>> Over and welcome to this special cube conversation here in the Palo Alto Studios of Cube. Part of our People. First project with Mayfield Fund and Co creation with Cuban John Very your host. Very special guest. Judy Estrin. She's the CEO of J Labs and author of the book Closing the Innovation Gap. She's also well known for being an Internet entrepreneur. Pioneer worked on the initial TCP IP protocol with Vin Cerf from When the A Stanford Great History Computer Science. You have computer systems in your blood, and now you're mentoring a lot of companies. Author you a lot of work, and you're lending your voice to some cutting edge issues here in Silicon Valley and around the world. Thanks for joining me today for the conversation. >> Thank you. It's fun to be here, >> So I love the fact that you're here. You're a celebrity in the commute computer industry circles. You were there at the beginning, when the computer systems or the Internet were being connected as they built out of stone of the whole system's revolution in the eighties, and the rest is history. Now we have cloud computing, and now we're seeing a whole nother level step function of scale. And so you've kind of seen it all. You've seen all all the waves. Actually, something like make is they have seen some of the ways, but you've seen all of them. The most compelling thing I think that's happening now is the convergence of social science and computer science. Kind of our motto. Silicon Angle. You recently wrote to Post on Medium that that has been kind of trending and going viral. I want to get your perspective on that. And they're They're interesting because they they bring a little bit of computer science called the authoritative Authority Terrian Technology Reclaiming Control far too attention, part one. We go into great detail to lay out some big picture computer industry discussions. What's it all about? What's what's the What's the idea behind these stories? >> So let me back up a little bit in that, a Sze Yu said. And we can go into this if you want. I was very involved in a lot of thie, ah, innovation that happened in the Village Valley in terms of microprocessors, the Internet, networking, everything that laid the foundation for a lot of the things we see today incredible opportunities for my career for problems we solved over the last ten years. Ten, twelve years. Um, I began to see a shift and a shift in the culture and a shift in the way technology was impacting us. And it's not all good or bad. It's that it felt like we were out of balance and that we were becoming shorter and shorter, term focused and actually my book in two thousand eight closing the innovation gap. The main message there is let's not forget about the seeds you plant that all of this comes from because we're reaping the benefit of those seeds. We're not planning new seats and that we were becoming in the Valley in the nation the way we thought about things more and more short term focused and technology was causing some of that and benefitting and not been and at a disadvantage because of that. So that started with my book in two thousand eight and then in twenty fourteen, I think it was I did a Ted talk a Ted X talk called Balancing our Digital Diets, and I was even Mohr concerned that we were out of whack in terms of the consequences of innovation, and I drew an analogy to our food's systems, where so much innovation and creating cheap calories and energy and things like high fructose corn syrup that it took years to realize that, Oh, there's some negative consequences of that innovation. And so that was kind of a warning that, um, we weren't thinking enough about the consequences of at that point. Social media. That was before fake news, and I talked about tweets and how truth that lies went faster than truth, not knowing how bad that situation was going to be and then leading up to the election and after the election. We all know and have all learned now about the impacts of these technologies on our democracy, and I believe on our society and humanity. And I don't think it's just about our election system. I think it's about our psyches and how the technology's air impacting the way we think our fear and anxiety level of our kids and us is adults. So I been talking to people about it and advising, and I finally decided as, uh, I was collaborating with people that I felt that a lot of the awareness was in pockets that we talked about data privacy or we talked about addiction. But these air things were all interrelated, and so I wanted to one ad. My voices is technologists because I think a lot of the people who are writing the building, the awareness and talking about it if you are in government or a journalist's or even a social scientist people, it's really easy to say, Yeah, you say that, but you don't understand. It's more complicated than that. You don't understand the technology. So one, I do understand that technology. So I felt adding my voice as a technologist. But I'm also, uh, just increasingly concerned about what we do about it and that we take a more holistic view. So that's what, what what the pieces are about. And the reason I broke it into two pieces is because they're too long for most people, even the way they are. But the first is to build awareness of the problems which we can dig into it a high level if you want. And then the second is to throw out ideas as we move towards discussing solutions. So let me take a breath because you were goingto jump in, and then I can. >> No, it's just because you're connecting the foundational of technology foundation technology, identifying impact, looking at pockets of awareness and then looking at how it's all kind of coming together when you talk like that The first time I saw O subsystem interrupt us connection so someone could get like a operating system. And I think the society that you're pointing out in the article, the first one intention was there only to relate. And I think that's the key part. I think that's interesting because we run into people all the time when we do our cue broadcasts that have awareness here and don't know what's going on this. So this context that's highly cohesive. But there's no connection, right? So the decoupled right but highly cohesive, That's kind of systems. Architecture concept. So how do we create a robust technology's society system where technology and I think that's a threat that we're seeing this? What I cleaned out of the articles was your kind of raising the flag a little bit to the notion of big picture right system, kind of a foundational, but let's look at consequences and inter relationships, and how can we kind of orchestrate and figure out solutions? So what was the reaction to expand on that concept? Because this is where I was. It was provocative to me, >> right? So I think there are two thought trains that I just went down. One is that one of the problems we have that has been created by technology and technology is suffering from again. It's causing both cause and effect is not enough seats, system thinking and so one issue, which is not just this is not just about social media and not just about a I, but over the last twenty years we've increasingly trained, I think, are, Ah, engineers and computer scientists in Mohr transactional thinking. And as we move quicker and quicker to solve problems, we are not training our leaders or training our technologist to think in terms of systems. And so what I mean by systems is two things that you can break, that any problems have pieces. But those pieces air inter connected. We are interconnected, and that you, if you don't keep those things in mind, then you will not design things in a way, I believe that have the longevity and make the right type decisions. The second is the law of consequences when you have a system, if you do something here, it's going to impact something here. And so that whole notion of taking was thinking through consequences. I'm afraid that we're training people as we are focusing on being more and more agile, moving more and more quickly that it's in technology and in society that we're losing some of that system, thinking >> that they kind of think that's the trade off is always around. Whenever he had systems conversations in the past, but my old systems had on trade offs, we have overhead, so we have more memory. How do we handle things? So this is kind of That's just what happens. You tell about consequence, but >> we don't have all those we I'm older than you. But we started at a time when that we were limited. We were limited by memory. We were limited by processing. We were limited by band with and a different times. As thie industry emerged, the constraints were in different areas. Today, you don't have any of those constraints. And so, if you don't have any of those constraints. You don't get trained in thinking about trade offs and thinking about consequences. So when when we come into just what drove me to write, this one set of things are foundational issues and what I mean by foundational it's it's our relationship to technology. And the fact of the matter is, as a society, um, we put technology on a pedestal, and we have, uh, this is not to be taken out of Cut is not to be taken the extreme of talking about people, but overall, our relationship with technology is a bullying, controlling relationship. That's why I called it authoritarianism. >> Upgrade your iPhone to the new version. >> Well, whether it's as a user that you're giving up your your your authority to all these notifications and to your addiction, whether it is the fact that it is the control with the data, whether it is predictive ai ai algorithms that are reading your unconscious behaviors and telling you what you think, because if it's suggesting what you by putting things in front of you. So there are all of these behaviors that our relationship with technology is not a balanced relationship and you could one. You have a culture where the companies that are that have that power are driving towards. It's a culture of moving fast growth only don't think about the consequences. It's not just the unintended consequences, but it's the consequences of intended use. So the business models and at which we don't need to go into, because I think a lot of other people talk about that all end up with a situation which is unhealthy for us as people and humanity and for us as a society. So you take that part and it is. There's a parallel here, and we should learn from what happened with industrial Ah, the industrial revolution. We want progress. But if we don't pay attention to the harm, the harmful byproducts and trade offs of progress, it's why we have issues with climate. It's why we have plastic in our oceans. It's because you, you judge everything by progresses just growth and industrialization without thinking about well being or the consequences. Well, I believe we now face a similar challenge of digitization, so it's not industrialization. But it's digitalization that has byproducts in a whole number of areas. And so what the the article does is get into those specifics, whether it's data or anxiety, how we think our cognitive abilities, our ability to solve problems, All of those things are byproducts of progress. And so we should debate um, where we what we're willing to give up one last thing. And then I'll have to come in, which is one of the problems with both of these is is humans value convenience. We get addicted to convenience, and if somebody gives us something that is going to make things more convenient, it sure is held to go backward. And that's one of the reasons the combination of measuring our goodness as a country or a CZ. Globalization by economic growth and measuring our personal wellness by convenience, if something is more convenient, were happier. Take those two together, and it makes a dangerous cop combination because then our need for community convenience gets manipulated for continued economic growth. And it doesn't necessarily end up in, Ah, progress from, ah, well being perspective. >> It's interesting point about the digitization, because the digital industrial revolution, when the digital revolution is happening, has consequences. We're seeing them and you point them out in your post Facebook and fake news. There's also the global landscape is the political overlay. There's societal impact. There's not enough scholars that I've been trained in the art of understanding into relationships of technology, and Peg used to be a nerd thing. And now my kids are growing up. Digital natives. Technology is mainstreams, and there it is. Politics. You know, the first hack collection, Some of the control, The first president actually trolled his way. That president, I said that I'm the kid. That was my position. He actually was a successful troll and got everyone he trolled the media and you got the attention. These air new dynamics, This is reality. So is you look forward and bring these ideas, and I want to get your thoughts on ideas on how to bring people together. You've been on a CTO Cisco Systems. I know you've been sleeping on a board. This is a cross pollination opportunity. Bring people together to think about this. How do you do You look at that? How do you view how to take the next steps as a as an industry, as a society and as a global nations? It eventually, because cyber security privacy is becoming polarized. Also on a geography bases in China they have. GPR is hard core there. In Europe, he got Asia. With Chinese. You got America being American. It's kind of complicated as a system architecture thinking. How do you look at this? What is the playing field where the guard rails? What's your thoughts on this? Because it's a hard one, >> right? So it is a hard one and it isn't. It isn't easy to pave out a path that says it's solvable. Um, nor does Climate right now. But you have to believe we're going to figure it out because we have to figure it out. So I think there are a lot of pieces that we need to start with, and then we need to adjust along the way. And, um, one piece is and let me back up. I am not. I don't believe we can leave this up to the industry to solve the incentives and the value systems and the understanding of the issues. The industry is coming from an industry perspective, and you can't also. You also can't leave it just two technologists because technologists have a technology person perspective. I don't believe that you just can have government solve it for a variety of reasons. One is, if it takes a spectrum of things to legislation, tends to be retroactive, not forward looking. And you need to be really careful not to come up with regulation that actually reinforces the status quo as opposed to making something better. But I think we need to. We do need to figure out how to govern in a way that includes all of these things. So once >> it's running, it's clear that watching the Facebook hearing and watching soon dark sky in front of the house. Our current elected officials actually don't even know how the Internet works, so that's one challenge. So you have a shift in its every beat >> and it and it's actually, if you think about the way legislation often gets made one of the problems with our democracy right now, I'm not going to put it in quotes. But I want to put it >> out. >> Is that the influence of money on our democracy means that so often the input toe legislation comes from industry. So whether it's again big tech, big pharma, big Oil, big. That's the way this cycle works in places where we have had successful legislation that industry input, what you need industry input. You just don't want industry to be the on ly input that is balanced with other input. And so we need infrastructure in the world. In the country that has policy ideas, technology. This needs to come from civil society, from the academy from non profits. So you need the same way we have environmental sciences. We need to fund from government, not just industry funded that science. That's number one. And then we need ways to have conversations about influencing companies to do the right thing. Some of it is going to be through legislation some of it is going to be for through pressure. This, in some ways is like tobacco in some ways, like it's like food. In some ways, it's like climate on DH. It's so and an underlying any of this to happen. We need people to understand and to speak up because awareness amongst whether it's individuals, parents, teachers, we need to give people the information to protect themselves and to push back on companies and to rally pushback on government. Because if if there's not an awareness of people are walking around saying, Don't take away my service, don't make this less convenient don't tax my soda. Don't tell me my text messages. That's right, so and I'm not saying taxes of the way. But if there isn't what what I'm focused on is, how do we build awareness? How do we get information out? How do we get companies like yours and others that this becomes part of >> our >> messaging of understanding so we can be talking about I >> think it's, you know back, Teo, The glory days of the TCP epi Internet revolution. He sent a package from here to there. It's a step. Take a first step. I personally listening to you talk feel and I said, It's on The Cuban people know that. You know, my my rap know that I've been pounding this. There's a counter culture in there somewhere. Counter culture's is where action happens, and I think you know, tax regulation and, you know, the current generations inherited. It is what it is we have. You're laying out essentially the current situation. John Markoff wrote a great book, What the door Mail said, talking about how the sixties counterculture influence the computer industry from breaking in for getting computer time for time sharing, too hippy revolution question I have for you put you on the spot. Is Is there a counterculture in your mind? Coming a digital hippie quotes is because I feel it. I feel that that let the air out of the balloon before it pops. Something has to happen and I think has to be a counterculture. I yet yet can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's a digital kind of a revolution, something compelling that says Whoa time out. >> All right? I think we need a couple of counter culture's in that in layers of it, because, um, I think there is going to be or is starting to be a counterculture amongst technologist and the technology industry and entrepreneurs who are some it's still small who are saying, You know what? This chasing unicorns and fastest growth and scale, you know, move faxed and break things. But, um, we want to move fast, but we want to think about whether we're breaking what we're breaking is really dangerous, you know, move fast and break things is fine, but if it's oops, we broke democracy. That isn't something that, uh that is I'm sorry you have to think about and adapt more quickly. So I think there is Are people who are talking about let's talk openly about the harm. Let's not just be tech optimists. Let's understand that it's small, but it's beginning and you're seeing it in a I for instance, the people who are saying Look, were technologists, we want to be responsible. This is a powerful weapon or tool. And let's make sure we think about how we use it. Let me just say one thing, which is, I think we needed another kind of counterculture, which I'm hoping is happing in a number of areas, which is societally saying, You know, we have a slow food movement. Maybe we just need a slow down, a little bit movement. So if you look at mindfulness, if you look at kids who are starting to say, You know what? I want to talk to someone in person, I don't. So we we need some of that counter movement where I'm hoping the pedestal starts to come back. In terms of people looking for real connectivity and not just numbers of connections, >> it's interesting, You know, everything has a symmetrical, responsible thing about it. For every fake news payload and network effect is potentially an opposite reaction of quality network effect. It's interesting, and I don't know where it is, but I think that's got it could be filled, certainly on the economic side, by new entrepreneurial thinking, like one observation I'm making is you know this. Remember, they'll bad boys of tech and he's smiling. Now It's bad gals, too, which is growing still lower numbers. So I think there's gonna be a shift to the good, the good folks right moment. But she's a she's a good entrepreneur. She's not just out there to make a quick buck or hey, mission driven za signal we're seeing. So you start to see a little bit more of a swing to Whoa, hey, let's recognize that it's not about, you know, could Buck or >> so, yes, but between you and I, it's teeny compared to the other forces. So that's what those of us who believe that needs to happen need to continue to >> one of those forces money making. >> I think it's a combination of, Ah, money and how much money, Dr. Celebrity culture, um, the forces, the power that's in place is so strong that it's hard to break through, um, short term thinking, not even being trained. So like so many things in our culture, where you have entrenched power and then you see uprising and you get hope and that's where you need the hope. But, um, we've seen it so often in so many movements, from race to gender, where you think, Oh, that's solved, it's not solved and then you come back in and come back at it. So I just I would argue that there is little bits of it, but it needs fuel. It needs continuity. It it. And the reason I think we need some government regulation is it needs help because it's not gonna >> happen. You should question, you know, some successes that I point out Amazon Web services, Google even having a long game kind of narrative they're always kind of were misunderstood at first. Remember, Google was loud by search is not doing too well. Then the rest is history. Amazon was laughed. Amazon Web services was laughed at. So people who have the long game seemed to be winning in these transitions. And that's kind of what you're getting at. You think long term, the long game. If you think in terms of the long term vision, you then going look at consequences differently. How many people do you run in? The valleys actually think like that. Okay, >> so we're talking about two different things. One is long term thinking, and I do think that apple, Google, Amazon have taken long term thinking's. So there are a good example. But if you look at them, if we look at the big companies in terms of the way they approached the market and competition and their potential negative impacts on overall society, they're part of the power. They're not doing anything to change the systems, to not >> have good and continue to benefit. The rich get richer. >> So there this This is why it's complicated. There are not good guys and bad guys there are. These people are doing this and that. So do I think overall dough? I see more long term thinking. Um, not really. I think that the incentives in the investment community, the incentives in the stock market. The incentives culturally are still very much around shorter term thinking. Not that there aren't any, but >> yeah, I would agree. I mean, it tends to be, you know, Hey, we're crushing it. We're winning, you know? Look at us. Growth hack. I mean, just the languages. Semantics. You look at that. I think it's changed. I think Facebook is, I think, the poster child of short term thinking growth hacks move fast, break stuff and look where they are, you know, they can't actually sustaining and brand outside of Facebook, they have to buy Instagram and these other companies to actually get the kind of growth. But certainly Facebook is dominate on the financial performance, but they're kind of sitting in their situation. I think you know the bro Grammer movement, I think is kind of moving through the white common ear culture of Okay, let's get some entrepreneurship going. Great. Rod. I think that's stabilising. I think we're seeing with cloud really science and thinking for good. That's a positive sign. >> Well, I'm I'm glad to hear that from you, you know, and all >> you're probably going with. >> No, no, no, I'll take that and take that into feeding my hope because I hope, >> well, the movement is classic. Look, we're not gonna tolerate this anymore. I think transparency in my final question to you before you get to some of the more entrepreneur Question says, If you look at the role of community on data, science and connectedness, one of the things about being connected is you got potential potential for collective intelligence. So if you look at data, as I said, networks, what if there was a way to kind of hone that network to get to the truth fast? Esther, something we've been working on here, and I think that's something that, you know changes media. It changes the game. But collective intelligent, the role of the community now becomes a stakeholder and potentially laying out. So his problems and you're part of the Mayfield community was co created this video with roll community, super important people. The rule of the of the person your thoughts on >> so I community is a word that is has takes on a lot of meetings, and the problem is when you mean it one way and use it the other way, the same as data driven. So I think there's at one level which is community and conductivity that has to do with collecting input from lots of sources. And when you talk about investigative journalism or they're in environmental situations or all sorts of areas where the ability to collect information from lots of sources that air interested and analyze that information that is one level of community and connectivity and networking because of people you know which is great, there's another type. When people talk about community, they mean a sense of community in terms of what humans need and what that connectivity is. And most online networks don't give you that level. The online needs to be augmented by, Ah, inter personal understanding. And one of the problems. I think with today's technology is we're fitting humans into bits that technology Khun Support, as opposed to recognizing what are our human needs that we want to hold on to and saying There are some things that are not going to fit into somebody's data set. So in that first type of community than absolutely, I think there's lots of benefits of the cloud and wisdom of the crowd. But if you're talking about humans connecting in people. You don't have the same type of, uh, that that really community online tools can help. But we should never confuse what happens in our online world >> with your final question for, you know, we got We're pushing the time here. Thank you for spending time. First of all, it's great conversation. You've seen the movie with venture capital from the beginning. You know, all the original players seeing what is now just where's that come from? Where are we? What's the state of VC? Then? He hope to the future, they all adding value. How do you see that evolving and where are we with? >> You know, I would. I think venture capital has gone through a lot of different phases. And like so many things, especially those of us who want computers, we liketo lump them all together. They're not altogether. There are some small, Yes, like they field. And the I do think, though, that something shifted in the lead up to the dot com. Ah, and later the burst. And what shifted is venture capitalists. Before that time were company builders. They were the financiers, but they saw themselves with the entrepreneur building companies because of the expansion leading up to two thousand, and the funds grew and the people coming into the field were, they became more bankers and they took more financial supposed to balancing financing and entrepreneurship. It felt like it moved. Maurin toe. This is a private equity play, Um, and I think the dynamic with entrepreneurs and the methodology overall shifted, and I don't know that that's changed Now again, not across the board. I think there are some, uh, those firms that have identified our partners within firms who still very much want Teo filled companies and partner with entrepreneurs. But I think the dynamic shifted, and if you view them as that's what they are, is private equity investors. And don't expect something else. If people need money, that's a good pick. Ones that are the best partner >> is your partner. If you want a banker, go here. If you want Builder, go their key distinction. Judy. Thanks for sharing that insight. We're Judy Estrin. Sea of Jail as author of Closing Innovation. Gabbas Wellman's well known entrepreneur advisor board member formally CTO of Cisco. And again, Great gas. Thanks for coming on I'm John for Herewith. Cube conversation. Part ofmy Mayfield. People first with the Cube. Thanks for watching.