🔗 Share this article

What transpires when a celebrated historian, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and a one-time government official gather to discuss the state of the world and the path ahead? Their wide-ranging conversation explored subjects like artificial intelligence, failing democracies, and even the prospect of unconventional alliances. Yet it commenced with a core query: how can one lead a meaningful existence in an increasingly fragmented and fragile world?

The Dilemma of Conflicting Ideals of a Fulfilling Existence

A speaker noted that humanity has discussed this for millennia. The key contribution of modern liberalism was to attempt to agree to disagree. Various people can have sharply contrasting notions of what defines a worthwhile existence, yet they can coexist peacefully by adhering to some fundamental principles of behavior. The ongoing difficulty arises when people who think they possess the ultimate truth about the good life try to force their view on others. Unfortunately, many philosophies inherently include the notion that an essential component of the good life is compelling other people to follow the same path. Even more troubling is the insight that it often seems more straightforward to compel acceptance than to personally adhere to these ideals. Historical examples like the historical holy wars illustrate this dynamic: those involved who struggled to live moral ideals of simplicity, kindness, and caring for others were nevertheless willing to travel far from home to commit violence and compel them to live according to these very ideals. What we see today are more of the same.

The Rise and Fall of Open Societies

Another contributor highlighted that at the core of this insight lies the powerful philosophy known as democratic liberalism. This perspective rose to significance, especially in the 1800s, and took on fresh life after the World War II. Contemporary society inherits of this tradition, which presumed concepts like a rules-based international order, the notion that nations would agree on interaction protocols, and popular sovereignty as its foundation. This vision of democratic society embraced fundamental elements like tolerance, human rights, and defending vulnerable populations from the majority opinion. There was an unique time that likely lasted until the mid-2000s when it looked as if this was the inevitable endpoint of civilization. Then the system started faltering. Now we find ourselves in a world where almost every aspect of this framework has taken on a darker version. In place of focusing on democracy, we're in a world defined by authoritarian populism. Rather than a world of free trade, we're in one that's more concerned with economic protection and trade taxes. Rather than a international legal framework, we're in a world of go-it-alone policies: dominant countries pursue their interests, while vulnerable states face the outcomes. This situation are further reinforced by online networks and progressively by AI.

We are now creating a superintelligence, and there is every reason to think that it will be super deluded.

The Technological Challenge: Manipulation and Individual Weakness

Another perspective raised the key problem: will there be consequences for wrongdoing? Observations indicate from what's happening in both the real and digital realms that the international rules-based system is failing. How does one find personal fulfillment when big tech companies use monitoring for commercial gain, shaping us to maintain profitability? Now we're personally tracked by technology that can access intimate information of every democratic society.

All major world religions teach that the primary conflict for personal fulfillment is the battle within oneself: your virtuous side versus your baser instincts. Ethical treatment of others – treat others as you wish to be treated – is a basic principle. But how do we preserve these values when the primary methods through which we communicate are tainted?

One analyst pointed out that what's new in the current situation is that we have developed the digital tools to influence individuals and manipulate the inner battle in ways that were totally inconceivable in the middle ages or even during the last century. Big businesses, and entities possessing this sophisticated toolset, can both understand and shape individual aspirations and thinking in an never-before-seen way. And free societies, as they were established in the historical period, really don't understand how to address this challenge.

The Danger of Being Overshadowed

A different perspective pointed out the risk that advanced systems might eventually exceed human capabilities. If you reflect on civilization, much of it was built upon remarkable people, inspirational figures, heroes. And what defines a hero? Someone who pushes the boundaries of what it means to be alive. We consider ourselves this unique biological entity that can produce works in scientific discovery, the arts, or performance that animals can equal. The threat of artificial general intelligence is that suddenly it becomes truly superior to human intelligence. At that stage, if it can easily compose a literary work better than I can, create a play superior to human creation, suddenly we are diminished.

The Accuracy Problem and Our Fundamental Character

One speaker remarked that it would be ideal if the technology driving these changes were completely reliable. Unfortunately, they're not. But because we've been raised in an era of reliable reporting, it's much easier to fool us, because when you read information, you expect it to be right. The way machine learning has been introduced in our culture is frequently disconnected from truth. And while some argue that knowledge is not about facts but about the accounts we construct, verifiable information ground our collective experience.

Someone asked: do you believe whether individuals are inherently virtuous or inherently flawed? This might appear spiritual, but it makes a difference, because what we're now experiencing in the public information ecosystem, part of the breakdown of democracy, part of our ability to elect illiberal leaders via free elections, is because we've muted the goodness of human nature. Reporting on the dark side of humanity – war, individuals harming others – {