Imagine you and a friend are strolling through an art exhibit and a striking painting catches your eye.
The vibrant red appears to you as a symbol of love, but your friend is convinced it's a symbol of war.
And where you see stars in a romantic sky, your friend interprets global warming-inducing pollutants.
To settle the debate, you turn to the internet, where you read that the painting is a replica of the artist's first-grade art project: Red was her favorite color and the silver dots are fairies.
You now know the exact intentions that led to the creation of this work.
Are you wrong to have enjoyed it as something the artist didn’t intend?
Do you enjoy it less now that you know the truth?
Just how much should the artist's intention affect your interpretation of the painting?
It's a question that's been tossed around by philosophers and art critics for decades, with no consensus in sight.
In the mid-20th century, literary critic W.K. Wimsatt and philosopher Monroe Beardsley argued that artistic intention was irrelevant.
They called this the Intentional Fallacy: the belief that valuing an artist's intentions was misguided.
Their argument was twofold: First, the artists we study are no longer living, never recorded their intentions, or are simply unavailable to answer questions about their work.
Second, even if there were a bounty of relevant information, Wimsatt and Beardsley believed it would distract us from the qualities of the work itself.
They compared art to a dessert: When you taste a pudding, the chef's intentions don't affect whether you enjoy its flavor or texture.
All that matters, they said, is that the pudding "works."
Of course, what "works" for one person might not "work" for another.
And since different interpretations appeal to different people, the silver dots in our painting could be reasonably interpreted as fairies, stars, or pollutants.
By Wimsatt and Beardsley's logic, the artist's interpretation of her own work would just be one among many equally acceptable possibilities.
If you find this problematic, you might be more in line with Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels, two literary theorists who rejected the Intentional Fallacy.
They argued that an artist's intended meaning was not just one possible interpretation, but the only possible interpretation.
For example, suppose you're walking along a beach and come across a series of marks in the sand that spell out a verse of poetry.
Knapp and Michaels believed the poem would lose all meaning if you discovered these marks were not the work of a human being, but an odd coincidence produced by the waves.
They believed an intentional creator is what makes the poem subject to jfox@example.org.
Other thinkers advocate for a middle ground, suggesting that intention is just one piece in a larger puzzle.
Contemporary philosopher Noel Carroll took this stance, arguing that an artist's intentions are relevant to their audience the same way a speaker's intentions are relevant to the person they’re engaging in conversation.
To understand how intentions function in conversation, Carroll said to imagine someone holding a cigarette and asking for a match.
You respond by handing them a lighter, gathering that their motivation is to light their cigarette.
The words they used to ask the question are important, but the intentions behind the question dictate your understanding and ultimately, your response.
So which end of this spectrum do you lean towards?
Do you, like Wimsatt and Beardsley, believe that when it comes to art, the proof should be in the pudding?
Or do you think that an artist's plans and motivations for their work affect its meaning?
Artistic interpretation is a complex web that will probably never offer a definitive answer.
Economists have been exploring people's behavior for hundreds of years: how we make decisions, how we act individually and in groups, how we exchange value.
They've studied the institutions that facilitate our trade, like legal systems, corporations, marketplaces.
But there is a new, technological institution that will fundamentally change how we exchange value, and it's called the blockchain.
Now, that's a pretty bold statement, but if you take nothing else away from this talk, I actually want you to remember that while blockchain technology is relatively new, it's also a continuation of a very human story, and the story is this.
As humans, we find ways to lower uncertainty about one another so that we can exchange value.
Now, one of the first people to really explore the idea of institutions as a tool in economics to lower our uncertainties about one another and be able to do trade was the Nobel economist Douglass North.
He passed away at the end of 2015, but North pioneered what's called "new institutional economics."
And what he meant by institutions were really just formal rules like a constitution, and informal constraints, like bribery.
These institutions are really the grease that allow our economic wheels to function, and we can see this play out over the course of human history.
If we think back to when we were hunter-gatherer economies, we really just traded within our village structure.
We had some informal constraints in place, but we enforced all of our trade with violence or social repercussions.
As our societies grew more complex and our trade routes grew more distant, we built up more formal institutions, institutions like banks for currency, governments, corporations.
These institutions helped us manage our trade as the uncertainty and the complexity grew, and our personal control was much lower.
Eventually with the internet, we put these same institutions online.
We built platform marketplaces like Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, just faster institutions that act as middlemen to facilitate human economic activity.
As Douglass North saw it, institutions are a tool to lower uncertainty so that we can connect and exchange all kinds of value in society.
And I believe we are now entering a further and radical evolution of how we interact and trade, because for the first time, we can lower uncertainty not just with political and economic institutions, like our banks, our corporations, our governments, but we can do it with technology alone.
So what is the blockchain?
Blockchain technology is a decentralized database that stores a registry of assets and transactions across a peer-to-peer network.
It's basically a public registry of who owns what and who transacts what.
The transactions are secured through cryptography, and over time, that transaction history gets locked in blocks of data that are then cryptographically linked together and secured.
This creates an immutable, unforgeable record of all of the transactions across this network.
This record is replicated on every computer that uses the network.
It's not an app.
It's not a company.
I think it's closest in description to something like Wikipedia.
We can see everything on Wikipedia.
It's a composite view that's constantly changing and being updated.
We can also track those changes over time on Wikipedia, and we can create our own wikis, because at their core, they're just a data infrastructure.
On Wikipedia, it's an open platform that stores words and images and the changes to that data over time.
On the blockchain, you can think of it as an open infrastructure that stores many kinds of assets.
It stores the history of custodianship, ownership and location for assets like the digital currency Bitcoin, other digital assets like a title of ownership of IP.
It could be a certificate, a contract, real world objects, even personal identifiable information.
There are of course other technical details to the blockchain, but at its core, that's how it works.
It's this public registry that stores transactions in a network and is replicated so that it's very secure and hard to tamper with.
Which brings me to my point of how blockchains lower uncertainty and how they therefore promise to transform our economic systems in radical ways.
So uncertainty is kind of a big term in economics, but I want to go through three forms of it that we face in almost all of our everyday transactions, where blockchains can play a role.
We face uncertainties like not knowing who we're dealing with, not having visibility into a transaction and not having recourse if things go wrong.
So let's take the first example, not knowing who we're dealing with.
Say I want to buy a used smartphone on eBay.
The first thing I'm going to do is look up who I'm buying from.
Are they a power user?
Do they have great reviews and ratings, or do they have no profile at all?
Reviews, ratings, checkmarks: these are the attestations about our identities that we cobble together today and use to lower uncertainty about who we're dealing with.
But the problem is they're very fragmented.
Think about how many profiles you have.
Blockchains allow for us to create an open, global platform on which to store any attestation about any individual from any source.
This allows us to create a user-controlled portable identity.
More than a profile, it means you can selectively reveal the different attributes about you that help facilitate trade or interaction, for instance that a government issued you an ID, or that you're over 21, by revealing the cryptographic proof that these details exist and are signed off on.
Having this kind of portable identity around the physical world and the digital world means we can do all kinds of human trade in a totally new way.
So I've talked about how blockchains could lower uncertainty in who we're dealing with.
The second uncertainty that we often face is just not having transparency into our interactions.
Say you're going to send me that smartphone by mail.
I want some degree of transparency.
I want to know that the product I bought is the same one that arrives in the mail and that there's some record for how it got to me.
This is true not just for electronics like smartphones, but for many kinds of goods and data, things like medicine, luxury goods, any kind of data or product that we don't want tampered with.
The problem in many companies, especially those that produce something complicated like a smartphone, is they're managing all of these different vendors across a horizontal supply chain.
All of these people that go into making a product, they don't have the same database.
They don't use the same infrastructure, and so it becomes really hard to see transparently a product evolve over time.
Using the blockchain, we can create a shared reality across nontrusting entities.
By this I mean all of these nodes in the network do not need to know each other or trust each other, because they each have the ability to monitor and validate the chain for themselves.
Think back to Wikipedia.
It's a shared database, and even though it has multiple readers and multiple writers at the same time, it has one single truth.
So we can create that using blockchains.
We can create a decentralized database that has the same efficiency of a monopoly without actually creating that central authority.
So all of these vendors, all sorts of companies, can interact using the same database without trusting one another.
It means for consumers, we can have a lot more transparency.
As a real-world object travels along, we can see its digital certificate or token move on the blockchain, adding value as it goes.
This is a whole new world in terms of our visibility.
So I've talked about how blockchains can lower our uncertainties about identity and how they change what we mean about transparency in long distances and complex trades, like in a supply chain.
The last uncertainty that we often face is one of the most open-ended, and it's reneging.
What if you don't send me the smartphone?
Can I get my money back?
Blockchains allow us to write code, binding contracts, between individuals and then guarantee that those contracts will bear out without a third party enforcer.
So if we look at the smartphone example, you could think about escrow.
You are financing that phone, but you don't need to release the funds until you can verify that all the conditions have been met.
You got the phone.
I think this is one of the most exciting ways that blockchains lower our uncertainties, because it means to some degree we can collapse institutions and their enforcement.
It means a lot of human economic activity can get collateralized and automated, and push a lot of human intervention to the edges, the places where information moves from the real world to the blockchain.
I think what would probably floor Douglass North about this use of technology is the fact that the very thing that makes it work, the very thing that keeps the blockchain secure and verified, is our mutual distrust.
So rather than all of our uncertainties slowing us down and requiring institutions like banks, our governments, our corporations, we can actually harness all of that collective uncertainty and use it to collaborate and exchange more and faster and more open.
Now, I don't want you to get the impression that the blockchain is the solution to everything, even though the media has said that it's going to end world poverty, it's also going to solve the counterfeit drug problem and potentially save the rainforest.
The truth is, this technology is in its infancy, and we're going to need to see a lot of experiments take place and probably fail before we truly understand all of the use cases for our economy.
But there are tons of people working on this, from financial institutions to technology companies, start-ups and universities.
And one of the reasons is that it's not just an economic evolution.
It's also an innovation in computer science.
Blockchains give us the technological capability of creating a record of human exchange, of exchange of currency, of all kinds of digital and physical assets, even of our own personal attributes, in a totally new way.
So in some ways, they become a technological institution that has a lot of the benefits of the traditional institutions we're used to using in society, but it does this in a decentralized way.
It does this by converting a lot of our uncertainties into certainties.
So I think we need to start preparing ourselves, because we are about to face a world where distributed, autonomous institutions have quite a significant role.
Thank you.
(Applause) Bruno Giussani: Thank you, Bettina.
I think I understood that it's coming, it offers a lot of potential, and it's complex.
What is your estimate for the rate of adoption?
Bettina Warburg: I think that's a really good question.
My lab is pretty much focused on going the enterprise and government route first, because in reality, blockchain is a complex technology.
How many of you actually understand how the internet works?
But you use it every day, so I think we're sort of facing the same John Sculley idea of technology should either be invisible or beautiful, and blockchain is kind of neither of those things right now, so it's better suited for either really early adopters who kind of get it and can tinker around or for finding those best use cases like identity or asset tracking or smart contracts that can be used at that level of an enterprise or government.
BG: Thank you.
Thanks for coming to TED.
BW: Thanks.
(Applause)