🔗 Share this article

What happens when a renowned author on human history, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and a one-time government official come together to debate the state of the world and our collective future? Their wide-ranging dialogue touched upon topics like artificial intelligence, challenges to democracy, and even the idea of unconventional alliances. Yet it began with a core question: how do we lead a meaningful existence in an increasingly fragmented and unstable world?

The Problem of Differing Visions of a Fulfilling Existence

A discussant noted that people have debated this for millennia. The primary innovation of contemporary democratic ideals was to attempt to agree to disagree. Various people can have very different concepts of what constitutes a worthwhile existence, yet they can live together harmoniously by upholding some fundamental principles of conduct. The constant struggle arises when people who think they possess the definitive solution about human fulfillment try to force their vision on others. Regrettably, many ideologies contain within them the notion that part of living well is ensuring that others to adopt the same lifestyle. Even more troubling is the observation that it often seems simpler to force compliance than to personally adhere to these ideals. Instances from history like the historical holy wars demonstrate this phenomenon: participants who could not maintain religious principles of simplicity, kindness, and loving thy neighbor were nevertheless prepared to journey great distances to kill people and force them to adhere to these very ideals. Current events constitute a continuation of this pattern.

The Rise and Fall of Liberal Democracy

Another voice highlighted that at the heart of this observation lies the powerful philosophy known as democratic liberalism. This perspective gained prominence, notably in the 19th century, and took on fresh life after the the global conflict of the 1940s. We live with the legacy of this system, which was built on concepts like a rules-based international order, the notion that countries would agree on interaction protocols, and popular sovereignty as its cornerstone. This vision of democratic society embraced fundamental elements like open-mindedness, individual liberties, and safeguarding minority groups from the majority opinion. There was an remarkable era that probably continued until the mid-2000s when it looked as if this was the inevitable endpoint of humanity. Then developments took a turn. Today we exist in a world where almost every aspect of this system has taken on a darker version. Rather than focusing on democracy, we're in a world characterized by populist authoritarianism. Rather than a world of open markets, we're in one that's progressively focused on trade barriers and import duties. In place of a international legal framework, we're in a world of national isolation: strong nations act as they please, while the weak endure what they must. All these developments are exacerbated by social media and more and more by AI.

We are now creating a high-level artificial intelligence, and evidence points to think that it will be super deluded.

The Technological Problem: Manipulation and Personal Susceptibility

An additional voice posed the fundamental issue: will there be consequences for wrongdoing? Observations indicate from recent developments in both the physical and virtual worlds that the international rules-based system is not working. How does one find personal fulfillment when digital giants use monitoring for financial benefit, influencing us to keep making money? Now we're personally tracked by digital tools that can penetrate to our most personal data of every democracy.

Traditional spiritual traditions teach that the essential battle for living well is the battle within oneself: your better self versus your negative impulses. The principle of reciprocity – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – constitutes a simple concept. But how do we preserve these principles when the primary methods through which we interact are corrupted?

Another contributor noted that what's unique about today's context is that we now possess the digital tools to hack human beings and manipulate the inner battle in ways that were totally inconceivable in the medieval period or even during the 20th century. Big businesses, and entities possessing this new technology, can both understand and influence human desires and mental processes in an unprecedented manner. And free societies, as they were designed in the 18th and 19th centuries, truly lack the understanding how to respond to this development.

The Danger of Losing Relevance

Another voice pointed out the potential that technology might begin to overshadow us. If you reflect on civilization, much of it historically centered on influential individuals, exemplars, champions. And what makes someone heroic? Someone who expands the possibilities of what it means to be human. We believe we are this extraordinary species that can accomplish feats in scientific discovery, literature, or drama that no other species can equal. The danger of superintelligent systems is that unexpectedly it becomes genuinely beyond human capability. At that point, if it can easily compose a verse better than I can, create a play superior to human creation, suddenly we are diminished.

The Trustworthiness Problem and Our Fundamental Character

A different voice commented that it would be wonderful if the digital systems powering this revolution were actually 100% accurate. This is not the case. But because we've grown up with information integrity, it's much easier to fool us, because when you see something in writing, you expect it to be right. The way artificial intelligence has been deployed in our society is often detached from reality. And while particular authors state that information is not about verifiable truth but about the stories we tell, facts ground our collective experience.

An inquiry was raised: what is your view on whether human nature is essentially positive or inherently flawed? This might sound religious, but it is significant, because what we're currently doing in the news landscape, part of the erosion of self-governance, part of our readiness to choose authoritarian figures through democratic processes, is because we've suppressed the positive aspects of people. Witnessing the dark side of humanity – conflict, people killing each other – {