Original subtitles

Distinguished guests, dear colleagues

and students, good evening. My name is

Leo Chun and I am an assistant professor

in the school of arts here at Peeking

University. It is my great honor to

serve as a moderator between two

distinguished scholar. Professor Yuva

Harrari and professor Chung. Professor

Harrari, I'm sure most of you are very

familiar with his works. U but let me

introduce him briefly in the very

beginning. uh he is the distinguished

research fellow and the University of

Cambridge and his uh publications uh

have been bestselling ones across the

world. We're very happy to have him uh

here today.

It's a pleasure and honor to be here.

It's been quite a while since I was last

in China. Uh the last time I I was here

was before the COVID pandemic and

previously I used to come every year and

then it became more difficult but I'm

very happy to be here again with you.

I'm a historian in my training and I see

myself as a historian but I think that

history is not just the study of the

past. History is also the study of the

present and of the future. Historians

our real subject matter is change. We

try to understand how things change. And

we are now in the midst of maybe the

biggest change in human history, perhaps

the end of human history and the

beginning of a posthuman stage of

history. Uh, and this raises a lot of

deep philosophical questions about the

very meaning of humanity. So there is

really and no one better to to discuss

it with than with a philosopher.

Okay, thank you. Uh, we are also very

honored to have Professor Chung Lung

with us today. Professor Chung is the

head of the department of philosophy

here at Peeking University. His

expertise lies in Dowist studies, but

trust me, I have known him for 20 more

than 20 years. His knowledge spans way

beyond ancient texts. So, we look

forward to his conversations tonight as

well. Professor Chong, would you like to

say hello as well?

Okay. Um, hello everyone and you know

it's a very um precious opportunity for

me to have a dialogue with Professor

Horelli. You know um it is not so often

happened you have opportunity to talk

with certain writers have so many fans

and readers you know it's a very amazing

things. I I I got I got to know just a

few days ago that uh his book got

millions of reader only in China. You

know it's um it's amazing for me you

know now is a is a time of scream. We

are we we are immersed ourself in this

kind of short videos and all those

messages not that is not so serious but

the um professor rally composed uh

several books with indepth understanding

and reflection on the infrastructure of

uh human beings culture and

civilizations and these kind of these

kind of books get so many readers And so

many readers love this kind of narrative

that come from history but point out

towards the future. So this I think this

is um a very interesting things and I

want to discuss with um uh professor

Heralei uh about this this phenomena and

what is the uh exactly uh significance

of the the things that have happened

around his books and uh also about his

books uh nexus which largely lead to a

you know very strong sense of

philosophical reflection of the whole

thing we named as uh civilizations. you

you you give a very cold description of

the things but uh let us just start with

a very simple questions just as I

mentioned um you know uh in nowadays uh

the professional academic work is

somehow uh becoming increasingly uh

self-encclosed

and we actually uh keep in indifferent

uh about the public issue Jews and the

the the common challenges that shared by

humankind. We we just do our things in

ancient texts and we just publish our

academic papers to get to get our salary

and you know and um um your book just

remind us as uh professional scholars to

get back to the public uh sphere to

address the challenges and problems that

shared by the human beings. And you know

this is largely a very interesting

things is as a historian you got so many

uh readers and you give a so strong

structure interpretation of human

civilization. You know this is a very

powerful tools to shape the man side of

your reader and this means that you

burdened a very strong ethic

responsibility.

You know you you you shape the man side

of your reader and uh if we do believe

that you have this power how we can use

this power responsibly and what is your

expectation

from all your your your books your

readers can get from your books is a is

a very special attitude is a can of

concern or is a expectation of a future

or something like that I want to I want

to hear you about your point about this.

What I try to do in all my works is help

people understand themselves, help

people understand reality better.

And it's a very delicate job because

people usually rush to judge reality

and to judge history, to judge the past

and the present. We want to know who are

the good guys and who are the bad guys.

Uh whether things are are good or bad.

And when we rush to judge things, we

don't have time to understand them.

So in my writing,

I try to write history without villains,

without good guys and bad guys, but to

understand the deep process of change.

And I sometimes think about history

maybe as a kind of collective therapy

for for humanity. I go to therapy every

week. I have a weekly session. And you

can people can wonder why why do people

need to go to therapy? I mean the

subject matter in therapy is myself. Who

knows myself better than me? Why do I

need to go to some stranger to learn

about myself? I mean this is ridiculous

but it's not because yes I know more

about myself than any other person

perhaps but there are so many things I

don't want to know about myself

that yeah I have access to all the data

to the memories to the daily events but

I reject I mean some things I I really

like to know about myself but the more

painful the darker episodes in my life,

the more painful things I do in the

present, it's very difficult for a

person to acknowledge that about

oneself. Like if you're in a

relationship and there is a problem in a

relationship, so you ask and I I people

would say I'm perfect. It's the other

person who is causing all the problem.

If only the other per person changed a

little, behaved differently, everything

would be perfect. And you ask the other

person, they would say exactly the same

thing. I'm perfect. It's my husband,

it's my wife that is causing all the

problem in our household.

So this is why you need to go to

therapy. So to get professional help to

realize some very deep truths about

yourself

that are too difficult or too painful to

acknowledge and history is like therapy

for entire civilizations or for the

whole of humankind. Also entire nations

often don't want to acknowledge dark

episodes in their past or dark things

they are doing right now. Entire

civilizations the same you ask and

almost every nation almost every country

would say we are perfect.

All the problems are because of the

other nations. All the problems are

because of the other civilizations of

the other cultures.

And I think the responsible job of

historians is to and not to to to share

blame but to simply help people

understand better the big processes and

the deep sources of the problems in the

world and and this is a a big

responsibility. This is very very uh

interesting as you just cannot agree

more about your points because you know

you just point out the core value of the

humanity. The core value of humanity is

not to provide any accurate knowledge,

not to make the word uh trans

transparency. Actually uh the mo most

important things is that this uh through

the uh humanity and reflections. We

teach people do not make any judgment in

rush

to try to lead a very hesitated life

especially intellectually

because the complexity of human nature

because different kind of narrative that

will dominated our menside that is

bowsed and one-sided. This is largely

because what because the limitation of

our perspective of understanding

and this largely lead to I my my own

understanding of your book. I think that

through all your four four books you you

are largely trying to give a very

cautious refined warning to us as human

beings to urgent us to respect but never

blindly trust our imperfect human

nature.

If we turn to the so-called development

of of technology and the dramatic change

that ongoing because of the AI

technology we'll find that the things is

not just the technology itself just as

Hington has pointed out the most

important things is the misuse of this

technology but not the technology itself

you know this largely lead us to a very

important

uh issues in the philosophy of politics

which we called technocrassy.

And you know those who those who

dedicate the development of AI

technology actually had been set up a

systematic

techno tyranny on human beings

just as me. I have no idea what the uh

uh AI expert talking about

and and I have no idea what I should do

to facing up all this change. The only

thing is that I was forced to accept it

and uh this is unfair. Why should why

should I accept it? And you know the

things is this those people who

manipulate this skills and technologies

are ordinary people they might be evil

they might be trying to set up a

dictation on us and why we should accept

it without any condition. We have no

right to say no. You know this is the

things that I think that your books try

to uh urge us to reflect the deficiency

of human beings. But this deficiency of

human beings is the way point that

differentiate us from the machine

because we have emotion, we have desire

and all the things largely lead to a

very very special and very correct

attitude towards future. I called it

moderately optimistic. you should not

too optimistic but in no way you put it

in uh uh pessimistic.

This is largely the things that uh in my

mind to say uh your book just as a

warning towards us. I I often get this

question of whether I'm pessimistic or

optimistic about the future. I think

it's the most common question that that

people ask me in interview in private

conversations and I always say that that

I'm neither. I mean pessimists are

people who kind of think that no matter

what you do things will go badly and

this undermines human responsibility

because if no matter what we do things

will go badly what's the point of even

trying. Pessimism breeds despair but

optimism can be just as dangerous

because it breeds complacency.

Optimists tend to say no matter what

happens things will turn out okay in the

end. And then if this is the case again

we don't need to take responsibility

because whether we act or don't act

whether we think very deeply about what

we do or we just do the first things

that comes up in our mind things will

turn out okay and I try to to to find a

middle path of being responsible which

is not optimist or pessimist it's

realizing there are different futures

possible ahead of us. We can draw a map

of different futures. Some good, some

bad. Nothing is determined. There is no

God and there is no law of history that

will correct our mistakes if we do if we

take the wrong choices. Uh we are not

doomed. We have immense power human

beings. We have immense resources,

knowledge. We can do the right thing.

But uh there is no guarantee enough

people need to make good decisions in

order to reach the the right

destination.

And you know when I look at the world

right now I am appalled by the lack of

responsibility

which is shown by many of the h

political and business leaders around

the world. And it seems that humanity is

going in a very very dangerous

direction.

And at this moment, responsibility is

more important than ever because of the

AI revolution. We are in the process of

creating not just the most powerful

technology in history. We are in the

process of creating potentially a new

species of super intelligent entities

agents that might very soon take control

away from us. We have just a few years

to get this thing right. I keep telling

people that AI is not like the previous

technologies we have invented in

history. This time it's not just about

us. You know, philosophers have this

habit that when people invent something,

so they always say it's not about the

technology, it's about the humans. They

decide what to do with the technology.

This was always true, but it's no longer

true. We are now creating an independent

agent.

that uh uh the the defining charact

characteristic of AI is not automation,

the ability to act automatically. Oh,

the defining characteristic is agency.

To be an AI, a machine must have the

capacity to learn and change by itself,

to make decisions by itself, and to

invent new ideas by itself. If it can't

do that, if it only follows your

instructions, if you can predict

everything it will do, it is not an AI.

And we are rushing to create these super

intelligent agents in a very

irresponsible way.

And as as I travel the world and I talk

with the leaders of the AI revolution, I

ask them two questions again and again.

The same way they ask me are you

optimist or pessimist? So I reply with

two questions of my own. I ask them

first

why are you moving so fast? Why don't

give human time humankind a bit more

time to adapt to reflect to do things

more carefully and safely? And almost

all of them reply the same answer.

Almost all of them say we are we know

there are huge risks. They often know it

better than anybody else. The the

leaders of the AI revolution. We know

there are big risks. We would like to

move more slowly, but we can't trust our

human competitors. If we move more

slowly and the other company or the

other country doesn't slow down, they

will win the AI race and then they will

dominate the world and the world will be

ruled by the most ruthless people. We

cannot allow this. So we must move

faster and you then ask talk with their

competitors. They say exactly the same

thing. So everybody says we can't trust

the other humans. Then I ask them the

second question. Do you think you will

be able to trust the super intelligent

AIs that you're developing? And the same

people who just explained to me why they

can't trust other humans suddenly say,

"Oh, we think we could trust these super

intelligent AIs." Which I think is

borderline insanity

because, you know, with humans, we know

we have trouble with humans, but we also

understand them to some extent. We know

quite a lot about human psychology and

biology. We have experience in history

not just of violence and war but also in

building trust. You know a 100,000 years

ago humans lived in tiny bands of a few

dozen individuals couldn't trust anybody

outside their band. Now we have nations

like China with 1.4 billion citizens who

cooperate on a daily basis. We have a

global trade network connecting even

different countries. So we have some

achievements in building trust between

humans

with AIS. We have no experience. We are

just creating them. We already know they

can lie and deceive and manipulate. We

have no idea what will happen when we

release millions of super intelligent

AIs to take control of our financial

system and military system and culture.

So the people who lose trust in other

humans but imagine they can trust an

alien super intelligence this is

extremely scary and I think

irresponsible.

The things is just like this because you

know um when when you are engineer you

you create something and you will

naturally get a confidence to say I can

control it. But the things is just like

this one we when when we turn to the AI

is just a you know a a black box that we

we have no idea what what would happen

in there and um uh if if there will be

certain we called subjectivity within

this this AI engine and uh whether they

will have desires they they will have

their own in intentionality to do

certain things and they have their own

value systems. They they have their own

value preference or this kind of things

were was super dangerous. But the things

is just like this when we say that okay

we just cannot trust other people means

what means we know that what is human

being what is human nature but nowadays

we are still panning for the new

definition of what is AI what is new

species and uh you know this is largely

lead us to a very interesting things

about the difference between silicon

based life and uh carbon based life. We

we we seems to have a very clear

definition of what is carbon based life.

Um even the the the even despite of the

uh observ observable phenomena which we

living or something like that but the

general uh definition of carbon based

life is that we were dead. We were that

another days and this things composed

the basic element of the uh human

nature. I can't I I I said this the

necessity

of death and the dependence of group

community and uncertainty anxiety about

future. All the things lead to us uh

poorly understanding of uh you know

human beings and the mutual trust among

people is the most costly things that we

have found in the history and these

things lead to a very interesting things

is like this. I maybe I could say that

through intelligence we can tell us from

animal we know that we has we are some

specious with intelligence but is that

case that we can tell us from the AI

engine in potential

because we have emotion

we are deficiency we have deficiency we

actually have a limitations you know

according to the Chinese philosophy the

most important important things is that

is that we must face up to the real

self. The real self with emotion with

limitation we just cannot know

everything and we should be very humble

when we face up to others and uh future.

So this is largely widened from the the

the ancient China and this is largely

you you you said about responsibility

and the responsibility not just come

from a a a social mechanism but come

from what self understanding of what is

yourself what is the essence of human

beings

and I think a very important point

about humans is that we are we often

define ourselves elves by our

intelligence to distinguish us from

other animals. We feel we want to feel

superior to all the animals and what can

give us superiority not the body not

physical strength. So we say ah we are

more intelligent than all the other

animals. So we give I think far too much

emphasis on intellect and intelligence

in the understanding of ourselves which

is now becoming extremely dangerous

because soon there will be something

more intelligent than us on the planet.

So if it's all about intelligence it's

game over for humanity. And maybe I

share something from my own personal

history which taught me in again a very

painful way that intelligence is not the

most important thing in in humanity or

or in life. When I was quite a young

boy, I was spotted in the school as a as

a gifted student. So they took me out of

my school in my neighborhood and sent me

to a special school for gifted students

uh where they collected these kind of

genius kids from all over the northern

part of the country. It was quite far

away from my from my neighborhood. So it

was a long ride every day. But this was

not the the the bad thing about it. The

really awful thing about it is that this

was a a special school for gifted

students. So everybody saw us as some

kind of walking intelligence

and we were valued for our intelligence.

And here is where it become really

problematic. Back in my neighborhood

neighborhood school, I was easily the

best in everything uh in in mathematics,

in in reading, in writing, in everything

without much effort. uh which first left

a lot of time to play and do other

things and secondly kind of my position

as the smartest kid in in the class was

easily secured and this was my identity.

I'm the smartest kid in the class.

Suddenly I find myself in a class with

30 other genius kids who also define

themselves as being the smartest kid in

the class. Now you throw 30 10-year-old

kids into a a class

like this and you get a gladiatorial

arena.

Not with fists but with words. We were

merciless. We It was like the crulest

place I've ever seen in my life was this

class. Sometimes you know I read in

history books about wars and terrible

things that are happening. So it's worth

but like from personal experience this

was kind of the the the worst thing that

I I saw was these 30 10year-old kids

tearing each other to pieces trying to

prove them I'm smarter than you. It was

also held for the teachers because our

kind of contest was who could find the

mistakes the teachers make and humiliate

the teachers. This was like you're a

king of the class for a day if you

manage to humiliate the and most of the

time we just humiliated each other like

you know the teacher asks something and

somebody gives an answer and everybody

jumps and this is not true and so it and

it it went on for years

and and the whole rationale of of this

uh uh class was to develop the intellect

of these kids. So nobody invested

anything in developing our social

skills, in developing our emotional

skills or or in developing our our

physical skills, our our bodily skills

and um it was a very I now can joke

about it but it was a very painful

experience you know after being for 10

years in in in this environment. Uh the

as teenager we came out with quite

developed intellects but with horrible

social skills

which made I know some of the people who

were in that class and they still carry

deep scars injuries

uh from from that time and this taught

me in the most kind of personal and and

visceral way that you cannot define a

person or build a person based only on

intellectual skills. The much more

important things that ultimately

humanity is about feelings

and not about thoughts. Maybe if I have

more time I'll I'll say something also

about I said something personal. Now

let's kind of open it to the to the

grand vision of of human evolution.

You know, originally

we humans, our ancestors at least, were

worms crawling on the ground or in the

mud. A very simple life form. It's just

a tube with two openings, a mouth to

take in food and another opening to

expel all the waste from the body. There

was no brain. There were already nerve

cells, neurons, but there was no brain.

The center of command of this ancient

worm was in the stomach where the food

went.

Now over millions of years

in order to get food and also warn about

danger. So more nerve cells developed

around the mouth in order to taste the

food and smell the food and see the food

and hear the food. And this became the

brain.

And this is still our basic structure

today. We are basically a worm. It's

just, you know, look at yourself. It's

just this long twisting uh tube with a

few things attached to it, but it's it's

a worm.

And the brain is still near the mouth.

But the big question is maybe the center

of control is still where it always was

in the stomach, not in the brain.

And I it's a big question in brain

science because maybe not the stomach,

but the spinal cord is an integral part

of the brain. And there are good reasons

to think that yes, you have all these

neurons here that get all the attention,

but ultimately the real center of

command of the human being is is still

here.

Well, actually um

I I know exactly what you're talking

about, but Professor Harrari as one of

the smartest guys around the world

saying that intelligence is not that

important. It's really interesting.

Okay, go on professor. Yeah, actually

you know um the always there kind of

show off to say that I'm very smart but

it's not so important

but actually you know I I know that the

students here uh onset of this hall uh

the university students who have passed

a very selective examination to go to

this campus and actually you uh during

uh data back to your child school

childhood you are the smartest student

students in your class. But once you

step into this campus, you will know

you're just somehow around average.

And this is a very unit this is very

tough process of um man change uh

especially in the first year first

semester you must accept it that I'm

just around average and you know uh most

of your teacher think let's say you you

just so you're not so smart and the all

the way you you you adopted to de

demonstrate that you're smart is totally

nonsense. So this is largely the things

that lead us to a very important point

to say that uh the the things that make

us h human is about our uh deficiency

all the the things that is not so uh uh

concerned with intelligent intelligence

because the things is just for me it's

just like this when we say that we are

try to controlling certain certain

things that has intelligence that

supports us. We still has a very

important uh reasoning mode that come

from a instrumental

uh reasoning. We try to regard this as a

tool but not as a subjective. And if you

regard this as a tool then actually you

will get into the trap of modernity.

The the chap of modernity is a

continuous pursuit of efficiency. You do

things quicker quicker and you face up

to different kinds of competitions and

you compet you have a competitions with

human beings other other companies other

countries other nations all the things

is about competition and now we have a

new competition with what with AI with

new and species that is totally has

intelligence that supports us this is

the real things that stern stern get all

us into a panic and this kind of worry

actually lead to a historical

reflections because because what the

anxiety

long for thousands of years always come

from the same things the uncertainty of

future and how we can take action

responsible to to to to respond ond the

change that happening. So so to speak

for for for me that is the things is not

just about technology. The things is

about the deep understanding of

deficiency of human beings and we should

with full recognition of our limitation

then take a cultural steps towards the

future and to say just as the the motive

of today's discussion understanding is a

antidote. you know you you must firstly

to do certain in-depth reflection before

you take any action but now we are too

rush in action and we too rush into a

new form of competition and this is

largely what I called consequence of

modernity so we we we actually not face

up to the so-called uh competition with

AI but we we we try we actually uh run

into a competition with ourselves. But

I'm not sure I would put all the blame

just on modernity

because we see things like that also in

ancient times. I know very little about

Dowoism. So I would be happy to to to to

hear from you about it. But at least in

in in uh the West, you can trace these

things back thousands of years. Um, you

know, especially you talked about the

fear that humans have of of losing

control, of not knowing. And this fear

often propels people to look for

something infallible.

Like the fantasy of super intelligence

is didn't begin today or a few decades

ago. The fantasy of super intelligence,

at least in the west, goes back

thousands of years when humans

yearned to find some super intelligent

savior, Messiah, God

that knows everything,

that it never makes mistake and that we

can rely on him because we can't rely on

ourselves.

And this fantasy the first artifact that

it produced and which is still one of

the most important artifacts in the

world is the holy book. Again I don't

know what is the status of daist texts

that you're studying. I'll I'll be very

happy to hear in in a moment from you.

But in religions like Judaism and

Christianity,

ultimate authority is invested not in

any human being like a priest or a rabbi

or something. Ultimate authority is

invested in an artifact,

a text which is supposed to be super

intelligent, never makes a mistake.

Now, of course, until today, there was

always one very big problem with texts

like the Bible. They can't talk.

They can't answer questions. So, here I

am believing that this text is perfect

intelligence, never makes any mistake,

but I have trouble understanding the

words. It's it's not written very well.

It's it's there are too many meanings to

the same sentence. I'm not sure which

meaning is the correct one. Or maybe

this text was written 3,000 years ago

when people were farmers. Now I have

like a modern business. I'm not sure how

to apply the lessons of of this text to

the new reality.

So what do I do? I ask the text. It

doesn't answer.

So I need a human to interpret the text

for me. And then a class of humans

emerge which are experts in interpreting

the text and they become the real

authority in society. These are the

rabbis and the priests.

Now something extremely interesting is

happening right now in the world at

least of these religions

that suddenly the texts can talk

because you can give an AI to read the

Bible and all the other rel religious

texts. I mean over thousands of years if

I take the case of Judaism rabbis didn't

just read the Bible they wrote thousands

and thousands of commentaries on the

Bible and commentaries on the

commentaries and commentaries on the

commentaries on the commentaries which

all became sacred and your position as a

rabbi you're big rabbi if you know more

texts and you're a little rabbi if you

know only a few no rabbi was able to

read and remember all the texts

Impossible for a human. But AI can. For

the first time in the history of

Judaism, there is something on earth

that can read all the texts of Judaism.

Everything written by every rabbi in

Poland or Yemen like 800 years ago, it

read everything. It remembers every

single word. It can find connections and

patterns in the holy texts that no rabbi

can.

Will it become the new authority in

Judaism? Now, if you have a question and

the AI says, "Oh, this is the answer."

It can give you like pages on pages of

proof from holy books. Now, if if a

human rabbi says, "Don't don't listen to

this AI, it's a soulless machine." The

problem, at least in Judaism, is that

the authority is invested in the text,

not in the human.

So if an AI finds arguments in the text,

they rabbis cannot just dismiss because

it's the argument because the text has

authority. The now the word speaks. AI

has mastered language.

So um it's it's interesting this this is

kind of my perspective as a historian on

all this how very it's not just

modernity. It's the whole of human

history which is feeding into this AI

revolution with very unexpected

consequences. Maybe

the same thing is happening in the legal

system which also a very authoritative

text that until today we needed lawyers

to interpret the text.

Now the text can speak for itself.

It's the same thing in the financial

system. Until today, we needed bankers

and financiers to interpret the the the

money, the the financial texts. Now they

can interpret themselves. So maybe AIS

take over the financial systems and the

religions and the legal system. So this

is just kind of a thought to share and I

would be very happy to hear how it is in

in Dowoism and whether you think that

you'll have an AI dowist master anytime

soon. No, actually um the the case was

was totally different in Dism because

you know I'm I'm just not trying to

blame everything to the modernity but

the things is just like this you know

modernity comes from the western

tradition exactly the thing the the the

modernity is offspring of the whole

tradition but in China is totally

different we we we because Darism is too

complex system systematic sort

So um I let it let me just start with a

very simple sentence the very opening

sentence of the jing

which means the uh the the the the

things that you spoke spoke out is not

the constant things which means um for

me there is a very interesting uh

definition of authority.

you just a mention of of authority which

is always correct and for for for us for

the for for as Chinese people uh along

with the thous intellectual tradition we

actually have the two pre assumptions

the first things is as common human

beings we have very clear limitation of

our rationality we just cannot say we we

can uh control or grasp the ultimate

truth of the cosmos of the whole thing

and this is because what because we are

human beings and then is there any

authority that we can rely on that seems

seems always corrected.

Yeah, we have certain kinds of memory of

last things. Sagehood

there is golden age the governed by the

sages and the sages know the exact me

internal mechanism of the the so-called

uh cosmos but things is just like this

things change for for forist everything

changes everything floating and they

just cannot say there is one set

regulations and rules who can rule to

who can run all the way of the history

of human human beings. So the sense is

that you must depend on the original

text but you just cannot just rely on

it. You you you you read into it and you

you you get something back and then you

have a try of what you learn from it. in

this does not mean you have the always

correct uh regulations and rules that

behind you. So to speak the most

important things is that for Chinese

people especially for Dowist

we must keep open-minded

towards the change towards the ultimate

uh rules of the cosmos which we which we

could say this the cosmos is eternal

sinkus riddle for Chinese for Chinese

people especially for theist so to so so

in this Say can we say that modernity as

a protector of western tradition

actually have a short shortage to say

that there is absolute rules absolute

regulations and absolute or universal

mechanism that can dominate everything

that in our eyes but for Chinese or

traditional Chinese thought there is no

such things the the universe ial

correctness you the the ultimate truth

there is there's nothing of that because

you just look at the cosmos everything

changed

there there is a totality of the cosmos

but there is no so-called uh ultimate

and universal things that you can

grasper and you can get and this is why

I just mentioned uh why Chinese people

always keep humble to the change And we

always try to uh do things in a detour

of learning and practicing. We're

learning something and we put it in in

practice and we got reflections and we

back to the text again and then we take

action according to my learning or

learning from the text. So this is

largely very Chinese style and this is

why I called Chinese style uh actually

very different from the western uh

counterpart and this is why we could

find certain strappy of the problem of

modernity that we can draw from the

oriental sources oriental sort. So, so

this is largely why we should uh uh do

certain um expansion of of of our

intellectual views through mutual

learning and a mutual understanding I

think. And similarly in in Buddhism

there is also uh uh a lot of similar

arguments to what you just mentioned

from Daoism

that we need to acknowledge the

limitations of humanity. There are no

absolute truth that that you can hold on

to. Everything is empty and uh you need

to rely on practice and not just on some

text that says something. And then they

memorize these texts again and again and

again. And you go to monasteries and and

and you see even monks and that that

their main practice is memorizing texts.

And the authority in the religion

becomes the authority of the experts on

on the texts. And the texts say don't

rely on texts. And this is what the

experts on texts will say to you.

And you know there is a a very famous

Buddhist story about a a monk who

meditated in a forest and there was a

parro parrot living near the the where

the monk was meditating and the monk

wanted to protect the parrot from

danger. So the monk told the parrot per

be careful. Uh in this part of the woods

there is an a hunter that comes every

now and then. Uh the hunter will spread

grains on the ground. You'll see the

grains. You'll get attracted to the

grains. When you go for the grains, he

hid a net and the net will he'll spring

the net. He will capture you. So parrot

be careful, a hunter will come. And the

parrot and then the monk kept repeating

this morning, parrot, be careful, a

hunter will come. And the parrot as a

parrot learned this morning. And the

parrot would sit there on the tree and

just repeat all day, "Parrot, be

careful. A hunter will come. Perro, be

careful, a hunter will come." And one

day a hunter came and the hunter spread

the grains and the parrot got attracted

to the grains and went to eat the grains

and the hunter sprang the trap and the

parrot was captured. And all through

that process and even when the hunter

was holding the parrot in the hand going

to kill him the parrot kept saying

parrot be careful parrot be careful a

hunter will come. You mentioned a very

interesting things is about what um for

me um the things is just like this um I

think the the the fundamental part of uh

just you mentioned the gap between

theory and practice. It's about what?

It's about our basic need as human

beings. I think that our fundamental

need is for is the need for order. The

the order the understanding of the the

the outside world and um this kind of

understanding actually lead us to set up

our intellectual menside somehow. But uh

you know you when you run into a real

life you must somehow compromise with

your uh immediate uh demand and this

compromise uh actually be part of your

daily life and you just cannot say

because there is a uh gape between

theory and practice to say that there is

no use for uh theoretical uh

understanding of the whole things. But

what I try to uh say is that this the

the the the foundation the foundation of

uh order is um we are longing for

meaning we must know what we are doing

you know um you just say that we we we

uh do some things we must have our

intention and where come from this where

come this so-called intention I call I I

I say we have a systematic understanding

of what is meaning and this meaning

actually on the basis of order the

acknowledgement of the order and this

order actually lead to so-called

knowledge

this this uh logic lineage actually lead

to my uh very simple conclusion to say

this battle of the gap between the uh

theory and uh the so-called practice is

we should still respect the capacity of

reflection and the theoretical

construction because what? Because there

is a balance between the between this

two and you must go back to theoretical

reflections to keep you somehow distance

from the wrong misleading actions. So

people is uh human beings so complex we

just cannot say we have one extreme

though just as as I mentioned for

Chinese philosophers the most important

things is what is balance between

extremes

but not to say okay we there is a gape

so we must have a certain kind of uh

solution for it but

what do we do in the present moment in

history when you know for thousands

Thousands of years, philosophers could

have debates like this. And it was

important to some extent, but it was not

all that important because the world

went on. You know, humans created

various orders and the orders collapsed

and they created a new order and the new

order was maintained for some time and

it collapsed and this is how it went for

thousands of years. And at least my fear

is that we have reached the end of the

road and that whatever wisdom we have

accumulated from thousands of years of

philosophy and from thousands of years

of history it needs to manifest now or

it's too late that like all the big

questions of philosophy are now

practical questions we have I don't know

how many years some say five years some

say 10 years some say 15 years before

what what the experts called AGI,

artificial general intelligence, not

this little AI that you have on your

smartphones, the deepseek or the chat

GPT, but the artificial general

intelligence which will be more

intelligent than humans not in a

specific field but in all fields and

once this happens the ball is out of our

hands. It's like we are having this

discussion and astronomers tell us that

they spotted a fleet of spaceships

coming from some other solar system.

According to the calculations of the

astronomers,

these aliens will land on the planet in

between five and 15 years. We don't know

much about them. Maybe they are nice.

Who knows? Maybe they'll help us solve

cancer and overcome climate change. And

maybe not. But we have five to 15 years

to think what we what we are doing. And

this is the time that I think all the

wisdom traditions of humanity again

developed over thousands of years. Um

what do they tell us? What do they tell

us about this specific moment in history

which is I think different from previous

moments because the process of of change

of course things will continue to change

but maybe not for humanity

maybe this is kind of the last station

for humanity

just one words um you can close the

whole discussion actually I think that

for me I'm I'm more optimistic than you.

uh for for me that the advantage of

humanity is just because of its

deficiency

you know just because we are not perfect

and you can imagine certain perfect

things but I do not think that we could

just be uh be be replaced uh with the

civilization of human human beings will

be replaced by certain super

intelligence

Because what? Because we have emotions.

But I just cannot imagine how silicon

based uh life have imagine have desire

have have intention to just to to remove

us to to just to to set up a candle of

governance on human beings because

because what? because we have design uh

uh desires because we are

somehow has a very strong sense of uh uh

shortage strong sense of um deficiency.

So this is largely the the the the the

only things that in my mind let Matt be

more optimistic than you.

I'm not sure how how much time we have

but

um I don't again I don't know whether

AIs or AGIs will ever have consciousness

will ever have feelings. I think this is

the biggest question of all but I don't

think that you need feelings in order to

have goals and to act in the world as an

independent agent.

um AIS, you know, you give them a goal

or they develop a goal, then they do

things to reach the goal without any

emotions or desires. If you have a

self-driving vehicle, you can give the

vehicle the goal, get me as fast as

possible to the train station, and the

self-driving vehicle on the way would

run over people because I gave it the

goal, get there as fast as possible and

forgot to tell it, but don't kill

anybody on the way.

So and similar we have so many examples

you know that the most famous example is

what happened on social media that

social media companies gave the AIs the

very primitive AIs that run social media

the goal of increasing user engagement

make people spend more time on the

platform and the algorithms began to

spread hate and and fear online and to

destabilize societies all over the world

because they discovered that the easiest

way to increase engagement is with fear

and hatred and greed. So they don't have

any desires, they don't have any

emotions, but they can have a goal and

then they can do a lot of things on the

way to that goal.

And that I think is the danger for us

and the fact that we have emotions and

feelings means that we can suffer a lot.

I mean I I think that ultimately the

definition of consciousness is the

capacity to suffer and to be liberated

from suffering but this is no

protection. You know cows can suffer and

we didn't treat them very well. Um other

animals can suffer and you know it's not

necessarily even that we are evil. A lot

of animals we have destroyed without

even thinking about it. So the cows we

exploit them for for meat and milk and

so forth. But so many species have gone

extinct in just the last few years by

humans destroying their habitats like

they live in some forest and the humans

come and cut the forest and build

something and the humans don't are not

even aware that they are doing something

bad to this. There is no evil intention.

It's just you don't see them. So some

super intelligence may may have whatever

goal it could be and it's not evil. It

doesn't even have any emotions. It's

just on the way to the goal, it runs

over us.

Great. Um I think we are about to run

out of time, but I'm sure then Professor

Chung likes to share some comments on

you. You're fine.

Okay. So, um before we end, let's invite

Professor Haruri to give a close remark.

Um, so

for me it was a a an honor and a

pleasure to be here with you today and

this has been one of the most inspiring

discussions I've had in recently. So so

thank you for that. The the reason I I I

do these talks and that I wrote the book

is because I really think that humanity

is about to make maybe the most

important decisions in our history. And

at present

there are very few people in very few

countries that understand what is

happening and that take part in the

conversation.

Very lots of people now have heard about

AI but most people don't have a deep

enough understanding of the AI

revolution to un to to know what is at

stake and to feel competent to take part

in the discussion. So

I I can't tell people what would be the

solutions or what policies to adopt. My

understanding is also very limited.

My goal is to give many more people in

many more countries a basic

understanding of what is the AI

revolution, what is at stake, so that

millions of people in numerous countries

will feel motivated and competent to

join the conversation so that that we

can hear more opinions, more interests,

more worldviews and thereby hopefully

reach a better decision.

Uh at present the people who really

understand and and and take the

decisions they are not even elected

representatives of anybody. They are

mostly these leaders of the big AI

companies and this is dangerous for

humanity.

So that that's my my motivation and I

hope that you will feel motivated and

competent to take part in the

conversation because it's the

conversation about your future also

about everybody's future. Uh my other

remark is that I I noticed that there

are several people here uh that read my

books that maybe are my fans and I know

from previous I have historical

knowledge so I know what happens at the

end of the event that lots of people

come and they want to sign books and

take selfies and and so forth. And

unfortunately I I don't have the the

time to do it because I have to rush to

another uh event. So I would leave you

with something better than my signature

and better than my picture. Um which is

really part of me. It's my atoms. Just

as a final thought for reflection and

about the interconnectedness of of

everything we have set you together in

this beautiful hall for an hour and a

half breathing all the time and the air

mixes our breath together. So a lot of

the atoms that were inside my body an

hour and a half ago are now in your

body. And a lot of the atoms that hour

and a half ago were in your body are now

in my body. So in this way we've shared

something even more important than a

signature or a picture. Thank you. Thank

you very much.