<\/p>\n
So everyone\u2019s concerned about these negative effects, and everyone said that when we got to these thresholds, that we would do things. We\u2019re crossing the thresholds, and we have voluntary review, and our discussions with China about, well, “we\u2019re going to ban nothing. So are you going to ban nothing? Okay, let\u2019s do that together.”\u00a0<\/p>\n
You have to say what you\u2019re willing to do. And yes, the industry, a little bit, is saying, hey, our PR stories have got to improve, and you know anybody who\u2019s talking smack should just leave, because all of us have decided to say nice things because we\u2019re trying to raise trillions. <\/p>\n
And anyway, there\u2019s the Chinese. There are win-win ways for China and the US to work together, even aside from AI. But the one that\u2019s by far most important to work together on is AI. But first, you have to show what you\u2019re willing to do domestically. You don\u2019t even have to do it. You have to say what you\u2019re planning to do\u2014and then I have no reason to think the Chinese won\u2019t go along, that models that create the molecules have to be monitored. Why would they be against that? I agree it\u2019s not a perfect thing. You\u2019ve got to do all the other things, but the fact that that\u2019s not even being discussed\u2014it\u2019s a crazy world. <\/p>\n
I don\u2019t get it. It\u2019s weird to think I\u2019m alive at a time, and I\u2019m calling the alarm stronger than other people. Who the hell am I? But that\u2019s the situation I feel I\u2019m in.<\/p>\n
MIT Technology Review: For most of my life you\u2019ve been seen as a very effective messenger, and someone who people pay a lot of attention to, which I\u2019m sure is why you\u2019re speaking of it now. And yet also, in recent years\u2014and I know you\u2019ve expressed regrets about the associations with Epstein\u2014there are also things, just bananas kind of stuff, related to conspiracies around the Covid vaccine that aren\u2019t your fault or in your control. But it makes me wonder if you think you can still be an effective messenger and how you think about this message and your legacy.<\/strong><\/p>\n Bill Gates: <\/strong>Well, I\u2019m not big on legacy, but you know, people criticized me during the antitrust trial, and I maybe could have handled some things there better. Definitely, that\u2019s the post\u2013Source Code<\/em> book [the first volume of his autobiography] that I get to go through that. You know, my first marriage didn\u2019t succeed. I certainly made huge mistakes there. You know that is a negative mark against me. Spending time with Epstein\u2014deeply foolish, risked the Foundation\u2019s reputation, which is absolutely key to its doing its work. I had a chance in front of Congress to answer every question they asked and say, \u201cHey, this was a mistake.\u201d I wasn\u2019t social, never met any woman, except you know there were women he had with him, and made it black-and-white clear what I did do and what I didn\u2019t do.\u00a0<\/p>\n You know, I\u2019m a billionaire. I made my money off of technology. Maybe that last one actually cuts in my favor, that it\u2019s so unusual for me to attack innovation that unless it\u2019s the right policy and safeguards are put in place, it will be a net negative to humanity. And we\u2019re not paying attention to that in terms of a broad discussion the way that is absolutely required. So yeah, I\u2019m an imperfect messenger. I\u2019ve chosen, to the degree that I have access to politicians and world leaders, that my main message since 2008 has been to help the poorest in the world. You know, let\u2019s eradicate malaria. Let\u2019s buy vaccines for children. So, when I\u2019ve seen Trump or Xi or Macron or\u2014I haven\u2019t met Burnham yet, but I will in a month\u2014I want my voice to be mostly about that, you know, foreign aid and research and reducing child death.\u00a0<\/p>\n My voice about AI concerns\u2014they\u2019re related in terms of accelerating the good, but may even crowd out, a little bit, the time I have to talk about global health, foreign aid, saving lives, and some of the problems we\u2019re having. But I\u2019m going to use my ability to give interviews or to see political leaders or talk broadly about minimizing these negatives. You know, just the awareness. I\u2019m not sure how many people know that we crossed all these thresholds that we said we\u2019d do something about, and it\u2019s only this year that we did. In the last quarter, last year, I was stunned at the coding. Claude code, the context buffer, the agentic approach, just the model underneath. We crossed a huge threshold for coding, but then it was only months after that I realized that it was not only a coding threshold; it was a massive cyberattack threshold. And you know what happened as a result of that? Not much.\u00a0<\/p>\n So yes, I\u2019m an imperfect messenger. You know, let\u2019s find the perfect messenger, and I\u2019ll share all my thoughts with that person. (I\u2019m being a tiny bit sarcastic, because I\u2019m not sure there is a perfect messenger.) You\u2019ve got to really, right now, you\u2019ve got to understand the technology and the slope it\u2019s on, and you have to know something about cyber or bio or psychosocial. People should be able to get that. I don\u2019t know why they\u2019re not more concerned.\u00a0