Can AI Teach Us to Think Better? Challenging Our Own Beliefs

Okay, Muhammad Nabiou is an independent philosopher and also the creator of I DOP, AI debates on one's publications and approach where he invites AI to criticize and examine his own published ideas. His works explores philosophy, AI ethics, education, democracy and how people can become more thoughtful in the way the form and challenge believes so good to have you Muhammad Nabiou. Oh, good. It's great to join you here tonight. All right. So I've focused to be, I want to focus to be on how AI can challenge our thinking. Yes. That's great. All right. The next step is your journey. What led you from writing and philosophy into experimenting with AI as a tool for challenging your own ideas? Because I believe ideas and books are that if they are not debated and caused publicly. So I thought of accelerate this process by starting debates with AI tools on my own publications and then give human beings a better starting point to start their own debates on my own ideas. All right, so was there a particular moment when you realized that your own ideas needed to be challenged, but I'm simply defended? I believe all ideas need to be constantly challenged instead of and constantly defended. So I believe when we all strive for consistency, we may find the consistency we're seeking within the boundaries of uncertainty by embracing the fact that opinions, beliefs and attitudes are changeable over time. All right. Now one of your, your creation is AI dot, did I pronounce it well? Is that how it's pronounced? AIDUP or ADAP, yes. Oh, yeah, AIDUP, all right. So you asked AI to criticize your own publication, now what exactly happens in that process? It's a content creation framework in which I invite AI tools to criticize my own content, engaging back and forth argumentation with AI tools and then publish the entire analysis transcript of back and forth argumentation within 24 hours of exchange. So instead of presenting an idea or theory or a thesis of mine and asking people to believe me or reject these ideas, I present the idea and along with many arguments and content arguments surrounding it so people can have a better chance at�ing the own opinions and views. All right. So in the process of allowing AI to challenge your thinking, but what have you discovered about yourself, about your own thinking? I discovered that my own thinking space was one time, I tried to criticize one of my theories, I had a theory on work-life balance and I tried to criticize that and told me that this theory wasn't universal, couldn't be applied to everyone. So I accepted the Crescent as valid and moved on to the next essay. This method, the AI-DUP-related requires radical transparency as you allow people to follow the reasoning behind your conclusions and it also requires intellectual humility. You can, you need to know and recognize that you might be wrong at certain point. All right, so are there any downsides in allowing AI to criticize your thinking, it takes the whole lot for you to come up with something and then when you present it to AI, it looks as though AI is stretching it out as though you didn't think about it very well. So are there any downsides in allowing AI to criticize your own thinking or creation? So far, so good, no downsides for me. The goal of these debates isn't to win or lose. The main objectives include start acting, ideas through AI, effectively making them sharper by responding to criticism, refining one's own thoughts, simply accepting Crescent as valid or agreeing to disagree with certain points and as I told you previously, inviting readers to explore the mechanisms of the thought process instead of asking them to accept conclusions and documenting where AI always stands at the time of publications. All right, all right, that's so good. You know, we are in a time and age where people can use AI to confirm almost anything or everything they already believe. Now can AI generally make us better think as all? Can it simply make a bias it's more sophisticated? Well, AI doesn't make anything. Yeah, these tools are just tools at the end of the day. It's your own use scenario of it, use case scenario of it that makes something better worse out of it. So you have these AI tools and you can use them to confirm your bias and they are trained to be polite and they are trained to be humble. So they can let you confirm your own bias however you want. Or you can ask these tools to come up to the best possible it could sit on a piece of your own content or some of your own ideas and then you can benefit from that. You can sharpen your own critical thinking. You can change your views on something. This is the real value of using these tools. At the end of the day, it's you who makes the decisions, not the tools. Yeah, so it definitely means it's very wrong to depend on AI intellectually, right? It's strong to depend on anyone intellectually. Back in 2020, I qualified Enlightened Populism's Behavioral Pattern of Communication and alternative to ignorant populism on blind elitism. So Enlightened Populism involves listening to multiple experts trying to understand how they reach certain conclusions and then they're treating the information to the current truth. The true dominant pattern, behavior patterns of communication to these world are blind elitism, which entails blind, deforming an expert or an elite on a certain issue. This also applies to AI tools. You cannot or you shouldn't blindly follow an AI tool on any matter. At the ignorant populism, ignorant populism also involves the absence of invitation by depending on opinions or trends. All right, you know, we are in a age and time where it's difficult to also distinguish true from information, especially with social media and AI generated content. All right. Now, what political framework would you give someone who wants to know whether it claims these hours their beliefs or not? The question everything, constant question everything. And this age of social media and the Internet in general, social media are lies of personalization. So this has to use confirmation bias all the way. Even social engines and alarm's concern into the echo chambers are not used wisely as they both rely on start and that of interactions. Using private, you need to mode occasionally while submitting queries through multiple search engines and digging deep for multiple sources is advised. Same goes for alarm's with the additional feature of intention, we're getting into a debate with the alarm by prompting it to take a position opposed to us. So the best thing we can do in today's world is possibly seek information and seek opinions that are opposed to our own. So we can get about the picture. So we can move closer to the truth. Oh, now so profound, the best thing we can do is to constantly seek information. If we look beyond AI, what do you think it's the biggest obstacle? Preventing people from thinking independently today? People often rely on blind people. It doesn't rely on the following and expert, or I need to reset a certain mission. Regular in populism, which also forms the lack of participation while relying on feelings or grants. This doesn't have to be to do with being good to a bad person. This has to be with the own cognitive energy. People find it easy to follow one of these patterns because they require much less common energy than enlightenment populism which involves listening to multiple experts try to understand how to reach certain conclusions and then integrating the information you're on your own to scale the truth. All right, thank you, Nadine for sharing that. Now, let's go back to one of your center ideas, right? Now, you made a difference between blind elitism and ignorance populism. And what you call enlightenment. I think populism, how would you explain those three ideas? Can you draw, like, on what do these things mean? And how do you explain these three ideas to an ordinary person? One, enlightened populism, as I told you, is a behavior, a pattern of communication that we want to listen to, one from experts trying to understand how they reach certain conclusions and investigating the information to explain the truth. The contrasts with the two dominant major patterns of communication plays word, blind in autism, which maintains blindly following an expert or an elite, on a certain issue. And for populism, it also involves the absence of an investigation while a line of feelings are present. So let's take climate change, for instance, as an example. Many people around the world celebrate the Paris Agreement. For a few experts, all of us, that this was a great achievement for humanity. And this is a form of blind in autism has the Paris Agreement, because it's only good as a symbolic agreement. If the technology is the fact with friends, that the time threats is read. And yet, at least, do anything about it. So this is an example of blind in autism. And there are other people who followed feelings or trends and came up with the view or opinion. The time change isn't real, but it's a hope, so stuff like that. And that's a form of ignorant populism. Enlightened populism and Enlightened populist, this case would simply read the actual text of the Greek, realize that the agreement falls short of hung up with any tangible solutions for the problem. And they form their opinion accordingly. All right. Now, you also, you advocate radical transparency through AIDOP. Why do you believe exposing the process of questioning and criticism is important, rather than simply presenting conclusions? Because I read the radical transparency. Because in your own private life, you have the freedom to keep your own information private. And in the public life, if you're throwing stuff at people, if you're throwing ideas at other human beings, they need to know beyond very knowledge of these conclusions. Instead of presenting simple conclusions, you need to present how you came up with these ideas. You have a certain set of counter-ordinates around. So they, you know, opinions about them. All right. So could this approach change how people learn or publish and evaluate information? In fact, it may have a revolution. In fact, within publishing, education, policymaking, humanities, and social sciences, within publishing, it changes the relationship between the author and the readers. Instead of presenting conclusions from either of the hours, the authors should be required to present their own theories or thesis along with a set of arguments and counter-ordinates surrounding them. Within education, students can be asked to submit the IDOP sessions at the end of each assignment, and handle the page of their human colleagues accordingly. This will enhance their fit-to-thinking and actively integrate AI within education systems around the world. Instead of thinking of banning everything. And as for policymaking, I'm advocating for the establishment of unified global government to be ruled by hyper-local citizen assemblies. And these citizen assemblies rely on direct democracy. We will vote directly on a number of missions. Instead of voting for someone to vote on our behalf. So in such cases, instead of presenting a certain policy or a bid for the people to vote on, you will present this policy or bid along with a set of arguments and counter-ordinates surrounding them. Within humanities and social sciences, the benefits are apparent as these feeds rely intensively on analytical spudders. And they tend to be opinionate. So this method to support the creation framework can change these fields efficiently. All right. So sorry, just go back to a lightened populism. In your descriptions, you described it as a requiring people to listen to multiple experts and investigate how they reached their conclusion. How do we avoid replacing one form of group thinking to with another? How do we-- how do you-- how do you avoid what? OK. How do we avoid replacing one form of group thinking with another? We need to always remind ourselves that each individual is a responsible for their own actions and supports. So each individual should always maintain this responsibility and should follow seek information that help them come up with the right views, that help them act in the right manner and say the best things they can say. All right. So I'll ask you two last questions and then we'll call it day. So now, let's look at your-- you're looking at your profile. There's an interesting question about relationship between humans and AI. Should AI primarily give us answers or should it help us ask better questions? What do you think? We can act both ways. Yet, I believe the best thing we can do is because they ask better questions and seek information according to seek information, seek answers to these questions. It's a process, it's like a loop. You ask better questions and then you try to find answers to these questions. And these AI tools almost have some of human knowledge so they can be helpful on both sides. OK. So what do you think relationship between human judgment and AI should look like? Could it be more of AI and less of human or more of human and less of AI? What do you think relationship should look like? We need to maintain the sovereignty of human beings in the age of AI. So we need to maintain this sovereignty by almost letting human judgment be superior to anything else. Especially the kind of things. OK. So if someone is listening to Rusty and the person wants to become more intellectually honest, someone willing to challenge even their own ideas, where should they begin from? As I said, for you, they can begin with the elements of social engines. These are the methods. So correct, they can rely on privately to more efficiently, while submitting really strong multiple search engines and thinking deep for multiple sources. As for Alan Adams especially, they can front the tools to take positions opposing to themselves and start debates accordingly. OK. So if you could leave our listeners with one principle about truth thinking and the way we engage with ideas, especially in this age of artificial intelligence, what would you want them to remember after this interview? But no one has a monopoly on the truth. No one knows 100% of the truth, all matters. The best thing we can do is to only seek the truth. To seek is appealing. As I have, my next problem is, by the truth is sexy. I do believe in that. I do believe that truth is sexy. And truth seeking is a constant effort. All right. Truth thinking, as long as one word that we shouldn't forget, to keep it to hand, truth thinking is key. All right. Thank you so much, Mohamed Nabil. So good to have you on the Better Life Podcast. And I hope some of that time we'll get to talk more about other aspects. Thank you so much. Would you want to let us into your handle? Your handle just in case you want to reach out to you and read on your walk? I can't see anything. I said, if you want to let us know your social media handles, just in case you want to read more about you. Oh, OK. Peter Carrichan, through my website, Mohamed Nabil.org, M-O-H-A-M-E-D, N-A-E-I-L. All right. Thank you so much, Ma'amad Nabil. See you somewhere at the end. Thanks a lot for hosting me. That's been a pleasure.