Yapay Yeni Dünya x Serdar Kuzuloğlu | Geleceğin Meslekleri | Tekno-Feodalizm | Beyaz Yaka

Where will these people find jobs?

That's not our problem, brother.

If he hadn't studied that subject, doesn't he know, doesn't he look at the numbers?

In the age of artificial intelligence Will humans become horses or cars?

All dystopias It is someone's utopia.

The easy way out: we can solve everything with technology...

Not everything here will be for the best for all of us.

It's like we're trying to play chess with checkers.

Yes, they are both played on the same board, but...

Its stones are different.

I have a four-year-old daughter.

May God forgive you.

Thank you.

We send them to school with all sorts of fuss.

The curriculum is the same curriculum. We're still going to learn foreign languages ​​and all that.

a world full of excited parents And this is the reality we're talking about right now...

Maybe not for a four-year-old girl, but for a girl currently studying at university.

For example, to a business administration student, What would you like to say?

What kind of world will she step into?

It seems like everything her parents built for her has fallen apart.

Oh, that's difficult.

The owner said something that I can't remember right now, but it stuck in my mind: when you think about it for 5 minutes No matter how insignificant it may be, there is no such thing as an unimportant matter.

That's absolutely true.

Everything is an issue, big and small.

And through the butterfly effect, they are all interconnected.

But the issues and problems we face today our ability to implement the solutions we desire Their abilities also came into question.

I want to say this, It's like trying to play chess with checkers pieces.

Yes, they are both played on the same board, but...

Its stones are different.

This is what makes it difficult for us.

So, the thing I fear most, personally, is being direct.

Because I try to create opportunities for myself to think about many things for more than five minutes each.

And I both admire and am amazed by people who have such sharp, definitive judgments.

And on the other hand, I can't take it seriously.

How can they be so clear amidst so much uncertainty?

Now In this discussion we are having, focusing on artificial intelligence We're still in the Nokia 11.00 era when it comes to what we call artificial intelligence.

There's still the 7650, the Blackberry, the Android, the iPhone...

All sorts of things will come out.

And who knows what funny comments these things we're talking about today will elicit years from now.

What interesting reactions it will receive.

But what exactly should we consider in this context? Avoiding the easy way out.

Now, this part is important.

Humans haven't changed biologically.

Human beings have been more or less the same for thousands of years.

Their excitements, desires, and biological needs are similar, their vulnerabilities are similar, and their abilities are more or less the same.

So our lifespans are increasing, but we are living longer and unhealthier lives.

So, we live for 80, maybe 100 years, but we spend the last 20 years with dementia, with Alzheimer's.

Or we're going through some kind of disaster.

So, a human is a human.

But the environment is changing.

So, is this entire environmental change happening for the sake of humanity, or despite humanity?

I participate in various events as a speaker or listener, upon invitation from various professional groups.

For example, the heads of some professional groups get up on the podium and proudly talk about something.

We spoke with our government, we spoke with our minister.

And we have introduced mandatory internships or employment requirements for university graduates in our profession.

If you generate this much annual turnover and have this much square footage of space, They are now obliged to employ the following people.

Therefore, our graduates will not be unemployed.

Is this even an employment model? Doesn't a business owner know who they need and who they don't?

He knows, he knows perfectly well, because he himself belongs to that profession.

But on the other hand, it has a responsibility.

They have to employ all these people.

Now, when we put some things together using a pattern logic...

Falling marriage rates, rising divorce rates, decreasing fertility, populations facing an existential crisis, Unsustainability, the intersection of so many things at once in sustainability debates.

It cannot be explained by coincidence.

I also think not.

But amidst all this uncertainty, the one thing we must always keep in mind is this: Humans are still human, and human nature is inherently humanist.

What I'm trying to say is, we misunderstand humanism completely.

What are the roots of humanism?

Man is the measure of all things. So what does that tell us?

People first.

Sir, we don't care about stray dogs.

Sir, we don't care about stray dogs. We don't care about ants. As for bees, let them die.

As long as they remain human.

People first!

Humans have such an instinct.

Selfish!

First, he wants to keep himself on his feet.

So, are we okay with this equation?

Such and such a profession produces a lot of graduates. Where will they find jobs?

That's not our problem, brother.

She shouldn't have read that section. Doesn't she know? Doesn't she look at the numbers?

How many shops specializing in that profession are there?

Does he own a business, does he provide employment?

How many unemployed people are there, and what is the population growth rate?

Do the math, maybe you shouldn't have gone in? What do I care?

Can he say that? Yes, he can.

Can he apply the same logic to everything? It can be implemented.

When he says "humanity first," he also looks at all of nature in that way.

Now, technology has had this approach, this impulse, throughout its entire technical history.

In this sense, it is in competition with humans.

I want to say this.

Technology cannot be confined within the framework of capitalism.

It has a longer history, but its current form is ultimately defined by capitalism.

He turns everything into capital, It transforms into a tool.

For capitalism, that is, for the mentality of modern man, there are no forests, only logging.

Forestry is a raw material from which one can make furniture, build roofs, and plant poles.

He views everything as an opportunity for profit.

Ultimately, and inevitably, human beings also become a form of capital.

It becomes a resource.

First, a department manages it, called human resources...

Then, inevitably, algorithms themselves take over and become the governing force.

In all matters, the question we need to ask is whether things are happening for the people or despite the people?

And in the end...

by human instinct all this is due to humanism's own egocentric approach.

It is worth anticipating that it will evolve in a way that focuses on human interests.

So, in the future, machines will do many things...

None of us doubt that we will have a future where algorithms make many decisions.

But in such a world, all premium, exclusive, and privileged processes will be human-based.

So you can become a bank customer.

You will receive services through mobile banking applications, websites, ATMs, and various other means.

But to get you through his door, he'll say, "If you're not going to do business for less than X thousand liras, don't knock on the door."

Go outside and struggle with the ATM.

There it is, beep beep beep, wait your turn, blah blah blah.

You're not of the caliber to walk through my door and receive service from my people.

You have to call the call center. You have to listen to that awful music.

You have to press a hundred buttons and pour out your problems for minutes on end.

But if you're one of our customers, I'll put you in touch with that person.

I'll assign you a dedicated representative.

I'll assign you a private doctor. You'll have your own surgeon during the operation.

When you enter the hotel, you are greeted by people.

So we are entering an era where humans will actually become the most privileged and advantaged.

For two reasons, and not just because of the power of machines and algorithms. Due to the scarcity and shortage of people, we are inevitably heading towards such a future.

So I don't know what the profession of the future will be!

I know what kind of people will stand out in the professions of the future, though.

Someone who is fueled by curiosity and constantly seeking to differentiate themselves, whatever their profession may be...

not only by using their own merits, but also by leveraging the power of technology, For example, the subject of our conversation today... By making better use of artificial intelligence, they can stand out in their profession.

And it can find its place.

Apart from that, life was already difficult at every moment for any ordinary person.

It will be even more difficult from now on.

Well, I feel like we've gotten a little bit into prophecies, so I'm here...

So, if you were a white-collar worker today, would you hire artificial intelligence, or something else?

Or would you be happier if the people above you were artificial intelligence?

In the earlier stages of artificial intelligence, what we discussed more were automation technologies.

Under the heading of Industry 4.0, we discussed the automation of manufacturing processes in industries.

which is actually Many people may not even have heard of it.

It's something that a Greek immigrant named George Devol, an American inventor, brought into our lives.

While touring factories in the 1960s, he observed that people were working in very inhumane conditions in the production processes.

And they do things that a person shouldn't do, or struggle with things they can't handle.

And he says that people don't need to do these things, that it shouldn't be like this, that there must be another way.

In the 1960s, they developed the first automated arm called Puma.

And it initiated the automation process, starting with the automotive sector and now spreading to every sector.

The company's slogan is: He says we will free people from all the repetitive work processes that don't require intelligence.

The purpose and valley behind the birth of automation is this.

And it remains true to this promise, along with all its representatives, following in the footsteps of George Devol.

There are some experiments with rudimentary artificial intelligence models used in industrial automation processes.

For example, in a warehouse in the Far East, they're using algorithms to manage the warehouse manager's processes.

He says, "You take a break, you do this, you lift that, this shipment is in two days, load these things onto these pallets."

Bring them closer to that door as well, so that this one can pick them up from here in two days.

He makes a lot of decisions like, "Put this in the front, put that in the back because that order will disrupt the sequence," and so on.

If I remember correctly, this experiment lasted about two months.

And at the end of this experiment, they survey the warehouse workers.

They're asking, "Would you rather continue with your warehouse manager or with an algorithm?"

The vast majority prefer the algorithm.

The reasons are more humane. Can you imagine? Because there is also such a thing as human cruelty towards other humans.

So when we say "such a person," we always picture our most idealized representatives in our minds.

But that's not how things are.

So when we ask whether you prefer a human manager Most of us may have a model of a good leader in our minds, and most of us may also have terrible people in our minds.

This can be true in political governance, and it can also be true in corporate governance.

Or, even when we look at the smallest, most atomized management relationships, most people, to use that popular expression...

He lacks managerial skills.

Most people become managers not because they have the qualities to be a manager or because they aspire to be one.

Most people in today's business world pursue a career in management, believing that it is the only way to earn more, be valued more, and enjoy more privileges.

And, with the awareness that the only way to be treated with more respect and to have more privileges is through leadership, they are progressing on the path of leadership.

That's why we're experiencing these problems. But what if we were to say that in structures managed by algorithms capable of leadership, your individual successes would also...

You will be offered more money, more privileges, more freedom of movement, and opportunities to be treated with respect.

I'm sure most of us would prefer this scenario.

Because why would one person willingly take on the responsibility of 5 people, 10 people, or 10 million, or 100 million people?

Why?

That's not something a mentally healthy person would choose.

But on the other hand, there are also people who possess managerial, or leadership, qualities.

That's their natural state.

So, when they're forming a football team, they suddenly find themselves becoming captains.

In their classes, they become class presidents and student representatives.

They suddenly rise to leadership positions in political movements.

Perhaps we can truly move towards a more meritocratic system in this age of artificial intelligence.

The positive side of this is that, on the negative side, we can transition to a more technocratic system.

So, under this algorithmic regime, we can't question anything.

Isn't that right when you look at it?

There is no fair trial for this.

We cannot take those processes to a higher court.

When algorithms make decisions, we often don't even know who made those decisions or what criteria were used.

Today we are ordering food through our mobile applications.

Those mobile apps send a notification to the nearest available courier's mobile phone when we place our order.

Now, who is that courier's boss?

That algorithm.

Who sets that taxi driver's fare?

The algorithm is based on the intensity of the workload, the demand, and the type of malfunction.

And none of them have anyone to talk to.

So, when something happens, our manager can also go to a cafe and say, "You said that in front of him, but why did you say that?"

My heart is breaking, don't do this.

If you had said something like, "Look, I would have said this there too, and in a way that pleases him, can an artificial intelligence do this?"

Maybe you can do it in the future; we can't do it right now.

Right now, we are offloading all these processes to machines because we want to relinquish these responsibilities.

Otherwise, who would want to be served by artificial intelligence when there are so many people around? I want a human being to have a conversation with, brother.

Why do I spend hours every day chatting with that idiot?

There's no one who listens patiently when I'm having a conversation.

I don't have a friend who can answer all the questions I ask.

Or, there aren't any knowledgeable people or things around me from whom I can benefit so much from every word they say.

But perhaps that's the beauty of life.

Perhaps that's what's beautiful about it.

So this life of ours is no surprise.

While having an empty conversation with someone, I might be able to change my life with a spark of interest I glean from it.

Because human history is so vast, isn't it?

Do you think it's a car?

They invented the automobile because people needed it.

Was the airplane born out of necessity?

Was anyone walking in the streets?

Invent an airplane for us, we want to fly.

Nobody had made such a request.

Did they ask for a computer, internet, a phone, or artificial intelligence?

We don't have such desires.

All of this stems from our insatiable greed.

Perhaps it can create a saturation point.

Perhaps this hunger can be satisfied in a more widespread, economic, and democratic way.

I am an optimistic person by nature and in spirit.

So I look at things from the bright side.

Or, if really bad things are happening, I'd want to find something good and come back.

I want to look at this issue from that perspective as well.

He exists, that proves me right.

Actually, generally speaking, when we talk about employees, we get the feeling that the whole system is somehow designed around the productivity of these employees.

So, you know those stories about how people didn't actually eat breakfast?

But to make their work more efficient, their morning, afternoon, and evening shifts were all divided according to working hours.

Eight-hour lives.

In fact, this might be telling us about the mindset we were shaped by in the winds of the industrial revolutions.

And if we were to draw a parallel between this transformation brought about by artificial intelligence today and the past, is there anything you would say that happened similarly in this converging period?

When we look at the history of humanity in terms of its functionality, when we try to interpret the most primitive societies from archaeological findings and legends, something emerges.

Human beings are machines of merit and ability.

And what defines it?

This is where hunting and gathering abilities come into play during the hunter-gatherer period.

This is what defines gender roles, shapes social relations, and establishes the relationship between ruler and ruled.

And essentially, although the names, places, events, and purposes change, the foundation, the essence, remains the same today.

So there are expectations today, who will meet those expectations, how will they meet them, at what cost, and what will this mean for all parties involved?

So the issue we are experiencing, starting from Ibn Khaldun's concept of settled life and nomadism, remains unchanged from that chain of relationships up to the present day.

But the important change today is that, until now, the creature we call a human had only a few basic functions.

One is for labor, the other for military purposes.

So a person either had a function in the production or creation of something, or possessed physical strength for older purposes such as acquiring or defending territory.

Now we are entering a period where both of these are being appropriated by other actors.

Humanity has fallen into an even greater void in its search for meaning, a search it has been unable to find even amidst its previous preoccupations.

So, artificial intelligence, as a concept, appears today as an independent, self-contained phenomenon aiming to infiltrate every aspect of our lives, usurp our roles, and take things away from us.

Whether that's true is debatable. I'm one of those who likes to debate that topic.

But when we look at it, was the basic function of humans necessarily functionality, or was it merely labor required to get a job done?

So, if a hunter-gatherer society had a supermarket originating from another group, would they still have to hunt and gather for their own pleasure, purely as a hobby, or for their desires? I don't know.

Does the need for defense or attack disappear if human beings aren't the actors in carrying it out? Or do things only arise, or are wars produced, simply for the sake of human action? These are all matters open to debate.

Now we are living in an era where humans are not capable of doing these things, and we are struggling with this situation.

Because all technologies developed to date have essentially been about multiplying, expanding, and lengthening the human body.

So, it was the microphone to reach places my voice couldn't reach, and the microscope, telescope, glasses, and contact lenses for things my eyes couldn't see.

But when we look at the world today, we are entering a period where the meaning of all this is gradually eroding.

Because for the first time, we are creating something that is an extension of our mind, something larger than our mind.

So, calculators did calculate things we couldn't, but they did calculate the things we wanted to calculate.

There was such a difference.

The telescope showed us things we couldn't see, but it showed us what we wanted to see, and none of us felt like we were in any kind of competition with the telescope.

Because it was essentially serving our purpose anyway.

Right now, regarding artificial intelligence, from a broader perspective, in a wider context, we have a lot of crazy questions in our heads because we don't really know who the technology is actually serving.

So, will we still have meaning in this future era, or perhaps the question we should be asking now is whether we truly have meaning right now?

Or are we employed in some way simply because we exist, because there is such a large population?

We are looking for answers to all these questions.

So, like any primitive technology, artificial intelligence is currently in its primitive phase, not in terms of its capabilities, but in terms of its own chronology.

Like any nascent technology, artificial intelligence initially seems like just a technical matter to us.

Because it's a technological issue, a matter that will progress under the guidance of engineers, we will eventually realize that, like all technologies in their mature phase, this is not just a technical issue.

This is a philosophical matter, like pretty much everything else in life.

Just think, social media was once a technical matter.

There were people, companies, agencies, and institutions that claimed to be experts in this field.

This included specialized applications, software, courses, licenses, and certifications.

What are we talking about regarding social media today?

We are talking about elements that are essentially entirely human-related and have nothing to do with technology, such as misinformation, societal manipulation, mind control, and the management of mass psychology.

It seems like we'll be addressing artificial intelligence a bit sooner than expected.

Because technology doesn't inherently come with the experiment of regulation.

No technology has ever entered our lives with its own laws, conditions, ethics, morals, procedures, and early intervention.

We have improved all these processes while using it.

Traffic lights didn't exist when automobiles were invented.

With the proliferation of automobiles, these became a necessity and an integral part of cars.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, until modern weapons were invented, the concept of war crimes didn't exist.

But it was only after the horrors of the World War that all of this came to the forefront of humanity's concerns.

But when we look at all these elements, facts, and experiences, we see that they all spanned a very long period of time.

Therefore, we've had plenty of time to think about these things and understand their advantages and disadvantages.

And we were able to make the necessary arrangements in time.

We cannot say the same for artificial intelligence.

When we look at the numerical data, for example, GPT chat, which is the most popular product of artificial intelligence in a mass sense, Open Air's chatbot became the fastest-growing application in digital history.

So, we've never seen anything like this before, and before anyone even understood what was happening, we're talking about it in every aspect of life today.

Imagine, in just a few years, before you've even fully grasped the terminology and concepts, you're faced with a colossal problem affecting all of humanity.

This is partly why we are struggling.

Thanks a lot.

Let's now shift our focus a little more towards the world of white intelligence.

So, it would be like giving us a snapshot of today's white intelligence, and at the same time, we are trying to adapt to this artificial intelligence.

A new system is coming, you know. Everyone's aware of what's going on.

Yes, I need to adapt here.

But in a way, unlike in previous years, white intelligence isn't the same white intelligence it used to be either.

In what sense?

Economically and socially, a move away from the past.

In terms of class.

There is also a class-based differentiation, and this will deepen, as is the case every time.

We're hearing that this year will be more difficult than last year.

Now, another layer has been added to this situation: how would you interpret this situation?

Yes, that's a very crowded question.

Yes.

Let me try to put my thoughts together now.

What we are trying to answer is the existence and future of the new white-collar worker.

This is one of the oldest debates in archaeology and anthropology.

Was the transition from a hunter-gatherer society to an agricultural society good or bad for humanity?

Now, when we engage in this anachronism—that is, when we try to evaluate the past with our present-day perspective—it's a very bad approach.

But let's do it.

We say, of course, that agriculture has brought abundance, brought prosperity, and addressed issues beyond simply feeding people.

It has enabled us to think critically, but alongside all of this, it has also deprived us of our ability to be self-sufficient.

It has deprived us of our power and made us dependent and beholden to a different group.

Therefore, the agricultural society is essentially linked to the invention of agriculture and agricultural technologies, or in today's terms, to humanity in a certain sense.

Whether it is a curse that deprives them of their freedoms and basic abilities is also a matter of debate.

Looking at the data, it's very interesting that in hunter-gatherer societies, people spent approximately 3-4 hours a day...

To obtain food to satisfy their hunger, to hunt, with their spears, stones, cannonballs, whatever it may be.

And to gather things, they used the ground, the trees, and again we see that they had a much more varied diet than modern humans.

In the name of fruit, in the name of vegetables, in the name of protein, whatever.

Therefore, in fact, he retired much less and lived a much healthier life.

But of course, he didn't have dreams of things like artificial intelligence. For that, we had to go through stages like agriculture and then industry.

Therefore, at the heart of what we call professions today, that is, the concepts that constitute white intelligence, lies this role division.

For example, when we look at it as a reference, Ibn Khaldun tries to convey this using the metaphor of a wall.

So what did the wall bring about? Technically speaking, let's say the wall builders, or masons, gained a completely international level of recognition in that sense.

Because they built castles, and what did they achieve with them? Now, in a traditional society, everyone has to be everything.

So you will be a farmer both during harvest time, You will be a herdsman when it's time to milk the cows, a soldier when it's wartime, and a cook when it's time to prepare meals.

You will be a soldier in wartime, and a cook when meals are needed.

Everyone has to be everything.

Therefore, nobody can become an expert in any one area.

Because you are under a defensive threat and you have to migrate in order to reorganize your living spaces.

But what does the wall provide you with? It provides protection, a safeguard.

And with all of this, the institution we call the army emerges.

Once you've outsourced your defense, you're essentially saying, "From now on, I'm the baker; I'll bake bread for you."

Moreover, you'll be licking your fingers. The other one says, "I'll provide you with the finest milk."

The other one says, "I don't know, the best job is picking fruits and vegetables."

That's when specializations emerge.

And today, they're getting married. They're uniting with these machines.

Then, to coordinate all these machines and ensure the common good of people, white-collar skills, professions, and expertise emerge.

We've come this far. Essentially, we've entrusted this entire process to technology.

But we forget to ask ourselves this question.

So, is our lack of a profession truly due to our lack of desire to pursue that profession?

Or is it our quest to sustain our lives?

So, do we become bakers with the ambition of making the best bread?

Or are we approaching this from an entrepreneurial perspective because there's a lot of money to be made in baking?

I can't quite remember it now, but there's a saying Keynes used in economics...

The bread that comes to our table is not because the baker requested to make us good bread, not out of a desire to fill our stomachs With all this pragmatism, we need to know that it stems from his desire to make money.

When we look at it from this utilitarian, self-serving perspective, today, at least for me...

Today, at least nine out of ten people around me do their jobs for the salary.

He's doing it for the money. Whatever we want to call it.

Therefore, we also need to consider this.

When we look at it from a historical perspective All the debates surrounding the introduction of machines into human life can be traced back to the late 18th century, or even the 19th century.

What's at stake in all the discussions?

There is a concern that people's expertise and skills will be taken away and rendered useless, and this is a legitimate concern.

All those arguments are valid arguments, maybe we'll get to that later, but...

I think we fail to grasp the logic behind all of this when we look at it.

So if our goal is to have nice jackets that meet certain standards...

Or else, by holding onto one end of a thread with thousands of workers in a factory whose names we don't even know?

what it produces... or rather, what the producer produces without even knowing what or for whom.

Does it matter to us that we possess something that is the product of a great alienation?

It doesn't matter to the consumer, but it matters to the tailor.

Think about the invention of the automobile.

Consider the invention of the automobile. For the first time in world history, a vehicle could be powered without the need for human or animal muscle power.

A person can act according to their own desires.

Moreover, a vehicle emerges and the world changes.

Tourism is changing, culture is changing, diseases are changing, trade is changing, everything is changing.

And this renders horses, which until then had been the most common means of transportation for the poor, obsolete.

Suddenly, it's becoming a hobby for the wealthy aristocracy: horses, horsemanship, and expertise related to horses.

So, from one perspective, this equation The automotive industry, as we call it, has sparked thousands of sectors and created millions of jobs, hasn't it?

From the gas station attendant to the perfumer at the perfume company that produces the scent inside that car...

It has created thousands of jobs.

Has it done the same thing for horses? No. The automobile, as we call it, hasn't created any jobs for horses.

In this age of artificial intelligence, we need to carefully consider where humans fit into this equation.

So, in the era of rising artificial intelligence, will humans become horses or cars? We have to make that decision.

To overcome all of this, one of the interim solutions that has emerged is, I'm setting aside things like robot taxation.

The most widely accepted approach is what we can summarize as a citizen's wage, or universal basic income, which can be translated directly as such.

In other words, it's a fixed salary that states and authorities give to people simply because they are human beings, because they were born, because they are alive, because they live, because they are a member of that country, a citizen.

So, in today's terms, we can think of it as a kind of equivalent to a retirement pension, but there are no prerequisites.

He thinks it requires this much work. That's simply not the case. This has been tried in many countries around the world and has been the subject of interesting debates.

For example, before the trial in Sweden, union leaders said that if you give people money like that for free, they will just sit around and do nothing.

Production would stop, everything would stop. This is unacceptable. But it was tried on a small scale and yielded a very interesting result.

A large majority of those receiving this basic income quit their jobs. Yes. But they started their dream businesses.

They didn't just sit around doing nothing. They quit the jobs they had to work to earn a living and started the careers they'd always dreamed of, aiming to fulfill their aspirations.

So, humans are generators of quest. Humans cannot remain idle. They inevitably want to produce something. The unknown aspect of artificial intelligence in this equation, as I said, is that for the first time, something is taking the place of our minds.

We can't interpret this. Even when you look at it semantically, even when you look at the essence of the words, artificiality is always pejorative, demeaning, and condescending.

For example, we might say things like, "Mr. Serdar, he's all well and good, but his smile is artificial. His sincerity is artificial," and so on. A certain power, a certain sanctity, never forgives the word "artificial."

But when we use it for artificial intelligence, it transforms into something completely different. Like a higher intelligence. Something superior to us. And there's a reason for that. It's not without reason.

Because there are certain truths ingrained in our subconscious that we all know. This is one of the most fundamental aspects of philosophy. What is one of the concepts that divides humankind?

We are the only living things that know they will die. That is, we know we will die. Why will we die? We will die because we were born. But we don't know when or how we will die.

And that's what makes life so worth living, so exciting and full of surprises despite all the suffering. But the common denominator for all of us is that we are born into this world as a tabula rasa.

So we come into the world as a blank page, an empty page. No human being is born knowing how to use the toilet.

Nobody. Nobody is born with the gift of knowing how to speak, read, or write. We invest in ourselves for years to come.

We're trying to acquire a skill. And all the skills we acquire go with us as carbon, as dirt. And it's gone, and we start from scratch.

So, the child of some brilliant scientist doesn't continue their life with that intelligence. But artificial intelligence does.

It came into the world drawing from the heritage of all humanity, and within minutes, it passes on that entire legacy to all its counterparts, ensuring its continuation.

But people can't do that. Even if they could, they don't. A master, a true master, would never casually share his trade secrets with his apprentice.

He prepares it for years. It's the same with a chef, and it's the same with a jeweler. Human beings hoard and keep their knowledge secret.

Therefore, all the rules of the game we've set up are changing, and we're complaining about it because we don't know any other rules.

Moreover, since technology doesn't appear before us as a tangible entity, object, or ideology, we don't know who our interlocutor is.

So, when we talk about artificial intelligence, what exactly are we referring to? Whose interests does this artificial intelligence serve, and for what purpose?

Are we talking about artificial intelligence that saved me from death by finding cancer cells that the radiologist in my CT scan couldn't see?

Or are we talking about an artificial intelligence that, without my knowledge, designates me as a target and drops bombs on me with an armed drone?

Which artificial intelligence? Whose AI is it? What is its purpose? Does it serve me? Does it serve the person opposite me? What kind of intelligence? Or does it have a will, a desire of its own?

This is an era of bewilderment amidst great uncertainties. And as for white-collar workers, what was their merit in all of this?

Now let's consider the education system. The education system that creates white-collar workers. That's where the problem begins.

How did education, in its modern sense, come into being? The industrial revolution created a need for a skilled workforce.

In what way? He/she will be able to read the machine's instruction manual. He/she will be able to read the instructions. He/she will be able to understand the instructions given to him/her.

In other words, there was a need for a skilled workforce that could understand what it heard and read.

That's why schools were open from morning till evening. Because that's how working hours were going to be. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, what we call working hours varied between 80 and 100 hours a week.

Please divide this into days. And the most numerous group of workers consists of children.

Schools were opened to educate this class. In the modern sense, schools began with bells ringing from morning till evening, just as the factory's workday would begin with a bell.

There was such a thing as a break. Lunchtime, a break. Because there would be lunch breaks at the factory. They wore uniforms because the workers at the factory would wear uniforms. They sat and listened to the teacher because that's how they would behave in front of their bosses, managers, and foremen.

After that, we tried to adapt the same system to white-collar workers. Although they didn't need these criteria at all, because of blue-collar workers, white-collar workers also continued to work 9-6, 5 or 6 days a week, when the 9-6 work week was reduced to 40 hours.

Where did we first get the opportunity to question this? During the pandemic. We knew that remote work was possible, but none of us dared to use it until we were forced to.

And with that shift, we realize today: when merits become more accessible and democratic, do we still have to obtain them from people?

So, if we want our company to have a really good logo, do we really need that great agency, those great designers, and that great creative team for our corporate identity?

Can we democratize this? Right? From one perspective, yes.

Or, do we need people, expert security personnel, for the security of our workplace or premises?

Or could motion detection and object recognition systems, supported by algorithms, solve these problems?

Do we still need train drivers when we operate our trains?

Or can we automate this within that already defined route?

Could all of this lead to widespread adoption? These are huge questions you're facing, and it's all turning into a battleground among white-collar workers.

Because white-collar workers, just like the rebels in the age of machines, feel that the only skill they possess, the only talent they know, has been taken away from them.

And he didn't acquire this quality mostly because he demanded it.

Let me digress for a moment. There's this whole issue of the jobs of the future, right? It comes up all the time.

What are the jobs of the future, and what is the hidden element in the jobs of the future? What are the high-paying jobs of the future?

Do we ever discuss this within that equation? Do the professions of the future, which will benefit humanity the most, talk about something like this?

No, we're not talking about anything like that. We're always talking about the professions of the future, the ones where you'll earn the most money and have the most prestige.

These promises motivated the white-collar workers. For this, they sacrificed the best years of their youth.

Perhaps they took courses, classes, and exams they didn't want to. Maybe they studied subjects they didn't like.

He took on jobs he didn't want. He endured the wringer of his managers. At what cost? At the cost of promises.

But now they say no, none of that is valid anymore.

Now is the age of reskilling, upskilling. You need to acquire new skills. You need to improve yourself. You need to be very disciplined.

My brother, I've reached 50 years old, 40, 30. I've dedicated 15-20 years to this education.

Should I end my career here at this age and now embark on a new quest?

So all our problems here are essentially strange situations that we address within the simplicity of techno-solutions.

So this concept of techno-solutionism, or techno-solucism, is the easy way out: we can solve everything with technology.

Not everything here is for the best for all of us, but it might not be. So, our right to place this reservation has been taken away from us.

Because technology, by its very nature, rejects and destroys all sacred things, yet subtly sanctifies itself.

He deifies himself, demanding approval and faith.

Technology is declaring its own inviolability, and in return, it's as if we are only subject to its commands.

We feel like beings who have to submit to his will, or we are meant to feel that way.

We cannot question it, we cannot ask it questions, but today it affects groups far more than those influenced by the industrial revolution.

Let me put it this way, in parentheses: According to the Mckenzie consulting firm's prediction, in the next 10 years...

At least 380 million workers need to reskill their jobs. What are these reskills? What kind of skills?

Where will I win? Who will cover the costs of winning it?

How will these people continue with their lives, or do they even want those qualities?

We are being deprived of the right to ask all these questions.

And we are captivated by the dazzling triumph of artificial intelligence, adorned with those magnificent Hawaiian fireworks.

We become ecstatic, captivated by all of this.

There are many questions we need to ask about these things, and if we don't ask them today...

tomorrow will be filled with a huge number of useless people.

It has lost its meaning and purpose and created problems far beyond our current crises.

We will have to grapple with a huge group of people and their issues.

I don't think the upper class will care much about millions of people losing their jobs.

Because that ecosystem and economy will keep revolving. Özgür Demirtaş mentioned it in a speech; he said, "Stop with the empty promises."

So, societies can't spend money, therefore, the fact that the system relies on workers to keep spending going is just a poor consolation.

The story essentially says that if that 10 percent is already consuming 80 percent of the entire economy, then you're not really needed.

What if it were to end up somewhere between a dystopia and a utopia?

Are we recording now?

We're recording now.

We talked about snow, we talked about people.

Lydia, one of the ancient civilizations of Anatolia, which is generally known for its dealings with coins and tosses, has a legend associated with it.

If my memory serves me correctly, Gigesli finds a ring, and this ring is very powerful; it makes the wearer invisible.

It's a story thousands of years old, and he puts on this ring, becomes invisible, and goes on to kill the king, the husband of the queen he loves.

He pulls off all sorts of intrigues, marries the woman, has children, does this and that, and basically turns everything upside down.

The matter turns into a Gollum story, just like the ones we know.

Then Socrates, who recounted this, says that the philosopher Socrates, that is, man, cannot control himself, Those who give people responsibilities they cannot handle should be kept at bay, or these responsibilities should be given to competent individuals.

This story offers a moral lesson.

This is what we are actually experiencing now.

We possess something incredibly powerful, and we feel ourselves in a position of competition with that powerful thing.

Because we've only recently become acquainted with this and Before discussing the advantages and potential disadvantages of this innovation, let's first define it.

So that it's clear exactly what we're talking about.

For example, all primitive and early technologies have a descriptive phrase that characterizes that technology.

For example, we say cell phone, smartphone, mobile phone.

We keep saying it, we keep saying it, we keep saying it, because there is such a thing as a telephone.

A pocket-sized version of it has emerged, a smart version has come out, and so on; that's how we describe it.

After a while, he returns to that phone.

Nowadays, when we say "phone," what we're actually referring to is that familiar, boring smartphone with a black rectangular screen.

What should we define today?

Landline phone.

A concept we never used before has become essential for use today.

Digital cameras are like that, for example.

First of all, when digital cameras came out, they definitely had this digital element; it needed to be mentioned.

What do we need to describe now?

The analog one.

Because that's what's different.

And today we were talking about intelligence, about humanity.

Today we are talking about artificial intelligence.

Will artificial intelligence, as we call it, eventually evolve into intelligence within the same equation?

So, will artificial intelligence be what we understand by the term "intelligence" from now on?

And will what we need to define and emphasize be organic intelligence?

So look, all these other paintings cost 500 lira, but this one costs 5000 lira because it was drawn by organic intelligence.

These novels cost 15 lira, but this one costs 25 lira because it was written by organic intelligence.

We might be heading towards a world like that.

There is this version of merit.

This is a utopia.

I don't know if this is entirely accurate, but it's the more humane, more preferable, more desirable aspect of it.

But there's another side to the story, the other side of the coin.

Now, as human beings, we must find meaning for ourselves within that abstract concept of humanity.

And we exist in pursuit of providing the benefit that will create this meaning.

And that's an equation.

So someone has to produce bread so that I can eat bread at my table.

Someone needs to sew this jacket so that I can actually wear one in front of you.

I can't be all of this. I can't be everything.

And within this wealth, I need a lot of skills and expertise.

And that's an equation.

And so far, for better or worse, we've managed to fit 8 billion people into an equation that somehow finds their place.

But we are heading towards the age of artificial intelligence, I'm not saying because of artificial intelligence, just look.

The demands of this era, in which artificial intelligence has also become a subject, show us the following.

The world's wealthiest 10% no longer need the other 90%.

Not in war, not in production, not in anything.

In such a system, if that 10% can maintain their prosperous lives without needing the 90%, what will happen to that 90%?

Yes, that 10% will remain.

But what about that 90%?

And how will that 10% find their place in this world?

There's a book I really love.

I can't remember the name right now, but the author's starting point was an invitation.

And she published it for the first time on her own blog.

It was later turned into a book.

He receives an invitation one day.

He is an academic in the United States, a university professor.

And with this invitation, he's saying we're going to invite you to a private, closed group.

You will meet with the world's richest people and their representatives.

You won't tell anyone.

And you'll show us where the world is headed.

This is one of our regular meetings.

We seek input from valuable individuals like you.

In the name of vision.

Okay, he says.

They're offering a really good amount of money.

He's going somewhere first by this plane.

Then he travels to another location on a private plane.

To an island.

From there, he takes a boat to the main engineering department and meets up with a group of people, some he knows and some he doesn't, and gives his talk.

Afterwards, there will be a meal and a question-and-answer session.

The question asked of him.

The matter of writing the book.

We currently owe our existence to money.

The bodyguards protecting us are doing so for money.

The person who cooks our food pays for it.

The person who sews our dress is paying for it.

In a world where money means nothing tomorrow, what will protect our existence?

Now, this is the new debate.

So, just as the 90% are uneasy, the 10% also have an existential problem.

There is an existential threat.

And the most dystopian scenario here is the current search for extraterrestrial civilizations, which might sound far-fetched to some.

Look, the richest people in the world right now, and with Donald Trump's presidency, they've reached the closest point to the sun.

They are almost transforming into a technocratic regime.

In the next period, the Trump question era, we will see this even more clearly.

One of their often overlooked shared projects is the creation of independent, autonomous settlements, libertarian islands, and regions.

They are acquiring vast tracts of land from countries.

Entrepreneurs like Peter Thiel are building massive platforms in international waters through shell companies.

It has autonomous governance and its own ideology.

They are building something within their own philosophy, within their libertarian philosophy.

And all of this is exclusionary. Because what they all have in common is that they are self-sufficient settlements.

In other words, it grinds its own waste, produces its own energy, produces its own food, and determines its own laws.

All of this is preparation for such a future.

And let's not forget, as we conclude this discussion, that all dystopias are someone's utopias.

So everything we perceive as dystopia today was the brainchild of a visionary leader...

This is how their dreams of a bright future turned into a nightmare.

Let's consider the most popular example, for instance, Hitler's Germany.

Nazi era.

Adolf Hitler's ideal was that the superior German race would lead the country to a bright future, to the third empire it deserved.

We all know what it turned into. Therefore, there is a very thin, very blurry line between utopia and dystopia.

The distinction isn't that easy.

The timing of this interview is unique and reflects very specific circumstances.

Perhaps it would be useful to frame it in this way by mentioning it.

We are now living in a period where populism is on the rise.

And populism, by its very nature, constantly behaves this way.

And populism, by its very nature, constantly behaves this way.

We are now living in a period of rising populism, and populism, by its very nature, constantly uses grand pronouncements and slogans that sound appealing to the public, boost their egos, and make big pronouncements.

We are now living in a period of rising populism, and populism, by its very nature, constantly uses grand pronouncements and slogans that sound appealing to the public, boost their egos, and make big pronouncements.

We are living through a transitional period where people who make promises they don't need to back up are glorified and showcased in a showcase.

These types of periods have always been transitional periods throughout history.

It has happened many times.

And the differentiating factor of this era is that the technology elite, as a group, is more influential than ever before.

We see this particularly in the concept of technofeudalism, which has been popularized by some, especially Yanis Varoufakis, whom we know as the former finance minister of Greece.

In other words, the equivalent of feudal lords were the landowners, who held privileges over everyone and could even clash head-to-head with the king.

Those once powerful landowners have now been replaced by a group of technology entrepreneurs, mostly based in the US.

And when we look at the profiles of these entrepreneurs, they are all among the richest people in the world.

Rich people own 80% of the wealth, even in their own countries; this is a small group of people.

And when we look at the profiles of these entrepreneurs, they are all among the richest people in the world, owning 80% of the wealth of even their own countries. This small group of the most powerful people in the world can directly influence the lives of billions of people.

So today, the person we call Elon Musk decides whether I can write on Twitter or not, What I can and cannot see, whether I can get internet from space Or, whether or not I might exist in an extraterrestrial civilization, How many kilometers and under what conditions can I use an electric vehicle?

And it's one person, in a whole chain of events, who determines how much it will cost me to charge it.

This includes Jeff Bezos and whoever else.

And I don't know if these people still hold power and are very relevant as a world superpower today, but...

I still call it that which determines and influences the president of the United States...

influential in politics.

Therefore, the President of America is not just the President of the United States.

And considering that it affects many parts of the world and many sectors...

We are living in a world where a handful of people, through the power, leverage, privileges, and advantages they have gained, impose their rules on the world.

This has never happened before. No feudal lord has ever possessed such vast lands, such a large mass of serfs—peasants, carts, laborers. Nor have they had so many privileges.

Ku Bakar had no privileges.

No human being, not even a prophet, has ever had the opportunity to address such a large audience.

Today they possess a power and might that no one has ever had in any aspect of history.

And we don't know what these people are affiliated with.

So we categorize these people, for example, as American companies and Americans because their headquarters are located in the United States.

Neither of them. Neither of their companies is headquartered in the United States.

Almost all of them are tax havens; they don't even pay proper taxes on the islands.

Nor do they have any beliefs, ideals, or affiliations with America. Because they can even defy the United States of America.

On the other hand, we don't know what their moral responsibilities are based on. That is, do they have any religious affiliation or commitment? They all seem to have a God complex.

They're all playing God, playing prophets. Whether they admit it or not.

So what are these people's financial ties to?

They have the means to maintain their privileges throughout their lives.

And now we are heading towards a technofeudalism created by such a small technocracy.

It's actually a monarchy of efficiency.

So this is neither an oligarchy nor a multi-party system, we're talking about a monarchy.

From a technology-focused monarchy...

In other words, information, authority, and platforms are concentrated in almost a single hand and are moving towards a single ideology.

So we are moving towards a world where this ideology has no religious, national, or human ties, or where it can be easily questioned.

And we still have the feeling that we are passive within this world.

I don't want to be discouraging, but...

In a world like this, what impact will our debate or awareness have?

We cannot comprehend this. So, what is the function, effect, and potential of our individual will within this universal will?

All of this needs to be questioned, and when we question it, we find ourselves as if we've constructed it with our own hands...

It's like we're building a Tower of Babel.

But we ourselves are also responsible for creating the tower's curse.

So it's like we're collectively building something that serves us.

But what purpose does it serve, even now, even in this primitive stage?

And we cannot determine in what areas it would benefit us.

And we can't find our way.

We can't even get out of these arguments because there's no central focus.

For example, all the companies reached a consensus that artificial intelligence should not be used in warfare technologies.

They have all reversed their decisions now.

They have all removed those lines from their contracts and terms of use now.

Currently, they are all in the countries they are affiliated with and in other countries that are paying money without any objections.

They allow the use of their technologies.

Even if you stop it, someone else will start doing it.

Therefore, we find the ability of artificial intelligence to design fetuses using genetic technologies to be inhumane.

Because these will create superior beings.

Okay, we object when we think that way.

So, what if one day a doctor, an obstetrician, or a pediatrician comes to you?

If you say that you don't want your child to have Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or dementia, We can ensure that his liver and kidneys function at 3% capacity for the rest of his life.

There's a cost to this. What do you think?

We all feel like we have to find a way to cover that cost.

So this is an era where we are delving into very big questions.

And we don't have a good enough map to find our way.

And the sad part is, nobody's showing us this.

and the angles from which we view events, Our methods and knowledge of evaluating events.

Because we have very little information about many things.

Our limited knowledge often ties our hands.

Therefore, there's a quote by Dücane Cündioğlu that I like.

I came across it somewhere, in one of his speeches.

Good people often lose, but in the end, goodness prevails, he says.

So, we'll probably lose quite a few people in this endeavor, but...

Ultimately, I hope history doesn't prove us wrong.

That's usually how it's been.

Goodness will prevail.