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 reč koja pada na pamet. Mi smo novi tehnolozi. Imamo mnogo podataka, stoga imamo mnogo moći. Koliko moći imamo? Scena iz filma "Apokalipsa danas" - sjajnog filma. Moramo da dovedemo našeg heroja, kapetana Vilarda, do ušća reke Nung kako bi krenuo u potragu za pukovnikom Kercom. Zato ćemo ga tamo odvesti avionom i ostaviti ga. Dakle, scena je: nebo je ispunjeno flotom helikoptera koji ga prenose. I tu je ta glasna, uzbudljiva muzika u pozadini, ta divlja muzika. ♫ Dum da ta da dum ♫ ♫ Dum da ta da dum ♫ ♫ Da ta da da ♫ To je puno moći. To je moć kakvu osećam u ovoj prostoriji. Takvu moć imamo zbog svih podataka koje posedujemo.
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.
Uzmimo jedan primer. Šta možemo da uradimo sa podacima samo jedne osobe? Šta možemo da uradimo sa podacima ovog tipa? Mogu da pogledam vaše finansijsko stanje. Da vidim da li redovno plaćate račune. Znam da li ste pogodni za davanje kredita. Da pogledam vaš medicinski karton - da vidim da li vaša pumpa još uvek pumpa - da li ste pogodni za ponudu osiguranja. Mogu da vidim vaše obrasce kliktanja. Kad dođete na moj sajt, zapravo već znam šta ćete uraditi jer sam već ranije video kako posećujte milione sajtova. I žao mi je da vam to kažem, odajete znake kao igrač pokera. Mogu da otkrijem analizom podataka šta ćete uraditi pre nego što to i učinite. Znam šta volite. Znam ko ste, i to čak i pre nego što pogledam 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?
Takve stvari možemo da uradimo sa podacima koje imamo. Ali ja u stvari nisam ovde da bih govorio o tome šta možemo činiti. Ovde sam da bih govorio o tome šta bi trebalo da činimo. Šta je prava stvar koju treba uraditi?
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 zbunjene poglede u stilu: "Zašto nas pitaš šta je prava stvar koju treba uraditi? Mi samo pravimo ove stvari. Neko drugi ih koristi." Pošteno. Ali to me vraća unazad. Razmišljam o Drugom svetskom ratu - nekim od tadašnjih velikih tehnologa, o nekim velikim fizičarima koji su izučavali nuklearnu fisiju i fuziju - prosto nuklearne stvari. Okupimo ove fizičare u Los Alamosu da vidimo šta će stvoriti. Želimo da ljudi koji grade tehnologiju razmišljaju o tome šta bi trebalo da radimo sa tehnologijom.
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?
Dakle, šta bi trebalo da radimo sa podacima tog tipa? Treba li da ih sakupljamo, grupišemo, da bismo mogli da njegovo onlajn iskustvo učinimo boljim? Da bismo mogli da zaradimo novac? Da zaštitimo sebe ako bi on imao loše namere? Ili bi trebalo da poštujemo njegovu privatnost, štitimo njegovo dostojanstvo i ostavimo ga na miru? Šta od toga? Kako to da otkrijemo?
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: kraudsorsing. Hajde da to uradimo. Da se ljudi zagreju, počnimo sa lakim pitanjem - nečim za šta sam siguran da svi ovde imaju mišljenje o tome: Ajfon naspram Androida. Hajdemo sa podizanjem ruku - Ajfon. Aha. Android. Čovek bi pomislio da gomila pametnih ljudi ne bi bili takve naivčine po pitanju lepih telefona. (Smeh) Sledeće pitanje, malo teže. Da li bi trebalo da sakupljamo sve podatke tog tipa da bismo učinili njegovo iskustvo boljim i zaštitili sebe u slučaju da on sprema nešto loše? Ili treba da ga ostavimo na miru? Sakupljati njegove podatke. Ostaviti ga na miru. Bezbedni ste. U redu je. (Smeh) Okej, poslednje pitanje - teže pitanje - kada pokušavamo da procenimo šta treba da radimo u ovom slučaju, da li treba da koristimo Kantov deontološki moralni okvir, ili treba da koristimo Milov konsekvencionalistički? Kant. Mil. Nema toliko glasova. (Smeh) Da, to je zastrašujući rezultat. Zastrašujuć, jer imamo snažnija mišljenja o našim mobilnim aparatima nego o moralnom okviru koji treba da koristimo za usmeravanje naših odluka.
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 znamo šta da radimo sa svom tom moći koju imamo ako nemamo moralni okvir? Znamo više o mobilnim operativnim sistemima, ali ono što nam je zaista potrebno jeste moralni operativni sistem. Šta je moralni operativni sistem? Svi znamo za ispravno i pogrešno, zar ne? Osećate se dobro kada uradite nešto ispravno, loše kada uradite nešto pogrešno. Naši roditelji nas uče tome: nagrađuju za dobro, grde za loše. Ali kako da shvatimo šta je ispravno a šta pogrešno? Iz dana u dan, imamo tehnike koje koristimo. Možda jednostavno sledimo našu intuiciju. Možda glasamo - koristimo kraudsors. Ili možda odustanemo - pitamo pravnike, vidimo šta oni kažu. Drugim rečima, nekako je slučajno, nekako ad hoc, kako rešavamo šta bi trebalo da radimo. Možda je, ako želimo da stojimo na čvršćoj podlozi, ono što nam zaista treba moralni okvir koji će nam pomoći da se uputimo tamo, koji će nam reći uopšte kakve stvari su ispravne i pogrešne, i kako bismo znali šta da činimo u datoj situaciji.
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.
Hajde onda da pribavimo moralni poredak. Mi smo ljudi od brojeva, živimo po brojevima. Kako možemo da koristimo brojeve kao osnovu za moralni okvir? Znam tipa koji je učinio upravo to. Sjajan tip - mrtav je poslednjih 2500 godina. Platon, tako je. Sećate ga se - stari filozof? Spavali ste na tom času. Platon je imao dosta istih briga koje i mi imamo. Brinuo je oko ispravnog i pogrešnog. Želeo je da zna šta je pravedno. Ali je brinuo da je sve što da radimo razmena mišljenja o ovome. On kaže da je nešto pravedno. Ona da je nešto drugo pravedno. Nekako je ubedljivo kad on govori i kad ona govori. Samo idem napred-nazad, ne stižem nigde. Ne želim mišljenja; želim znanje. Želim da znam istinu o pravdi - kao što imamo istine u matematici. U matematici znamo objektivne činjenice. Uzmite broj, bilo koji broj - dva. Omiljeni broj. Volim taj broj. Postoje istine u vezi dva. Ako imate dva nečega, dodate još dva, dobijate četiri. To je istinito bez obzira o čemu govorite. To je objektivna istina o obliku dva, apstraktnom obliku. Kada imate dva bilo čega - dva oka, dva uha, dva nosa, prosto dve izbočine - sve to sačinjava oblik dva. Svi oni učestvuju u istinama koje dva ima. Svi oni imaju dva-nost u njima. I prema tome, 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.
Šta kad bi, Platon je razmišljao, etika bila kao matematika? Šta kada bi postojao čist oblik pravde? Šta ako postoje istine o pravednosti, i možete samo pogledati svet oko sebe i videti koje stvari učestvuju, sačinjavaju taj oblik pravednosti? Tada biste znali šta je zaista pravedno a šta nije. To ne bi bila stvar pravednog mišljenja ili pravednih predstava. To je zapanjujuća vizija. Razmislite o tome. Kako veličanstveno. Kako ambiciozno. To je ambiciozno koliko i mi. On hoće da reši etiku. On želi objektivne istine. Ako razmišljate na taj način, imate platonski 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 mislite na taj način, pa, imate dosta društva u istoriji zapadne filozofije, zbog uređene ideje, znate, ljudi su je kritikovali. Aristotelu naročito, nije mu bila zabavna. Mislio je da je nepraktična. Aristotel je rekao: "Trebalo bi da tražimo samo onoliko preciznosti u svakoj temi koliko to tema dozvoljava." Aristotel je mislio da etika nije mnogo slična matematici. Mislio je da je etika stvar donošenja odluka, sada i ovde koristeći naše najbolje procene da pronađemo pravi put. Ako tako mislite, Platon nije za vas. Ali ne odustajte. Možda postoji drugi način da koristimo brojeve kao osnovu za naš moralni okvir.
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.
Kako se čini ovo: šta ako biste mogli da u bilo kojoj situaciji izračunate, pogledate izbore, izmerite koji je bolji i znate šta da radite? Da li to zvuči poznato? To je utilitaristički moralni okvir. Džon Stjuart Mil je bio veliki zastupnik ovoga - dobar tip inače - i mrtav je svega 200 godina. Dakle, osnove utilitarizma - siguran sam da su vam bar poznate. Tri osobe koje su malopre glasale za Mila su upoznate sa ovim. Evo kako to funkcioniše. Šta ako je ono što čini nešto moralnim samo stvar toga da li uvećava zadovoljstvo i umanjuje bol? Radi nešto svojstveno tom činu. Nije to odnos prema nekoj apstraktnoj formi. To je samo pitanje posledica. Jednostavno pogledate posledice i vidite da li je, sveukupno, dobro ili loše. To bi bilo jednostavno. Tada znamo šta da radimo.
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.
Hajde da uzmemo primer. Pretpostavimo da ja ustanem i kažem: "Uzeću tvoj telefon." Ne prosto zato što je prethodno zazvonio, već ću ga uzeti jer sam napravio malu računicu. Pomislio sam, taj tip deluje sumnjivo. Šta ako je slao porukice u Bin Ladenovo skrovište - ili ko god da je nasledio Bin Ladena - i on je zapravo poput teroriste, tajni agent. Ja ću to da otkrijem, i kada otkrijem, sprečiću ogromnu količinu štete koju bi on mogao izazvati. To je veoma velika korist od sprečavanja te štete. I upoređujući to sa malo bola koje će izazvati - jer će biti nelagodno kada budem pregledao njegov telefon i video da ima problem s Farmvilom i sve to - nadjačan je vrednošću pregledanja telefona. Ako imate takvo mišljenje, 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.
Ali možda ne razmišljate ni tako. Možda smatrate, to je njegov telefon. Pogrešno je uzeti njegov telefon jer je on osoba i ima prava i dostojanstvo, i mi ne možemo da to prosto ometamo. On ima autonomiju. Nema veze kakvi su proračuni. Postoje stvari koje su suštinski pogrešne - kao što je laganje pogrešno, kao što je mučenje nevine dece pogrešno. Kant je bio jako dobar po ovom pitanju, a rekao je to malo bolje nego što ću ja reći. Rekao je da treba da koristimo naš razum da bismo shvatili pravila po kojima treba da upravljamo našim ponašanjem, a onda je naša dužnost da sledimo ta pravila. To nije stvar proračuna.
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.
Dakle, hajde da stanemo. Sad smo baš u sred ove filozofske vrzine. I ovo se odvija hiljadama godina, jer ovo su teška pitanja, a ja imam samo 15 minuta. Stoga pređimo na stvar. Kako treba da donosimo naše odluke? Da li po Platonu, Aristotelu, Kantu, Milu? Šta bi trebalo da radimo? Šta je odgovor? Koju formulu možemo koristiti u bilo kojoj situaciji da odredimo šta treba da radimo, da li treba da koristimo 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 zahteva promišljanje. A to je neprijatno. Ja znam; proveo sam veliki deo svoje karijere u veštačkoj inteligenciji, pokušavajući da napravim mašine koje bi mogle da misle umesto nas, koje bi nam mogle dati odgovore. Ali one to ne mogu. Ne možete samo da uzmete ljudsko razmišljanje i stavite ga u mašinu. Mi smo oni koji treba to da čine. Srećom, mi nismo mašine, i možemo to da činimo. Ne samo da možemo da mislimo, moramo. Hana Arent je rekla: "Tužna istina je da najviše zla počinjenog na ovom svetu nisu počinili ljudi koji su odabrali da budu zli. Proisteklo je iz nerazmišljanja." To je ono što je ona nazvala "banalnošću zla." A odgovor na to je da zahtevamo vežbanje razmišljanja od svake razumne 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.
Pa hajde da to radimo. Hajde da mislimo. U stvari, hajde da počnemo baš sada. Neka svaka osoba u ovoj prostoriji uradi ovo: setite se poslednjeg puta kada ste donosili odluku gde ste bili zabrinuti da li ćete učiniti pravu stvar, gde ste se pitali: "Šta treba da radim?" Prizovite to u mislima i sada razmislite o tome i recite: "Kako sam došao do te odluke?" Šta sam uradio? Da li sam sledio svoju intuiciju? Da li sam dao nekome na glasanje? Ili sam prepustio pravnicima?" Ili sad imamo nešto više izbora. "Da li sam procenio šta bi bilo najveće zadovoljstvo kao što bi Mil uradio? Ili kao Kant, da li sam koristio razum da shvatim šta je suštinski ispravno? Razmislite o tome. Zaista dozovite ovo u mislima. Ovo je važno. Toliko je važno da ćemo potrošiti 30 sekundi dragocenog vremena TED govora radeći ništa drugo do 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. Dobro urađeno. Ono što ste upravo uradili, to je prvi korak ka preuzimanju odgovornosti za ono što bi trebalo raditi sa svom našom 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.
Sada sledeći korak - probajte ovo. Nađite prijatelja i objasnite im kako ste doneli tu odluku. Ne odmah. Sačekajte da završim sa govorom. Uradite to za vreme ručka. I nemojte samo da nađete drugog prijatelja tehnologa; nađite nekog ko je drugačiji od vas. Nađite umetnika ili pisca - ili, bože sačuvaj, nađite filozofa i pričajte sa njima. U stvari, nađite nekog iz humanističkih nauka. Zašto? Zato što oni misle o problemima drugačije nego mi kao tehnolozi. Pre samo nekoliko dana, baš preko puta, stotine ljudi se okupilo. Bili su to tehnolozi i humanisti na toj velikoj BiblioTech konferenciji. Okupili su se jer su tehnolozi hteli da saznaju kako bi bilo razmišljati iz humanističke perspektive. Imate nekog iz Gugla ko razgovara sa nekim ko se bavi komparativnom književnošću. Razmišljate o značaju francuskog pozorišta u XVII veku - kako se to odražava na preduzetnički kapital? Pa to je zanimljivo. To je drugačiji način razmišljanja. I kada razmišljate na taj način, postajete osetljiviji na ljudske obzire, koji su presudni za donošenje 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.
Dakle, zamislite da ste sada otišli i pronašli svog prijatelja muzičara. Govorite mu o čemu smo pričali, o toj revoluciji podataka i svemu ovome - možda čak i otpevušite nekoliko taktova naše muzičke teme. ♫ Dum ta da da dum dum ta da da dum ♫ Pa, vaš prijatelj muzičar će vas zaustaviti i reći: "Znaš, muzička tema iz tvoje revolucije podataka, to je opera, to je Vagner. Zasnovana je na nordijskoj legendi. Radi se o bogovima i mitskim stvorenjima koji se bore oko čarobnog nakita." To je zanimljivo. To je takođe prelepa opera, i dirnuti smo tom operom. Dirnuti smo jer je o bici između dobra i zla, o ispravnom i pogrešnom. A nama je stalo do ispravnog i pogrešnog. Stalo nam je do toga šta se dešava u toj operi. Stalo nam je do toga šta se dešava u "Apokalipsi danas". I svakako nam je stalo do toga šta se dešava sa 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.
Imamo toliko moći danas, na nama je da shvatimo šta da radimo, a to su dobre vesti. Mi smo ti koji pišu ovu operu. Ovo je naš film. Mi otkrivamo šta će se dogoditi sa ovom tehnologijom. Mi određujemo kako će se sve ovo završiti.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)