Building Trust in the Age of Disinformation – What Future Awaits Us? | Yuval Noah Harari

Hello Mr. Harrari.

>> Hello.

>> It's great to have you back.

>> Thank you.

>> It's great great to have you back in Croatia. You are here after more than 10

Croatia. You are here after more than 10 years, right? A lot has happened since

years, right? A lot has happened since your last year. You became one of the most prominent global phenomenon.

Um you became famous. Um and Croatia, our small country, has become football giant something.

So um and that's on the bright side. On

the grim side, things got a bit messy in the world, right? So things changed a lot and the world we knew it back then when you were first here

um are not here. So as so it seems. So um my question and I'm just going to start with this conversation with a question that you yourself so very often

ask. So if we humans are so intelligent,

ask. So if we humans are so intelligent, why are we so stupid?

>> Yeah, that's a a very good and very deep question actually. And I I'll give two

question actually. And I I'll give two answers. First of all, if you give

answers. First of all, if you give highly intelligent people bad information, they will make stupid decisions.

And we now have the most sophisticated information technology in history which is flooding the world with junk with

junk information. Information is not

junk information. Information is not truth. Just a very small subset of the

truth. Just a very small subset of the information in the world is truth. And

we are now flooded by enormous amounts of bad information which leads us to make bad decisions.

on a deeper level, you know, especially in a world which is now obsessed with intelligence and with the the race to create super

intelligence, which we'll discuss later on. It's very important to understand

on. It's very important to understand intelligence is not wisdom.

What we know from history is the most intelligent entities on the planet are also the most delusional

entities on the planet. We humans are by far more intelligent than chimpanzees or elephants or dogs and we believe

in delusions that no chimpanzeee or dog will ever believe. like I come from a region of the world where people are

killing each other by their thousands believing for example that if you kill people from the other tribe after you

die you will go to heaven and receive infinite joy forever and ever. No

chimpanzeee will ever believe such a thing. But humans, many humans, many

thing. But humans, many humans, many powerful humans, many intelligent humans believe that. And as we are now creating

believe that. And as we are now creating super intelligence, we should take into

account they could be super delusional.

So you say that basically this junk may contribute to um constitution of something that you call new world

disorder and at some point you mention if this happens everybody will suffer.

What do you mean by that? Oh

>> it's very simple. You know when you destroy an order and you don't have anything to replace it with what you get is chaos. What you get is disorder in

is chaos. What you get is disorder in which almost everybody suffers. And in

the last 10 years, we have seen the deliberate destruction of the world order. You know, the world order of the

order. You know, the world order of the early 21st century was far from perfect.

And again, I come from the Middle East, so I know perfectly well. There was

violence, there was injustice, there was many problems, but it was still better than almost any order humanity has ever managed to create.

And maybe the best piece of evidence for that is, I would say, government budgets. You know, not poetry, not

budgets. You know, not poetry, not philosophy, but budgets. If you want to look at reality, you look at budgets.

It's the first time in human history that governments all over the world spent more on health care than on security than on the military. If you go

for thousands of years of history everywhere Europe China America you will see that almost every king and sultan and even republic like the Roman

Republic or the Venetian Republic, more than 50% of their budget went to pay soldiers and buy uh ships, ships of war

and build fortresses. In the early 21st century, the average expenditure on the military all over the world, taking into account Iran and Israel and North Korea

and the US, everything was down to about 6 to 7%.

Whereas the expenditure on healthcare was 10.5%.

first time in human history that countries felt so safe that the idea that the neighbors might

invade and conquer us just became almost unthinkable. So even small and weak

unthinkable. So even small and weak countries felt safe enough to spend more time on nurses and doctors and clinics

than on soldiers and missiles and warships.

And um this is now collapsing.

The biggest taboo of the world order of 10 years ago was that you cannot just invade and conquer another country because you are stronger.

This is now broken in more and more places. Certainly broken with the

places. Certainly broken with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Certainly

broken with Israel's intent still to conquer and annex maybe part of Gaza of the West Bank.

certainly broken when you hear the leader of the United States openly talking about annexing Greenland, let's

say to the US. We are entering a new imperial era.

You know, Croatia was gained independence at the moment of the collapse of the last imperial order, the collapse of the

last big empire, the Soviet Empire, which had ripple effects all over Eastern Europe and the world. Now the

world is entering a new imperial order.

When you hear somebody like President Trump, for instance, talking about peace, his understanding of the word peace is

simply that the weak will do what the strong tell them to do. Then you have peace, which is the imperial idea of peace. The Romans also wanted peace. Pak

peace. The Romans also wanted peace. Pak

Romana.

Imperial peace means if the weak do what the strong tell them to do, then there is peace.

Why is the war? Because the weak refuse to to to acknowledge power. So if the US demands say Greenland and Denmark refuses to give Greenland and the US

invades and conquers Greenland, who is to blame for the violence? Denmark for

refusing to acknowledge the reality of power.

This is the new either world disorder or new imperial era that we are entering which is supercharged again by AI.

Uh because AI promises to give whoever controlled this new technology the means to control the

entire world. The same way that in the

entire world. The same way that in the 19th century, the few countries who led the industrial revolution like Britain

and France and United States and Japan, they then conquered and dominated the whole world. Nobody could really resist

whole world. Nobody could really resist them.

This is likely to happen again with AI in the 21st century.

>> Okay. So, you mentioned Donald Trump. So

I have a question um and other strong men. Why do people support them? So is

men. Why do people support them? So is

there something that liberal democracy failed in that people are today as you say more inclined to support strongmen?

I'll give you just um a few uh numbers for the first time in over 20 years according to the Swedish Swedom Institute we have more autocracies than

democracies. So liberal democracy

democracies. So liberal democracy uh has become the least common regime type in the world.

>> According to the institute, nearly three out of four people today live in autocracies. So what did liberal

autocracies. So what did liberal democracy do wrong? How did it fail people? It did not necessarily fail

people? It did not necessarily fail people, but liberal democracy has certain preconditions.

Democracy in essence is a conversation.

Dictatorship is dictate. One person

dictates everything. Everybody has to listen and do. There is no conversation.

The idea of democracy is let's gather everybody together and have a conversation and everybody can talk, voice their opinions, their interests and let's try to work something

together. It's a conversation.

together. It's a conversation.

Now it's not easy to hold a conversation.

For most of history, largecale democracy was absolutely impossible.

The only examples we have of democracies in the premodern era are smallcale citystates

like Athens or Republican Rome or even smaller tribes that in in the stone age democracy was very common. Most tribes

and bands were democratic not authoritarian.

But as societies grew bigger it became difficult to maintain the conversation.

If you live in a single city with say 50,000 people, you can still have a conversation. But if you have a country

conversation. But if you have a country with millions of people spread over thousands of kilometers, how do you have a conversation? In the ancient world, it

a conversation? In the ancient world, it was simply impossible. So we do not have a single example of a large country,

kingdom, empire that functioned democratically. Both Athens and Rome

democratically. Both Athens and Rome when they grew they stopped being democratic.

Large-scale democracy became possible for the first time in history because of new information and communication

technologies that appeared in the modern era. first print and later telegraph and

era. first print and later telegraph and radio and television that they for the

first time made it possible to have a realtime conversation between millions of people spread over thousands of kilometers.

So democracy is built on top of information technology. It's not that

information technology. It's not that you have democracy as a kind of ideological system or ethical system and

on the side you have technology. Now

democracy is built on top of technology of information technology and if you have a big change in information

technology you have an earthquake in democracy. Now what is happen what has

democracy. Now what is happen what has happened over the last 10 years is not that democracies stopped providing the goods.

There are many problems but there are always problems in history. Show me one period in history or one regime in history that didn't have problems.

economic problems, social problems in according to most objective measurements like again health care, education, the

death of women in childbirth. How many

women die during childbirth, the level of health care provided by democracies in the early 21st century is still better than in any previous time

in history.

What has changed is the information technology that the entire structure is built on. And over the last 10 years, we

built on. And over the last 10 years, we saw this really striking even paradoxical situation

when we have acquired we have developed the most sophisticated information technology in human history and the

conversation has collapsed. People have

lost the ability to talk with each other or at least to listen to each other.

They still know how to talk but it's becoming more and more difficult to listen. You know the only thing I think

listen. You know the only thing I think that I I don't know the mo democrats and republicans in the US can agree on is that the conversation has collapsed.

They can no longer agree on the most basic facts. They cannot no longer have

basic facts. They cannot no longer have a conversation. This is not because of

a conversation. This is not because of extreme ideological gaps. Actually, the

ideological gap between conservatives and liberals, between Republicans and Democrats in the US today is smaller than in many previous eras. Like you

think about the 1960s with the civil rights movements with the so many assassinations, so much violence in the street, the Vietnam War, the Cold War,

the sexual revolution.

And yet Americans could at least agree about who won the elections.

Now the ideological gaps if you look at the actual ideology there is actually in some areas like abortion the gap is bigger but in most

areas the gap is smaller.

What is becoming bigger is the deficit of trust and the the difficulty of conversing and again agreeing on the most basic facts.

And there are different reasons for why this is happening. But I would say that the underlying reason is the technological revolution in information

technology. Now humans have spent

technology. Now humans have spent thousands of years building trust between us and we're

amazing in our ability to build trust.

A 100,000 years ago, humans lived in tiny bands of a few dozen individuals and couldn't trust anybody outside their band, which meant there were no trade

networks. There were no large political

networks. There were no large political structures like tribes. There were no cultural movements beyond the small band. You couldn't trust anyone.

band. You couldn't trust anyone.

Today, you have nations of hundreds of millions of people that trust each other. You have trade networks of

other. You have trade networks of billions of people. We are very good at it. But we have built over thousands of

it. But we have built over thousands of years trust by interacting human to human.

Now something is inserting itself into almost every human relationship as a mediator and perhaps as a wall.

>> And this is the new technologies.

>> The algorithms. Mhm.

>> The AIS in the midst of almost every relationship today on Earth, there is an algorithm. So, it's no longer human to

algorithm. So, it's no longer human to human, it's human to algorithm to human.

>> And something is happening there.

>> Mhm.

>> Because I I'll say just this and then and and then then we'll we'll develop it in in other directions. But

what we see is a shift in trust from humans to algorithms. Trust in humans and human institutions is collapsing.

Trust in human governments, banks, media organizations, universities is collapsing. At the same time, trust in

collapsing. At the same time, trust in algorithms is going up. People say, "I don't trust any of these journalists or

editors." But the same persons trust the

editors." But the same persons trust the algorithms that feed them the news on social media. People say, "I don't trust

social media. People say, "I don't trust the banks." At the same time, you see a

the banks." At the same time, you see a rise in trust in cryptocurrencies, which are algorithm money. You don't trust the humans to produce money, but you trust

the algorithms to produce money. So

trust it's not that trust is evaporating from the world.

Trust is shifting from human institutions to algorithms and AIs. This

causes human organizations like democracies to enter a crisis, even collapse.

And we don't know what will emerge instead. We will not go back to the

instead. We will not go back to the dictatorships of the 20th century.

A new kind of political system of political regime is emerging without any humans at the center. It's

nonhuman intelligence which is increasingly taking over the political and economic and social system.

So before we move to that nonhuman agent or system um let me ask you now when you said that

trust is evaporating so what about institutions like European Union the 20th century institution which

was built also amongst other things on trust trust trust of member countries uh trust of the people who live in these member countries for instance In

Croatia, um trust in institutions is super low, but trust in European institutions is much higher than trust in national political institutions.

However, with this huge democratic backsliding and decline of trust in institutions, do you think European Union can survive? I can't predict the future because it depends on decisions

of people like the people here in the hall whether it survives or not. I hope

it does. It certainly faces a crisis.

It's a crisis that's been building because you know the European Union was uh um it was very difficult to develop trust in it. For me, one of the signs

was the money.

Um you look at the money of almost every other political entity on the planet, it has humans on it. these famous people from the past, these presidents or poets

or scientists that everybody's supposed to admire, it's on the money. You look

at the European at the euro, what's on the currency, what's on the banknotes.

There are no humans on it. And my

understanding is that uh they couldn't agree who to put there because of course every nation has its own revered ancestors. I don't know in Hungary,

ancestors. I don't know in Hungary, Atila Dehan is father of the nation. If

they put a tila dehan on a 50 note, many people would would be upset. The the for the French Napoleon, okay, so you put Napoleon in 50 50 note, people will be

upset. But they couldn't even put

upset. But they couldn't even put Maricuri. They couldn't even put

Maricuri. They couldn't even put Leonardo da Vinci. So they say, "Oh, we'll put bridges and windows and doors."

doors." But they and this is what what's on the euros. You can check it later. There are

euros. You can check it later. There are

bridges, windows, doors, which all signify Europe's openness.

But they were so afraid of offending the sensitivity of this group or that group, they couldn't even put real bridges on it. So they put on the euros these kind

it. So they put on the euros these kind of imaginary bridges in the style of the Romans or in the style of the Roman of the Gothic or whatever, but not real

bridges because we put a bridge from France, the Germans will be upset.

You can't build a a strong system like that. If you build a house and it only

that. If you build a house and it only has windows and and and doors and no walls, it can't stand. If you can't agree on a single person that people

find admirable, it's it won't work. And

we need it to work. It Europeans needed to work. I mentioned earlier that we are

to work. I mentioned earlier that we are entering a new imperial era. Europe is

now like Africa in the 19th century.

This is Zulu land that um you know the Zulus have heard that somewhere across the ocean in Britain they invented steam engines and

there are trains or something like that.

This has nothing to do with us. We have

much more urgent problems here. Fast

forward a few decades it's a British colony.

Uh you can try to regulate AI like the Zulus would try to regulate the industrial revolution. It doesn't work

industrial revolution. It doesn't work if it doesn't happen here.

And Europe at at the present in the AI race, you really have two competitors.

It's the US and China.

>> Mhm.

>> But Europe has a real chance and still have a little bit of time >> and Eurosong. We have Eurosong.

>> The Euro vision. Yes. We'll get to that in a minute. But Europe has the economic resources. It has the human capital.

resources. It has the human capital.

Many of the people who develop AI in the US are actually Europeans. Europe has

the the science, the educational system to be a a third independent player in this race, but only if it sticks together.

If Europe falls apart, its best hope is to become an American vessel. And this is one of the reasons

vessel. And this is one of the reasons that you see the American administration so supportive of anti-uro European parties because they know if they break

up the European Union done deal they are in our pocket. And the strange thing about many of these anti-uropean parties they present themselves as great

patriots. They talk about we want to our

patriots. They talk about we want to our independence. We want our sovereignity.

independence. We want our sovereignity.

Not realizing that the greatest threat is not from the Brussels bureaucrats and not even from the immigrants coming in boats across the Mediterranean. It's the

AI immigrants that are the biggest threat to the independence and sovereignity and culture of of European nations. Like if

you ask people what are what are your concerned about immigration and immigration now is the number one issue in many many European countries and people will say we worry that immigrants

will take our jobs. We are worried that immigrants come with different cultural ideas and they will change our culture.

We are worried that the immigrants are politically loyal to foreign entities and not to this country. they will take over. And all

country. they will take over. And all

these concerns, I don't belittle them.

They are legitimate concerns.

But I would say if this is what worries you, you should be far more worried about the AI immigrants which are coming

without visas at the speed of light and taking over everything. They will take the jobs.

They will change the culture dramatically.

and they are not loyal to any political entity in Europe. The their political loyalty is across the ocean.

So yes, worry about the independence and sovereignity of European countries, but if you really want to preserve it, the

only chance is to stick together.

>> Great message. Thank you. So um you mentioned now it's overseas we should worry about the overseas and a couple of

days ago we had this outage of Amazon >> and so many things collapsed. So we

realized in a split of a second how dependent we are on only a few people.

So techno bros, techno oligarchs, um Bezos, Elon Musk and the others. So

but can we say no? Do we have option any longer?

>> Yeah, I mean again not immediately at the present situation. Yes, Europe

relies on technology on infrastructure from outside but it is not helpless. Um

economically culturally scientifically it's still a superpower.

if it gets its act together and decides to do something about it. But um so far it's it's not doing it. Again, when I

say that um you know AI immigrants are coming over, it's not just the the technical infrastructure like we saw with the Amazon outing.

We talked earlier about democracy is built on top of information technology and this is why in democracy the media is so important and if you look at

democracies in the 20th century and not just democracies also autocracies some of the most important jobs in the country were uh news editors media

editors uh you look I don't know at Italy in the fascist Italy Mussolini before he became dictator ctor of Italy. He was he

started his career as a journalist. Then

he became editor of a newspaper. Then he

became dictator. This was his his ladder of promotion. Journalist, editor,

of promotion. Journalist, editor, newspaper.

>> Message for dictator.

>> Hope not.

>> Uh Lenin before he was dictator of the Soviet Union, the one job Lenin held in his life was editor of a newspaper. They

were very important people.

>> Journalists are wiggling. And they were important

are wiggling. And they were important because they control the public conversation. Not necessarily telling

conversation. Not necessarily telling people what to think, but telling people what to think about. What will be the main topic of conversation of everything that happened yesterday in the world?

What will be at the top of the newspaper?

Which will be the main topic of conversation?

If you ask who are the most important editors today in Europe, what are their names? They don't have names because

names? They don't have names because they are not human beings and they are not in Europe. They are algorithms. They are the algorithms that manage the big

social media platforms. They are now the most important editors in Europe. And so

we know again when when I say that the AI immigrants will come and take jobs, they will not start with the jobs of janitors and nurses. They start at the top.

with my job with your job with my job with the job of of editors with the job of uh bankers with the job of lawyers

with the job of authors and writers you know I'm now working on a book my assumption is that this is the last book that I'll probably write because by the

time it's over it's it takes a long time to write a book let's say five years AI will write better books than I can >> are you afraid that AI is going to steal your job that chat GPT or any other open

air >> I don't I'm not sure if afraid is the right word I take it into account I take into account that this is my last book I

look I'm my line of work is is language is words stories and as I observe the the development of AI

over the last few years I've been absolutely amazed at how good it became with language. It has a really deep

with language. It has a really deep understanding of language. Uh you know as an authors like I I I write a sentence I sometimes think for two three

minutes which word to use. I have like two words quite close in meaning and I have to choose one and I try to understand what is the semantic field of

this word which other words it it and other terms it has connotations with and I tried I AI has amazing semantic

ability to understand the the the again the semantic field of the word it's becoming better than us some People

tell me, "Oh, all AI and language it is just glorified autocomplete."

But you know, I'm besides being an author, I I'm also a meditator. I

meditate two hours a day trying to observe the processes of my mind. One of

the most interesting things to observe in meditation is how thoughts are formed in the mind.

And what happens in my mind is some glorified autocomplete.

When I start a sentence, I usually don't know how it will end.

As a public speaker, it often terrified me at the beginning because in the middle of like giving a talk, I would I don't even know how this sentence is going to end. Like when I just said, I

don't know how this sentence is going to end. I could have said how it's going to

end. I could have said how it's going to continue, how it's going to terminate, how it's going to develop.

I didn't know when I started the sentence what will be the word at the end where did it come from I don't know there is some just autocomplete

and AI is becoming better at these kind of of word prediction you know we again we think about

ourselves as the most intelligent entity on the planet so far we can think better than any other animal and we can at

least in words. But if thinking is words, it's very difficult for us to think I don't know in a million words.

We usually have short thoughts.

AI can think in extremely complex networks of word of words which we cannot.

You know, I think one of the biggest questions really for humanity, a philosophical but also a political question in 2025,

what does it mean to think? You know,

modern philosophy was born allegedly when Rene said, "I think therefore I am." And ever

since people have been arguing, what did he mean when he said, "I think?" What

does it mean to think? And can AI think?

There are two main versions of what does it mean to think?

Some people say to think is to string words together in a certain structure.

Like all all humans are mortal. Socrates

is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. That's the what's the the

mortal. That's the what's the the conclusion of of these words. AI if this is thinking AI can think much better than us or will be able to think in a

superhuman way in a very few years.

Alternatively, people say no thinking is a holistic experience. When you think you also feel pain or you also feel

love. There is an emotional and even

love. There is an emotional and even sensory dimension to thinking. If this

is thinking then no AI cannot think at least not now I don't know about the future and this is a becoming now a crucial

question and this goes back to your first questions about intelligence. What

do we value in human beings?

If it is their ability to string words together and in in logical constructs and reach conclusions then game over.

AI will do it better than us.

>> So it will overpower us then.

>> Anything that is based on language will be taken over by AI. When I say anything, I don't mean just writing books. I mean the financial system. I

books. I mean the financial system. I

mean religion, you know, finance ultimately is words, is stories. The

stock exchange is a place where people tell stories to each other in order to gain their trust and convince you to put your life savings in this story or in that story. Money, we mentioned the euro

that story. Money, we mentioned the euro bank notes, they don't have any objective value. It's ultimately just a

objective value. It's ultimately just a story. And bitcoin like euro banknotes

story. And bitcoin like euro banknotes is also a story. Finance is ultimately also based on language and it will be

taken over by AI. More and more of the trade in the world even now is conducted by AI. It is likely that in a few years

by AI. It is likely that in a few years AIS will invent new financial devices that we cannot understand to create trust between AIS so they can trade and

cooperate in ways >> speaking its own language.

>> Yeah. speaking its own lang you know like horses and humans a horse can see that you know like in in the medieval middle ages like a horse can see that

I'm giving you a few shiny round things and in exchange you give the horse to me the host doesn't understand what's happening here because

the horses cannot understand money they understand they see the round coins they can't understand the story that makes these coins value.

>> So we'll be horses.

>> We will be the horses that AIs will hire and fire us and trade based on financial theories and financial concepts that we

can't understand. Similarly, if you

can't understand. Similarly, if you think about religion, at least again goes back to what he's thinking, at least some interpretations of

religion base it ultimately on language.

In the beginning was the word. Religions

like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, they sanctify language. They sanctify text. The

language. They sanctify text. The

ultimate authority in these religions is in a text, not in a human being. Why do

rabbis still have authority in Judaism?

Why do priests still have authority in Christianity? Because until today the

Christianity? Because until today the texts couldn't speak. So you have say the Bible. This is the ultimate

the Bible. This is the ultimate authority.

But you have a question how to interpret a certain passage in the Bible. You ask

the Bible, it doesn't answer. So you

need an expert that will tell you what the text means. And this is the rabbi or the priest. What happens to this

the priest. What happens to this religion when the texts start talking by themselves? Which is AI?

themselves? Which is AI?

More and more people like I mentioned I I was med I'm meditating more and more people in my millia when they have a question about meditation and two years

ago they would go to a human guru to ask they now ask the AI and there is rationale behind it because

again I take Judaism as an example over the centuries so many Jewish texts have been written not just the Bible then the Mishna and the Talmud and this

and that. No rabbi is able to read all

and that. No rabbi is able to read all of that and certainly not remember all of that. It's too much for the human

of that. It's too much for the human brain. AI can AI can read every single

brain. AI can AI can read every single text written by every obscure rabbi in Poland or Morocco over the last 2,000

years, remember every word, and find patterns that escaped all human rabbis until today.

If religion is ultimately based on language, it will be taken over by AI.

Again, if we think about one of the big last big revolutions in religion, the reformation in Europe, how did it happen? It started with the printing

happen? It started with the printing press. In medieval Europe, there were

press. In medieval Europe, there were very few Bibles.

So, most people never read the Bible. So

to know what was in the Bible, you would go to church and the priest would tell you what is in the Bible. You did not read the Bible yourself. Then came print and everybody could have a Bible at home

and people started reading the Bible and realizing, hey, this is not what the priest said.

The Bible never says anything about the pope. When what did they get the idea of

pope. When what did they get the idea of a pope from? The Bible never says anything about purgatory. The Bible

never says anything about saints and relics and venerating images of the virgin. Where did they take it from? So

virgin. Where did they take it from? So

the moment when because of technology suddenly every Christian could read the Bible for himself or herself and interpret it, you had this big explosion

of the Protestant Reformation. The

authority of the institution, the church collapsed, at least in some countries.

And people started it says this. No, it

says that.

Now what happens if instead of interpreting the Bible for yourself, the Bible interprets the Bible itself.

You can have AI is a master of texts.

And for instance, most Christian priests don't know Hebrew and Greek, the original language of the Bible. They

rely on translations. AI knows Greek better than any Greek and it can know biblical Hebrew better than any Jew.

So if ultimate authority is text and language, it will be taken over by AI.

>> But what's the solution then? So few

days ago, a group of people and that's that's not the first initiative. This

one is interesting because it's such a diverse group of people from notorious Steve Bannon to Megan Markle. They

petitioned to prevent advanced AI system developments.

>> Are you on the same page with them?

Should we ban them AI development?

>> I I sympath I signed a lot of these petitions in recent years.

>> Uh maybe I even signed this one. I

signed so many I don't remember. I I

completely sympathize and I think it's a good sign that somebody like Steve Bannon signs it. And when you look at the US today, I think one of the most uh a promising things is actually the

evangelical Christian part of MAGA that they are becoming very suspicious of the program of the tech bros and you

see an increasing split inside MAGA between the Christians and the technologists and this is crucial

and uh at least to some extent the Christians because of you know the humanistic tradition of Christianity they understand correctly that there is

something here which is a very deep threat to humanity and you know I disagree with the the Christian wing of MAGA about a lot of

things I'm a gay man but I think that they have a deep appreciation for the value of humans and this is

important in in this time and era because we have people who do not have this deep appreciation that they value only

intelligence and they have a very narrow definition of intelligence and for them if AI becomes more intelligent than humans then we don't need humans

>> and it's a great point of unity that you just mentioned humanity so between different tribes so to speak so since we have a few more minutes and I think that

we are going to address lots of AI related questions and algorithms related questions in the uh uh uh in the audience questions. I would like to ask

audience questions. I would like to ask you one question that is um that is very um heated also everywhere also here and you mentioned your country you mentioned

Gaza. So I would like to ask you um

Gaza. So I would like to ask you um what's the situation back in Israel and do you think that peace in Gaza is possible? the situation is terrible and

possible? the situation is terrible and peace is possible to make it very very short.

Um, >> let me jump in. Yeah, sorry. Go ahead.

>> The most important thing to understand is that peace is possible. There is no objective obstacle to peace.

Uh, it's not like, you know, it's a law of nature. The laws of physics force

of nature. The laws of physics force Israelis and Palestinians to slaughter each other. This is not the case.

each other. This is not the case.

There is actually enough if you think in in objective physical terms. There is enough land between the Mediterranean

and Jordan to build houses and schools and hospitals for everybody. There is

enough food. There is enough water.

There is enough energy.

There is no shortage. It's not, you know, people sometimes say, "Oh, humans fight for the same reason that wolves fight. They fight over food." They

fight. They fight over food." They

don't. There is enough food. If it is distributed, people fight not because of what's in the land, but because of what's in the mind.

They are simply unable to see the other side. They are unable to recognize the

side. They are unable to recognize the humanity of the other side. Ultimately

again it's the human brain has billions and billions of neurons and synapses in it but the human mind sometimes find it

difficult to hold just two ideas sometimes so poor so narrow it cannot hold two ideas like to at the same time acknowledge

that there are more than 7 million Palestinians living in this land they don't have anywhere else to go. They're

mostly born there and they have a right to live in dignity, in security, and in prosperity. And at the very same time

prosperity. And at the very same time acknowledged that there are also 7 million Jews living in this land. They

also were mostly born there. They have

nowhere else to go. They also have a right to live in dignity and security and prosperity. It sounds simple to hold

and prosperity. It sounds simple to hold these two ideas together. There there is no logical contradiction there. There is

no physical contradiction there. But so

many people are just unable to do it.

They are able to see the the the rights and the misery of one side and then they completely deny

even the existence of the other side.

And you know when our minds are very narrow sometimes we try to kind of impose our narrow mind on the reality. My mind

cannot contain the other people. So I'll just anihilate the other people from reality and then there will be a match between my mind

and reality. But the thing is just

and reality. But the thing is just expand your mind.

If there are two things in reality which you can't contain both the solution is not to destroy one of them. The solution

is to expand your mind because the human mind can be vast.

We can contain multitude if we make the right effort and this is uh uh I hope what will happen. This is not what is happening. I mean over the last few

happening. I mean over the last few years and I'll talk mainly about my side which I know better Israel and the Jews they become so narrow-minded they become

so self-centered they can only feel their own pain and they become almost impossible for them you know it's like

you feel your pain and if somebody points out to the pain of somebody else you feel almost affronted that you are

taking away attention from my pain and uh the inability to sympathize. Yes,

you're in pain, but there is there are other people in pain also. You're not

the only one in pain.

This, you know, it's the most basic human ability for empathy, but not to be self so self-centered.

Thank you very much for this for this thought. So um since we are approaching

thought. So um since we are approaching the end of the first part of our conversation and uh of course there's the question of Ukraine left I would like you to if possible so that we

squeeze it in because I think it's super important. Um um do you see an end to

important. Um um do you see an end to the war in Ukraine?

>> Again, I can't predict the future. It

depends on the decisions of people all over the world. But I would say that and this is what what I said in the beginning that the war in Ukraine is of

crucial importance of course to the whole of Europe and to the whole world because this is where the biggest challenge to the old world order is. The

old world order was imperfect in many ways. But one thing it managed to do, it

ways. But one thing it managed to do, it managed to create an on a taboo on the conquest of countries that no

matter how powerful one country is, it cannot just because it's more powerful invade and conquer a weaker neighbor.

This was the biggest taboo of the international system. This is what

international system. This is what enabled countries all over the world to feel secure enough to invest more money in nurses than in soldiers because you

felt yeah maybe I'm weak but nobody's going to just invade and conquer me.

This is something that happened in the middle ages. This is something that

middle ages. This is something that happened in Hitler's days. It can't

happen today. And all the world is watching Ukraine and realizing it can happen. People compare it say to the

happen. People compare it say to the American invasion of Iraq. It's not. I'm

not supporting of course the American invasion of Iraq. It was a huge mistake and a crime. But one thing to say, America never intended to annex Iraq to

the USA. Not a single millimeter of

the USA. Not a single millimeter of Iraqi ground was annexed to the USA. And

the American soldiers are no longer there. In Ukraine, every piece of land

there. In Ukraine, every piece of land conquered by the Russian army is annexed by the Russian state. And even some pieces of land that are not conquered

are already annexed. This is imperialism in its old sense. You know, in the late 20th century when the old style of imperialism, the imperialism of the

Roman Empire, of the Aila Dehan, of the Mongols, it disappeared. So, people

started to use the word imperialism to describe all kinds of other things. I

don't know, Coca-Cola sends sells drinks in the third world. Imperialism.

They got so so h engaged with that they forgot what imperialism originally meant. Imperialism originally meant that

meant. Imperialism originally meant that you invade another country, conquer it by force of arm and annex it to your expanding empire. And this is now

expanding empire. And this is now happening in in Ukraine with the Russian invasion. And if this is not stopped,

invasion. And if this is not stopped, then we will see it all over the world.

>> Thank you very much.