> I had the opportunity to talk to him after his talk in Boston, he was pretty pessimistic and struggled to define his conception of humanity without a negativ

> I had the opportunity to talk to him after his talk in Boston, he was pretty pessimistic and struggled to define his conception of humanity without a negative referent I thought the video you shared had a great 10-15 minute segment starting around ~50:00. > Sure define AI research whatever way you want. That's not particularly helpful though to change the outcome he fears. JL’s point is that it makes a huge sociological difference, because it (the contemporary mythology/theology of “AI”) massively changes how much we’re willing to question the status quo, rather than accepting it as “AI”. > In a world where we have infinite resources and everything, what do you do [...] I think of those around me, my time with my loved ones and friends. Humanity and meaning becomes for me the ability to enjoy and witness the lives of those around me, the relationships I cultivate and shared experience I have. There’s a subtle but crucial difference between infinite resources (not biasing us towards certain modes of being) versus a landscape promoting infinite (ever-increasing) consumption. Eg: imagine Google having every video on earth, but you have to search/ask, rather than having auto-recommendations. > This is not unique to AI. The digital divide existed before AI. Yes, but the aura of “AI” gives it a new legitimacy and authority in our ambient narrative. — PS: if you wish to continue this discussion, feel free to hit me up via email :-)