Misleading Structure and Focus
Nearly six out of nine chapters focus exclusively on AI, leaving the actual historical analysis feeling rushed and superficial. This imbalance may disappoint readers expecting a more comprehensive historical account.

Lack of Depth and Rigour
Many of his claims about historical belief systems or societal structures are presented without adequate evidence or citation.

Oversimplification of Complex Issues

It's our responsibility to stop ourself from doing stupid things from behaving irresponsible and unwise way.
We should each do whatever we can with the limited power and the limited wisdom that we have.

Hopefuly together we can use our power wisely and create a better world for not just all the humans
and all the inhabitants of planet Earth.

So if you had a magic wand and you could give Google the next big project for us to work on.

An AI system gets to know me in order to protech me and not in order to sell me products or make me click on advertisements and so forth.

this was 6 yrs ago.

AI: Alien Intellignece? Alien Invasion?

Harari’s diagnosis appears to conflate the tool (AI) with its users (humans), leading to a skewed perception of the threat landscape. My point here is that, regardless of the problems he identifies, most of which are really important, we would be making a mistake if we subjectivize AI and forget human responsibility and the system in which AI emerges and develops. At its core, ChatGPT -the most famous system- is a mirror that projects our own linguistic and cognitive patterns, not an autonomous entity capable of intentional “hacking” or manipulation. At least not now. [1]

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. - Albert Einstein

Why the World Isn’t Fair

21 Lessons for the 21st Century - PDF - Yuval Noah Harari

NATIONALISM

Global problems need global answers

Given that the whole of humankind now constitutes a single civilisation, with all people sharing common challenges and opportunities, why do Britons, Americans, Russians and numerous other groups turn towards nationalistic isolation?

Each of these three problems – nuclear war, ecological collapse and technological disruption – is enough to threaten the future of human civilisation. But taken together, they add up to an unprecedented existential crisis, especially because they are likely to reinforce and compound one another.

The rest of the world can hopefully learn from the European example. Even on a united planet there will be plenty of room for the kind of patriotism that celebrates the uniqueness of my nation and stresses my special obligations towards it. Yet if we want to survive and flourish, humankind has little choice but to complement such local loyalties with substantial obligations towards a global community. A person can and should be loyal simultaneously to her family, her neighbourhood, her profession and her nation – why not add humankind and planet Earth to that list? True, when you have multiple loyalties, conflicts are sometimes inevitable. But then who said life was simple? Deal with it.

To conclude, the nationalist wave sweeping over the world cannot turn the clock back to 1939 or 1914. Technology has changed everything by creating a set of global existential threats that no nation can solve on its own. A common enemy is the best catalyst for forging a common identity, and humankind now has at least three such enemies – nuclear war, climate change and technological disruption. If despite these common threats humans choose to privilege their particular national loyalties above everything else, the results may be far worse than in 1914 and 1939.

We need a new global identity because national institutions are incapable of handling a set of unprecedented global predicaments. We now have a global ecology, a global economy and a global science – but we are still stuck with only national politics. This mismatch prevents the political system from effectively countering our main problems. To have effective politics, we must either deglobalise the ecology, the economy and the march of science – or we must globalise our politics. Since it is impossible to de-globalise the ecology and the march of science, and since the cost of de-globalising the economy would probably be prohibitive, the only real solution is to globalise politics. This does not mean establishing a global government – a doubtful and unrealistic vision. Rather, to globalise politics means that political dynamics within countries and even cities should give far more weight to global problems and interests.

On GOP losses, conspiracies, AI, religion & history: Melber 'Summit Series'