Because they think about problems differently than we do as technologists. Just a few days ago, right across the street from here, there was hundreds of people gathered together. It was technologists and humanists at that big BiblioTech Conference. And they gathered together because the technologists wanted to learn what it would be like to think from a humanities perspective. You have someone from Google talking to someone who does comparative literature. You're thinking about the relevance of 17th century French theater -- how does that bear upon venture capital? Well that's interesting. That's a different way of thinking. And when you think in that way, you become more sensitive to the human considerations, which are crucial to making ethical decisions.
Na redu je sljedeći korak -- probajte ovo. Nađite prijatelja i objasnite mu kako ste došli do te odluke. Ne sada, čekajte dok završim s govorom. Za vrijeme ručka. Nemojte naći još jednog prijatelja-tehnologa, nego nekoga drukčijeg od vas. Pronađite umjetnika ili pisca -- ili, ne daj Bože, filozofa -- i popričajte s njim. Zapravo, pronađite nekoga iz humanistike. Zašto? Zato što oni razmišljaju o problemima drukčije nego mi, tehnolozi. Prije par dana, na ulici točno preko puta odavde, skupilo se na stotine ljudi. Bili su to tehnolozi i humanisti u sklopu velike BiblioTech konferencije. Okupili su se jer su tehnolozi željeli naučiti kako bi bilo razmišljati iz humanističke perspektive. Dakle, netko iz Googlea razgovrara s nekim tko se bavi komparativnom književnošću. Vi razmišljate o tome kakve veze ima francusko kazalište iz 17. stoljeća s rizičnim kapitalom? To je zanimljivo. To je drukčiji način razmišljanja. Kada razmišljate na taj način, postajete osjetljiviji prema pitanju ljudi, što je ključno kod donošenja etičkih odluka.
So imagine that right now you went and you found your musician friend. And you're telling him what we're talking about, about our whole data revolution and all this -- maybe even hum a few bars of our theme music. ♫ Dum ta da da dum dum ta da da dum ♫ Well, your musician friend will stop you and say, "You know, the theme music for your data revolution, that's an opera, that's Wagner. It's based on Norse legend. It's Gods and mythical creatures fighting over magical jewelry." That's interesting. Now it's also a beautiful opera, and we're moved by that opera. We're moved because it's about the battle between good and evil, about right and wrong. And we care about right and wrong. We care what happens in that opera. We care what happens in "Apocalypse Now." And we certainly care what happens with our technologies.
Zamislite da ste sada otišli i sreli svog prijatelja glazbenika i da mu pričate o ovome o čemu smo sada govorili, o cijeloj revoluciji podataka i svemu tome -- možda čak zapjevate pokoji takt glazbene teme. ♫ Dum ta da da dum dum ta da da dum ♫ Vaš prijatelj glazbenik bi vas zaustavio i rekao: "Znaš, ta glazbena tema iz tvoje revolucije podataka je opera. To je Wagner. Utemeljena je na nordijskoj legendi prema kojoj se bogovi i mitska bića bore za čarobni nakit". To je zanimljivo. To je predivna opera i ganuti smo njome. Ganuti smo jer se radi o borbi između dobra i zla, između ispravnog i pogrešnog, a nama je stalo do ispravnog i pogrešnog. Stalo nam je do toga što će se dogoditi u toj operi. Stalo nam je do toga što će se dogoditi u "Apokalipsi danas" i svakako nam je stalo što će se dogoditi s našim tehnologijama.
We have so much power today, it is up to us to figure out what to do, and that's the good news. We're the ones writing this opera. This is our movie. We figure out what will happen with this technology. We determine how this will all end.
Danas imamo toliko moći i sami moramo odlučiti što ćemo učiniti. To su dobre vijesti. Mi smo skladatelji ove opere. Ovo je naš film. Mi otkrivamo što će se dogoditi s ovom tehnologijom. Mi odlučujemo kako će sve ovo završiti.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)