Will the Future Be Human? – Yuval Noah Harari at the WEF Annual Meeting 2018

– Good afternoon everybody and welcome to a conversation with Professor Yuval Noah Harari. My name’s Gillian Tett. I’m the US managing editor
of the Financial Times. Now there are not many historians who would be put on the main stage of the congress center of
the World Economic Forum sandwiched between
Angela Merkel and Macron. (audience laughing) I think there are even fewer who could fill the room almost
as much as Angela Merkel. And almost none who would
have this experience: As we were waiting in the green room and Angela Merkel came through, Chancellor Merkel came through, she took care to stop, go up to Yuval and
introduce herself and say, I’ve read your book. Pretty amazing. But Yuval Harari has written
two very important books, which have really shaped the debate not just inside governments, but inside many businesses, and many non-governmental
organizations too. One of them, I imagine,
most of you have read – Sapiens. Hands up who in the room has read Sapiens. Okay well, that is pretty impressive. His second book, Homo Deus, took those themes of Sapiens, looking at the history of mankind, threw it into the future, and looked at the issue of digital. He’s got a third book
coming out this summer, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, which is going to look at the present. But what he’s going be talking about today is something that actually
Chancellor Merkel touched on in her own speech, which is a question of data. And what do we do about data today? His ideas are very provocative, very alarming, and something that all of you should pay very close attention to now. Professor Harari, Professor Yuval, the floor is yours. (audience clapping) – Thank you. So hello everybody. Let me just have one minute to get friends with this computer and make sure everything is okay. And can I have a bit more
light on the audience so I can see the faces and not just speak to
a darkness, thank you. So I want to talk to you
today about the future of our species and really the future of life. We are probably one of
the last generations of Homo Sapiens. Within a century or two, earth will be dominated by entities that are more different from us than we are different from Neanderthals or from chimpanzees. Because in the coming generations, we will learn how to engineer bodies, and brains, and minds. These will be the main
products of the economy, of the 21st century economy. Not textiles and vehicles and weapons, but bodies, and brains, and minds. Now how exactly will the future masters
of the planet look like? This will be decided by the people who own the data. Those who control the
data control the future, not just of humanity, but the future of life itself. Because today, data is
the most important asset in the world. In ancient times, land was the most important asset. And if too much land became concentrated in too few hands, humanity split into
aristocrats and commoners. Then in the modern age, in the last two centuries, machinery replaced land as the most important asset. And if too many of the machines became concentrated in too few hands, humanity split into classes, into capitalists and proletariats. Now data is replacing machinery as the most important asset. And if too much of the
data becomes concentrated in too few hands, humanity will split not into classes. It will split into species, into different species. Now why is data so important? It’s important because
we’ve reached the point when we can hack not just computers. We can hack human beings
and other organisms. There is a lot of talk these
days about hacking computers, and email accounts, and bank accounts, and mobile phones. But actually we are gaining the ability to hack human beings. Now what do you need in
order to hack a human being? You need two things. You need a lot of computing power, and you need a lot of data, especially biometric data. Not data about what I buy, or where I go, but data about what is
happening inside my body and inside my brain. Until today, nobody had the necessary computing power, and the necessary data to hack humanity. Even if the Soviet KGB, or the Spanish Inquisition
followed you around everywhere 24 hours a day, watching everything you do, listening to everything you say. Still, they didn’t have
the computing power and the biological knowledge necessary to make sense of what was happening inside your body and brain, and to understand how you feel, and what you think, and what you want. But this is now changing because of two simultaneous revolutions. On the one hand, advances in computer science, and especially the rise
of machine learning and AI are giving us the
necessary computing power. And at the same time, advances in biology, and especially in brain science are giving us the necessary understanding, biological understanding. You can really summarize 150 years of biological research since
Charles Darwin in three words. Organisms are algorithms. This is the big insight of
the modern life sciences that organisms, whether viruses, or bananas, or humans, they are really just
biochemical algorithms. And we are learning how to
decipher these algorithms. Now when the two revolutions merge, when the info-tech revolution merges with the bio-tech revolution, what you get is the ability
to hack human beings. And maybe the most important invention for the merger of info-tech and bio-tech is the biometric sensor that translates biochemical processes in the body and the brain into electronic signals that a computer can store and analyze. And once you have enough
such biometric information and enough computing power, you can create algorithms that know me better than I know myself. And humans really don’t
know themselves very well. This is why algorithms have a real chance of getting to know ourselves better. We don’t really know ourselves. To give an example, when I was 21, I finally realized that I was gay after living for several years in denial. And this is not exceptional. A lot of gay men live in
denial for many years. They don’t know something very
important about themselves. Now imagine the situation
in 10 or 20 years when an algorithm can tell any teenager exactly where he or she is on the gay, straight spectrum, and even how malleable this position is. The algorithm tracks your eye movements, your blood pressure, your brain activity, and tells you who you are. Now maybe you personally wouldn’t like to make
use of such an algorithm. But maybe you find yourself
in some boring birthday party of somebody from your class at school. And one of your friends
has this wonderful idea that I’ve just heard about
this cool new algorithm that tells you your sexual orientation. And wouldn’t it be very a lot of fun if everybody just takes
turns testing themselves on this algorithm as everybody else is
watching and commenting? What would you do? Would you just walk away? And even if you walk away, and even if you keep
hiding from your classmates or from yourself, you will not be able to hide from Amazon, and Alibaba, and the secret police. As you surf the internet, as you watch videos or
check your social feed, the algorithms will be monitoring your eye movements, your blood pressure, your brain activity. And they will know. They could tell Coca-Cola that if you want to sell this person some fuzzy, sugary drink, don’t use the advertisement
with the shirtless girl. Use the advertisement
with the shirtless guy. You wouldn’t even know
that this was happening. But they will know. And this information
will be worth billions. Once we have algorithms
that can understand me better than I understand myself, they could predict my desires, manipulate my emotions, and even take decisions on my behalf. And if we are not careful, the outcome might be the rise of digital dictatorships. In the 20th century, democracy generally
outperformed dictatorship. Because democracy was
better at processing data and making decisions. We are used to thinking about
democracy and dictatorship in ethical or political terms. But actually, these are two different
methods to process information. Democracy processes information
in a distributed way. It distributes the information and the power to make decisions between many institutions and individuals. Dictatorship on the other hand concentrates all the information
and power in one place. Now given the technological
conditions of the 20th century, distributed data processing worked better than
centralized data processing, which is one of the main reasons why democracy outperformed dictatorship, and why, for example, the US economy outperformed
the Soviet economy. But this is true only under the unique
technological conditions of the 20th century. In the 21st century, new technological revolutions, especially AI and machine learning might swing the pendulum
in the opposite direction. They might make
centralized data processing far more efficient than
distributed data processing. And if democracy cannot adapt
to these new conditions, than humans will come
to live under the rule of digital dictatorships. And already at present, we are seeing the formation
of more and more sophisticated surveillance regimes throughout the world. Not just by authoritarian regimes, but also by democratic governments. The US, for example, is building a global surveillance system while my home country of Israel is trying to build a
total surveillance regime in the West Bank. But control of data
might enable human elites to do something even more radical than just build digital dictatorships. By hacking organisms, elites may gain the power to re-engineer the future of life itself. Because once you can hack something, you can usually also engineer it. And if indeed we succeed in hacking and engineering life, this will be not just
the greatest revolution in the history of humanity. This will be the greatest
revolution in biology since the very beginning of life four billion years ago. For four billion years, nothing fundamental changed in the basic rules of the game of life. All of life for four billion years, dinosaurs, amoebas, tomatoes, humans, all of life was subject to
the laws of natural selections and to the laws of organic biochemistry. But this is now about to change. Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design. Not the intelligent design
of some God above the clouds, but our intelligent design, and the intelligent design of our clouds. The IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud, these are the new driving
forces of evolution. And at the same time, science may enable life, after being confined
for four billion years to the limited realm of organic compounds, science may enable life to break out into the inorganic realm. So after four billion
years of organic life, shaped by natural selection, we are entering the era of inorganic life shaped by intelligent design. This is why the ownership
of data is so important. If we don’t regulate it, a tiny elite may come to control not just the future of human societies, but the shape of life forms in the future. So how to regulate the data, the ownership of data. We’ve had 10,000 years of experience regulating the ownership of land. We have had a few centuries of experience regulating the ownership
of industrial machinery. But we don’t have much experience in regulating the ownership of data, which is inherently far more difficult. Because unlike land, and unlike machinery, data is everywhere and
nowhere at the same time. It can move at the speed of light, and you can create as many
copies of it as you want. So does the data about my DNA, my brain, my body, my life, does it belong to me, or to some corporation, or to the government, or perhaps to the human collective? At present, big corporations
are holding much of the data. And people are becoming worried about it. But mandating governments to nationalize the data may curb the power of the big corporations only in order to give rise
to digital dictatorships. And politicians really, many politicians at least, are like musicians. And the instrument they play on is the human emotional
and biochemical system. A politician gives a speech and there is a wave of
fear all over the country. A politician tweets and there is an explosion
of anger and hatred. Now I don’t think we
should give these musicians more sophisticated instruments to play on. And I certainly don’t think
they are ready to be entrusted with the future of life in the universe. Especially as many
politicians and governments seem incapable of producing meaningful visions for the future. And instead, what they sell the public are nostalgic fantasies about going back to the past. And as a historian, I can tell you two things about the past. First of all, it wasn’t fun. You wouldn’t like to really go back there. And secondly, it’s not coming back. So nostalgic fantasies
really are not a solution. So who should own the data? I frankly don’t know. I think the discussion has just begun. Most people when they hear the
talk about regulating data, they think about privacy, about shopping, about companies, corporations
that know where I go and what I buy. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are much more
important things at stake. So the discussion has hardly began and we cannot expect instant answers. We had better call upon our scientists, our philosophers, our lawyers, and even our poets, or especially our poets, to turn their attention
to this big question. How do you regulate the ownership of data? The future, not just of humanity, but the future of life itself may depend on the answer to this question. Thank you. (audience clapping) – Well thank you Professor Harari for an absolutely brilliant, thought provoking, and it must be said, somewhat challenging and depressing talk. I must say, I’m quite
starstruck sitting here listening to that stream of ideas. And I’d like to start with
a very simple question, which is this. You paint this picture of a
future that’s quite scary. How soon do you expect
that future to be here? Are we talking about two
years, 20 years, 200 years? I mean, how soon could we be dealing with
digital dictatorships? – I think that the timescale is decades. I mean in 200 years, I guess there won’t be any Sapiens left. There’ll be something
completely different. Two years is far too soon. So we’re talking about a few decades. Nobody knows exactly how many. – Right now you’re unusual because you actually
stood up on that stage and you said, I don’t
know what the answer is. Okay, that’s not something you hear a lot at the World Economic Forum. It’s admirably humble. But I’m curious, as you look around the world today, do you see any countries, or any groups of people, or any academic groups that seem to be having a
sensible debate about this? Do you see any reason
for encouragement at all? – Well I think the world is divided into a very, very small group of people and institutions who understand what is
happening and what is at stake. And the vast majority, not just of ordinary people, but even of politician and business people who are not really… I mean yes, they hear about data. Yeah, data protection. There are cyber attacks. Somebody might steal my identity
or my bank account details. But as I said, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. I think that my guess, I don’t know, but I guess that some
of the big corporations, like Google, like Facebook, the usual suspects, they understand what is at stake. I also think that some governments, especially the Chinese government, I think they understand what is at stake. I think most, certainly
most humans have no idea. Again, the thing is just to make it clear, it’s the biometric data is the key. When people think about data, they mostly think about
where I go, what I buy. When they think about hacking, they think about computers. They talk about AI,
about machine learning. They forget the other
side of the equation, which is the life sciences, the brain sciences. The brain sciences are
giving us access to here. This is the real, what we really try, we, what somebody is really trying to hack is this, not this. – Right, I mean China is interesting because I remember sitting
at a table a few years ago in Davos with a senior Chinese official. And we were arguing about democracy. And he said well, you in the West have democracy. We have social media. And the point was that Chinese government is using social media to not just monitor its citizens, but also act as a weather vane to gather information
about what’s happening in terms of public sentiment and ensure that they stay
one inch ahead of that to stop any explosions. Do you see China as a place where this type of digital dictatorship is most likely to emerge? – Well I don’t know. As I said, as I gave examples, you have cases in the West. And I know maybe best about my own country that Israel is building a real, total surveillance
regime in the West Bank, which is something we
haven’t seen anywhere, almost anywhere in history before, of really trying to follow
every place, every individual. And we still haven’t crossed
the critical watershed of the biometric sensor. Whether it’s in the US,
in Israel, in China, it’s still social media. It’s still my mobile phone. It’s still where I go, what use I make of my credit card. We still don’t really have the technology to go inside. But we are maybe five years, 10 years away from having the technology. So maybe to give an extreme example, let’s say you live in North Korea and you have to wear this bracelet which constantly monitors what is happening inside your body. And you walk into a room and you see the picture of
the dear leader on the wall. And the bracelet can know what is happening to your brain, to your blood pressure
as you see this picture. So this really what is meant by a digital dictatorship. – I mean it makes 1984 sound positively – [Yuval] Child’s play. – Child’s play, exactly. You say you don’t know
what to do about this. But imagine for a moment
that you were dictator, be that digital or not, what would you do right now to help humanity deal with this? Would you like to just throw away all of those biometric devices? – No it’s absolutely
impossible to go back, especially in terms of
technology and science. Even if one country, or an entire continent is freaked out by the possibilities, and they say, we stop all
research in this field, you can’t force other
countries to do the same. And then you have your own, I mean you have a race, a race to the bottom. Unless you have some global agreement on how to deal with this, then no country would like
to stay behind in the race. – So do you want the
scientists to take control? Do you want the United Nations? Do you think the United
Nations is capable? – [Yuval] No as I said… – The World Economic Forum? I mean could all the people
here take control of this? Do you think? – The discussion has just began. I don’t think we should panic. We should just first of all be aware that this is what we are facing. And there are many possibilities, also technological possibilities. How, for example I mean, when we talk about
regulating ownership of land, we have a very clear
picture what it means. Okay you have a plot, you have a field. You build a fence around. You have a gate. You stand at the gate and you say, okay, you can come in, you can’t. This is my field. Now, what does it mean in
terms of the data about my DNA, or what’s happening in my brain? I mean what’s the analogy of the fence and the gate? We just don’t understand. So I think we are in an analogous position to where we were with
the industrial revolution 200 years ago. And you just need time. I mean when you start the discussion, and I know this from class in university. You start a discussion and somebody raises a hand and says, okay but what should I write in the test? And no, no, no. We are not there yet. We should first have a
discussion about this. I don’t have all the answers. – Right, I mean one
thing I find fascinating in your description of the digital economy is that it actually involves a picture of society which
is not quite the picture that normal economists have. Because most of the
digital exchanges today don’t actually involve money. People are giving up data
in exchange for services. And that’s something
that no economic model can capture right now. And frankly, the legal models can’t either in terms of the antitrust. So, I’m curious when you
look at this problem, it’s not quite economics. It’s certainly not just computer science. It’s not really any particular discipline. Do you think this means that universities need to rethink how they
categorize academics? I mean, who is going to
take this overarching view to try and talk about these issues? And I should say, I’m
trained as an anthropologist. So I’d love to say the anthropologist, but I’m not waiting on them either. – No, hopefully everybody. I mean I think that today, if you’re a computer scientist, you also need to be to some extent a philosopher, and an anthropologist. It’s now part of the business. And I think maybe again
to try and focus it, you talked about different
exchanges in the world. Maybe the most important
exchange in this respect will be in healthcare. The big battle over what
we today call privacy will be between privacy and health. Do you give access to what is happening
inside your body and brain in exchange for far better healthcare? And my guess is that
health will win hands down. People will give up their privacy in exchange for healthcare. And maybe in many places
they won’t have a choice. I mean, they won’t even get insurance if they are unwilling to give access to what is happening inside their bodies. – Right, so another big exchange that will not involve money but still be very, very important. Last quick question,
then we must wrap sadly. When it was all about land control, the elites essentially had feudalism. We called it feudalism in history. When it was all about
the industrial machines, we had capitalism and Marxism. Have you thought of a word to describe this new world of data-ism? – Yeah, I tried data-ism. But I don’t know. I mean, words have their own life. And what word catches
and what word doesn’t, it’s really a coincidence. – Well maybe answers on the postcard. If anyone in the hall has an idea, or tweet it out, or send him an email, or whatever digital
communication you like. But anyway, on behalf of everyone here, I can see from the faces, people are actually not
looking at their mobile phones. They’re actually looking at you. They are rapt. That is quite an achievement. And thank you very much
indeed for both inspiring us and terrifying us, thank you. – Thank you Gillian, thank you. (audience clapping)

76 thoughts on “Will the Future Be Human? – Yuval Noah Harari at the WEF Annual Meeting 2018

  1. As I can see, most of people become scared with Prof. Harari ideas of the future because there is the a lack of sense of long term event. All great changes in humanity take a long time (a couple of generations) to take place completelly, as an acummulation of small changes.

  2. .
    Much love Yuval. May the future meme be "SoMannaFest" utilising the idea that both Soma and Manna were psychedelics and that a festival in celebration would prove it self evident; forming an artistic and intellectual fleuron between past and future chapters in mankinds cultural history. but that's merely a poets opinion…

  3. It's crazy that he doesn't have a larger following in social media. Saying way more important things than most people

  4. Very honest in saying you don't know the solution. Another problem with trying to stop AI development is your fighting against forever. AI in the long term will rule humanity and we can only hope it will choose to do so benevolently. The sci-fi movie answer is to have a jihadist religion against machines like dune, doesn't seem that crazy anymore.

  5. The future will be decentralized. We can't rely on employment to keep us safe we have to rely on an educated society. I'd trust opensource software over anything else. The tech community, and other communities are the most valuable thing we have in keeping us safe. The blockchain community is dedicated to this purpose.

  6. Fabulous talk, Prof. Harari! I love that you're thinking outside the box and seeing things in the future that no one else is considering.

  7. Strange, his startingpoint is a sciencefiction, he exagerates a certain given, like the main asset will be data. If he would start with the main asset will not be money, but free time f.e. , we would get a totally different story. Ok his story serves to make us think and look at ourselves by showing us a horrible future. In that way Harari

  8. …as a thinker and not as a historian, wants to influence our thinking. And I am sure he wants us to be independent thinkers.

  9. This guy's ability to take known facts and synthesize them into a big picture, meaningful perspective is unparalleled.

  10. The future is already here. Some countries are practicing digital dictatorship. Massive surveillance going on in some parts of the world.

  11. If anything, he is underestimating both the length of time and how far-reaching the consequences will be. It's not just a matter of digital entities knowing more about you. They could be able to take actions in the real, physical world, which prior would have been impossible. You only have to look at armies around the world already using drones (robots) to kill people. It /might/ be only a matter of time before battles begin to be waged between private robotic armies and governments lose control altogether.

  12. I donโ€™t why theyโ€™re always going on about China and Russia spying on their citizens..As if US are a model of virtue๐Ÿ˜ฃ

  13. Nonsense. The most valuable thing is still land. Data is not even a physical thing. If I donโ€™t use computers then I cannot be hacked. Delete all of the computers and there is only land and humans. Upper class and lower class is still the division.

  14. Gurdjieff has said for a while that we are machines… we just now have even more advanced machines to take advantage of this fact. The tragedy of our species is that we are asleep and know nothing of pursuing the true meaning of life… hacking and engineering surely is not personal wisdom.

  15. Given what a violent, unethical mess we create with our current technology, I'm not very happy to hear any of this. Will we ever prioritize letting our civility and humanity override our insatiable drive to control life? Ownership itself is the problem.

  16. I think the nature of human evolution is centralising, otherwise we wouldn't have to worry about sustainable development. Plus we couldn't even figure out copyrights on the web so how on earth would we be able to deal with biometric data ownership. I have all my hope in humanity but I think the future doesn't look too good for us.

  17. HG Wells had the same idea more than a hundred years ago. The Eli and the morlocks in his novel "The time machine ".

  18. It is debatable whether it is human at the moment – or do I mean humane?

    I suppose it will be a bit like Crufts in the future. That a panel of egotistical human breeders will decide what is acceptable as traits in human beings, and then genetically engineer and show them and breed from them. Obedience or appearance – and probably being men, the women will be bred to please men.

    Since no one has yet found the gene for loving or caring, creativity, genius [true genius – the ability to think out of the box], empathy, joy, happiness, sense of humour, kindness and joy; the human race is destined to be joyless and miserable, without any sense of humour, or kindness and it will be a dull featureless place without any form of enjoyable entertainment. Ants in a cage.

    But then what will the breeders care about that, they didn't before and after WWII, why should they now [Soviet or German, US or in China].

    And just like Crufts you will get humans who are permanently sick, who die in agony, and who are bred in filthy conditions, because the judges have decided that women should have sized 42" breasts, even though they only have the frame for 32" breasts – oops, sorry we already have that don't we.

    But of course, that is what genetic engineering is all about – breeding for purpose – and the future says unless we watch out, we will not be deciding the purpose.

    We don't at the moment, why should we in the future.

  19. Na, not feeling it, some of this guys points, examples, and assumed facts can be easily argued against. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with the general point.

  20. Consiousness is not a function of the brain. For sure, in the future creatures can be created that imitate the human body. But how would they tap in to consiousness… I agree that most humans are not connected with themselves and actually are living a unconsious life. I am afraid that the future that this man describes is pure ego stuff and that he is forgetting and not understands what being human really means. (everybody should own there own data: read about TOR technology and blockchain revolution)

  21. Could listen to this guy all day. Love to invite him to a dinner party and let him talk after a few glasses of wine!

  22. i've read quite a few articles written by prof. harari in the israeli media, and i'm afraid his view of the future isn't very bright for humans: he believes that about four billion humans currently living on the planet are "redundant" and that in the future people will pass their time with computer games and drugs rather than anything dignified and purposeful such as learning or volunteering. as an aside, he also refers to science fiction as "nonsense" without explaining why, although he probably knows that the entire field of future studies is commonly believed to be the initial creation of h.g.wells , one of the two founders of the genre, along with jules verne.

  23. Okay, governments are bad and seemingly getting worse, but the capitalist culture is amoral. Advantages in economic terms occur when the proprietors are not constrained by ethics and morality.

  24. It is really strange to say that someone didn't know his sexual orientation. I believe that we should not label ourselves or let other label us because of stupid stereotypes. I believe that love has no orientation. It is just you.

  25. terence mckenna;"we will become unrecognizable to ourselves"

    also jaron lanier is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT WITH REGARDS TO THIS. he invented virtual reality and is a genius in more ways than one. highly recommend reading his books.

  26. 9:09 Why spend time, resources and money on trivial uses of technology like this? This only distracts us from the pressing problems facing humanity such as overpopulation, the destruction of natural environments, and natural resource depletion which science is for.
    Unnecessary interference in our daily lives as humans and over dependence on algorithms takes away the vital process of direct experience! The more of a virtual world we live in, the more human essence we lose.

  27. Never hurt to understand basic economics.
    Why would you create those something not humans what is it for how much is the cost and the price? Do I have costumers for it?
    Democracy is when the person you voted for got in power so you think will represent your interest. The others who to voted for someone else will always complain that their interest is not represented.

  28. 'Whether it's humans or bannanas, we know they're just algorithms'.

    There is as of yet no algorithm, or differential equation that describes the behaviour of a human being in a preditctive manner, or that can describe it's past behaviour to any degree of accuracy. I'll go further, there is no algorithm that exists to describe the functioning of a single cell throughout time.

    Quantum mechanics, and even the much older statistical mechanics argue to the contrary to the statement above. I must admit, I think most of this talk is sensationalist hyperbole.

  29. Prof. Yuval, We can't trust our self because we know we are not capable to handle it and playing like a GOD.. ok, the fact we did it already happen and going to happen the solution, we must not be in a narrow minded, and just focus on the government and corp only.. we must think the other option, we must build or see somethings that have the same power as government and corp for example A True Education Institution where they have the ability and power to corrupt ppl mind also to make it right so how about We Make A True Education Institution that are really know what they guarding the future of humanity and it's member must not only from 1 group for ex just teacher or scientist because sometimes they just did theory and BIG talking, we also cannot only make it from a group of religion because sometimes they are irrational and we must also include ppl that govern it also corp like representative but all in the member have same power also each of them them must have each unique key to access it and to open a data if needed must used all of the unique key of each member and before opening it must be note and tell or broadcast to the world that we(that member access it) and note also been make after accessing it what we chance or what we (the member allow to do).. also we must make each individual self system or self drive that keep the original copy of our data so incase it being change by those all member by mistake or false accused, we still can back to original data.. So if the original data being hacked and change as long as the member or the institution are not being hacked then we still can have chance to get back our original data..Emm.. about the member that bring the key must be agree to be engineer like GOD, I mean must not be normal human ,Have heart and a huge or undescribable tolerance also Intelligent and others, that's my solution for now.. and about if both of the main are get hacked, I still don't know who to counter or what system to keep the balance.. I think we as human have a common goal to be a human to be treated like one but the world that surround us sometimes are not favor us and so the ppl start follow the natural selection when the weak are being extinct.. If we indeed are finally have power to balance the nature than I think no one will have to suffer and we human are not needed to hate or dislike each other because now we have the same goal to the better future and what we fight now is our nature and ppl nature of selfishness..

  30. If that indeed happen then I'm really admire u for speaking and thinking ahead and overcome the fear that that happen and will happen and we must embrace it as somethings we should overcome and win it as one in the name of same humanity and creature that live in the same earth..

  31. ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื”ื™ืงืจ ืชื•ื“ื” ืฉื”ืขืœืช ืืช ื”ืกืจื˜ื•ื ื™ื ืžื“ืื‘ื•ืก. ืชืžื™ื“ ื›ื™ืฃ ืœืฉืžื•ืข ืขื•ื“ ื•ื–ื” ืจืง ืžืจืื” ื›ืžื” ื”ืจืขื™ื•ื ื•ืช ื”ืœืœื• ืžื—ืœื—ืœื™ื ืœืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื‘ืคืจื˜ ืœืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื”ืžืฉื›ื™ืœ ื•ื”ืžืฉืคื™ืข… ืฉืืคื•.
    ืงืฆืช ืžื•ื–ืจ ืœื™ ืฉืœื ื”ืขืœื™ืช ืืช ื ื•ืฉื ื”ื‘ื™ื˜ืงื•ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืžื˜ื‘ืขื•ืช ื”ื“ื™ื’ื™ื˜ืœื™ื ืฉืœืžืขืฉื” ื™ื•ืฆืื™ื ืžื”ืฉื™ื˜ื” ื”ืžื•ื ื™ื˜ื•ืจื™ืช ื”ืจื’ื™ืœื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืฉื•ื ืกื™ืžื•ื›ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืžืžืฉืœื”, ืื’ืจื•ืช ื—ื•ื‘, ืจื™ื‘ื™ื•ืช, ื‘ื ืงื™ื ืžืจื›ื–ื™ื™ื, ื•ื›ื•.
    ืื•ืœื™ ื–ื• ืืคื™ื–ื•ื“ื” ื—ื•ืœืคืช ืื‘ืœ ื–ื” ืžืฆื‘ื™ืข ืžืขื˜ ืขืœ ืžื” ืฉืงื•ืจื” ื‘ืจื’ืข ืฉืื ืฉื™ื ื—ื“ืœื™ื ืœื”ืืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื™ืงืฆื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื ื›ืคื™ ืฉื”ื’ื“ืจืช ืื•ืชื”, ื•ื”ืชื•ืฆืื” ื”ื™ื ืœื "ื”ืชืจืกืงื•ืช" ืืœื ืžืขื™ืŸ ื‘ื•ืขื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉืžื‘ืœื‘ืœืช ืืช ื›ื•ืœื. ื”ืื ื™ืฉ ืœื–ื” ืชืงื“ื™ื ื”ืกื˜ื•ืจื™ ื•ืžื” ืืคืฉืจ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืฉื•ืง ื”ื–ื” ืœืขืชื™ื“ ื‘ืžื‘ื˜ ื”ื™ืกื˜ื•ืจื™?
    ื›ืžื• ื›ืŸ ื”ืขืจื” ื‘ื•ื ื”: ืœื–ืจื•ืง "ืืชื” ืœื ืžืช ื‘ื’ืœืœ ืื™ื–ื” ืžืœืืš ืžื•ื•ืช ืืœื ื‘ื’ืœืœ ืœื‘, ืฉืืคืฉืจ ืœื”ื—ืœื™ืฃ, ื•ืžื•ื—, ืื• ืชืื™ื ืกืจื˜ื ื™ื ื•ื›ื•" ื–ื• ืืžื™ืจื” ืฉืฆืจื™ืš ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืชืจ ื›ื•ื‘ื“ ืจืืฉ. ืื ืœื ื›ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืฉื–ื” ืžืขื˜ ืฉืงื•ืœ ืœืืžื™ืจื•ืช ืฉืœ ืคื™ืกื™ืงืื™ื ืชื™ืื•ืจื˜ื™ื ืฉืžื‘ื—ื™ื ืชื ืื ื”ืคื™ืกื™ืงื” ื•ื”ืžืชืžื˜ื™ืงื” ืžืืคืฉืจื•ืช ืชื™ืื•ืจื˜ื™ืช ืžืฉื”ื•, ื”ืจื™ ืฉื›ืœ ื”ืฉืืจ ืืœื• ื‘ืขื™ื•ืช ื”ื ื“ืกื™ื•ืช ื•ืœื ื ื•ื’ืขืช ืœื”ื. (ืœื“ื•ื’ืžื: ืžืžืž.. ืžืขืœื™ื•ืช ื—ืœืœ: ื–ื” ืืคืฉืจื™ ืชื™ืื•ืจื˜ื™ืช. ื”ื ื“ืกื™ืช ื–ื” ืžืฉื”ื• ืฉื™ื›ืœื” ื•ื™ื’ืžื•ืจ ืืช ื›ืœ ืžืฉืื‘ื™ ื›ื“ื•ืจ ื”ืืจืฅ).
    ืœื”ื’ื™ื“ "ื”ืžื•ืฆืจื™ื ื”ืขื™ืงืจื™ื ืฉืœ ื”ืขืฉื•ืจื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ื ื™ื”ื™ื• ืื™ื‘ืจื™ื, ืžื•ื—ื•ืช, ื•ื›ื“ื•'" ืื™ื‘ืจื™ื ื•ืžื•ื—ื•ืช ื–ื• ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื” ืฉื ื™ืชืŸ ืœืคืชื•ืจ ื‘ื ืงืœ ื•ืœื–ืจื•ืง ื–ืืช ืœ"ื”ื ื“ืกื” ืจืคื•ืื™ืช" ืื• ื—ื‘ืจืช ื•ื•ื˜ืกื•ืŸ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ื“ื•ื’ืžืื•ืช ื‘ื•ื“ื“ื•ืช ืžืขื•ืœื ื”ืจืคื•ืื” ืฉืžื›ื™ืœ ื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ืžืœื™ื•ื ื™ ืกื™ื˜ื•ืืฆื™ื•ืช ื•ืžืฉืชื ื™ื.
    ื™ืฉ ืœืš ื‘ื™ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื ืจืฆื™ื ื™ื ืœื”ืกืชืžืš ืขืœื™ื”ื ื‘ืขื ื™ื™ืŸ?
    ื›ืžื• ื›ืŸ ืื•ืœื™ ืชื›ื ื™ืก ืืช ืขื ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ืฉืคื” ื›ืฉืฉื•ืืœื™ื ืื•ืชืš ืœื“ื•ื’ืžืื•ืช ืขืœ ืื•ื“ื•ืช "ืžื” ืœืœืžื•ื“ ืœืขืชื™ื“"
    ืฉืคื” ื–ื”ื• "ื›ืฉืจื•ืŸ ื”ืกืชื’ืœื•ืชื™" ื—ืฉื•ื‘ ืžืื“. ืื•ืœื™ ืชืฆื™ืข ืœืœืžื•ื“ ืืช ืฉืชื™ ื”ืฉืคื•ืช ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื•ืช (ืกื™ื ื™ืช ื•ืื ื’ืœื™ืช ื›ืคืจืง ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื ืขื“ ืœื’ืœื•ื‘ืœื™ื–ืฆื™ื” ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ืœืช ื”ืกื•ืคื™ืช)
    ื”ืจื™ ื’ื ืื™ืฉ ืขืกืงื™ื ื’ืื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื–ื•ืŸ ื™ืชืงืฉื” ื‘ืกื™ืŸ ืื ืœื ืชื”ื™ื” ืœื• ืชืงืฉื•ืจืช ืžืงืกื™ืžืœื™ืช… ืชื•ื“ื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงืจื”. ื”ื—ื›ืžืชื™ ื•ืชืžื™ื“ ื›ื™ืฃ ืœืฉืžื•ืข ืžืžืš (ืžืงื•ื•ื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœืš ื›ื‘ืจ ืกืžืืจื˜ืคื•ืŸ) (; ื”ืขื•ืœื ื—ื•ืœื” ืขืœื™ืš ืชืžืฉื™ืš ื›ืš โ™ก

  32. Yuval Noah harari is an international treasure. He's definition of grace and wisdom. Love from Canada and Pakistan.

  33. This professor Harari is simply unique, his books and talks have taught me more things in a few months that what school teachers have had in 18 years.

    It is really concerning to all of us. And by โ€œusโ€ I refer to life forms, perhaps this oncoming revolution will give shape to the fate of our universe in the long run.

    As though I try to be very skeptical, these ideas remind me very much of the spiritual beliefs we have hold so far, of an awakening of life forms to reconnect with god. Think of Jesus journey from hell to heaven, the incarnation cicles in Buddhism, or the fight of Satan with the โ€œbad godโ€ in order to reach the truth (Satanism), etc. As far as I can tell, I have seen these stories as mere fictions, but the disturbing factor of Harariโ€™s speeches is that they are in perfect accordance with the laws of nature and science, so we can start talking again of demigods and heavens, without the stigma of religion but rather a scientific approach.

  34. She's pushing to get policy solutions out of him, but he's too smart to spit out formulas for action. His honest response would probably be something along the lines of: find someone else to tell you what to do to continue screwing up the world.

  35. Thanks for inspiring us and terrifying us. Thereโ€™s a whole new world to explore and the new boat is not ready yet. Why am I ten years older than him but knows only 10% of him in comparison?

  36. And yet, for all his insightfulness, there are too many sweeping generalisations and a resistance to thinking outside the paradigm of ownership, that is, the deciders, who are the elite, and the majority on the periphery of the decision-making process. This is a case of the same old, same old we are sadly long accustomed to, and which has so profoundly poisoned our lives, our communities, our planet and our future. I suggest we think outside the box of dichotomous thinking (which divides reality into the owners and the disempowered). When have the so-called owners (whether of land, machines or data) ever been other than the vectors of undemocratic, non-contestatory, violence-sanctioned dictatorships? I think that Harare needs to question still deeper and wider than his obviously tantalizing generalizations. We need thinkers and historians such as him to move beyond our legacy of imposed penury and tyrannies disguised as democracies.

  37. Is it true that the difference between dictatorship and democracy is made by the democratizing knowledge? Isn't dictatorship / old soviet Russia about power?

  38. Why would we let advertisers measure where we look? Why would we give advertisers data about all kinds of our physiology like blood pressure, heart rate, sweating etc? To measure this, it is quite intrusive in your normal life.

    But I think he has an interesting point in that knowledge might have more power in the hands of an centralized AI than in the hands of an average joe. But AI isn't there yet.
    And, this might be the reason that Elon Musk builds neuralink, to make sure individual humans can harness the power of AI computing.

  39. It sounds comprehensive, but what is the guy actually saying? Does he warn against AI? We should have rules for deciding who owns our data? That we are being influenced by algorithms because companies have soo much data of us? Nothing new there.

  40. Why should we let companies our governments measure, profile and influence us with our biometric data? We're not accepting that now either.

  41. For this very reason GOD is coming to destroy everything that man has made.Too much power in evil hands is where it all stops.
    Hacking humans goes against humanity does it not?Without humanity there are no humans simply b/c humans destroy themselves like maggots die when there is no more carcass to feed on.Satan has his evil lot but he himself has no future and hence all who support his evil ideas likewise have no future.Some one did warn you, and you will be made to remember it..

  42. I read this tale of Sir Arthur C. Clarke 45 years ago. I am still impressed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *