From 600+ conversations with the world’s leading thinkers.
Consciousness is at the root of human identity. Fundamentally, we relate to each other as beings with feelings and experiences. Consciousness is at the root of everything that really matters in life from deep emotions, subtle thoughts, these are the things that make life worth living.
We advocate for a 'feminist moonshot' approach, symbolized by the dandelion. Its seeds, spread by children, represent the spreading of our positive narrative towards a cleaner, healthier, more equitable world on the brink of a clean energy revolution.
We wouldn't like there to be any heroin in society, but there's plenty of heroin. So our discussion can't just concern our moral feelings about drug addiction. It has to involve our consequential feelings about prisons, overdose deaths, and the effect on communities. You can't escape consequences when you talk about the world.
I don't think it's money that corrupts people, I really don't. I think it's the idea that when you make money without having a tangible creation attached to that money, it has no value.
In science, one never shows causality. Causality is something philosophers are concerned with, not scientists. I cannot stress this in strong enough words- we have not shown a causal link between the public's mood state as we measured it from twitter data feeds, and the market.
The idea of dialogue is overrated- sometimes you have to fight. There are certain issues we mustn't depoliticise, sometimes we must fight, and sometimes that fight is physical… that's just reality. As for 'building bridges' with fascists, sometimes there are no bridges, you cannot befriend someone who is trying to kill you.
This historical and cultural trajectory, while understandable, seemingly dismisses the idea that computers can serve as invaluable complements to human cognition. We ought to look beyond mere abstract potentialities of human capabilities and consider the tangible ways AI can assist when humans interact with their environment.
By definition, existential risks are those which- by definition- could terminate the species, or permanently limit the long term potential of our civilisation. Martin Rees, the distinguished scientist, said that the difference between killing 90% of humanity, and 100% of humanity is not 10%. The difference is huge. By killing 100% of humanity, you are also killing all future generations.
If we, as a species, are the ultimate product of Darwinian selection, then so, too, is this incredible disease that lurks inside us.
the knowledge that we must die 'the worm at the core' of the human condition
We are under an existential threat now as humankind. Even a simple two-cell yeast has a survival instinct and evolves fast enough to try and survive. I don't understand why humans who are supposed to be these very complex creatures can see that we're heading towards a very, very dangerous future which could be irreversible, and why we're not doing absolutely everything possible now.
I would have played basketball for $120,000 for 7 years rather than $120 million, because I loved to play basketball. I never said to myself that I would only play basketball if they pay me $100million – I played basketball because I loved basketball.