She made some comments about blockchain and /or digital currencies that have the background assumption, "it can't happen here" are probably reminiscent of the sharing economy in general, where entrenched businesses are scrambling to adjust to the new economy.

Another talking head that, seems very confused with her own line on thinking - simply spouting techie terms without any real insight does not make for an interview of any real calibre. I would have expected bettter alot better!

Fantastic future and another great enlightening chat.

At the 16 min mark: "$20 Trillion a year is wasted in the US economy by people parked on a highway...because of traffic signals". Maybe she meant to say "billions" (though she does say "trillions" again later on), but this sort of breathless exaggeration really undermines the seriousness of the overall message.

Global and informed. Love this

Why is a lawyer pretending to be an authority on the future of AI? Stick to the law and leave the commentary on the future of AI to people who actually know how to write code and program for a living...

Milton, we need a chat bot. Lauch a beta one, we'll help test it!

@Steve R - Somewhat agree (also old hand in software development), but I'd not underplay the potential of AI (the hip term is ML - Machine Learning).. We've seen the transformative effects of tech in the scope of decades to sub-decades. ML addresses 'complexity' which has always been the brake on software development. The reason not to try teach programming to everyone is that (I believe) most of it will be done by machines before long - except for research. From what I've seen first hand, we're beyond the knee of the curve already. Big upheavals are years, not decades away.

An interesting interview. It is about balance, as always, but I still prefer flawed human beings to an inhuman civilization. This is why people voted in Trump and not a robot. Also, how will teenagers talking with computers have the balls to start a real conversation that might lead to sexual reproduction?

Did she say that traffic jams cost the US Trillions? She was vague and full of hot air. C'mon RealVision.

Really enjoyed this one!

Liked Steven R's comment, but wouldn't it just make sense for Google and or Facebook to buy the company, technology and patents (deep six it) and just carry on? If you can buy out your competitors why not buy out potential disrupting technologies as well!

The comments from Michael H nailed the limitations of this talk. Please cover AI and chatbots in another future talk - suggest you get a techy rather than a lawyer to cover this. And if anyone thinks I am being harsh "A chatbot. So it's not an app. It's a little computer coding program that sits on a server. And so WeChat has it. Like Facebook Messenger is like that, only if you inject some AI into it. " As GW would say Hmmmmm..........

Sorry for the wall of text but I could not stop writing on this. We are living through an age of economic cannibalization. It is an economic environment where automation (aka increases in efficiencies) lead to decreases in total economic activity (aka job losses) causing massive deflation. All the positive “growth” stories we are being fed are a shell game. They are the reaping of larger and larger portions of a shrinking economic pie by a few strong hands and unicorns while the majority suffer a banquet of consequences. From the perspective of the individual companies blowing smoke this looks like a dynamic economy but while the Amazons and Ubers of the world are doing gang-busters the whole of the economy is shrinking around them at a dramatic pace giving them ample room to gobble up more and more of the economic pie, thus “growing.” This is possible thanks to the hugely deflationary effects of increasing efficiency. We already maxed out any grwoth from increases in efficiency and now what once made for a dynamic economy in a overal growth environment turns into cannibalism in a deflation backdrop. Max Keiser has criticized that the economy is not a magic bowl of pudding that never runs out. I would argue in a way it is but it works differently. The more you eat the more pudding there is to eat and the bowl fills up. The less you eat the less pudding in the bowl and once we loose our appatite it runs out. If you automate away more and more jobs no amount of retraining will magically create more demand. The threat of automation is real, not just for low wage workers but more seriously for high wage jobs. There is more for companies to gain in a shrinking economy by automating away higher wage jobs if possible. All developed economies have little to no growth left in them partly because of demographics and partly because continued gains in efficiency do not inherently lead to economic growth. In our current global economy of increasing efficiency you have a commensurate shrinking of the the overall economic activity as old inneficient systems die off. Generally a good thing if you have more work to do, that others will pay for. But what happens when you run out of others wiling if even able to pay or there is simply no more work to do (overcapacity)? You get massive deflation of economies. Every supposedly positive growth story of the future I hear is actually just companies heading off economic contraction by cannibalizing more an more of the economy. Look at the auto industry. If they turn cars into self driving technology platforms and Ford becomes an Uber like service (which is currently every major car companie's official or unofficial plan) they increase the utility of a single vehicle many times and end up selling far fewer cars. They are making more money as a company on "transport" but far less on selling cars. This is not economic growth its a coping mechanism for a deflating economy so that out of work millennials can get by without a car. It seems almost all our ideas of progress like new manufacturing (robotics) and AI (automation) and tech/phones/AR/VR (consumption of bits vs atoms) are set up to produce this kind of shrinking of economic activity (massive deflation) and currently noboby has a good solution to the problem. Its like the 1930s with over-production capacity. The solution then was war. Today the only non-war solutions are to roll with the punches and make living on a much smaller economic footprint desirable. So you have the demand and hyping of things like “the gig economy” where we work less with fewer benefits and tell ourselves its better because we're our own boss. And we have “the sharing economy” where we own less and tell our selves its better because we are not bogged down by the inconvenience of actually owning a car or a condo or anything for that matter! If you must own a home make it a “tiny home” its trendy to design with shipping containers because hey there is less shipping activity and lots of cheap containers and people will live in these things if we make it trendy. Good luck world, growth is dead for the west and exploitation is guaranteed for the rest.

IA=AI, Milton - can we have an edit option on comments ?

Implementing IA into greenfield environments is relatively straightforward, but automation of existing legacy environments is a whole different ball game and is many years away. Imagine trying to completely automate the administrative technology of the NHS or Land Registry systems as an example - people will have jobs for many years to come, many more will have jobs consulting at the institutes on how they might go about 'doing IA' - think the Y2K bug !

If automation eventually puts vast quantities of workers out of work, who will be the customers? Massive income transfers? if governments tax to fund those with out work due to automation. Won't that make automation very expensive?

Hmmm, 7 minutes from the end: as a hedge funbd manager of 15 years my experience is that you don't "just launch a fund" and "raise a $100m" from someone you are having a "lame conversation about the weather" with wether on a chatbot or not. I haven't a clue if the rest of this conversation was sensible but where I have 'domain expertise' it was not.

Anybody willing to lend me a few hours on the chatbot raising capital in 100 bar chunks?

Future sure looks like 1984 where they know everything about you.

I do not agree with the automation problem. At the start of the industrial revolution most people in the states were farmers. The economy will always adjust. Unemployment will be a problem if the governments around the world move away from free markets. Overall good info in terms of the fintech space.

Test

I remember Bill Gates used to say that we tend to overestimate the speed of change but underestimate the magnitude - plenty has been surfaced here but I'm not sure I'd give it 2 years.

Speaking as someone who has been in the software development space for over 30 years, I always get riled from the amount of hype and total BS coming out from the tech scene. AI is NOT going to take over the world in the next 1 to 2 years, and hundreds of millions of people are NOT going to be made redundant! This is pure fantasy! All these people have a vested interest in keeping the hype going (i.e. get funding). So teaching everyone to code is a solution, don't think so! Bitcoin will not take over the world either for the reasons stated in the interview. The US has some of the toughest anti-money laundering laws in the world. Bitcoin transparency equals the end of bitcoin (IMHO). People need to wake up to reality and not look at everything with these blinked visions. Having said that, one of the best uses of AI I've seen to date is a software component that removes all sources of advertising from online content. Its been developed utilising AI to analyse hundreds of millions of adverts from around the world over the last 18 months to be able to identify and distinguish between all forms of advertising. I understand it will be released publically later this year. At a stroke the business models of Google, Facebook, Twitter along with all the other advert-funded online business models will be wiped out. As soon as advertisers change the advertising the AI software will remove it moments later, game over.

is planning to have a regulatory back door for SEC like review, taxation etc... sorry for three posts, seem to have a Tweet like limit

The Digital Asset Platform, has its own pre programed language like HTML, called DAPL, Digital asset programimg language lets a user set up complicated strategies, like derivatives, micropayments, and

An interesting reference to a private layered and segregated blockchain start up pushed by Blythe Masters, of Vampire Squid fame, on coindesk.com. Dr. P Malmgrens article on RV Publications has a link

Good interview. The timeline for AI integration into existing companies is at least 5-10 years out. The delay between vision and execution is due to companies not having consolidated data and processes that can leverage AI capabilities. All major corporations have initiatives underway to find the most effective way to leverage AI but there is a *lot* of internal work to be done first. Time to execute might be more closely correlated to rolling out self driving cars to all. Conceptually the direction is understood but execution may take a looong time. *I sell AI capabilities (a collection of 10-15 desperate technologies make an AI stack) into organizations and have the scars to prove it. :-)

UK is not there yet, Singapore is not there yet, but China is killing us with WeeChat... Dear, oh dear...

Scary stuff ... I am currently lying on the floor in the fetal position.

Dystopic but sobering view, hope she is wrong about governments, central banks bigger role. Off to barter if thats the case

All it takes is for the regulators in one major jurisdiction to take a hands off approach to the open blockchain for it to succeed. All of the jobs and innovation will go there. And in actual fact if you listen to policy meetings in Canada, UK, and the USA there is no political will for the onerous regulation she describes. The same questions (what if bad people use it?) have been asked for every new tech from the automobile to the Internet and the ultimate conclusion is that such a ban gives criminals a monopoly over the benefits of the tech.

Her idea of full transparency in the blockchain is a contradiction in terms. Firstly, if participants are all registered identified, there is no need for a blockchain at all. Using a central ledger is much more efficient than proof of work. Secondly, the actual bitcoin blockchain can be as transparent or as anonymous as you want using services like Coin Mixers and upcoming second layer solutions like the Lightning Network and MimbleWimble. Also, 'small' blockchain projects misunderstand the system as huge mining power is needed to secure the ledger from large scale attacks. The only blockchain that has enough power is bitcoin's. It can only be a large scale network.

Christine comments that because the bitcoin blockchain is a completely transparent ledger, "I can see every transfer to your wallet, and you can see every transfer to my wallet." Some bitcoin wallets do, indeed, re-use the same address for all transaction requests. That is widely recognized as bad practice from both privacy and security perspectives. Quality wallets (Multibit HD, for one) never re-use addresses, and do so transparent to the user. By using such a wallet, linking transactions to "your" wallet is impractically difficult.

I have some domain expertise on the technical aspects of this conversation. I found her comments on the state of the law interesting and sensible, but her discussion of some of the technical aspects wasn't particularly competent. She sounded like a lawyer repeating claims she didn't really understand, which I think may actually be the case. That doesn't diminish from her sensible points, but still that's a limitation of which viewers may want to consider.

WOW!!! Fantastic discussion, really eye opening. I really liked her realistic comments about bit-coin/blockchain issues. And to be honest I hadn't even heard of Chatbots! I will definitely be researching that immediately. Also really liked how her comments on Iran dovetailed with earlier RV segments on how Iran will soon be an up and coming nation once all the sanctions and bad press are removed. Awesome job RV!

Re-training is certainly part of the solution. Given the sheer number of redundancies that AI is about to induce in the blue collar world however, a far more efficient solution would be to roll back labor legislation and break up the unions. Not many truck drivers may be successfully retrained as coders. But we must ensure that these individuals can fall back on their own initiative and be allowed to become, for example, a mechanic or a chef. In Europe in particular, professions have very high barriers to entry making it difficult for individuals to change profession if needed.

Securing block chain transaction details (who/what/how much) can be limited to the participants though the transactions remain public / provable. Most of the world remains unbanked: the largest undeveloped market. They’re too poor to launder money so waive the KYC/AML if you earn < $500/yr. Whatever government best protects their privacy when individuals pass that threshold will do the KYC & capture their business (citizenship :-). Transactions remain private until required by law.

Lol James, took the words out of my mouth

Brilliant, food for thought. Things moving fast,get ready!

Wow. I will definitely need to listen to this interview again...I better start running faster to keep up with "the brave new world."

Wow. I will definitely need to listen to this interview again...I better start running faster to keep up with "the brave new world."