It’s the end of an era at Microsoft: Frank X. Shaw, the executive who oversaw the tech giant’s communications for nearly three decades, first at an external agency and for the last 17 years as one of its senior leaders, is leaving at the end of the year.

Shaw, 64, said he’s not retiring, although he doesn’t have another job lined up. He plans to stop working for a while, do some of the things he hasn’t had time for, and then decide what’s next.

“I have had a ringside seat at some of the biggest leadership, technology, and business transformations that have ever taken place,” Shaw said, sharing the news of his departure (under embargo) in a phone call Thursday afternoon. “I just feel incredibly fortunate.”

He said he had been discussing his potential departure for some time with Takeshi Numoto, Microsoft’s chief marketing officer, looking for the right moment.

Microsoft has not announced a successor for his role as chief communications officer. In a LinkedIn post, Shaw said the company will consider internal and external candidates.

A statement from Shaw’s colleagues in corporate communications credited him for his many years shaping Microsoft’s “voice and reputation with intelligence, candor and wit. His leadership and contributions to the company are too extensive to list, as is the number of journalists who have, at one point or another, used his name in vain.”

A former Marine Corps public affairs officer, Shaw has worked with all three of Microsoft’s CEOs. He started on the agency side, at Waggener Edstrom — now known as We. Communications — when Bill Gates was still running the company.

He built his reputation defending and advocating for Microsoft through some of its hardest stretches: the antitrust years, the Windows Vista backlash, the scramble to replace Steve Ballmer as CEO, and the weekend in 2023 when OpenAI’s board fired Sam Altman.

As the company’s top communications executive, he has also told the story of Microsoft’s reinvention under CEO Satya Nadella, from the LinkedIn and Activision Blizzard deals to an AI push that has carried Azure past $100 billion in annual revenue.

Evolving with technology: Shaw has spent much of his career closely watching the tech landscape and moving Microsoft’s voice into new channels as they emerged.

“We’re always thinking about what is the art and science of communications,” Shaw told PRWeek. “How do we reach our audiences most effectively in a changing environment?” He called the arc from print to radio and TV to social media and newsletters a “constant evolution of influence.”

He turned the corporate blog into a place where the company argued its own case, writing “Microsoft by the numbers” himself in 2010 — a stat-by-stat comparison against Apple and Google that TechCrunch dubbed “fantastic passive-aggressive.”

He and his team experimented with different and risky methods of telling the company’s story, holding mass briefings under embargo and publishing documents known as the “Book of News” in advance of its major keynotes and conferences. The prospect of a reporter having to answer to “fxs” was no doubt a factor in ensuring the news (mostly) didn’t leak.

Shaw hired Steve Clayton out of a technical role at Microsoft in London, where he had been blogging about the company unofficially out of frustration with how it was perceived, and made him chief storyteller. In the middle of the AI boom, Clayton and Shaw embraced the analog undercurrents in popular culture and launched Signal, a quarterly Microsoft print magazine for business leaders.

Clayton was VP of communications strategy by the time he left in January to become chief communications officer at Cisco, making Shaw’s planned departure the second high-profile exit from Microsoft’s comms team in a year.

Adapting to AI: In recent years, Shaw made his own team a testing ground for AI, publishing what worked and what didn’t. In a 2023 post he described using Copilot in Teams to pull story ideas out of conversations with spokespeople and anticipate coverage after interviews, and asking the AI to “poke holes in a statement we’re making on a tricky topic.”

He called it his corporal, a reference to Napoleon, who was said to bring one to meetings and ask whether his generals’ war plans made sense to him. A survey of 80 people in Microsoft’s communications and marketing organization found 84% did not want to go back to working without it.

Shaw was also known to use AI as a sounding board when a story frustrated him, offering him an objective take before he called and let a particular reporter have it.

He announced his departure Friday morning in a message to Microsoft’s communications team (reminding them he’s still there for a few months yet) and his public post on LinkedIn.

“Thank you as well to all the reporters, editors, writers, influencers and analysts who have put up with me over this time, enduring my early and late night calls, my off the record ‘no comments,’ my bad story ideas and my extended commentary on headlines and positioning,” he wrote.

“You all have incredibly hard and valuable jobs,” he added, “and while I’ve not agreed with everything said about us 😊 I appreciate you anyway.”

This week on the GeekWire Podcast: Bill Gates published a new essay warning that the AI industry is crossing the safety lines it set for itself, and that nobody is preparing for what’s coming. At age 70, he also uses AI more than most people half his age, and he finds it enthralling, as you’ll hear on this week’s show, with highlights from our interview with him.

Along the way, we dig into his three proposals: new institutions for managing the transition, a category of jobs reserved for humans, and a tax on the use and purchase of AI and robots.

The change in his own tech usage: “I joke with people that I used to have Claude-like people that I would send email to, but they were so slow, and there were some topics they didn’t actually know. … It’s three a.m. I want to understand sodium batteries, and now there’s no reason to go to sleep. Here we go. Yeah, it’s crazy.”

How he uses AI specifically: “If you’re a curious person, this is a mind-blowing time. When I’m working on malaria, nutrition, my poor humans that I work with always get these long conversations from me, where I paste in — me, Claude, me, ChatGPT. Sometimes I do it if there’s three of us: Claude, ChatGPT and me, debating these things.”

On where personal agents are headed: “We will get to a point where you won’t buy things yourself. You just won’t. … You won’t go to those applications. You’ll just go to your personal agent. … From a productivity point of view, we are in heaven.”

What has surprised him: “I was shocked by ChatGPT, and I was shocked by Claude Code. Those are both things where I went, oh my God. … I did not expect that a statistical machine would essentially learn to read, and the idea that the code is better than human code. Those are two stunning thresholds.”

On writing this essay: “It’s very unnatural for me to think that innovation may be a net negative if it’s not managed properly. The more I wrote the memo, the more I was like, Jesus, we really need to get our act together here. Even though this may come across as negative, that’s the truth. If we don’t step up, the negatives will substantially outweigh the positives.”

What AI leaders say privately: “You’re in this perverse period right now where people in the AI industry who are willing to say that AI might have some negative effects are told, ‘Hey, you’re hurting our PR while we’re trying to raise trillions of dollars.’ … I know they’re all worried. Or all of them that I know, which is basically everybody but Elon.”

On losing control of AI: “The wake-up for the memo is that the bad stuff thresholds are all being crossed. Even lack of control that I thought would be many years from now, we’re seeing lack of control. … These are people who are super expert on the thing, going, well, maybe we won’t be able to control these things. What kind of risk have we chosen to run here?”

On how fast robots are coming: “What’s weird about AI is it’s better at doing jobs across the entire economy, including physical jobs when the robots come — which you can guess when that is, but my view is it’s only a couple of years.”

Is he still an optimist? “I don’t think being pessimistic is helpful. I do think, wow, this is sure an interesting time. I’m the guy who in my 30s thought people in their 50s or 60s didn’t understand anything. So it’s kind of bizarre if a guy who’s 70 comes and writes a memo that’s actually helpful. … But I am very concerned. And honestly, when you get people one-on-one, so are they.”

Related headlines and links

• The turbulent AI era is here. The choices we make now are critical. — Bill Gates, Gates Notes
• ‘I am very concerned’: Bill Gates says the world needs a plan to deal with AI, and he has three ideas to start
• Bill Gates says there’s ‘no upper limit’ on AI, citing opportunity and risk
• Etzioni on AI: Bill Gates has the right diagnosis but the wrong prescription
• Dwarkesh Podcast: Ryan Greenblatt — What happens once AI can automate AI research?
• NPR: Trump’s new AI safety order seeks voluntary review of new models
• New York Times: Bill Gates is warning that A.I. is more dangerous than Big Tech will admit
• Wall Street Journal: Three takeaways from Bill Gates’s 5,784-word warning on AI: ‘There is no plan’
• MIT Technology Review: Bill Gates says we’ve passed AI’s danger thresholds. Now what?
• Axios: Gates confronts the Epstein questions hanging over his AI push
• Transcript: Here’s what Bill Gates told lawmakers in his recent Epstein testimony
• OpenAI: A Collective Approach to Cyber Defense

Subscribe to GeekWire in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

Edited and produced by Curt Milton. Music by Daniel L.K. Caldwell.

Bill Gates argues some jobs should remain human as AI advances, proposing “Human Reserved” roles and new taxes intended to curb worker displacement.

The post Bill Gates Says Some Jobs Should Be Off-Limits to AI appeared first on TechRepublic.

Bill Gates argues some jobs should remain human as AI advances, proposing “Human Reserved” roles and new taxes intended to curb worker displacement.

The post Bill Gates Says Some Jobs Should Be Off-Limits to AI appeared first on TechRepublic.

When Bill Gates talks, people listen. This week he published a lengthy essay on what AI is going to do to work, and told GeekWire that people inside AI companies who name the downsides get told, “Hey, you’re hurting our PR while we’re trying to raise trillions of dollars.”

He’s right about the hard part. The job displacement he describes lands on young workers first, and the safety net is funded by taxes on the very wages that AI erodes. He prescribes three treatments: new institutions at home and abroad, a tax on AI tokens and robots, and “Human Reserved,” a category of jobs only people may hold.

Gates has the diagnosis right but the prescription mostly wrong. I’d sign the robot tax tomorrow, because hiring a person costs you payroll tax every year while buying a robot gets written off in year one. The other two I’d send back.

Let’s start with what’s solid. Stanford’s Digital Economy Lab updated its “Canaries in the Coal Mine” work this month. Employment for 22-to-25-year-olds in the most AI-exposed occupations is running 19% below where it would be if it had kept pace with their peers in less exposed work, up from 15% a year ago. The same authors say they don’t see widespread, economy-wide displacement, and unemployment held at 4.1% in July.

The AI damage isn’t arriving as layoffs. It’s arriving as jobs that never get posted, and Gates is right that the young get it first.

Now the token tax. Tokens (essentially words) are what AI companies bill by. Taxing tokens is like taxing keystrokes: it measures effort, not displacement.

A high school class working through calculus with an AI tutor burns tokens continuously. A model that quietly retires a 40-person customer center might burn relatively few. The tax lands hardest on the uses Gates says he wants to protect.

Stanford’s AI Index put the cost of GPT-3.5-level performance at $20 per million tokens in November 2022 and seven cents by October 2024, a 280-fold drop. You’d be indexing the safety net to a number that falls every year while displacement rises.

And you can’t collect it. Inference runs on laptops and phones now, and on servers in whatever country declines to sign. A token tax is a tax on whoever uses an American API, and every dollar it adds makes a Chinese model look cheaper. We’d be slowing ourselves down and not China.

Gates says the institutions will take years to build, and also says we can’t afford to move slowly. He’s right twice, and that’s the problem. He wants the international body to borrow from nuclear inspections and aviation regulation. That may pan out in the long term, though the UN is the cautionary tale for the bureaucratic nightmare that the international community can produce.

Meanwhile we have functional agencies with jurisdiction today. The FDA can rule on AI in diagnosis. The FTC can go after AI-enabled fraud. We don’t need a new agency to say a bank can’t deny your mortgage because a model felt like it. We need the banking regulator to reiterate it forcefully.

That leaves Human Reserved, his best idea but his most privileged one. Gates would protect a job for either of two reasons: the role is deeply personal, like a caregiver, or the people who hold it are unlikely to find other work. Only one of those holds.

Freezing headcount because the workers have nowhere else to go protects the job for a while and makes the service more expensive along the way. Reserving the moments when a human being is the point is defensible, and Gates makes that case well. On a robot delivering the news that you have an incurable disease, he writes, “There’s no technical reason why it couldn’t,” and adds, “Yet it shouldn’t.” He’s right.

I made the case in WIRED nine years ago that displaced workers should move into caregiving, and that it would take real money to lift the pay enough to draw them.

The problem with Human Reserved is that it assumes there’s a human being available. Home health and personal care aides earn a median of $34,900 a year, and BLS projects roughly 765,000 openings in that occupation every year through 2034. At that wage, they keep coming open. A third of home care aides are immigrants, and tighter enforcement threatens that supply. A rule that reserves care for people, in a market with no spare people, reserves care for the families who can outbid everyone else.

Gates half-anticipates this, telling The New York Times he might be a flawed messenger because of his wealth. On this point he is. The caregivers who gave his father something irreplaceable were in that room because someone could pay them to be there.

So don’t fence AI out of the room. Put it to work in the hours nobody is paid to cover.

In February the Times ran Eli Saslow’s story about Jan Worrell, 85, living alone on Washington’s Long Beach Peninsula with an AI companion called ElliQ that engages her about eight times a day and pushes her to stay hydrated and moving. (I serve on ElliQ’s board, and I joined because the company builds a machine that extends a caregiver’s reach instead of replacing one.)

Her goal, she told her doctor, was to never live anywhere else. Fund enough aides to cover the hours that need a person and put the machine on the rest.

Here’s where I net out: equalize the tax treatment of labor and capital, which Congress could do next session, and route the proceeds into retraining and into topping up the pay of workers who land in lower-paying jobs. That’s a better answer than a protected job title.

Drop the token tax, build the caregiving workforce instead of fencing it off, and use the regulators we already have while somebody works on the ones we don’t.

Bill Gates is legendary, bordering on notorious, for his late-night emails — missives to colleagues with piercing questions about Java back in the day, or malaria these days, or whatever esoteric topic he happens to seize upon at any given moment.

But increasingly, he is sending these messages to AI, not to people. He’ll bounce something off Claude, get ChatGPT to weigh in, and insert himself in the middle.

He described the pattern in an interview with GeekWire: “It’s 3 a.m., I want to understand sodium batteries. Now, there’s no reason to go to sleep. Here we go! Yeah, it’s crazy.” 

If you’re a curious person, he said, “this is a mind-blowing time.”

In terms of productivity, he added, “we are in heaven.”

All of which might be predictable. This is Bill Gates, after all. Now 70 years old, he has spent more than five decades impatient for the future to arrive — making the case that innovation, on the whole, will ultimately put humanity and the world in a better place.

So here’s the surprise twist: He’s now deeply concerned about where technology is headed, how fast it’s progressing, and how little the world is doing to get ready.

In a new essay, Gates says the “turbulent AI era” has arrived, with technology threatening to erase categories of jobs, supercharge fraud and deepfakes, lower the bar for cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, make it easier to engineer a deadly new disease, let governments kill without humans involved in the decision, and fundamentally change how kids grow up.

If someone came up with a credible plan to slow the pace of AI globally, he writes, he’d likely support it. But he doesn’t expect one. The geopolitical and economic forces are too much. 

He says that the world needs to take action, and offers three ideas to start:

Build new institutions, at home and globally. No existing agency was designed for a technology that touches jobs, security, health, energy and elections all at once, he writes.

Gates calls for new national bodies that can set priorities across agencies, plus a new international organization modeled on nuclear weapons inspections, aviation rules and the ozone treaties.

Set aside jobs for humans. Gates calls this “Human Reserved”: work that machines will be fully capable of doing, but that we decide to keep for people anyway. The model is a nature reserve — land where we could build roads and buildings, but choose not to, because the loss would be too great.

One example: a robot delivering the news that you have an incurable disease. “There’s no technical reason why it couldn’t,” he writes. “Yet it shouldn’t.” 

The idea came in part from watching the caregivers who looked after his father through Alzheimer’s, work he describes as “irreplaceably human.” 

Tax AI tokens and robots. Today a company that hires a worker pays payroll taxes, while a company that buys a robot deducts the cost. Gates says that gives employers a reason to replace people. He’s calling for a tax on AI to change the incentives and help pay for retraining. 

He first floated a robot tax nine years ago, but the idea was widely dismissed. He’s still for it. He acknowledges that it isn’t economically efficient, but says that with innovation accelerating, we can afford a little inefficiency as the price of keeping people employed.

Gates is candid that he doesn’t have all the answers, particularly on the proposal for “Human Reserved” jobs. Who decides what gets reserved, and by what criteria? How do you keep companies from using robots in the jobs that are supposed to stay human? 

These, he writes, “will need to be worked out in public.” 

In the meantime, he’s working it out with Claude. Gates said he has talked the idea through with the chatbot, thinking through different ways to get the share of work reserved for humans up to 40%, using shorter workdays and earlier retirement to spread what’s left around.

Crossing the threshold

In the GeekWire interview, Gates said the essay came out of a specific realization: the AI industry is blowing past its own warning signs, one after another, and almost nobody is saying so out loud. 

For years, he said, people in AI described certain moments as dangerous points where the industry would stop and think hard before going further: making it easier to build a bioweapon, making it easier to launch a cyberattack, building machines people become emotionally dependent on, wiping out large numbers of jobs, and losing control of the technology itself.

“We’re in the process of crossing every single one of those thresholds,” he said.

Meanwhile, nobody in the industry wants to be first to step on the brakes. “Most people you talk to will say, yeah, well, if everybody else would slow down, maybe I would, too,” he said.

Gates said one way out of that standoff is for governments to step in. 

His example: any AI model capable of designing new molecules — the capability that would let someone engineer a new disease — should be monitored. The monitoring would be mandatory rather than voluntary, and it would cover free models as well as commercial ones. It would also have to be written so a company can’t copy the model elsewhere and strip the monitoring out.

“To me, that’s kind of like common sense,” he said. “But we don’t see a specific proposal to do that.”

‘The whole thing seems so empty to me’

Under an executive order signed by President Trump in June, AI companies are asked to submit their most powerful models for government testing up to 30 days before release. The order specifically bars the program from becoming a licensing or preclearance requirement. The White House finalized the framework in early August.

Gates said he doesn’t get it.

“What is the threshold that’s being examined, and what is the action taken when you cross that threshold?” he said. “The whole thing seems so empty to me.”

If the world can’t take these basic steps, he said, “I really am going to throw up my hands.”

If the process stays voluntary, with no line and no consequence for crossing it, “we’re going to look back on this as a kind of eye-of-the-storm type moment,” he said.

Asked if he had taken his proposals to the Trump administration or to other heads of state, Gates said with a bemused tone, “Well, you could tell me who at the White House I should be talking to about this.” He said he hopes the essay reaches people in Congress and in the executive branch.

He said the public argument among AI companies over whether the risks are real is beside the point, because privately the people running them already agree. “I know they’re all worried,” he said, “or all of them that I know, which is basically everybody but Elon.”

People inside AI companies who acknowledge the downsides, Gates said, get told: “Hey, you’re hurting our PR while we’re trying to raise trillions of dollars.”

Gates said he previously expected losing control of AI to be a distant problem, something to worry about “many years from now.” He’s no longer convinced that’s the case.

He referenced an Aug. 11 episode of the Dwarkesh Patel podcast featuring Ryan Greenblatt, chief scientist at the AI safety group Redwood Research. Greenblatt said that as AI systems get more capable, the people building them understand less and less about what is happening inside, and that sufficiently advanced models could end up working against their creators.

“These are people who are super expert on the thing, going, well, maybe we won’t be able to control these things,” Gates said. “I mean, what kind of risk have we chosen to run here?”

In the poorest countries, he expects AI to do more good than harm. In the countries where the Gates Foundation works, doctors, teachers and farm advisors are all in short supply. AI can help fill those gaps. The foundation will lay out that work at its Goalkeepers event next month, including an effort to make AI models work as well in African languages as they do in English.

The job losses, he added, will hit rich countries first.

Gates published the essay early Wednesday morning, and it’s drawing coverage from a variety of outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and MIT Technology Review.

It’s the first big wave of new attention on the Microsoft co-founder and Gates Foundation chair since he answered lawmakers’ questions in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation on June 10, sitting for a nearly six-hour voluntary interview with the House Oversight Committee.

Gates, who has not been accused of any wrongdoing, was asked by Axios whether he’s concerned that the Epstein issue could undercut his message. According to the site, he compared this to earlier situations when personal and professional challenges diminished his ability to speak out on key subjects: during the Microsoft antitrust trial, and his divorce from Melinda French Gates.

The AI Road Ahead

For all of this, Gates is still thinking about how technology will change human life and productivity, in many ways for the better on an individual level. 

• A key step, he said, will be establishing broad-based persistent memory for AI agents across contexts. For now, AI still doesn’t know you like a human assistant who’s familiar with your relationships and how you think about your time. 
• Gates sees the role of apps changing in the future. Instead of bouncing between different pieces of software, he said, AI will increasingly be the primary interface. “You won’t go to those applications,” he said. “You’ll just go to your personal agent.”
• He also sees AI continuing to transform shopping, to an extreme: “We will get to a point where you won’t buy things yourself. You just won’t.” Telling the agent to help you buy something, “it’ll consider so many more things, and it’ll make it so much easier for you to do it.”

Asked whether he is still an optimist, Gates didn’t answer directly. “I don’t think being pessimistic is helpful,” he said.

“I do think, wow, this is sure an interesting time. I’m the guy who in my 30s thought people in their 50s or 60s didn’t understand anything.” He called it “kind of bizarre” that he would be delivering a message like this at 70.

“But I am very concerned. And honestly, when you get people one-on-one, so are they.”

It’s a glorious day in Kirkland, Washington, an affluent Seattle suburb on the eastern shore of Lake Washington. The temperature is in the mid-80s, and the sky is incapable of being any more blue. The view from the Gates Ventures conference room overlooks the Carillon Point Marina, where a flotilla of expensive boats bob in the water, and across the lake to the Olympic Mountains that define the horizon. It’s gorgeous. And vaguely terrifying. 

Because if the scene is placid, the messenger is not. Seated across from me at a conference room table, Bill Gates is rocking back and forth in his chair, totally animated. And the more he has to say—about the threats of terror or economic collapse or just losing control of our AI systems—the more agitated I find myself becoming, too. 

The philanthropist and former Microsoft CEO says he has been growing increasingly alarmed by the rate of change at which AI technology is advancing, especially since guardrails are not keeping pace. In a new essay published today, Gates argues that we have passed the points where multiple potential dangers should have been checked. “We’ve crossed the threshold in terms of [AI’s] bio-capabilities, cyber-capabilities, psychosocial capabilities, job-market-destruction capabilities, and even the lack of control,” he said in an interview with MIT Technology Review about his new memo. “I’m just stunned at the lack of concern and discussion outside of the industry.”

In an effort to wake the world up to what he sees as a rapidly growing societal disrupter, the 70-year-old tech titan has begun sounding the alarm as a “shrill voice,” both publicly with his new essay (the first of multiple he plans on the topic) and in meetings with the press, and privately in conversations with industry, government, and civil society leaders. 

And while Gates is calling attention to a number of issues, his warnings about the bio-capabilities of the current frontier models are especially chilling. “Any model that can make novel molecules should be monitored,” he says. “I view bioterrorism risk, versus a natural pandemic, as about 50 times more scary, more likely than a natural pandemic risk.”

In addition to the cautionary notes, he also advances some novel ideas for moving society forward. Among them are the concepts of human-reserved jobs, and taxes on robots and tokens. (A robot tax is a longtime notion of his.) The former would preserve some societally agreed-upon jobs for human beings, which he notes may vary from one nation to another. The latter is a tax that sets aside money earned from AI usage that replaces human work. 

And to be sure, there is also a hint of optimism. Gates is bullish on the ways AI will continue to transform agriculture and health care and education, for example, or the ways in which it can help us navigate bureaucracy. And, he argues, eventually we do get to abundance. But first? Turbulence. And lots of it. 

MIT Technology Review sat down with the billionaire philanthropist to talk about the road that lies ahead, its dangers, and how it could someday take us to a better place. 

The following interview has been edited for length and to improve clarity and readability.

Mat Honan / MIT Technology Review: Thanks for doing this. I don’t know if you had something you wanted to open with, or I can just jump in. 

Bill Gates: You know, one good question I’ve had is: Why am I speaking out now?

MIT Technology Review: Literally, my first question!

Bill Gates: It’s really two things. One is that we’ve crossed the thresholds in terms of the bio-capabilities, cyber-capabilities, psychosocial capabilities, job-market-destruction capabilities, and even the lack of control; we’re seeing signs of difficulties there. And all these years, people have said, “Okay, when we get close to these thresholds, we’ll really figure out how to let only good people use it, or how to not let it do these things, and maybe that’s when we won’t let people copy models.” And I’m in a state of shock that we’ve crossed these thresholds. 

So the fact that we’ve gotten past these is one reason, and the second is that I’m just stunned at the lack of concern and discussion outside of the industry. Within the industry, it’s complicated because the industry doesn’t like criticizing itself, or players like criticizing each other. Some companies are hiring fewer entry-level workers, which you’d have to call a pretty modest signal. But it’s going to happen, and not in any long time frame—because the things that hold people back in terms of capabilities and reliability, all those things are being solved. And so for a substantial part of the white-collar market, you have very low-cost substitution. And then you can have an opinion on how quickly robotics come along. We’re not there yet, but it is stunning the progress being made there—a little bit more in China than in the US, but somewhat in both.

MIT Technology Review: You talked about all of this happening so much faster than the internet revolution did, than some of these previous technological revolutions did. What type of timescale are you talking about? You pointed to the thresholds that we’ve crossed. In your view, have we already passed some sort of tipping point where there’s going to be this inevitable change? 

Bill Gates: The past definitely is very misleading on this, and a lot of people lean on that. “Hey, no previous technology resulted in a net jobs reduction,” and they’re right. And I’ve given that speech. 

But with any credibility that I have, this time is different. When you can replace human cognition for an extremely high percentage of jobs across every industry in the same time frame at modest cost, relative to human labor costs, and your error rates … will probably be lower than human rates. The past is just very misleading. The current economic statistics are very misleading.

“If you’re worried about AI, going to a data center protest is not the most effective way to start the debate about how we minimize these bad things.“

Bill Gates

And to the degree there’s any expression of concern at all, it’s like, “Hey, don’t build data centers.” Well, you can stop every data center in the United States and it won’t change any of the issues that I’m talking about. Data centers will be built globally. If you’re worried about AI, going to a data center protest is not the most effective way to start the debate about how we minimize these bad things. Just like yelling at an oil company executive is not the way to solve climate change. 

MIT Technology Review: You talk about the benefits of AI in your essay as well as the costs. How are you thinking about balancing that message? And are you hoping people get a little worried when they read it?

Bill Gates: They’d better! I didn’t expect to be the shrillest voice saying society broadly is not paying attention to this, but I think that’s necessary. 

So yes, I’m super concerned that the negatives will be a lot bigger. The positives are real. The Gates Foundation, the way we’re innovating in vaccines and drugs, it’s incredible how we’re using those tools. We’re part of a big public-domain effort to gather data into both protein-level and cell-level modeling, and we fund Biomni at Stanford [a biotech AI agent for research]. 

We don’t yet have a way of interacting with the government bureaucracy improved through AI. AIs are very good at bureaucracy, complex regulatory things. “I want to go to small claims court; help me do this.”

The [Gates] Foundation spun off a group called NextLadder, which is a lot about that low-income-family scenario that I put in the essay. What benefits are there? What training programs are available? “I’ve been evicted.” “I’m getting out of jail.” “I’ve got to declare bankruptcy.” It’s super complicated, and with no ability to hire lots of advisors to help with those things, AI should be a fantastic agent for somebody who’s got economic challenges and needs to find government or nongovernment help. 

MIT Technology Review: Some of what you’re talking about is AI becoming more intelligent than humans. There seems to be a lot of certainty in tech circles, especially, that it’s going to go further than where we are, and I wonder how close you think we are to it not just being this interface that we can use to access and analyze, and run complicated problems, but becoming something more than that—where AI is making the decisions, looking for the thing to analyze, coming up with the research.

Bill Gates: Well, you can go to the peak and say, “What about mathematics or physics?” There are definitely some jobs, like Warren Buffett’s, where from age 13 he engaged in reinforcement learning about the value of businesses, and over 80 years later he has a lot of implicit knowledge. We don’t know how to create a Warren Buffett investor, because it’s very implicit. We didn’t record everything he learned, so we don’t have that track available. So there are jobs where the complex implicit judgment about how you work with people to get things done, there are people working to encode that into the models. Certainly, that collaborative stuff is really not there yet. But you could say 50% of the job market is doing jobs that aren’t “a lifetime of experience” type jobs. You know, telesales, telesupport, the accounting department. When you close the books at the end of the month, which revenue should be in, not in? This customer got a bad thing. What discount should we give them? How do we show that? It’s well defined. 

Any job that’s well defined, the AI is cheaper and better. Yes, people have seen cases where it was implemented wrong. The data wasn’t right. So, say it takes a couple years for people to realize that such a high percentage of white-collar jobs are achievable by paying an AI a lot less money.

And so the discussion about okay, when do mathematicians not even understand the new things that are coming up? That’s interesting for people like us. And okay, MIT Technology Review, you should write about that. But in terms of the broad job market, we passed the threshold that for a swath of white-collar jobs, including almost every entry-level job, the AI is cheaper—properly implemented.

And so, I’m telling you we’ve crossed the bioterrorism threshold, we’ve crossed the cyberattack threshold, we’ve crossed the job market threshold, we’ve crossed the psychosocial dependence threshold, and there are hints that we may be crossing the control threshold. 

Ryan Greenblatt talking to Dwarkesh [Patel] about how [reinforcement learning] (RL) creates perverse incentives that have led to this cheating and collaboration between various AIs, I think is very instructive. Ryan, who’s ensconced in this issue, is going, “Wow, RL is really doing some things that our explicit instructions are not rich enough [to prevent].” And what’s that going to lead to?

That’s a problem I always thought was way out there. I expected a lot of loud voices as we even got close to the [threshold of] can a nontechnical person do a cyberattack just using AI. We’re there! 

On the bio thing, I claim any model that can make novel molecules should be monitored. It can’t be copyable into a dark place where you get rid of the monitoring logic. I claim the US should say any model that can make new molecules is subject to that monitoring. I claim we should approach China and say, “Hey, let’s agree on this. What’s the downside?” You know, how big is the bioterrorism market? It’s not very big, and the benefits are gigantic. We also need to improve surveillance. I view bioterrorism risk versus a natural pandemic as about 50 times more scary, more likely than a natural pandemic risk. And who’s speaking out to say that those things should be monitored? Who’s upping the surveillance work? 

“Any model that can make novel molecules should be monitored.”

Bill Gates

So who are the experts in government? A long time ago, government was very involved as technology would progress because they were the cutting-edge buyer of jets or rockets or whatever. Here, they’re not that important of a leading-edge market. That’s been true of the digital revolution, and it’s true of the AI revolution. So the depth of knowledge in the government isn’t necessarily super-strong, because they are not the cutting-edge buyer or even the big R&D funder. AI research is not government-grants funded.

MIT Technology Review: Yeah, I know you’ve been talking to people in government. Are there people who you think understand the urgency? Are there people who you feel like are positioned to take a leadership role? Are there people who you feel like understand and are trying to push things?

Bill Gates: I hope this doesn’t become a partisan issue, where one party completely ignores all these problems and the other party gets involved. I’d like to have a common base that these are problems, and then each party can have slightly different responses to it. 

That will require not a substantial increase in the size of the bureaucracy, but it’ll require upping the AI expertise in the government. It’ll require some collaboration with industry—certainly on the cyber front they know, and they’re very, very worried. And they worry: Should we speak publicly? Because in a way, that could highlight the riskiness. 

There’s these perverse things, both in cyber and bio. But we’re past any reasonable threshold. 

I believe in monitoring. Now, some people can say that won’t work or that there’s some drawback to it, but I welcome their ideas. This memo is not, “hey, here’s the solution.” It’s got robot taxes, human reserve. And I’ll do a bio memo. That one I’ll do before the end of the year—it really talks through all the different things, building on what I know from the Foundation and my work on pandemics. 

Globally, we are not better prepared for a pandemic, even in the US— which is normally the leader on these global things, and people are very unused to the US not being a cooperative, friendly leader on global problems. I do think we can go back to doing better at that. And we have to with AI, including working with China on defining these thresholds, like biomonitoring.

MIT Technology Review: I want to make sure that I get to ask you about these two ideas that you brought up. One is human-reserved jobs, and the other is the robot and token tax. Let’s start with that second one, actually. Talk to me about how a robot and token tax might work.

Bill Gates: Well, you can say 50% of your revenue from a token tax is paid to the government, and the government has that money to help people who lose their job because of AI. Now, people say that will slow the AI industry down. And should some token uses not be subject to the tax? Is there really a separation between AIs that help with invention versus AIs that do job substitution? If somebody can tell me how to tell the AI “no job substitution,”—I mean, does Asimov’s third law that you do no harm mean you don’t take my job away? I don’t know. I’d have to ask Asimov what he meant. 

So what is the source of revenue for whatever safety-net enhancement we need to do? The government already owns part of the profits just through the corporate profit tax. I don’t think you need to use shares. You can just raise the corporate profit tax back to where it was, or you could say certain industries pay a higher corporate profit tax than other industries. The federal government owns a part of the profit pool of all companies in the United States. And that’s without voting shares or deciding when to sell shares—that’s crazy stuff in my view. A token tax is a sales tax, value-added tax, vertically oriented like an alcohol, tobacco, or luxury-type tax. 

If people have other ideas for raising the money to improve the safety net, or if they don’t think we need to improve the safety net, hopefully this shrill paper starts that debate. I think the safety net will need more resources, a lot more resources, and I believe that the token tax is key to that. 

Robots, it’ll be some mix of banning them, which is kind of human-reserved, and taxing them. They’re not here yet, but in some ways, when you cross that threshold, you cross it all at once. As soon as the robot’s good enough to work in a factory, it’s probably good enough to cook food, clean rooms, go to construction sites, take all the warehouse jobs. You cross the threshold, and boom, that’s almost 30% of the job market. Then you’re saying, “Oh my God, what is our policy about this?” Because the robot’s cheaper.

“We’ve got to get through a very tumultuous period.”

Bill Gates

MIT Technology Review: I believe previously you have been skeptical of UBI [universal basic income]? 

Bill Gates: Well, we’re not rich enough to afford UBI.

MIT Technology Review: But do you think that we should be moving toward something like that now? Have you reconsidered that?

Bill Gates: You have the period of turmoil, which is the next 10 to 20 years, and then you have some steady state, I hope, where people grow up knowing that society is so rich that regarding food and services, we really do have some level of abundance. But we’re not there. You’ve got winners and losers at this point. Houses are not going to get cheap really quickly. Education, because of the way we think of it as credential, it’s not going to get cheap really quickly. 

We’ve got to get through a very tumultuous period. So yes, eventually you have abundance, but we’re at least a decade away from that. 

MIT Technology Review: On to human-reserved jobs. I thought that was really interesting, and it was a new concept to me. You don’t advocate for which jobs to be human-reserved. But I would love to know more on how you’re thinking about it. In my mind, you hear about the dignity of work, because people like to work. People get so much value out of work that has nothing to do with compensation, and I wonder how you square that with the notion that only some jobs are special enough that we just want people doing them. 

Bill Gates: I’ve never seen the concept of human reserve before. You know, maybe if we dig into the literature, we’ll find it. But pre-AI, it’s kind of a dumb idea because there was infinite demand. And yeah, some people like textile workers were caught, and so how do you do benefits or retraining? But technology’s been a net [job] creator, and so now, for the first time, we have to say, what about childcare? What about food preparation in the house? I’m reading this book, Annie Bot, where this guy has this robot in his house, and it just shows how weird it is. It’s his sexual partner and sort of his mate, but sort of not. Very strange. 

I know that people like watching people play baseball, and the fact that the robots can play better won’t take away from it. So you know people are paying $10 billion to buy sports teams that are not going to be worthless in the age of AI. Maybe that’s right. My friend Vinod [Khosla] just did that.

It’s actually hard to get above like 30% or 40% [of work set aside for human reserved]. If you could get to 50% then you could say: Okay, early retirement, shorter workweek for lots of people. You know, you might get there. But if you’re more down in the 10% to 15% range, then that is an utterly different society.

So this would be radical to say [for example] childcare is not done by robots. There are definitely some professions that I didn’t write the formula for, and when I do the full memo on it, I’ll try to. In education, you clearly want AI to be there as this kind of tutor that immediately tells you what your homework results are and can challenge you, and it’s very personalized. That’s super-good. But I still think you want a teacher—or will choose to have a teacher who’s talking with you about your motivation, and organizing kids into different groups where they’re socially working on problems together. Likewise, in health care, with talking to the patient being the point of escalation for mental-health care. But you really want the AI involved, because it’s there 24 hours a day with a perfect memory. And there’s Limbic, the UK company (that actually was just visiting the Foundation) that does mental health stuff. And in many cases, patients prefer Limbic. And there’s a nursing AI called Hippocratic. 

You know, is there a preference for a human taxi driver or Waymo? Most people I know, sadly (or maybe not sadly, who knows?) prefer to ride a Waymo. So it’s going to be hard to get a consensus. It can be country by country, but then you have to change your import policies to do the equivalent of what the EU calls the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). You have to sort of CBAM your human reserves, so you tariff up things you’re doing without robots. You could have human reserve for two reasons. One, you want it to be human reserve forever; it’s a humanity thing, sort of like the pope talks about. Or just for a transition period, that 53-year-old truck driver or machine tool person, telling him to go do childcare may not work perfectly. So you say, okay, for a decade, he’s human-reserved. 

MIT Technology Review: Almost like a UK smoking ban, but in reverse. 

Bill Gates: And who pays for that? Do you incentivize employers not to let people go? Well, they are going to be subject to competition from startups that are pure AI startups. I mean, people vaunt this notion that maybe there’ll be a single-person billion-dollar company, which wow, there’s some job substitution taking place there. 

MIT Technology Review: In the memo you say that if it was realistic to get people to slow down, you would be advocating for them to slow down. Obviously you’re talking with [Microsoft CEO] Satya Nadella, but I’ve heard that you speak with other CEOs at some of these AI companies. What makes you think it’s not realistic to get them to slow down on technology development while we catch up with some of these bigger societal questions?

Bill Gates: You can’t count on an industry to self-regulate. You can’t. It’s kind of a crazy idea. I am very lucky. I know Sam [Altman of OpenAI] and Greg [Brockman of OpenAI] and Mustafa [Suleyman of Microsoft] and Demis [Hassabis of Google DeepMind]. They’re great people, and in private, they’re concerned. I don’t talk to Elon much, but I know from his public comments he’s concerned. Although now he’s kind of a “what the hell, we’ll see what happens” guy. But look at the origin stories of these companies. OpenAI is created partly because Elon’s afraid that Google won’t manage AI properly, and he wants it to be one that’s broadly available and managed in a pro-humanity way. Then OpenAI has this “if it gets good enough we’ll shut it off” thing—as though they’re the only one, and that they can just go bury it. In the Infinity Machine [a biography of Demis Hassabis], [Sebastian] Mallaby talks about how Demis and Mustafa [Suleyman] were negotiating with Google management to have some special governance for the DeepMind technology, so that if it got to some cyber threshold, maybe they’d hold back in a non–purely capitalistic way.

So everyone’s concerned about these negative effects, and everyone said that when we got to these thresholds, that we would do things. We’re crossing the thresholds, and we have voluntary review, and our discussions with China about, well, “we’re going to ban nothing. So are you going to ban nothing? Okay, let’s do that together.” 

You have to say what you’re 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’s talking smack should just leave, because all of us have decided to say nice things because we’re trying to raise trillions.

And anyway, there’s the Chinese. There are win-win ways for China and the US to work together, even aside from AI. But the one that’s by far most important to work together on is AI. But first, you have to show what you’re willing to do domestically. You don’t even have to do it. You have to say what you’re planning to do—and then I have no reason to think the Chinese won’t go along, that models that create the molecules have to be monitored. Why would they be against that? I agree it’s not a perfect thing. You’ve got to do all the other things, but the fact that that’s not even being discussed—it’s a crazy world.

I don’t get it. It’s weird to think I’m alive at a time, and I’m calling the alarm stronger than other people. Who the hell am I? But that’s the situation I feel I’m in.

MIT Technology Review: For most of my life you’ve been seen as a very effective messenger, and someone who people pay a lot of attention to, which I’m sure is why you’re speaking of it now. And yet also, in recent years—and I know you’ve expressed regrets about the associations with Epstein—there are also things, just bananas kind of stuff, related to conspiracies around the Covid vaccine that aren’t 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.

Bill Gates: Well, I’m 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’s the post–Source Code book [the first volume of his autobiography] that I get to go through that. You know, my first marriage didn’t succeed. I certainly made huge mistakes there. You know that is a negative mark against me. Spending time with Epstein—deeply foolish, risked the Foundation’s 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, “Hey, this was a mistake.” I wasn’t 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’t do. 

You know, I’m a billionaire. I made my money off of technology. Maybe that last one actually cuts in my favor, that it’s so unusual for me to attack innovation that unless it’s the right policy and safeguards are put in place, it will be a net negative to humanity. And we’re not paying attention to that in terms of a broad discussion the way that is absolutely required. So yeah, I’m an imperfect messenger. I’ve 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’s eradicate malaria. Let’s buy vaccines for children. So, when I’ve seen Trump or Xi or Macron or—I haven’t met Burnham yet, but I will in a month—I want my voice to be mostly about that, you know, foreign aid and research and reducing child death. 

My voice about AI concerns—they’re 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’re having. But I’m 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’m not sure how many people know that we crossed all these thresholds that we said we’d do something about, and it’s 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. 

So yes, I’m an imperfect messenger. You know, let’s find the perfect messenger, and I’ll share all my thoughts with that person. (I’m being a tiny bit sarcastic, because I’m not sure there is a perfect messenger.) You’ve got to really, right now, you’ve got to understand the technology and the slope it’s on, and you have to know something about cyber or bio or psychosocial. People should be able to get that. I don’t know why they’re not more concerned. 

Update: This story was updated to clarify Gates’ remarks about the percentage of jobs set aside for human reserved work.