We're focusing on how IBM is advancing generative AI. Arvind Krishna he is IBM chairman and CEO. He spoke with Wall Street Week host David Weston yesterday at the Milkin Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles.
Exactly a year. I think if edymon but I David.
We announced it what's the next product at think in May last year, and since then, the excitement in our clients embracing the technology, getting the technology deployed, asking for expertise, and getting projects going.
I think all of that has been wonderful.
Our inception to date book of business nine seeds of billion dollars.
That's pretty good for a year. And I think and it speaks to the excitement.
And I think what's even more, our clients are excited about what it does for them. You can see them the user for customer experience, for programming apporting as it's called, as well as for helping improve the enterprise. All of this put together is really exciting in how our enterprise clients are embracing the generative AI.
One of the things that people anticipate from general it's an increase in productivity. Are you finding that with your customers. Are they increasing criticulity and how do you measure that increase in productivity?
I think David is both.
I think increase in productivity is important, but productivity can be made into just cost cutting our efficiency. That's not the primary reason. The primary reason I think our clients are excited. Can they get more business done while holding their costs in somewhat in control? And so it's really about more of a revenue generator then productivity alone. Now, of course it is a revenue generator because it's making you more productive, and I think that is what is exciting.
Think about customer experience.
Yeah, you may save a dollar on somebody's time and a call center, but that's not why. If you can make the end client more satisfied they got that answer quicker, they've got a better answer. Are they more likely to come back and do more repeat business? I think that's far more exciting.
There's a lot of discussion about how general AI will grow and how it will evolve. You've really staked your claim on an open architecture, including for IBM, but also with Meta in your AI alliance. Tell us why that's important. Why is open architecture important in AI?
Look, it's always around how do you drive innovation?
And in a case where people worry a lot about what is the fair use, what is the copyright, what is the IP protection of the data and methodology used to train AI, you have both those going on.
So in order to drive open.
What we are doing is we're taking some of our base models, as Meta has done, and we are putting them out under an open license for the epaty license, which means people are free to build upon it.
And what the build upon is their. They don't have to give it back to us.
When you care a lot about maybe some proprietary data instead an enterprise and you use that AD skills to an AI model and you can now say, oh, because yours is open, it's now mine what is best?
I think it makes it block got interesting to the enterprise.
So IBM with wats an excess really pursuing enterprise base AI. Does that get around the challenges of intellectual property because there are issues in consumer facing about copyright about what you're going to learn on? Is it the way it works for you? The customers using their own data to actually educate the model.
Absolutely, and we're just putting out you talked about open right now, we're also right today and tomorrow putting out a new technology, a really innovative technology called instruct lab. This allows a client to take one of us or maybe somebody else's model, take it inside that enterprise, train it with some data and some methodology of their own, and then the layer on top inside instruct lab is this.
It does not need to come back to anybody else. I think that gets rid of the whole question of copyright and fair use.
How does AI alignes fit with possible government regulation. We have some moves in Europe, as you know, there's an executive order in the United States divide administration is put out. How do those two things fit? Because you talk about standards as part of the AI Alliance.
I think every regulator is worried about three topics, not just safety in regulation. They're wanted about innovation. They're worried about competition, and they're worried about safety and regulation.
So when you take those three together, the AI Alliance that open really come together to help you foment innovation.
So I think that that actually helps the regulators to think about what is going on here. While I in caution, there will be some gardens that are always fut but in my experience, open technologies have always been safer and more secure than close technologies.
Is one of the risks that maybe you're obviating with your emphasis on open architecture. That's some of that. I'll call them big guys get an advantage and really have an entrenched position.
Well, I'll use the concert of a wall garden.
When you have a walled garden, has those areas and technologies been more innovative.
Or less innovative?
All of a sudden, the wall garden has always been less innovative, and so I think that it actually helps you create more competition. Does it avoid regulatory lock in off a certain one or two players?
Likely? But isn't that good for all of us?
Are you pro regulation?
I am pro regulation as long as is it as light touch and allows innovation to happen.
I absolutely would be pro regulation.
If regulation tries to reduce innovation, I think that's a problem.
And that, of course was Arvind Krishna. He is IBM Chairman and CEO and Wall Street Week hoast David Wesson