Yuval Noah Harari argues that AI has hacked the operating system of human civilisation

 Storytelling computers will change the course of human history, says the historian and philosopher

Fears of artificial intelligence (ai) have haunted humanity since the very beginning of the computer age. Hitherto these fears focused on machines using physical means to kill, enslave or replace people. But over the past couple of years new ai tools have emerged that threaten the survival of human civilisation from an unexpected direction. ai has gained some remarkable abilities to manipulate and generate language, whether with words, sounds or images. ai has thereby hacked the operating system of our civilisation.

Language is the stuff almost all human culture is made of. Human rights, for example, aren’t inscribed in our dna. Rather, they are cultural artefacts we created by telling stories and writing laws. Gods aren’t physical realities. Rather, they are cultural artefacts we created by inventing myths and writing scriptures.

Money, too, is a cultural artefact. Banknotes are just colourful pieces of paper, and at present more than 90% of money is not even banknotes—it is just digital information in computers. What gives money value is the stories that bankers, finance ministers and cryptocurrency gurus tell us about it. Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes and Bernie Madoff were not particularly good at creating real value, but they were all extremely capable storytellers.

What would happen once a non-human intelligence becomes better than the average human at telling stories, composing melodies, drawing images, and writing laws and scriptures? When people think about Chatgpt and other new ai tools, they are often drawn to examples like school children using ai to write their essays. What will happen to the school system when kids do that? But this kind of question misses the big picture. Forget about school essays. Think of the next American presidential race in 2024, and try to imagine the impact of ai tools that can be made to mass-produce political content, fake-news stories and scriptures for new cults.

In recent years the qAnon cult has coalesced around anonymous online messages, known as “q drops”. Followers collected, revered and interpreted these q drops as a sacred text. While to the best of our knowledge all previous q drops were composed by humans, and bots merely helped disseminate them, in future we might see the first cults in history whose revered texts were written by a non-human intelligence. Religions throughout history have claimed a non-human source for their holy books. Soon that might be a reality.

On a more prosaic level, we might soon find ourselves conducting lengthy online discussions about abortion, climate change or the Russian invasion of Ukraine with entities that we think are humans—but are actually ai. The catch is that it is utterly pointless for us to spend time trying to change the declared opinions of an ai bot, while the ai could hone its messages so precisely that it stands a good chance of influencing us.

Through its mastery of language, ai could even form intimate relationships with people, and use the power of intimacy to change our opinions and worldviews. Although there is no indication that ai has any consciousness or feelings of its own, to foster fake intimacy with humans it is enough if the ai can make them feel emotionally attached to it. In June 2022 Blake Lemoine, a Google engineer, publicly claimed that the ai chatbot Lamda, on which he was working, had become sentient. The controversial claim cost him his job. The most interesting thing about this episode was not Mr Lemoine’s claim, which was probably false. Rather, it was his willingness to risk his lucrative job for the sake of the ai chatbot. If ai can influence people to risk their jobs for it, what else could it induce them to do?

In a political battle for minds and hearts, intimacy is the most efficient weapon, and ai has just gained the ability to mass-produce intimate relationships with millions of people. We all know that over the past decade social media has become a battleground for controlling human attention. With the new generation of ai, the battlefront is shifting from attention to intimacy. What will happen to human society and human psychology as ai fights ai in a battle to fake intimate relationships with us, which can then be used to convince us to vote for particular politicians or buy particular products?

Even without creating “fake intimacy”, the new ai tools would have an immense influence on our opinions and worldviews. People may come to use a single ai adviser as a one-stop, all-knowing oracle. No wonder Google is terrified. Why bother searching, when I can just ask the oracle? The news and advertising industries should also be terrified. Why read a newspaper when I can just ask the oracle to tell me the latest news? And what’s the purpose of advertisements, when I can just ask the oracle to tell me what to buy?

And even these scenarios don’t really capture the big picture. What we are talking about is potentially the end of human history. Not the end of history, just the end of its human-dominated part. History is the interaction between biology and culture; between our biological needs and desires for things like food and sex, and our cultural creations like religions and laws. History is the process through which laws and religions shape food and sex.

What will happen to the course of history when ai takes over culture, and begins producing stories, melodies, laws and religions? Previous tools like the printing press and radio helped spread the cultural ideas of humans, but they never created new cultural ideas of their own. ai is fundamentally different. ai can create completely new ideas, completely new culture.

At first, ai will probably imitate the human prototypes that it was trained on in its infancy. But with each passing year, ai culture will boldly go where no human has gone before. For millennia human beings have lived inside the dreams of other humans. In the coming decades we might find ourselves living inside the dreams of an alien intelligence.

Fear of ai has haunted humankind for only the past few decades. But for thousands of years humans have been haunted by a much deeper fear. We have always appreciated the power of stories and images to manipulate our minds and to create illusions. Consequently, since ancient times humans have feared being trapped in a world of illusions.

In the 17th century René Descartes feared that perhaps a malicious demon was trapping him inside a world of illusions, creating everything he saw and heard. In ancient Greece Plato told the famous Allegory of the Cave, in which a group of people are chained inside a cave all their lives, facing a blank wall. A screen. On that screen they see projected various shadows. The prisoners mistake the illusions they see there for reality.

In ancient India Buddhist and Hindu sages pointed out that all humans lived trapped inside Maya—the world of illusions. What we normally take to be reality is often just fictions in our own minds. People may wage entire wars, killing others and willing to be killed themselves, because of their belief in this or that illusion.

The AI revolution is bringing us face to face with Descartes’ demon, with Plato’s cave, with the Maya. If we are not careful, we might be trapped behind a curtain of illusions, which we could not tear away—or even realise is there.

Of course, the new power of ai could be used for good purposes as well. I won’t dwell on this, because the people who develop ai talk about it enough. The job of historians and philosophers like myself is to point out the dangers. But certainly, ai can help us in countless ways, from finding new cures for cancer to discovering solutions to the ecological crisis. The question we face is how to make sure the new ai tools are used for good rather than for ill. To do that, we first need to appreciate the true capabilities of these tools.

Since 1945 we have known that nuclear technology could generate cheap energy for the benefit of humans—but could also physically destroy human civilisation. We therefore reshaped the entire international order to protect humanity, and to make sure nuclear technology was used primarily for good. We now have to grapple with a new weapon of mass destruction that can annihilate our mental and social world.

We can still regulate the new ai tools, but we must act quickly. Whereas nukes cannot invent more powerful nukes, ai can make exponentially more powerful ai. The first crucial step is to demand rigorous safety checks before powerful ai tools are released into the public domain. Just as a pharmaceutical company cannot release new drugs before testing both their short-term and long-term side-effects, so tech companies shouldn’t release new ai tools before they are made safe. We need an equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration for new technology, and we need it yesterday.

Won’t slowing down public deployments of ai cause democracies to lag behind more ruthless authoritarian regimes? Just the opposite. Unregulated ai deployments would create social chaos, which would benefit autocrats and ruin democracies. Democracy is a conversation, and conversations rely on language. When ai hacks language, it could destroy our ability to have meaningful conversations, thereby destroying democracy.

We have just encountered an alien intelligence, here on Earth. We don’t know much about it, except that it might destroy our civilisation. We should put a halt to the irresponsible deployment of ai tools in the public sphere, and regulate ai before it regulates us. And the first regulation I would suggest is to make it mandatory for ai to disclose that it is an ai. If I am having a conversation with someone, and I cannot tell whether it is a human or an ai—that’s the end of democracy.

This text has been generated by a human.

Or has it?

David Axelrod: After Barack Obama, America will never be the same

 In all the years I worked for Barack Obama, I didn’t think enough about the burdens of being America’s first Black president – in part because he bore them so gracefully.

There were bracing moments, of course, like the day, relatively early in his campaign for the White House, when Secret Service agents became a constant presence in his life, given the inordinate number of death threats against him.

There were the overtly racist memes about his citizenship and faith and worthiness, fueled by demagogues and social media, that continued throughout his presidency.

There was the startling outburst from a Southern congressman, who shouted “You lie!” during a presidential address to Congress – an intrusion that has since become more common but back then was a stunning departure from civic norms.

Among Obama’s staff, we dealt with these moments mostly as political challenges to navigate. And while he addressed issues of race, Obama rarely spoke, publicly or privately, about the unique pressures he faced personally.

It took someone else to open my eyes and cause me to think more deeply about the extraordinary burden – and responsibility – of being a trailblazer at the highest of heights in a nation where the struggle against racism is ongoing.

In 2009, Obama was considering nominating Sonia Sotomayor, a highly regarded federal appellate judge from New York, for a seat on the US Supreme Court.

If appointed, Sotomayor would become the first Latina on the nation’s highest court. The president asked me to chat with her and assess how she would hold up under the pressures of the confirmation process and that weighty history.

I met with Sotomayor in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex, where she had been spirited for a final round of clandestine interviews. I asked her what, if anything, worried her about the process.

“I worry about not measuring up,” she said, bluntly.

It was instantly clear to me that this brilliant, accomplished judge, who fought her way from poverty in the South Bronx to Princeton and Yale Law School, was talking about more than her own ambitions. As The First, she knew she also would be carrying with her the hopes and aspirations of young Latinas everywhere. Her success would be their inspiration. Her failure would be their setback.

That conversation prompted me to reconsider the unspoken burden the president himself had navigated so well for so long under the most intense spotlight on the planet. The burden was not just racism but the responsibility to measure up, to excel, to shatter stereotypes and to be an impeccable role model in one of the world’s toughest and most consequential jobs.

Watching the episode of CNN’s documentary series “The 2010s” about Obama, I was reminded again of how well he weathered those burdens.

It isn’t that he got everything right. No president does. And there always will be a debate about how much the election of the first Black president contributed to the reactionary backlash that yielded Donald Trump, a divisive and toxic figure who would lead the country in an entirely different direction.

But the history is clear: Obama led the nation through an epic economic crisis and war, passed landmark legislation on health care and strengthened the social safety net, bolstered America’s standing in the world and, in our most painful moments, comforted the nation by speaking eloquently to what Abraham Lincoln called the “better angels of our nature.”

Against the relentless pressure of being First and all the anger and resentment that it may have stirred among some fearful of change, Obama was consistently thoughtful, honorable and poised. He carried himself with the comforting authenticity of a man who knows who he is – and never flinched.

When Obama was considering a campaign for president in the fall of 2006, a small group of friends and advisers gathered with him in my office in Chicago to assess a possible race.

Michelle Obama – perhaps the greatest skeptic in the room at that moment about the advisability of such an audacious journey – asked a fundamental question: “Barack, it kind of comes down to this. There are a lot of good, capable people running for president. What do you think you could contribute that the others couldn’t?”

“There are a lot of ways to answer that but one thing I know for sure: The day I raise my hand to take that oath of office as president of the United States,” he said, lifting his right hand, “the world will look at us differently and millions of kids – Black kids, Hispanic kids – will look at themselves differently.”

Two years later, in Chicago’s Grant Park, where Obama claimed victory, I watched a sea of humanity, including Black parents, with tears rolling down their cheeks, as they held their kids aloft to witness the scene.

Jacob Philadelphia, the son of a White House staff member, touches then- President Barack Obama's hair in the Oval Office of the White House. - Pete Souza/The White House/The New York Times/Redux

And then there was the iconic photo in the Oval Office of five-year-old Jacob Philadelphia, the son of a White House staffer who was leaving the administration. The little boy, who is Black, stood dressed in a shirt and a tie. He had looked up at the president and asked, “Is your hair like mine?” Obama bowed his head toward the boy and told him, “Go ahead, touch it,” which he did.

It was a moving, spontaneous scene captured by the splendid White House photographer Pete Souza. The moment spoke volumes about Obama, his meaning in our history and the unique responsibly he bore.

As the president bowed his head to this little boy, his unspoken message was clear: “Yes, you are like me. Yes, you can dream big dreams.”

Under extraordinary pressures, Obama more than “measured up,” not just as a president but as a role model. As a First.

And for that alone, America will never be the same.

American Patriots nailed Putin’s hypersonic Kinzhal missile. The world has changed

 There’s much excitement around the world following the events of Monday night, in which Ukrainian air defences armed with US-made weapons reportedly neutralised a heavy Russian missile attack against Kyiv.

In particular the attack apparently included six KH-47M2 Kinzhal (“Dagger”) air-launched missiles, which are often described as “hypersonic”, frequently with the added assertion that there is no defence against such weapons. All six were reportedly stopped by US-made Patriot air defence interceptors, though a Patriot installation was apparently damaged – perhaps by debris from a downed Russian weapon.

Another Kinzhal (referred to by Nato organisations, including the British defence ministry, using the reporting code name “Killjoy”) was also shot down by a Patriot earlier this month. Monday’s interceptions would seem to have confirmed that this was not simply a lucky shot, and the Patriot does indeed offer a strong defence against the Kinzhal and similar weapons.

So, is the world different today? Can any nation in possession of Patriots or similar interceptors rest easy, unworried by the thought of hypersonic weapons – perhaps even, hypersonic nuclear weapons – in enemy hands?

The answer is yes and no: yes, the world is a little different today; and no, even if you have Patriot or similar you are not safe from enemy nukes or true hypersonics.

First let’s take a look at the Kinzhal. It’s really not much more than a modified air-launched version of the ground-launched Iskander short-range ballistic missile, which was developed in the 1980s and 1990s. The Iskander’s rocket propulsion boosts it to speeds of around Mach 6 or 2,000 metres per second. It’s been suggested that the Kinzhal is faster still at Mach 10 or 3,400 m/s.

Hypersonic speed is generally said to begin from Mach 5 upwards so yes, technically these are indeed hypersonic weapons. It’s very difficult to intercept and knock down an object travelling at this kind of speed, so the Patriot has indeed shown itself to be very capable.

However when people in recent times speak of hypersonic weapons they generally mean ones which do not just travel at hypersonic speeds, but which can swerve and jink about while doing so, making themselves still harder to intercept. This class of weapon is often referred to as a “boost-glide” system, as it is often fired atop a booster rocket, possibly out of the atmosphere altogether, before making its manoeuvrable hypersonic descent to the target.

Again, there’s nothing all that new about hypersonic boost-glide. The Nazis had drawing-board plans to use related ideas to bomb the USA during WWII, and various boost-glide projects were set up during the early Cold War. The now-retired Space Shuttle, and subsequent unmanned spaceplanes now in operation by the US and China, are all examples of successful hypersonic boost-glide systems.

Boost-glide for delivering nukes fell out of favour, however, in the mid Cold War with the arrival of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), whose warheads fall into the atmosphere to reach their targets travelling at Mach 20, perhaps 7,000 m/s. This was deemed to be so fast that nothing could possibly stop such a weapon. Once ICBMs began to be put on nuclear powered submarines, meaning that it would be impossible to locate them in order to knock them out in a sudden pre-emptive strike, the balance of terror seemed to be assured. The world could rest safe in the knowledge that no nation would launch a nuclear first strike, as the enemy’s ICBMs would respond and nothing could stop them.

This balance began to be somewhat upset, however, as long ago as the 1980s. The US in particular began making somewhat serious efforts at defence against inbound ICBMs. This had various effects, one of which was to stimulate the Soviets and then the Russians into looking at ways of making their ICBMs harder to stop. In particular they began working to replace the warheads with manoeuvrable hypersonic glide versions which would be harder to intercept.

This work took a very long time due to the financial and political troubles that beset Russia through the 1990s and 2000s, but at last in 2018 Vladimir Putin (at the same time he introduced the Kinzhal and other supposedly “new” Cold War era weapons) announced that the “Avangard” hypersonic glide vehicle was in production and ready to go into service atop Russian ICBMs. Avangards reportedly descend at Mach 20, swerving and jinking as they come, which should mean they can beat any interceptors they might face. China has also carried out work and flight tests aimed at deployment of such weapons.

Another effect of the US missile-defence aspirations of the 1980s and 1990s was to greatly alarm the kind of people who would really like to ban all nuclear weapons but have reluctantly accepted that isn’t going to happen. People like that were very worried that missile-defence would upset the safe balance of terror: they thought that an America with working defences might be tempted to eliminate Russia, or that the prospect of such defences might push Russia into making a first strike while it still could.

Missile defence technology had its first trial as early Patriots were used to defend against Scud ballistic missiles launched by Saddam Hussein in 1991. This led to a massive disagreement about the Patriot’s effectiveness in which then US President George H W Bush claimed it was 97 per cent effective, the US Army claimed rates between 40 and 80 per cent, and the famous anti-missile-defence activist Theodore Postol claimed it had not worked at all.

Postol and members of his school of thought have since then been very effective in limiting how much money and effort the US has put into missile defences, helped by the fact that various missile-defence projects and programmes have indeed been prone to exaggerate the effectiveness of their equipment. Today the US National Missile Defence effort is explicitly limited to defence against the sort of attack that might be mounted by a rogue state such as North Korea: it is specifically forbidden to work on things which might be able to stop Russia’s vast ICBM force, to avoid panicking Vladimir Putin.

This has meant that to be quite honest, Putin doesn’t really need the Avangard or its like: he can blow up America and its allies whenever he wants, as long as he’s willing to accept Russia becoming a lake of molten glass in its turn.

Putin will still be unpleasantly surprised to find, however, that today’s Patriots can knock down Kinzhals. The Kinzhal may not be a true swerving-and-jinking Mach 20 Avangard, but it is Mach 10 and it is claimed to have some manoeuvrability: it would need at least a bit to make precise strikes, of course.

One of the things which might turn the Ukraine war around for Putin would be the ability to suppress Ukrainian air defences, so permitting his powerful air force to dominate Ukrainian skies as it has so far completely failed to do. It now seems clear that even Russia’s best standoff weapons have little chance of achieving this.

And it won’t just be Vladimir finding Monday night’s events upsetting. Taiwan has the Patriot too. It seems likely that Xi Jinping will be setting up a talk with the head of the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Forces to find out just which of his weapons now seem likely to be effective in any future invasion attempt.