Reinvent Themselves
.
That's Nobody Knows, how the world look like in 2050, except it will be different from today. So the most important things to emphasize in education are things like
- EI (Emotional Intelligence),
- and MENTAL stability.
Because the one things, that they will need for sure, is the ability to reinvent themselves repeatedly, throughout their lives. It's really the first time in history, that we don't fully know, what particular skills to teach young people. Because we just don't know in what kind of world they will be living. But we do know, the will have to reinvent themselves.
Tidak ada orang yang bisa memastikan, bagaimana kondisi dunia, pada tahun 2050 misalnya, kecuali mereka akan menemukan hal yang sangat berbeda daripada hari ini. Jadi hal yang sangat penting adalah tentang bagaimana mempertajam pelajaran tentang misalkan
- Kecerdasan Emosional,
- dan Kestabilan Mental.
Kenapa demikian? Karena satu hal yang pasti mereka butuhkan adalah kemampuanya untuk menemukan kembali, siapa diri mereka sebenarnya? berulang kali, sepanjang hidup mereka. Ini benar-benar pertama kalinya dalam sejarah, kita tidak sepenuhnya tahu, keterampilan khusus apa yang mestinya diajarkan kepada generasi muda kita. Karena kita bener2 tidak tahu (atau tidak menjumpainya, sebelumya, karena perubahan begitu cepat, dan teknologi terus (berkembang) model dunia seperti apa? yang akan mereka huni. Tapi satu hal yang kita tahu adalah, mereka mesti mengenal siapa diri mereka sebenarnya.
And Especially if you think about something, like the job market, may be the greatest problem the will face will be psychological. Because at least beyond at certain age. It's ver very difficult for people to reinvent themselves. So we kind of need to build identities. I mean if previously, if traditionally people built identities like stones house, it's very deep foundations. Now it makes more sense to build identities like tents that you can fold and move elsewhere. Because we don't know where you will have to move. But you will have to move.
Khsusnya jika kita berpikir tentang sesuatu, seperti pasar kerja, mungkin masalah terbesar yang akan dihadapi adalah masalah psikologis. Karena setidaknya pada orang2 yang beranjak dewasa, ini adalah hal yang sangat sulit untuk menemukan siapa sebenarnya diri kita ini. Jadi kita bener2 butuh untuk membangun identitas. Maksus saya, jika kita merujuk pada pemahaman identitas secara tradisional (zaman dulu) itu seperti sebuah rumah tembok, yang mesti diberi pondasi yang kuat di bawahnya, sehingga sulit untuk berpindah-pindah. TETAPI kini, di dunia modern, membangun sebuah identitas itu seperti TENDA, yang engkau setiap saat bisa melipatnya dan berpindah ke tempat yang lain. Karena kita tidak tahu kemana kita akan berpindah. Tetapi kita mesti berpindah (berubah).
Liberal World View
.
Well, the entire liberal democratic system is built on philosophical ideas we've inherited from the 18th century. Especially the idea of free will, which underlies the basic models of the liberal world view like
- the voter knows best,
- the customer is always right,
- beauty is in the eye of the beholder,
- follow your heart,
- do what feels good.
All these liberal mottoes, which are the foundation of our political and economic system. They assume that the ultimate authority is the free choices of individuals. I mean, there are, of course, all kinds of limitations and boundary cases and so forth, but when push comes to shove, for instance, in the economic field, then corporations will tend to retreat behind this last line of defense. That this is what the customers want.
Baik.. seluruh sistem demokrasi liberal yang ada di dunia ini, dibangun berdasarkan ide filosofis yang telah diwariskan sejak abad 18. Khuususnya ide tentang FREE WILL (kebebasan bersuara), yang mana merupakan landasan dari model liberalisme, seperti
- Pemilih itu tahu mana yang terbaik
- Pelanggan itu selalu benar
- kecantikan itu tergantung siapa yang melihatnya
- ikuti kata hatimu
- lakukan apa yang membuatmu senang
Semua tentang moto liberal ini merupakan landasan dari sistem politik dan ekonomi. Mereka berasumsi, bahwa otoritas tertinggi adalah bebas untuk menentukan pilihan dari tiap2 individu. Maksud saya, tentu saja ada batasanya, dan ada ruang lingkup tertentu, dan sebagainya. Tetapi ketika kita dorongan itu datang menghampiri, secara instan, pada bidang ekonomi, kemudian merambah ke korporasi yang akhirnya tetap saja akan cenderung mundur ke garis pertenahan terakhir ini. Apa itu? yaitu pernyataan bahwa mesti sesuai dengan keinginan kustomer (pelanggan).
Free Will and Customer
.
The customer is always right. If the customers want it, it can't be wrong. Who are you to tell the customers that they are wrong?
Now of course, there are many exceptions, but this is the basics of the free market. This is the first and last thing you learn, The customer is always right. So the ultimate authority in the economic field is the desires of the customers. And this is really based on a philosophical and metaphysical view about free will. That the desires of the customer,
- they emanate,
- they represent
the free will of human beings. Which is the highest authority in the universe. And therefore, we must abide by them.
Pelanggan itu tidak bisa salah, dia selalu benar. Jika pelanggan menginginkan sesuatu, mungkin saja itu salah. Tetapi siapa yang akan mengatakan kepada pelanggan, bahwa dia dalam keadaan salah?
Sekarang tentu saja, ada banyak pengecualian2, tetapi ini adalah dasar dari pasar bebas (free market). Ini adalah untuk pertama kali dan terakhir untuk kalian pelajari. Bahwa Pelanggan itu selalu benar, jadi otoritas tertinggi dalam bidang ekonomi adalah keinginan dari pelanggan. Dan ini menjadi dasar dari pandangan filsafat dan metafisik tentang kehendak bebas (free will). Itu tentang keinginan dari para pelanggan yang mereka itu memicu, dan mewakili tentang free will pada kehidupan manusia. Yang mana puncak tertinggi dari otoritas di alam raya ini. Oleh karenanya, kita mesti mematuhi meraka.
Free Will and Voter
.
And it's the same in the political field with the voter knows best. And this was OK for the last two or three centuries. Because even though free will was always a myth and not a scientific reality. I mean, science knows of only two kinds of processes in nature.
- It knows about deterministic processes and
- It knows about random processes.
But a random robot is not free. If you connect a robot, say, to uranium, a piece of uranium, and the decisions of the robot is determined by random processes of the disintegration of uranium atoms. So you will never be able to predict exactly what this robot will do. But this is not freedom. This is just randomness.
Konsep Free Will ini pun juga sama ada di dalam dunia politik, yaitu Voter Knows best (Pemilih itu tahu mana yang terbaik untuknya). Dan pengertian ini pun bisa diterima, bisa kita terima pada era 2 atau 3 abad yang lalu. Tetapi meskipun free will selalu erat dengan (mitos)/ilusi., dan bukan pada ranah sains. Maksudku, sains hanya mengetahui satu dari dua hal di di alam ini. Apa saja itu?
- Sains berkaitan tentang PROSES DETERMINISTIK
- Sains beriaktan tentang PROSES ACAK
Dan kombinasi dari keduanya adalah termasuk proses PROBABILISTIK (kemungkinan). Tetapi sesuatu yang acak, dan peluang bukan termasuk di dalam bahasan freedom. Maksudnya adalah kita tidak bisa memprediksi apa yang akan dilakukan seseorang dengan tepat, karena ada sesuatu yang acak, untuk mereka lakukan. Tetapi Robot yang acak pun bukan suatu kebebasan. Jika kamu terhubung dengan sebuah robot, berkata pada uranium, atau sebuah uranium dan keputusan dari robot tidak tergantung atau dipengaruhi pada proses acak pada disintegrasi dari atom uranium. Jadi kita tidak akan pernah bisa dengan tepat memperkirakan apa yang akan robot lakukan. Tetapi ini bukan freedom, bukan kebebasan, ini adalah sesuatu yang acak saja.
Willing
.
Now this was always true from a scientific perspective. Humans, certainly they have a will,
- They make decisions.
- They make choices.
But they are not free to choose the will. The choices are not independent. They depend on a million factors,
- genetic and hormonal
- and social and cultural
- and so forth,
which we don't choose. Now up till now in history, the humans were so complicated that for a practical perspective. It still made sense to believe in free will. Because nobody could understand you better than you understand yourself. You had this inner realm of
- desires
- and thoughts
- and feelings
which you had privileged access to this inner realm.
Sekarang ini hal yang selalu bisa dibuktikan adalah pada perspektif sains. Manusia, tentu memiliki kehendak,
- kehendak untuk memutuskan sesuatu
- dan kehendak untuk memilih.
Tetapi dia tidak bisa bebas2 saja memilih kehendaknya. Karena pilihan2 itu tidak berdiri sendiri (setiap pilihan ada konsekuensi, dan ada faktor yang mendukungnya). Faktor yang mempengaruhi pilihan misalnya
- Genetik, dan Hormonal
- Sosial dan Budaya
- dan lain sebagainya
Yang mana hal itu tidak kita pilih. Saat ini, dalam dunia sejarah, manusia itu sangat kompleks dalam pandangan prakteknya. Masih masuk akal untuk percaya tentang free will. Kenapa demikian? karena tidak setiap orang bisa memahami tentang orang lain, kecuali pribadinya sendiri yang tahu. Kita semua punya realitas yang ada di dalam diri kita (batin), tentang
- Keinginan
- Pengetahuan
- dan Perasaan
Yang contoh ketiga hal itu dapat kita akses sendiri2 di dalam diri kita sendiri, yang orang lain tidak bisa memasukinya.
WILSON WHITE: Yeah but that has'nt changed today, right?
Previlege Access
.
It has changed. There is no longer the privilege access now belongs to corporations like Google. They can have access to things happening ultimately inside my body and brain, which I don't know about. There is somebody out there and not just one. All kinds of corporations and governments that maybe not today, maybe in five years, 10 years, 20 years, they will have privileged access to what's happening inside me. More privileged than my access. They could understand what is happening in my brain better than I understand it, which means- they will never be perfect.
Bukankah hal itu tidak berubah sampai sekarang?
Saat ini ada perbedaan, ada perubahan tentang pandangan itu, bahwa saat ini akses prvilege sekarang dimiliki oleh korporasi, seperti Google misalnya. Mereka mempunyai akses terhadap sesuatu yang terjadi di dalam tubuh dan otak kita, yang mana kita tidak tahu tentang itu. Secara umum tidak ada seorang pun yang bisa mengelaknya. Setiap korporasi dan pemerintah mungkin tidak sekarang ini, mungkin terjadi 5 tahun ke depan, 10tahun ke depan, 20tahun ke depan, mereka akan memiliki akses previlege untuk mengetahui apa yang terjadi di dalam diri kita sendiri, dan bahkan mereka bisa lebih tahu daripada diri kita sendiri. Mereka bisa mengerti apa yang terjadi di dalam otak kita lebih baik, daripada aku sendiri memahaminya,- maksudnya mereka tidak bisa mengetahuinya dengan detail.
WILSON WHITE: Right. But you will, as a free person, like, you will have delegated that access or that ability to this corporation or this machine or this-
No, you don't have to give them permission. I mean, in some countries maybe you have no choice at all. But even in a democracy like the United States, a lot of the information that enables an external entity to hack you. Nobody asks you whether you want to give it away or not. Now at present, most of the data that is being collected on humans is still from the skin outwards. We haven't seen nothing yet. We are still just at the tip of this revolution, because at present, whether it's
- and Facebook
- and Amazon
- or whether it's the government
- or whatever,
they all are trying to understand people mainly on the basis of
- what I search,
- what I buy,
- where I go,
- who I meet.
It's all external.
Tetapi bukankah kita sebagai pribadi akan mengatur akes mana saja yang masuk ke dalam tubuh kita, yang bisa sampai tahu ke hal2 detail di dalam tubuh? Sehingga akses yang kita kehendaki ini pun akan mempengaruhi korporasi, atau mesin2 media sosial misalnya.
Saat ini, mungkin kalian tidak memberikan ijin kepada mereka, Maksud saya, di beberapa negara bahkan engkau tidak memiliki pilihan sendiri. Bahkan di dalam demokrasi, sebagaimana di US.
The really big revolution, which is coming very quickly. Will be when the Al revolution and machine learning and all that, the infotech revolution, meets and merges with the biotech revolution and goes under the skin. Biometric sensors or even external devices. Now we are developing the ability, for example, to know the blood pressure of individuals to know the blood pressure of individuals just by looking at them. You don't need to put a sensor on a person. Just by looking at the face, you can tell, what is the blood pressure of that individual? And by analyzing tiny movements in the eyes, in the mouth, you can tell all kinds of things from the current mood of the person-
- are you angry,
- are you bored-to things like sexual orientation.
So we are talking about a world in which humans are no longer a black box. open. Nobody really understands what happens inside, so we say, OK. Free will. Now, the box is OPEN. And it's open to others, certain others, more than it is open to-you don't understand what's happening in your brain, but some
- corporation
- or government
- or organization
could understand that.
And that's a theme that you explore in "Homo Deus" pretty--
Attention to A
They're both in "Homo Deus and in "21 Lessons." This is like, maybe the most important thing to understand is that this is really happening. And at present, almost all the attention goes to the Al. Like, now I've been on a two-week tour of the US for the publication of the book. Everybody wants to speak about Al.
Like, Al. Previous book, "Homo Deus" came out, nobody cared about Al. Two years later, it's everywhere.
WILSON WHITE: It's the new hot thing.
YUVAL NOAH HARARI: Yeah. And I try to emphasize, it's not Al. The really important thing is actually the other side
- It's the biotech.
- It's the combination.
It's only the combination-it's only with the help of biology that Al becomes really revolutionary.
Because just do a thought experiment. Let's say we had the best, the most developed Al in the world. But humans, we're not animals. We're not biochemical algorithms. But they were something like transcendent souls that make decisions through free will. In such a world, Al would not have mattered much, because Al in such a world could never have replaced teachers and lawyers and doctors. You could not even build self-driving cars in such a world. Because to put a self driving car on the road, you need biology not just computers. You need to understand humans. For example if somebody approaching the road, the car needs to tell, is this
- an eight-year-old,
- an 18-year-old,
- or an 80-year-old,
and needs to understand the different behaviors of
- a human child,
- a human teenager,
- and a human adult.
And this is biology. And similarly, to have really effective self-driving taxi, you need the car to understand a lot of things about human psychology. The psychology of the passengers
- coming in,
- what they want,
- and so forth.
So if you take the biotech out of the equation Al by itself won't really go very far.
WILSON WHITE:
So I want to push you there, because I think it's easy to arrive at a dystopian view of what that world would look like with the bio and Al and cognitive abilities of machines when they meet. Like, how that can end up, right? And we see that in Hollywood, and that dystopian view is well documented. But I want to explore with you, like, what are some of the benefits of that combination? And how can that lead to an alternative world view than what's explored more deeply in "Homo Deus?"
YUVAL NOAH HARARI:
Well, it should be emphasized that there are enormous benefits. Otherwise, there would be no temptation. If it was only bad, nobody would do it. Google won't research it. Nobody would invest in it. And it should also be emphasized that technology is never Nobody would invest in it. And it should also be emphasized that technology is never deterministic. You can build either paradise or hell with these technologies.
They are not just- they don't have just one type of usage. And as a historian and as a social critic and maybe philosopher, I tend to focus more on the dangerous scenarios, simply because for obvious reasons, the entrepreneurs and the corporations and the scientists and engineers are developing these technologies. They naturally tend to focus on the positive scenarios, on all the good it can do. But yes, definitely technology, it can do a tremendous amount of good to humanity, to take the example of the self-driving cars.
So at present, about 1.25 million people are killed each year in traffic accidents. More than 90% of these accidents are because of human errors. If we can replace humans with self-driving cars, it's not that we'll have no car accidents. That's impossible. But we'll probably save a million lives every year. So this is a tremendous thing. And similarly, the combination of being able to understand what's happening inside my body, this also implies that you can provide people with the best health care in history. You can, for example, diagnose diseases long before the person understands that there is something wrong.
At present, the human mind or human awareness that there is something wrong. At present, the human mind or human awareness is still a very critical junction in health care. Like, if something happens inside my body and I don't know about it, I won't go to the doctor. So if something like, I don't know, cancer is now spreading in my liver and I still don't feel anything, I won't go to the doctor. I won't know about it. Only when I start feeling pain and nausea and all kinds of things I can't explain. , they So after some time, I go to the doctor. He does all kinds of tests, And finally discover, oh, something's wrong. And very often, by that time, it's very expensive and painful. Not necessarily too late, but expensive and painful to take care of it. If I could have an Al doctor monitoring my body 24 hours a day with biometric sensors and so forth, it could discover this long before I feel anything at this stage when it's still very cheap and easy and painless to cure it. So this is wonderful.
WILSON WHITE: But in that world, it's an Al doctor, and not a human doctor. And I think one of the potential outcomes that you warn about is Al or machines or that combination of bio and Al replacing us, replacing us as humans. And I'd like to think that one thing that makes us human is having meaning in life or having a purpose for living. That's kind of a unique thing that humans have. And I don't think it's something that we would readily want to give up, right? So as this technology is evolving and we're developing it, it's likely something that we'll bake in this need to have meaning and purpose in life. You talk about in "21 Lessons" this notion that God is dead, or is God back? And the role that religion may play in how we progress as humans. Is there a place for that notion of God or religion to capture and secure this notion of meaning in life or purpose in life?
YUVAL NOAH HARARI: Well, it all depends on the definitions. I mean, there are many kinds of gods, and people understand very different things by the word religion. If you think about God, so usually people have very two extremely different gods in mind when they say the word God. One god is the cosmic mystery. We don't understand why there is something rather than nothing, why the Big Bang happened. What is human consciousness? There are many things we don't understand about the world. And some people choose to call these mysteries by the name of God. God is the reason there is something rather than nothing. God is behind human consciousness. But the most characteristic thing of that god is that we know absolutely nothing about him, her, it, they.
There is nothing concrete. It's a mystery. And this is kind of the god we talk about when late at night in the desert we sit around a campfire and we think about the meaning of life. That's one kind of god. I have no problem at all with this god. I like it very much. Then there is another god which is the petty lawgiver. The chief characteristic of this god, we know a lot of extremely concrete things about that god. We know what he thinks about female dress code, what kind of dresses he likes women to wear.
We know what he thinks about sexuality. We know what he thinks about food, about politics, and we know these tiny little things. And this is a god people talk about when they stand around, burning a heretic. We'll burn you because you did something that this god-we know everything about this god, and he doesn't like it that you do this, so we burn you. And it's like a magic trick that when you come and talk about God-so how do you know that God exists, and so forth? People would say, well, the Big Bang and human consciousness, and science can't explain this, and science can't explain that. And this is true. And then like a magician swapping one card for another, they will, shh! Take out the mystery god and place the petty lawgiver, and you end up with something strange like, because we don't understand
- the Big Bang,
- women must dress with long sleeves
- and men shouldn't have sex together.
And what's the connection? I mean, how did you get from here to there? So I prefer to use different terms here. And it's the same with religion. People understand very different things with this word. I tend to separate religions from spirituality. Spirituality is about questions. Religion is about answers. Spirituality is when you have some big question about life like,
- what is humanity?
- What is the good?
- Who am I?
WILSON WHITE: Our purpose in life. Like, why are we here? YUVAL NOAH HARARI:
What should I do in life?
And this is kind of and you go on a quest, looking deeply into these questions. And you're willing to go after these questions wherever they take you.
WILSON WHITE: You could just Google it.
YUVAL NOAH HARARI: Yeah. Maybe in the future. But so far, at least some of these questions, I think when you type, like, what is the meaning of life, you get 42. Like, it is the number one result in Google search. So you go on a spiritual quest.
And religion is the exact opposite. Religion is somebody comes and tells you, this is the answer. You must believe it. If you don't believe this answer, then you will burn in hell after you die, or we'll burn you here even before you die. And it's really opposite things.
Now I think that at the present moment in history, spirituality is probably more important than in any previous time in history, because we are now forced to confront spiritual questions, whether we like it or not.
WILSON WHITE: And do you think that confrontation with those questions, that will inform how we allow technology to develop and be deployed?
YUVAL NOAH HARARI: Exactly Now throughout history, you always had a small minority of people who was very interested in the big spiritual and philosophical questions of life and most people just ignored them and went along with their, like, you know, fighting about who owns this land and who this goad herd, to whom it belongs, and so forth. Now we live in a very unique time in history when engineers must tackle spiritual questions. If you are building a self-driving car, by force, you have to deal with questions like free will.
By force, you have to deal with the example everybody gives. The self-driving car. Suddenly two kids jump-- running after a ball jump in front of the car. The only way to save the two kids is to swerve to the side and fall off a cliff and kill the owner of the car who is asleep in the backseat. What should the car do?
Now philosophers have been arguing about these questions for thousands of years with very little impact on human life. But engineers, they are very impatient. If you want to put the self-driving car on the road tomorrow or next year, you need to tell the algorithm what to do. And the amazing thing about this question now is that whatever you decide, this will actually happen. Previously, with philosophical discussions, like you had, I don't know, Kant and Schopenhauer and Mill discussing this issue, should I kill the two kids or should I sacrifice my life? And even if they reach an agreement- and very little impact on actual behavior.
Because even if you agree theoretically, this is the right thing to do, at a time of crisis, philosophy has little power. You react from your gut, not from your philosophical theories But with a self-driving car, if you program the algorithm to kill the driver and not the driver, the owner of the car, and not the two kids, you have a guarantee, a mathematical guarantee that this is exactly what the car will do. So you have to think far more carefully than ever before, what is the right answer? So in this sense, very old spiritual and philosophical questions are now practical questions of engineering, which you cannot escape if you want, for example, to put a self-driving car on the road.
WILSON WHITE: I want to go back to put a self-driving car on the road. WILSON WHITE: I want to go back to this concept of religion versus spirituality and the role they play in "Sapiens," your first book. You talk about this concept of human fictions or stories that we create as humans, I guess to get us through life and to get us through our interactions with each other.
Those fictions, those stories, as you put it, they've served us well. They've resulted in a lot of good for humankind, but have also been the source of wars and conflict and human suffering. How do you square that with this moment we're in where spirituality is an integral part in how I mean, all this story about Jesus rising from the dead and being the Son of God, this is fake news.
WILSON WHITE: Wait, that's not true?
YUVAL NOAH HARARI: If you ask a Jew, like a rabbi. Even though rabbis tend to be, like-to hedge their bets. So maybe not. But then you go to the Christians. They will say, no, no, no, no, no no. This is true. But the Muslims, they believe in fake news. All this story about Muhammad meeting the archangel Gabriel and the Quran coming from Heaven, this is all fake news. And then the Muslims, they'll tell you this about Hinduism. So even in religion it's very clear. The more interesting thing is that the same is true in something in the economy. Corporation, you can't have a modern economy without corporations like we think about integrating technology in our lives?
YUVAL NOAH HARARI: Phew. That's a big question. Well, so far in history, in order to organize humans on a large scale, you always had to have some story, some fiction which humans invented, but which enough humans believed in order to agree on how to behave. It's not just religion. This is the obvious example. And even religious people would agree that all religions except one are fictional stories. Except for, of course, my religion. If you ask a Jew, then he will tell you, yes. Judaism is the truth. That's for sure. But all these billions of Christians and Muslims and Hindus, they believe in fictional stories.
Corporation, you can't have a modern economy without corporations like Google and without money, like dollars. But corporations and currencies, they are also just stories we invented. Google has no physical or biological reality. It is a story created by the powerful shamans we call lawyers. Even if you ask a lawyer, what is Google, like, you push them to, what is it, they will tell you it's a legal fiction. It's not this chair. It belongs to Google, I think. But it's not it. It's not the money. It's the manager. It's not the workers. It's a story created by lawyers. And for example, I mean, if somehow with some natural calamity destroys
Comments
Post a Comment