Enlightened Populism: Rethinking How We Decide What to Believe

Halt, Yuman, and enough, the podcast where we explore the stories, ideas, struggles, con questions, the reminders what it really means to be human, and we are host to Manu. We live in a time when we have access to more information than ever before, but having more information does not necessarily mean we know what is true. We can follow a spot, we can follow influencers, we can follow political movements, we can follow algorithm, and sometimes we simply follow what everyone else sees seems to believe, but what happens when we slow down and actually investigate? Today's guest has built much of his work around that question. Muhammad Nabil is an author, community development advocate, and the creator of AI Dope, AI debates on one's publications, a process where he invites AI to challenge his own ideas and publishes those debates as a form of radical transparency. He has also developed the concept of enlightening, opposing, which he describes as an alternative to both blind elitism and ignorant populism. And these ideas don't stop there. It believes humanity should ultimately move towards a single global government, go into cities in northern bliss, and there is democracy. So today we are going to explore some big questions about AI, truth, democracy, power, inequality, and the future of humanity. Muhammad, welcome to Human Enough. Thank you for the great introduction. Thank you for listening. Hey, you know, you have written extensively about politics, philosophy, AI, society, and humanity. Before we get into the bigger ideas, tell us about the journey that brought you here. While I started, my interest in philosophy started back when I was a teenager, and I had to explore multiple philosophical approaches before creating my own framework over time. I built an experience, I graduated from mass communication, so I formally studied politics, economics, and philosophy. Then I started developing my own framework over time until I reached this point where I have three main pillars to my philosophy, AI DUP, as you mentioned, AI Debates and Ones publications, and enlightened populism as a behavior and pattern of communication, and advocating for global government to be ruled by hyperlopism assemblies. Wow, thank you so much for that. And then what questions are you ultimately trying to answer through all of your work? My main value is a life of justice, freedom, trust telling, compassion, and solidarity, in that exact same order. So I try to elevate these values through my work and through actions taken through my life. Right, thank you so much for that. So let's start with one of your most interesting ideas. You created AI DUP, which stands for AI Debates on Ones publications. What exactly is that? AI Debates on Ones publications is a content creation framework that involves a content creator prompting an AI tool to create size their own content on publishing the entire and add to the transcript of back and forth argumentation within 24 hours of the exchange. So mainly you have a piece of content, original content, other, an essay, a book, or even a video, and then you feed it into an AI tool, ask the tool to criticize it, engage in back and forth argumentation, and publish the whole transcript to them 24 hours of the exchange. Right, and then why did you decide to have AI criticize your own work? Because I believe books and ideas are dead if they are not openly discussed and debated. So I thought I'd accelerate this process through AI tools by letting them start debates with me on these books and ideas. And I thought this may have a revolutionary impact to them publishing education policy making humanities and social sciences. Right, thank you. You know, most people want technology to make their lives easier. You are using AI in almost your position. You are essentially saying, "Yes, my ideas, try to prove me wrong. Why has been challenged so important?" Because you cannot monopolize the tools and you cannot call yourself wise if you're certain about everything in life. You can, the truth is sexy. This is the title of my latest book and I believe truth is sexy and the best thing we can do is truth seeking, truth seeking is a virtue on its own. So the best thing we can do is seek the truth every day and realize that our own opinions, attitudes and beliefs are changeable over time. They may not be no one knows 100% of truth on all issues. This is why it's important to all those seek counter-arguments and counter-opinions. Right, you know, for what you just said, do you think intellectual discomforts can actually help us to grow? Intellectual discomfort, if I believe I think I'm intellectually comfortable going through the debates because these debates, whether with human beings or AI tools, shouldn't be aimed at winning or losing. The main objectives include stress testing ideas in case of AI, DOP, stress testing ideas through AI, making them sharper by responding to criticism, refining one's own thoughts, simply accepting criticisms valid or agreeing to agree in certain points, inviting readers to explore the mechanisms of the thought process instead of simply asking them to accept conclusions, and documenting where AI tools stand at the time of publication. Oh, thank you so much for that. You know, you believe AI DOP could have a significant impact on education. What could education look like if students were encouraged to debate the ideas with AI instead of simply memorizing information? This would revolutionize the way students learn at school. If anything, aside to students had an AI DOP session at the end of it, and then they had to handle debates with their own colleagues accordingly, this will change how they learn, memorizing too much stuff used to be useful before the internet. But now you can remember any fact by googling it or keeping it on an auto, on your laptop or on your device, any device smartphone or anything. So it's only logical to teach students stuff that can help them, help them with what they need for the future. They need to be smarter than the tools they are using. And to outsmart the tools they are using, at least they can benefit from the huge amounts of knowledge that are available through these AI tools. As these tools almost have the sum of human knowledge due to the usage that sets they have been trained on. You know, AI can analyze a most amount of information, but it can also make mistakes, reflect bears or confidently produce fake information. So how should we actually use AI when we are trying to determine what is true? I think these AI tools are improving over time, yet you can't consider the human beings yet, have the capabilities of human beings. Yet even human beings, you shouldn't follow a human being blindly, whatever they might be, whether they are an expert or anything else, you can follow them blindly. You need to, this is enlightened populism, listening to multiple experts trying to understand how they reach certain conclusions and investigating the information to discover the truth. This is what we actually need to do on all issues. So especially with AI tools, you can treat them as experts on anything. During a previous interview, the interviewer told me about a young girl, he overheard, who uses AI tools for therapy. I thought this was completely wrong, because healthcare is important and these tools may hallucinate or may provide anything and act on the way. So, it's essential to remind ourselves that these are just tools and the benefits and harms coming up from them depend on our way of using. Wow, that was interesting. Thank you so much for that. You know, you develop a framework called a lighting populism. Before we define that, can you explain what you mean by blind elitism and ignorance populism? I believe blind elitism and ignorant populism are the two dominant behavior patterns of communication in today's world. Blind elitism entails blindly following an expert or an elite on a certain issue and ignorant populism also evolves the absence of an investigation while relying on feelings or trends. But, why is blind elitism following experts dangerous? Because experts have been wrong over the years on many issues and there has been a consensus, for instance, on eugenics. And now, we all know it's extremely wrong. So, you need to listen to multiple experts, try to understand how they reach certain conclusions and investigate the information to discover the truth. This is the lighting populism. Great, thank you so much for that. And then, do you think ordinary people can actually evaluate complex information? I'm sure ordinary people can evaluate complex information given enough time and the tree and the willingness to do so. So, apart of my proposal for a global government to be ruled by hyperlocal system assemblies is to actually share the benefits of technology instead of allowing a few billionaires to reap all of the benefits of technology by introducing massive layoffs. We can, instead, reduce dramatically, reduce working hours for everyone, allowing them enough time and energy to investigate issues deeply. And while doing so, I'm advocating for these citizen assemblies to be to depend on direct democracy, so people will need to be aware of the political issues to be able to make decisions effective. Great, so then, what is, what exactly is a lighting populism? And what should it look like in practice? And lighting populism is a behavior pattern of communication as we said earlier. It involves listening to multiple experts, trying to understand how they reach certain conclusions and investigating the information to this current approach. So, how it looks like that I can practice. Let's take an example of climate change. Many people celebrated the Paris Agreement because a few experts told us that this was a huge achievement for humanity. This has blind elitism because they just followed these experts blindly. And other people relied on feelings or trends and followed some nonsense about climate change being a hoax and stuff like that. So, this is ignorant populism. Enlightenment populism would involve in practice reading the actual text of the agreement and realizing that the agreement is only useful as a symbolic kind of thing. The acknowledges that there is a climate threat and humanity should do something about it yet it fails to do anything about it. Fred, and then does it also require people to listening to opposing perspectives? Indeed, listening to multiple experts involves listening to those who are pro something and those who are against something to be capable of evaluating the information and to be capable to form your own opinion accordingly. Right, thank you. Here from your explanation. Here from your explanation and what it looked like in practice. How do we prevent elitism populism from becoming another ideological liber? Well, it's not an ideological label. This is the good part of it because some people thought when I introduced enlightenment populism back in 2020. Some people thought enlightenment populism was a political ideology. It's not a political ideology in the first place. It's only a behavioral pattern of communication. So, treating it as a behavioral pattern of communication, the way we communicate with each other and the way we consume information helps us avoid turning it into a political label. Or a political ideology. You know, you're spoken about what you describe as ship mentality. Why do humans have such a stroke tendency to follow the crowd? I don't typically use the term "trip mentality" but ship mentality would fall under, would likely fall under ignorant populism in my own framework. So, ignorant populism or blind elitism, they both happened due to the easiness because they don't require cognitive energy. They don't require you to invest time and the effort to listen to multiple experts and try to understand how they reach certain occlusions and investigate the information that was going into the process of enlightening populism is much more difficult and time consuming and requires exerting effort. So, it's easier for people most of the time to rely on blind elitism or ignorant populism. Wow, thank you. And then, how can someone learn to think independently without becoming contrarian for the sake of it? People need to actually seek opposing views that are opposing their own ideas. This way, we can maintain healthy debates. A healthy debate, as mentioned earlier, is not about winning or losing, it's about seeking the truth. So, making ideas sharper, refining one's own thoughts. This is the best way possible, whether with AI tools or with human beings. Wow, thank you. And then, now, let's take the conversation so we have much bigger. You advocate for uniting the world under a single global government. Why do you believe that is necessary? The problems of the day and the problems of the future are mainly associated with climate change, potentially recurring pandemics and billionaires greed. Billionaires greed represented in wars spread all over the world through military industrial complexes. They make money off horse. AI taking over our jobs and stuff like that, it has to do with Billionaires greed. And anything else including trade labor has to do with Billionaires greed, the extreme wealth inequality, and stuff like that. So, these three main issues are global issues, and they can't be solved through local solutions. They require a global government to be solved efficiently. So, let's take climate change, for instance. We can face it with adaptation and mitigation efforts through a global government, because one of the problems with Paris agreement is that it relies on individual fragmented nation states to each determine its own contributions to climate change mitigation. So, in that sense, you are losing the objective. You can't reach an objective like that. To reach a certain objective, you need to walk back the process and see what you need to do in order to reach it and then enforce it. So, you can't enforce that without a global structure. As for potentially recurring pandemics, we can address the root causes of pandemics, especially zoonotic diseases, through a global government. And as for Billionaires greed, We can tax billionaires out of persistence by setting an old cap at $999 million per person. Typically, as we abolish nation-states, we will abolish monarchies and as we abolish nation-states, we will abolish the mental industrial complexes. So these three matches will help us gain trillions of dollars through these trillions. We can introduce shelter, access to clean water and food, education, healthcare, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, stable speed internet connections as basic human rights. You know, you also believe a global government should be rude to citizen assemblies. I mean, explain how that would work. Your own citizen assembly would be by far 10 minutes away from your home. So you will have to vote on two levels. First of all, you vote for yourself on all issues instead of voting for someone to vote on your behalf and you will have to vote on two levels. The first level is the global level in which we all have an equal vote as human beings around the world and this has to do with global issues that we must face together and there will be local issues or for your own local citizen assembly and these you will vote for as well because to implement legislation within this small assembly. So the global issues will require facilitators to facilitate the process between citizen assemblies but there will not be a president or a prime minister or any kind of representatives to rule the world. We will rule the world collectively on our own. And then why do you also believe that there is democracy can work better than the political systems we have today. The political systems we have today are represented democracies spread all over the world and we have these are influenced through money and power. They're influenced by a few billionaires who buy these politicians and influence their decisions on all matters. So it's not effective to do that. And some people may argue that billionaires can buy direct voters is that while if we introduce shelter access to clean water and food, education, health care, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and stable freedom to not connoxious as basic human rights, we will expand the middle class. It would be more difficult for anyone to buy votes. And on the other hand, we will text billionaires out of existence. So diminish this huge amount of power, eliminate this huge amount of power from being acquired by a few individuals around the world. And then we can move forward with direct democratic participation and we can come up with better solutions. No, no system shall be 100% efficient. Our 100% tried all of the time. Yet we'll be closer to perfection by implementing this system of governance. You know, you believe certain things, including shelter, clean water, food, education, healthcare, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and reliable internet should be established as basic human rights. But why did you choose these particular rights? While shelter access to clean water and food, these are long overdue, they should have been introduced a long years ago. Education and healthcare are essential for human beings to learn in order to become better thinkers and in order to be able to practice knowledge and populism over time. And healthcare, we need healthy citizens all over the world, and freedom of expression, freedom of movement have to do with our feeling of being incarcerated, in fragmented nation states around the world. We should feel free to move whatever we want, and we should feel free to express our own views on any matters. As for stable speed internet connections, you can possibly ask people to practice 19 populism and vote directly on issues. Using tools of the 19th century, you need to let them use the tools of the 21st century in order to solve the problems of 21st century. You know, you have written a remarkable ranges of books, covering AI, politics, philosophy, justice, money, truth, and humanity. Give us a quick talk, which of your books best represent where you are intellectually today? Well, that's tough question, because you know, these books are like they are very dear to me, so it's difficult to pick from them. Yet, if I'm going to choose, I'll tell you, I'll publish nine books in total. Six of them were published in 2026. So the last three are the close, they are published in June, and they are the close to where I'm at intellectually today. They are tight in process sexy, humanities, money, and set minds free. What do you hope readers take away from reading your book? readers can, I hope my own books can act as conversation starters, especially the last three I mentioned. They have to do with the idea of establishing global government to be ruled by localism assemblies, and they include AI/DUP sessions, and they reflect on my core philosophy of enlightened populism. So they are quick reads, short reads, but I hope they can serve as conversation starters. You know, Mama, you have spent years questioning system, political systems, economic systems, educational system, and even the way we form our beliefs. After you've written, you have studied, written, and debated. What have you learned about being, I mean, what have you learned about human beings that surprised you the most? It's a bit of, I don't think it's a surprise because it might have been unspated by other people, yet it was a surprise for me. I can acknowledge the fact that human beings appreciate philosophy, even if they don't say that they appreciate philosophy, because philosophy is the love of wisdom, and I believe from my interactions with human beings and from my own studies and debates and everything, I believe that human beings at the end of the day love wisdom. So we all practice philosophy at one level or another. This might be controversial or might be contrary to one of the great philosophers, play to claim that masses are ignorant by nature. I think even if they are ignorant by nature, they appreciate wisdom, they love philosophy, and even if they don't realize it on their own. And for listeners who want to explore your books, A.I. do, and your ideas about the future of humanity, I reckon they find you online. Well, they can find my books through Google Play and Amazon, and they can visit my website. This is the best place to start. Mohamednabeel.org, M-o-h-a-m-e-d-n-a-b-i-l dot w-o-r-l-d. It would be helpful if you can add it to the showrooms. Oh, yeah, I'll definitely do that. Thank you so much. much for that. And then one final question I would like to ask is what I said you most about the future of humanity. Pradek and I think populism and you know I think the world under the single global government to be ruled by hyperses and assemblies so we'll after establishing the basic human rights that all do about previously we'll expand the many class and we'll have more authors, more philosophers, painters, artists, filmmakers who will unlock the creativity of human beings and we will have more time to investigate issues independently and the results will be awesome. Wow thank you so much for that and we're going to go to the end of this episode and you man enough. Thank you so much for joining me on you man enough. You know today we explored some pretty big questions from AI and truth to democracy, global governments and how we decide what we believe. You know what our listeners agree with every idea or not. I think the most important thing is that we keep asking questions, challenging our assumptions and staying simply willing to learn. Thank you so much for being a wonderful guest on this show today. Thank you for hosting me and for preparing this thoughtful question.