NB63 - Smart Resilience for the AI Age

Speaker A: This episode is brought to you by Accenture. When your advertising operations fall out of sync, everything else follows. Spotify and Accenture are working together to reinvent the rhythm of ad sales using automation, analytics and smarter workflows to simplify campaign delivery and access better data across the business. The result? Less time spent on operations, more time connecting brands with the moments and fandoms, um, that matter most. Learn more@accenture.com Spotify when you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed. Sponsored Jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit@ Indeed.com podcast. That's Indeed.com podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed. Indeed. Sponsored Jobs Artificial intelligence is reinventing business as we speak. You can either get up to speed or get left behind. The choice is yours, and really, it's a no brainer. Join Cognitive Path founders Jeff Livingston and Greg Verdino as they chat with AI experts about the latest ideas, trends and technologies that are creating the future of business today. This is no Brainer.

Speaker B: Hey everybody. Welcome to another edition of the no Brainer podcast. We have an exciting and deep edition for you. Today we're going to get into some philosophy about AI and how this is going to impact us as a human species, as well as some, uh, current developments that have happened. But before we get there, I'd like to say hello to my partner in crime, my bald brother of another mother, Mr. Greg Verdino. How are you, sir?

Speaker C: I'm good, Jeff. How are you?

Speaker B: Very good. Thanks for joining me again for another crazy episode.

Speaker C: It's shocking that I still show up after all these episodes.

Speaker B: Well, we've been doing this now we're in two and a half years in and I think that's the best part about being every other week is that it's just enough. You don't feel like it turns into a slog every week. So at least from the podcaster perspective. But anyway, we have a really cool episode and uh, before we introduce them, do you mind if I give our usual commercials?

Speaker C: Go right ahead, all.

Speaker B: Ah, right. Everybody who's joining, please punch the like button on this episode. Share it with your friends. If you're not a subscriber, please do so. And if you can do leave a review. You can find us, of course, in all the usual places, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. And with that, we also want to thank the marketing podcast network, uh, for including us in their larger affiliate group. And with that, Mr. Greg, please enter our guests.

Speaker C: All righty. And before I do, I just want to point out, because this space moves so quickly and we are bound, I can feel it already, to get into some things that are current events. As we're recording, we are recording this on Friday, July 25th, and I should probably say we're starting the recording at 10:07 or so because probably by 10:08 the world will have changed yet again, for better or for worse. So we're really excited to welcome this episode's guest. Uh, we've got two, two, two. For people who are watching us on video, you already know that because you've seen them waiting patiently. Uh, we've got Dr. Rebecca Reinhard and her partner Thomas Wasek joining us from Germany. Um, they are the, I would say the masterminds in a good way behind Human magazine. Uh, it's a magazine that I've been affiliated with for a while. I write a, I think a semi regular column for them. I'm sure it is by a, the worst piece of content in the magazine, every single issue. Um, but it is a, it's a remarkable, remarkable publication. It is a, you know, they take a cross disciplinary look at the way AI is evolving and how we as humans will and should and must evolve alongside it. They also have a new paper out called Smart Resilience for an Uncertain Age. I believe I got the name right. Uh, that collects dozens of essays from people in virtually every sector from across the globe, really looking at what resilience means in the age of AI and why resilience must evolve in the age of AI and what that means. So before we dive into the conversation, I want to welcome both of you. Say hello, Rebecca and Thomas.

Speaker D: Thank you, Greg. Thank you, Jeff. It's really a very great pleasure and also honor to be on your show, uh, from Germany and to do this transatlantic conversation in these times, 100%.

Speaker E: Hello. It's so exciting for us.

Speaker C: Very good. Um, as you may have maybe you've told, you can tell already that Thomas, I think, is very much the traditional German personality. He says what needs to be said, crisp and precise in a good way. Um, so, you know, as I mentioned, I mentioned the paper Smart Resilience and um, you've, I think, made the argument that the traditional take on resilience is maybe necessary but not sufficient anymore. And that you're advocating for smart resilience in this new age of intelligence. Why don't you talk a little bit about what that means to you and why it is so important for people as we try to make sense of what's happening with AI all around us every day.

Speaker D: Maybe um. Thomas, let me start just a little bit. I think as we um, are approaching the mid or the end of 2025, we can already see that things are accelerating in an ever increased way. Not only all things AI but also geopolitics and also the whole multiple crises in the world. So we ask ourselves what do we need as humans in this world? And we came to the conclusion resilience in a traditional sense is not enough. Resilience in a traditional sense, uh, means practically bounce back, try to um, uh, um. Come over some crisis and try to get back to the original state, um, of things. But now with all these crisis, with this increasing speed that is uh, developing, we think we need a bounce forward approach. And for us resilience in this way needs absolutely to be based on intelligence, which means hybrid intelligence, human intelligence as well as artificial intelligence. I don't know, maybe Thomas wants to add one or two things.

Speaker E: Well, the idea is quite simple. I mean uh, resilience in the traditional sense means something like to endure, uh, to endure crisis, uh as Rebecca said, uh, to bounce back to the original state. Um, but what we need today we think is um, a kind of um, what we call smart resilience. That is proactive, um, that is smart, that is intelligent. And uh. The idea is um, that um, we humans are of course very important, um, uh for this kind of resilience, um, but not sufficient, um because we have to deal with all these complexities. So we need um, the capabilities of AI um to um, understand. To better understand this complexity, uh, to better predict um, um, proactively, uh, possible crisis threats whether uh, uh, military, um uh, threats or um, um, catastrophes, um, pandemics. Ah, whatever. That's the meaning of smart resilience.

Speaker C: And what are your thoughts, Jeff? I want to give you a chance to chime in.

Speaker B: Yeah, I feel like that's really truthful and it's particularly true here. I mean I can't speak for what it's like now in Europe with the environment, but for us here it's like we have a daily crisis it seems like, or crises. And you know, I mean I'm not going to sugarcoat it. It's because the president is one bent on dominating media and two, because he's toxic and it's a, it's a bad combination. Um, and I'm being nice. Uh, but the constant crisis, and then you see that also extend to the larger global environment with both the war in the Middle east and the war in the Ukraine and then the various aspects that we're already dealing with just as a human society, with, uh, all the different challenges that have occurred since, uh, the pandemic, with uh, supply chain, the environmental crisis that continues to escalate, it's just, it's never ending. Right. So how do, how do we function? Right. Because otherwise if you let this get to you, you're going to crawl into a ball in the corner and never function. And to me, it's almost like you're talking about perseverance. You know, how do I rise above and just continue to be able to function and function well with the headwind that just never seems to go away.

Speaker C: In that regard, I wonder to what extent it then becomes incumbent upon our institutions to help people build these skills. Right. Of not just surviving, but ideally thriving in the face of all this chaos that happens to also be happening at a time of unprecedented technological acceleration.

Speaker B: Yeah. And I would ask everybody, uh, on the podcast, can we rely on institutions now? Because I personally feel like that that's part of the drag. If you would. That's holding us back on a daily basis, or can hold us back if we allow it to. Is that these systematic institutions we used to rely on for justice, for decency, for uh, at least attempting to do the right thing.

Speaker E: They're not absolutely. I would say that we need something like, ah, a whole society approach, um, um, um, for this resilience. But there is obviously an interesting traditional objection against this concept of the whole concept of resilience that's simply says, uh, um, uh, why, um, um, uh, um, teach people to endure crisis, um, or catastrophes. Why don't we change things? Why don't we change, uh, the world? So, uh, what do you think about that? What do you think about that? Objection.

Speaker B: I mean, I think it's legitimate in some ways. Right. And I'd be curious to see what you all think. But it's, uh. There's an old saying, mood follows action, right?

Speaker E: Absolutely.

Speaker B: You have to take the action to get the mood. And so, I mean, is part of functioning also taking a step against what we feel is working against us first taking that step and then being able to function?

Speaker E: Right. Absolutely.

Speaker D: This sounds, uh, to us as Europeans, very American. I think this is the great culture we can always learn from to really get things done and to do things and to be on a mission in a very general sense. And I think it is this spirit we want to inject also a little bit in the German culture when it comes, uh, to engagement for democracy, for good, AI for all things human and human centric. Yeah, let's do it right.

Speaker E: In a sense, at least for me. Smart resilience, um, in a sense is just another word for learning, uh, for uh, not only adapting but um, learning in the same. A very pragmatic or pragmatist American, um, uh, sense, uh, of an inquiry. Yeah. Uh, so kind of, kind of experiment.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker E: Uh, um, uh, let's see, uh, all these crises, uh, as a kind of experiments, um, um, to find out things, uh, how things work, uh, how we can improve things, how we can change institutions or uh, uh, whatever, um, to make the world a better place.

Speaker C: There's a lot of, I think, different directions we can go with this. We could probably spend the entire episode talking about nothing but this. Right, but. And I think in a broad way we, we, we will, uh, but queuing off a couple of things I think certainly. Rebecca, you've mentioned the A word a couple of times already. America. And

Speaker B: uh, uh, we're sorry, you know.

Speaker E: Sorry for what?

Speaker B: You know what.

Speaker C: But we, you know, you know, m. You obviously come at this from a different perspective. I mean, here in the US and now with the new AI Action plan as it's called, um, there is very much of a United States versus China and there will be some. One of those two superpowers will have

Speaker E: world domination versus the rest of the world.

Speaker C: I'd love to hear your perspectives coming from the rest of the world. Right. Kind of what is the general sort of not just take, but I guess sort of the AI environment and the AI mindset and even just the AI promise and hope, um, that comes out of an area like the eu. Um, what are you hearing, what are you seeing and what are your perspectives around how the EU plays relative to the United States or China or you know, any other, um, area of the world?

Speaker E: Okay, let me start. Well, okay, you mentioned this, um, this um, so called AI action plan. Uh, now, um, when I read it, it was immediately clear to me. Okay, that's the uh, ah, let me say the Trumpist version. Uh, uh, that's the Trumpist idea of uh, what it means, um, uh, what it means to dominate the world, um, uh, with AI, to have such a kind of super intelligence, um, um, which uh, gives us unlimited, ah, which gives America unlimited Power, uh, in, uh, every sense of the word. Uh, now that's definitely not the European approach. I would say. Um, um, we have a different idea. For good or for bad. I want to be cautious about that. Uh, in Europe we have the idea, um, uh, first of all, um, we don't have the idea that AI is a tool of power. So that's not a European approach. Um, we think about, um, a kind of AI that is based on European values. Ah. Um, this is, um, very important. We think also of European competitiveness. Uh, but not in this, uh. Uh, I would say not in this bold, um. Uh, in this bold, um, way. Uh, um. Maybe it's not even the most important thing. The Europeans are generally, um, very cautious when it comes to new technologies. Uh, uh, we don't have this, um, this approach. Okay, um, um, um, um, let's do it. Uh, um. And let's embrace it. Uh, um. But the European approach is, um. More. Let's think about it. Um, but maybe Rebecca can.

Speaker D: No, I just want to add, uh, or to emphasize this point. AI is no top priority. And this has also to do, of course, with the loads of money we're seeing that this being spent in the US And Europe thinks they spend a lot, but in fact, we don't know. And when it is spent, where does it go and when. When is it. It is distributed. And right now, um, maybe there's a lot of talking about technological sovereignty.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker D: When it comes to Europe versus other states and the US and we know we don't, uh. Um, we are dependent on the cloud and on the US Cloud providers, but it's always in a little bit, in a hesitant way. And first we have to, um, make sure that we have the regulations, but then there's the discussion. Okay. Now, um, the U.S. president is very speedy and he's very, um, quick in implementing all these things. And, uh, it is now a top priority in the U.S. so maybe we don't need the EU AI act anymore in that way we originally thought. But at the end, there's always a lot of discussion and there's a lot of time that is passing because you need to find a consensus, which is very difficult, which also has to do with an important European value, of course, which is democracy, which is a good thing. But I think we are a little bit lost now in this very, um, complex world about what is our place as Germany and as Europe.

Speaker B: That's interesting, um, because, you know, when you were speaking to that Rebecca, and I know you're a philosopher and ethicist but you're getting down to it. What the problem? There are a few problems with the current, uh, administration's approach. It's very primitive, um, in the sense that it's power dominant, as you had said, Thomas. And it does look at this as a way to dominate the world from a global standpoint. There is a whole bunch of ethic challenges with that. But the other problem with it is that ultimately it's a business thing and not war. It's not a war tool. It's not a weapon. It is literally software. And software is supposed to help us live our lives, better, be more productive in an ideal state. Uh, and so one of the things that I think is unfortunate about the way the United States political structure is evolved over the last 20, 30 years, as it's become fractured, divisive, polarized, and even perhaps unable to act, um, in many ways is that we've lost our ability to, uh, advocate for ourselves. Um, and what I mean by that is protect ourselves, civil rights, human rights, that kind of thing. What GDPR did from a privacy standpoint, what the AI act that Europe did, it forced our businesses to comply. And what I mean by that is Europe may not be developing it, the technology, but Europe is one of the biggest markets. And it's not to Google's advantage, it's not to Amazon's Advantage or OpenAI or anybody else to create five different versions of its software. It's a lot cheaper for them to simply create one version. And if the EU has the most rigorous regulations, we just provide that regulation to everybody. So I would counter and say you are providing the moral compass for AI because we are incapable of it.

Speaker C: Yeah, I mean, that's the thing that strikes me first and foremost about the AI act is the utter, utter lack of moral compass. I mean, between the full out, I mean, it's almost like Sam Altman's checklist. They checked every box.

Speaker B: They totally wrote it. Right, right.

Speaker C: You know, so like the, the utter abandonment of any attempt at regulation. Right. It sets up regulation as, um, almost the dichotomy, the opposite dichotomy from innovation, um, which is not true. Right. You know, often innovation requires some component of regulation to set the guardrails and allow people and organizations to quickly and effectively, you know, but it basically dere. Utterly deregulates AI here in the States. But to Jeff's point, um, every company in the US that's building AI, every AI lab, every software company baking AI in, is going to have to comply with international regulations or they're not Going to have an international market, uh, but here in the States the premise is, okay, we're not going to worry about the environment, the climate, the job loss, etcetera, etcetera. Etc. People, we're just going to build, build, build, build, build. Right? Um, and then the second place where I think this shows up is in this sort of. And I guess it's more in one of the executive orders than it is in the actual action plan. But his concurrent executive order taking aim at woke AI where essentially, and put aside the woke versus whatever, but essentially says that um, we will not apply any guardrails around what is ethical or right or morally correct or whatever. And that's a complicated thing, right? Um, Rebecca, you know that. I mean both of you do, but certainly Rebecca, as a PhD philosopher, right, you know, as better than any of us, um, or at least the two bald idiots, that ethics is not an easy thing. Right? Um, it's not. There is not black and white. But you know, but this, you know, they do see the US government does seem to be saying that if you stand for diversity, if you stand for ferreting out bias, if you stand for, you know, these, these things that should be morally acceptable, at least then we're not going to use your AI systems. And we know that in the absence of those guardrails, we end up with Grok.

Speaker B: Right?

Speaker C: Where Grok is. I'm sure this was global news when Grok literally declared itself Mecca Hitler a week or two ago. Um, something that has not been addressed. And we've got issues of LLMs and chatbots convincing people to harm themselves or harm others in some case with the people actually following through. Right. There's a lot of stuff baked into that and I do wonder. I'm not trying to go on to like, you know, get on my soapbox and go on and on, but to Jeff's point, you know, will a, uh, will regulations like the AI act in Europe, will those, you know, will Europe effectively become the ethical barometer for AI where the US just sort of, as we have in frankly many other areas, can just abdicate our soft power and our ethical or moral high ground with air quotes? Because I'm sure you can argue whether we've ever had.

Speaker E: Well, um, a very important question. I mean, uh, I would say it is so called alignment question, um, is uh, of course a very fundamental one. Um, uh, for AI. Um, now when it comes to um. M. The European AI hack, I um, would say, um, there has been um, big discussion, um, on whether the UI AI hack is too strict. Uh, it is too um. Maybe um. It impedes innovation. Uh um uh. For example, for smaller companies, um, it might be not so easy to comply with UAI act, uh because um uh, they don't have simply the staff, um um. To make sure, um that the company complies. But given all that, I would say, um, uh that uh. As imperfect the UAI act maybe is, I uh, would say, um um, uh. It was a kind of a try, um um uh. To regulate these very complex issues, um in a way that is based on uh, our values, um, our understanding, um uh, our understanding of ethics and morals. Uh but of course it's imperfect. So um um, we have to improve it. Um. But my personal opinion is uh. That would be the wrong way to simply pause it. Some people, uh, um, um, um demand. Right now they say okay, um, uh, um uh, we should make a kind of a restart, uh for the AI Act. I mean, I don't think um, that's the right way.

Speaker D: I m maybe want to add a little bit of a constructive vision to that. I think we have really a dichotomy, really a stark contrast now between um um, the US and Europe, especially when it comes to AI um which you can maybe simplify in a way that on the one hand you have for the US the paradigm of business and marketing. As Greg well knows, this is one of my favorite thesis. We are not living only in the age of AI but in the age of all compassing marketing. So and on the other hand you have the paradigm of a certain seriousness, a uh, certain seriousness on values and democracy. And I think in an ideal world we would have maybe really to make a marriage between these two approaches. To have um, a certain innovative spirit and ah, progressive agenda. But on the other hand to have uh reflection um on values. So the task, the huge challenge is to make a marriage between the rocket and the snail. They're two different speeds. I don't know if I'm being clear.

Speaker B: Oh, uh, it's interesting. Uh, I'd like to ask you, Rebecca, what do you think the ethical implications for the United States on the global theater is with the way this policy rolled out? I mean, like, what would you tell us as people that are here? How are we being viewed?

Speaker D: Um, I don't know because I can't speak for society or European society as a whole, but I think there's a certain feeling of alienation. And many Europeans or many Germans, I know, me included, we've always been big fans of American culture and in general and the American spirit. And we now, we don't understand anymore what's going on. And I think we all feeling, I have this feeling that it is also. It's always only about power. It all boils down to power. And, um, to take over the world. And the original American Manifest Destiny has now extended not only to Mars, but to the whole terrestrial space. And it's all encompassing. And I think people prefer, also in Germany, prefer being comfortably numb or amusing themselves to death to escape the seriousness of the whole, um, thing on the one hand, and on the other hand to escape the daily soap which is, uh, coming from White House and things like that.

Speaker B: Uh, Greg, what do you think about that?

Speaker C: I would almost have expected that word for word answer in a lot of way.

Speaker B: Right?

Speaker C: Because, I mean, it feels that way inside the country. Um, and I think those of us who are tuned into the global markets to some extent, obviously we're not living in Germany or England or Spain or Thailand or whatever. Um, but, um, you know, I certainly, in just having conversations, whether it's conversations I've had with the two of you over time or conversations I have with others who are in international markets, we definitely hear that. Right. You know, that perception, um, which validates a lot of what I know I can speak, I think, at least for Jeff and I, what we feel and what we see going on, that causes us to have a lot of very high degree of discomfort with what's happening.

Speaker B: I mean, I think, too. Sorry, Greg, to interrupt Greg's point on that. We felt so uncomfortable with what's happening that we actually let, uh, our government contract, uh, to provide services to the federal government expire and withdrew from the market we refuse to support. Hm, the market with our services, knowing what they're probably going to do with AI, whether that's to pull people off the streets and deport them illegally or worse. You know, I mean, there's nothing I would put past this administration to do wrong is the way I would put it. You know, like, I don't think these guys have a moral compass. I think they're amoral, if that makes any sense. And so with that in mind, that puts you in a position where if you do business with them, um, are

Speaker C: you, uh, are you complicit?

Speaker B: Are you complicit? And we felt that, yes, we would be complicit if we did business with them and decided to not offer the services to them. I, uh, mean, is that fair, Craig?

Speaker C: Yeah, I think that's absolutely fair. And I think this even gets us back in A way to the broader conversation that we could have, at least for a little bit. And some of the time we have left around, like democracy and the role of AI as it relates to democracy, because we talk about how AI will democratize, a whole bunch of stuff. But typically when a technology company talks about democratization, it really just means centralization. It's not democratization at all. Um, and you, Rebecca, uh, mentioned specifically, obviously democracy is a cornerstone of the European value system. You believe very strongly in it. We believe very strongly in it, as well as people. You would like to think that our country and our government believe strongly in it and that the technology companies who are now wielding so much power believe in it. But we also know, I mean, it's no secret, no surprise that in many ways Facebook is complicit in Donald Trump's first election.

Speaker E: Right?

Speaker C: And now we're seeing all of the big AI labs kowtow2 buddy up with and ultimately, you know, to their credit, I suppose, become partners in writing this AI action plan, uh, where it, you know, it very explicitly parrots the Silicon Valley narrative around AI and they will be rewarded with big AI contracts from the federal government and they're rewarded with deregulation, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Um, that sounds very dystopian. Um, but would you also, I guess, argue. I guess the other side of it is how can AI become a force for good, a force for supporting, growing, building upon the democratic foundations that we've all grown up with.

Speaker E: Um, before I answer that question, I would like to entertain, ah, maybe a spooky thought experiment. Uh, I mean, uh, I don't know if you would bet on AGI. I guess not. But, uh, let's suppose, um, uh, we had something like AGI in Trump's hands, uh, what would he do with that? Um, and, um, philosophers like, uh, thought experiments for. For many reasons. Uh, um, I would say a good reason, um, uh, for such thought experiments is that if you think that's true, ah, that can make, uh, some questions, uh, clearer, can clarify, um, um, um, the meaning. For example, um.

Speaker B: Thomas, you're putting me in, for example,

Speaker E: what we mean by a democratic AI

Speaker B: or

Speaker E: an AI for good, uh, uh, purposes. Um, um, in service, in the service of humanity, things like that. Um, um. So, um, ah, I tend to think that to answer that question, we have to make these kinds of spooky, um, uh, um, uh, thought experiments. What could happen if things went wrong? Uh, what would happen if m. The Trump administration had its hands on and AGI and would classify it. What would happen there? Um, okay, I leave it to your imagination. Um, um. When it comes to democracy, um, I would say, um, there is a great potential in AI. Um, um. But, um, um, um, we have to realize that potential. To give you an example, uh, uh, uh, uh, you can use large language models to provide people with uh, different perspectives on political issues. Uh, but you have to do it. You have to create environments, uh, which um, make such things possible. Yeah. Um, but uh, that would be a great project, um, for my feeling, to look for ways for these kinds of purposes, uh, uh, not to think. Okay. Uh, we have this super powerful AI, Call it AGI or uh, any other name. And, and um, this, uh, AGI will do this or that. Yeah. No, we humans, uh, have to do it. We have to um, create uh, um, these kinds of uh, applications, these kinds of platforms, uh, environments, whatever. Whether in the workplace, um, uh, uh, whether in society, uh, uh, I'm very worried, um, uh, for example about the use of AI in the workplace because I think, um, maybe it goes into the wrong direction and we don't speak honestly about it because um, uh, there is lots of human washing, to put it that way. Yeah. Uh, with the use of AI, um, we have to find new ways, uh, to think about these things, uh, for uh, purposes like democracy. How can we foster, how can we promote democracy with AI? That's a political question. We have to find answers to that.

Speaker D: And I think I just want to add uh, one small point to that. Um, I think it is very important whether we're talking about democracy or the workplace, that it's a paradox. Indeed. In order to make good use of AI, we paradoxically need to be able to do without it in order to reflect on what we really want to do with it.

Speaker B: And not unfortunately, I feel like I uh, was going to say I feel like future generations will not be able to do that.

Speaker C: That's, that's what's. That's what's I think frightening in a lot of ways. And just as you, you just take the simple example of what's happening with web search today beginning to happen, at least from search engines to answer engines, where, you know, the idea of exploring down page after page of Google links to find your sources and do your research, and now they're saying no, no, no, that's wasted effort. We're going to just serve you the answer. So rather than AI being, as you know, Thomas described, expansive, right, where it gives you exposure to more perspectives so you can make more informed choices, it's being used in a way that is ultimately reductive. Right. And it gives you the single definitive answer. And for generations that have not built their critical thinking skills, their media literacy skills, their digital literacy skills, it becomes a matter of a self fulfilling prophecy for the reason Rebecca you just described, which is a generation growing up that maybe won't know how to do without it. And I think that is very scary.

Speaker B: Absolutely.

Speaker E: And for me, um, the most scary perspective, um, is um, uh, not that uh, some super powerful AI or AGI, uh, will wipe us all out one day, but that it makes us stupid. Yeah. Makes us stupid, uh, before it wipes us out. So, um, uh, because um, I mean when we get used to cognitive uploading, um, um, as we see it, uh, um, um, that's at least my observation. Ah, that we get used not to critically think for ourselves, uh, but to upload syncing to the machine. Um, and that's a problem. Yeah,

Speaker D: also robs us. Yeah. And it's all. It also robs us of our resilience. Ah, we are less resilient.

Speaker E: To compare it with a very familiar example. Yeah, I mean, uh, but which is not entirely harmless, but maybe harmless in comparison. Um, let me compare that to um, gps, uh, I mean, uh, at least in Europe, uh, and you can take my own example, um, if you switch out my GPS in a car, uh, you will find me completely helpless, uh, so I won't find my way home. Maybe that's different. That's different. That's different in America. Um, but I would say in analogy something similar. Um, um, uh, we will observe with AI. So it's a kind of um, cognitive, um, offloading, um, uh, which makes us as helpless as uh, uh, gps, uh, uh, makes us in the long run incapable of um, uh, navigating our ways ourselves.

Speaker B: You know, I'll give you my worst fear. I'm not going to dismiss what you're saying, uh, but I'll give you where I think it goes off the rails because I hear a lot of these types of things. And also uh, complete replacement at work. Right. I think the dangerous AI is going to be used to repress the table. And you look at. To your point, Thomas, I'm not saying AGI, but I'm just saying regular AI in this administration's hands is a really dangerous thing because it could be used to reproduct them at work. I was in the postal, uh, service, uh, as a contractor during Trump 1.0. And at the end of the administration he started to police uh, federal employees and Contractors that spoke negatively about him on the systems and fired them. And I, uh, think what we're going to see is that kind of repression start to happen, not just with the government, which is already happening, but also this kind of using AI to monitor and weed out opposition, uh, and then the workforce, even at a company to weed out people that don't like bosses, don't like managers that aren't toeing the party line, which to some extent friction is good for innovation as we know. Um, and you want people challenging things, you want people trying to do things better and to evolve the company to evolve processes. Uh, but I do see repression happening in that way. And I also see repression happening in a sense of, in a very Big Brother sense, going back to Orwell in 48, 1948, um, literally making sure people are butts and seats doing what they're supposed to be doing and if they're not, then terminating them. And I do see that as a really hidden element of this that people are not talking about.

Speaker E: But don't you think, chap, that um, AI will also lead to job replacement as a kind of repression?

Speaker B: I actually, I don't as much as being talked about and that's only because I don't think the technology is as functional as people hype it up to be. So I do see it replacing 20 to 30% of your tasks. But to your point in that vein, the employer will expect you to be that much more productive. And if you're not, then you get replaced.

Speaker E: But I'm afraid that employers uh, could use um, AI as a kind of, um, tool of repression, let's say as a threat for the employees. Okay. I, uh, mean, um, um, we, one day we could replace you with AI. Yeah.

Speaker C: So, yeah, we're already seeing that show up as a threat. Not, you know, I think you have to look at, I think there's been obviously a number of high profile, fairly large rounds of layoffs from big companies. And typically the story and the media is these layoffs are because of AI, uh, when in reality they're more likely to be because of the economic swings back and forth, the uncertainty, the way people's profit margins are getting hit. And AI might be a scapegoat in a lot of these cases. However, as long as the narrative, even just the uh, narrative is we are replacing these entire job classes, or even just your job personally with AI, it becomes that tool of repression, even just there, because it creates this mindset of, you know, the, you know, my new digital boss is watching me right Or a, you know, a machine can do my job. Um, and it has, you know, lots and lots of negative effects, I think for better or for worse. And I think it's been an important conversation that we've had here. Um, but I think naturally, because we see what's happening and we're putting it within the context of everything else happening outside of AI um, we've hit on a lot of sort of this sort of dark, dangerous underbelly of the revolution, evolution we're in here. Um, whether it's repressing workers, whether it's social engineering and you know, repressing entire classes of people, whether it's this sort of world domination, AI as a weapon mindset that seems to be forming here and came out of the AI action plan. Whether it's China butting up against America, whether it's will Europe rise and take the moral compass? Uh, will Europe be sovereign in the sense of sovereign AI all of these things sound very negative. But one of the things that I know from both of you, having had conversations from reading your magazine, every time it comes out just for people who are listening, when I say magazine, I really mean magazine. Uh, for those watching, they saw Rebecca hold it up like a legitimate newish print magazine that you can buy on newsstands, at least in Germany. Um, we can get an English translated version here, digital. But I mean, that's a bold move to go old school. Print magazine, um, you know, that's, you know, zigging where the world zags. But anyway, we've been really kind of hitting on the sort of the downsides in a lot of ways. But I know that both of you wholeheartedly believe in a human forward future and that it's AI for humans, not humans for AI. Right. Um, you know, I'd love to, if we can maybe end on a hopeful note, and I'm going to force you to kind of think like a futurist. What would you hope to see in a human forward future?

Speaker D: I think I want to see a new definition of specialization. It's no longer your just human. You need to really work hard on your skills and your specialization and your expertise in whatever. But I think I like to have it, uh, vice versa. Um, be special, be human. Because your true specialty lies in being human, humane and finding out about what you're all about. For instance, um, vulnerable. I think this is really exciting.

Speaker E: Well, my hope, uh, maybe also my prediction is, um, that AI will help us, uh, to solve the really big questions, to solve cancer, um, to solve the climate Change problem, things like that. Um, what I don't hope is um, that um, AI robs us of our creativity, um, ah, of our human thinking skills, um, but I'm confident that um, the human experience with all its weaknesses will endure in a sense, uh, and will survive, um, uh, um, let me say this, uh, or resist this kind of temptation, um, that might come from an AI. So I'm optimistic that we as humanity will find ways, um, to make use of AI uh, in a way that keeps us uh, not only, um, in a way in the driver's seat, but maybe it's a little bit paradoxical. It keeps us in the driver's seat, uh, but um, also helps um, us to solve problems, uh, that we are simply too stupid, um, uh, to solve ourselves. So um, in that way, um, I'm really confident and um, AI will uh, contribute to a good future for humanity.

Speaker C: And that's probably a good note to end on. Where's a good place for people to learn about the work you're doing? To download a copy of the White Paper to subscribe to the magazine, if

Speaker D: they're interested, please follow us on LinkedIn. Um, it's the most easy way probably. And um, we have also the website Human. Then, uh, the White paper. I wanted to emphasize the White paper is for free. You can download it for free via LinkedIn or our homepage. Please give us your feedback. We love to have your perspective and um, yeah, to know uh, what you're thinking about all that.

Speaker C: Excellent. And just to be clear, when Rebecca says white paper that really undersells what this is. This could be a hardcover book published and sold in bookstores around the world. It is north of 100 pages. It's got dozens of essays, all sorts of different perspectives from experts in virtually every field from across the world. It's really, really, really well done and very deep and rich in insight. Uh, beautiful, awesome and beautifully designed. Much beautifully designed. Like me and Jeff. Um, but, um, we will of course share all of these links, uh, in the show notes and make sure you can connect with Thomas and Rebecca online and learn more about the work they're doing with Human. Um, with that as our closing note, Jeff, would you like to do our typical end of show rollout into the credit?

Speaker B: Right. If you liked what you heard today and you enjoyed the conversation and it got you thinking, please punch the like button and share it with your friends. We welcome subscribers. We welcome feedback. You can find ways to contact us on the no brainer podcast.com page and please do. If I had not already said this. Uh, do review, do subscribe wherever you might be. And with that, we are out of here. Thank you Rebecca and Thomas.

Speaker D: Thank you, thank you.

Speaker A: Class is now in session and the UPS store is here to help you Ace arriving on campus. Our certified packing experts can pack everything you need from desktops to decor. Plus, when you pack and ship with us, you get our exclusive pack and ship guarantee. Your items arrive safe or your money back. Restrictions and limitations apply. To get a 20% off packing coupon and for full details, visit theupsstore.com packing

Speaker B: this podcast is heard along the Marketing Podcast Network.

Speaker C: For more great marketing podcasts, visit marketingpodcasts.net.