🔗 Share this article

What transpires when a renowned author on human history, a globally recognized reporter, and a former politician gather to discuss the state of the world and our collective future? Their broad dialogue touched upon subjects like AI, democratic crises, and even the prospect of unconventional alliances. Yet it commenced with a fundamental inquiry: how do we find personal fulfillment in an ever more divided and unstable world?

The Problem of Varied Concepts of a Good Life

One participant observed that humanity has discussed this for ages. The key contribution of modern liberalism was to foster tolerance for diverse views. Various people can have sharply contrasting ideas of what constitutes a fulfilling life, yet they can coexist peacefully by upholding some core guidelines of conduct. The perennial challenge arises when individuals convinced they possess the ultimate truth about the good life attempt to impose their view on others. Regrettably, many philosophies inherently include the notion that a key aspect of fulfillment is compelling other people to adopt the same way. Even more troubling is the observation that it often seems simpler to force compliance than to follow these rules in our own lives. Historical examples like the historical holy wars illustrate this dynamic: those involved who found it difficult to practice moral ideals of modesty, empathy, and loving thy neighbor were however ready to go thousands of miles to commit violence and force them to follow these very ideals. Contemporary developments represent a similar phenomenon.

The Emergence and Erosion of Liberal Democracy

Another voice pointed out that at the heart of this insight lies the extraordinary idea known as classical liberalism. This philosophy gained prominence, especially in the 19th century, and found new expression after the the global conflict of the 1940s. We are the heirs of this system, which presumed concepts like a global system governed by laws, the principle that countries would agree on interaction protocols, and popular sovereignty as its cornerstone. This model of self-governance included fundamental elements like acceptance, individual liberties, and safeguarding minority groups from the will of the majority. There was an extraordinary period that likely lasted until the 2000s when it looked as if this was the inevitable endpoint of civilization. Then developments took a turn. Currently we live in a world where nearly every element of this model has taken on a darker version. Rather than focusing on democracy, we're in a world characterized by authoritarian populism. Rather than a world of global commerce, we're in one that's progressively focused on protectionism and trade taxes. Instead of a global system of laws, we're in a world of national isolation: strong nations act as they please, while the weak endure what they must. This situation are exacerbated by online networks and increasingly by AI.

We are now creating a superintelligence, and evidence points to think that it will be super deluded.

The Technological Challenge: Control and Personal Susceptibility

An additional voice raised the key problem: will there be consequences for wrongdoing? It's clear from current events in both the physical and virtual worlds that the world order is broken. How does one live a good life when major technology firms use data collection for commercial gain, shaping us to continue generating revenue? Now we're individually targeted by digital tools that can penetrate to our most personal data of every free nation.

All major world religions suggest that the fundamental struggle for personal fulfillment is the internal fight: your better self versus your baser instincts. The golden rule – show the kindness you hope to receive – constitutes a straightforward idea. But how do we preserve these principles when the actual mechanisms through which we interact are corrupted?

Another contributor pointed out that what's different now is that we currently have the digital tools to hack human beings and affect internal struggles in ways that were completely unthinkable in the medieval period or even during the 20th century. Major companies, and anyone wielding this sophisticated toolset, can both analyze and manipulate personal wants and mental processes in an completely new fashion. And democratic systems, as they were designed in the 1700s and 1800s, really don't understand how to address this challenge.

The Danger of Losing Relevance

Another voice emphasized the potential that artificial intelligence might begin to overshadow us. If you think about society, much of it historically centered on remarkable people, inspirational figures, heroes. And what makes someone heroic? Someone who pushes the boundaries of what it means to be conscious. We see humanity as this remarkable life form that can achieve things in scientific discovery, poetry, or theater that no other species can match. The risk of superintelligent systems is that suddenly it becomes quite literally superhuman. At that point, if it can effortlessly write a poem exceeding human quality, create a play superior to human creation, our importance decreases.

The Accuracy Issue and Human Nature

A different voice remarked that it would be wonderful if the technology enabling this transformation were completely reliable. This is not the case. But because we've been raised in an era of information integrity, it's simpler to deceive people, because when you read information, you expect it to be right. The way machine learning has been introduced in our community is frequently disconnected from truth. And while some argue that data is not about objective reality but about the narratives we create, facts stabilize our collective experience.

Someone asked: what is your view on whether individuals are inherently virtuous or inherently flawed? This might appear spiritual, but it makes a difference, because what we're witnessing today in the news landscape, part of the breakdown of democracy, part of our readiness to vote for anti-democratic candidates via free elections, is because we've ignored the virtuous elements of humanity. Reporting on the worst aspects of people – war, people killing each other – {