Mohamed Nabil: Can AI Challenge Our Ideas, Expose the Truth, and Change How We Think?

[Music] Part 2. Another episode on issue, and you guys know I only bring the best case to the show. Today's case is an author, obviously, social innovator and creator of AI debates on once publications. A unique framework that uses artificial intelligence to openly challenge and author's own ideas, through published on the third debates, is the author of the bachelor's of Egypt's The Lighting Populism. Minds of you with Chargy P.T., philosophy-card debates with AI, truth is sexy and several other books, exploring democracy, technology, philosophy and global justice. It's work encourages critical thinking, very core transparency, and questioning assumptions, other than accepting them at Facebook. More made, welcome to the show. Thank you for your introduction. It's great to be here. Thank you so much. So, for our first hypothesis against for today is more made, now be once again welcome to hidden secrets and books. Thank you. I appreciate the presentation. Okay, so let's talk about AI debates on once publication. How does it change the way the authors interact with their own work? Well, at the beginning, I thought of AI debates on once publications, because I thought books and ideas are typically dead if they are not openly discussed in the public. So, I publicly started discussing my own books with AI tools, allowing them to criticize the content and then publishing the raw exchanges back and forth exchanges between me and the AI tools for people to follow the reason. So, this may have a revolution in the impact on publishing, education, policy making, humanities and social sciences. Imagine that relationship changing, instead of asking someone to blind the accept or reject certain conclusion, you are publishing the whole exchanges of back and forth argumentation with an AI tool, allowing people to follow the reasoning of what you have written. This is based on radical transparency and intellectual humility. It shows the intellectual rigor involved in publishing exchanges, the dynamic of dynamics of publishing, a vocal and essay. All right. Thank you so much, Mohammed. So, I think I want to be calling you Moe. Is that okay? Call you Moe. Yes, it's okay. What happens is easy for you. Okay, so Moe, you coined the term "lighting populism". What does it mean and why do you believe society needs it today? Lighting populism is a behavioural pattern of communication that involves listening to multiple experts, trying to understand how they reach certain conclusions and investigating the information to discover the truth. It contrasts with the two dominant behavioural patterns of communication in today's world, flying deletism, which entails blindly following an expert or an elite on a certain issue, and ignorant populism, which involves the absence of investigation while relying on feelings of France. So, enlightened populism is a three-step kind of behavioural pattern of communication. You listen to multiple experts, you try to understand how they reach certain conclusions, and you investigate the information to discover the truth. I believe we need it today because today we are overwhelmed with information and massive information and disinformation. We live in a world where lots of data is flying everywhere, yet we rarely stop to investigate each certain issue separately. So, I believe, especially within this era, we need this kind of communication, but this kind of behavioural pattern of communication. Okay, thank you so much. So, what do you think so many people did our blindly trust experts or reject expertise altogether? I think it has to do with cognitive energy. People find it easier to blindly follow a certain expert or completely reject expertise altogether because of this trust in the system and relying on feelings of France. I think the lack of investigation is the real issue. The lack of investigation is a matter of preserving your cognitive energy instead of spending time and effort and investigating issues. Okay, so how else do you debate your own ideas with AI? Change your thinking. Well, as I mentioned previously, it has to do with intellectual humility and practical transparency. So, I, each time I published one of these debates, I'm exposing the reasoning behind my conclusions to the general audience. So, I'm expecting that to have an impact on them. And I'm expecting them to follow the reasoning, follow the arguments and counter-arguments and then pick their own side. So, at times, I have this, I had these long debates with AI tools that I almost missed the sense of debating another human being. This was the main effect. AI DUP or AI debates on one's publications isn't meant to replace human to human debate. It's only, it can only be viewed as complementary. So, apart from the intellectual humility involved with it and the radical transparency and the ability to follow, to allow people to follow the reasoning, there is that side that you actually miss the human touch while debating tools too much. Okay, so, you input your book. My interview with Chargiquity, response conversations with artificial intelligence. What surprised you the most during those exchanges? My interview with Chargiquity was published in 2025 and August 2025. And I was surprised that at the beginning there was a surprise that it could come up with profound questions about my own writings. And in no time, I just told the ask Mohammad Nareel a questions on one of his writings. So, in no time, it came up with profound questions. And these profound questions are based on my own writings. So, it starts with the stuff like you previously mentioned, a relationship between truth and media consumption. How do you say, how do you see changing in times of short for content and AI-driven algorithms? So, the level of intellect coming from the machine was surprising. And then I started passing back some of the questions it asked me. So, instead of answering for myself, what does Mohammad Nareel mean by X and Y? I kept the answers in the book and then I asked, what do you think Mohammad Nareel meant by X and Y? We both didn't give exact answers to the same questions. It didn't come up with the identical meaning I meant. Yet it came up with profound and logical meanings for what I've written. It was surprising for me because at this stage, I was still exploring the idea of co-authoring something with Atul. It was before I created the AI Debates on On's publications. So, I was actually, it was amazing to find out that the machine has reached this level of intelligence. Okay, so, why did you decide to write this book? Why? Excuse me, I didn't hear you, why? Why did you decide to write this book? My interview was tragedy. I decided to write this book to document where the tool stands, where the cutting edge AI tool, the most popular AI tool at time stood and it was some sort of an experimental book. The interview going back and forth between me and the machine. As if I was communicating with a real human being, I, I know a previously told this that I sometimes miss communicating, miss debating human beings, but this wasn't the matter of the way it was, a matter of questioning. So, it came up with profound questions, as if it came up with profound questions that I believed superseded questions, I received them previously refused from real human beings. So, this was one of the main pieces I wrote the book, all right. So, moving on, we are proposing, we are proposing assemblies and if on a single global government, what does, what problems do you believe those ideas are trying to solve? I believe our main ideas of today and for the future are climate change, billionaires breed representatim extrema. in equality and extreme poverty around the world, and potentially recurring pandemics. And I believe these three problems can be solved by having a single global government instead of fragmented nation states. And I believe citizen assemblies are the best way to solve these problems. Instead of relying on elected representatives like we do nowadays in most areas around the world, instead of relying on our representative democracy, we can go for direct democracy, direct democratic participation. We can vote on single issues instead of asking someone to vote on our behalf. And this shall be enabled through enabling enlightened populism as we investigate into multiple issues. And study actual matters of policy before making a decision. We can come up with effective tools for decision making. This is a part of the story. Another part of the story has to do with enabling enlightened populism by reducing working hours, relying on AI tools instead of the massive layoffs that are expected to happen soon. We can reduce dramatically, reduce working hours to allow people to have enough time and the energy to investigate into multiple issues. There is a sociological side to enabling enlightened populism. And that's a whole book. That's my latest book. It's called "The Spited Truths of Sex." We can dig into that later. OK, more. So you work, the work of us philosophy, politics, economics, and technology. How do these disciplines connect in your board view? And in my own view of the world, everything is integrated. And everything forms together into one bigger picture. So for instance, it's difficult to discuss something like education without discussing the new AI tools, which belong to technology. And the traditional way of thinking that education is a discipline and technology is another discipline. Well, it doesn't help you solve the issues of the day. Anything assigned to students can be done via AI tools. And this issue will continue to grow over time as these tools become smarter. Teachers can solve this problem by requiring students to submit an AI/DUP or AI debates for months' publications session at the end of each assignment and handling debates with other students and their findings. So this is one example of how these disciplines integrate and come together. Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, and mind. So philosophy is naturally integrated with any other discipline. So again, you can properly understand politics, for instance, without understanding philosophy. You can't tackle economics successfully without understanding philosophy. I believe the philosophy is one of these parent disciplines that you need to understand in order to successfully tackle any issue than any of the other disciplines. All right. So moving on. What role do you believe AI should play in helping people take more physically, rather than replacing human judgments? It doesn't have to do with how the AI tool itself acts. It has to do with how we use it. We have to maintain human sovereignty and the age of AI. We have to direct the tool the way we wish it to play a role in our lives. So according to AI debates and non-spublications and the general ideas of my work, I usually use the AI tools to get into the debate with me. These tools almost have the sum of human knowledge due to the huge sets they've been trained on. So you can actively ask to criticize anything, any new idea you have or any old idea you have. And then it will come up with an answer based on our sort of criticism, based on almost everything that has been published around this idea. So you can benefit from it in this way. You can sharpen your own ideas and stress test them by going into back and forth argumentation with AI tools. And this way, you can elevate your own mind and elevate your own way of thinking. People use AI tools for ghost writing. They use AI tools to do stuff on their behalf, actively training their minds to become numb over time. And they are losing their ability to control the tool. They are letting the tools control their own future. So this will have catastrophic consequences for those kinds of people. OK, so if listing us can take away one listing from all your books and projects, what would you hope it would be? Well, if listeners would take one thing from all of my books and philosophy, I'd hope they'll take enlighten populism, which is a very, very pattern of communication that involves listening to multiple experts, trying to understand how they reach certain conclusions, and investigating their information to discover the truth. All right, thank you so much. So is there a question you wish I would have asked you that I have not asked you? No, I think this has been great. All right, thank you for joining us and sharing your thought-provoking ideas. But that is in us, I agree or disagree with your conclusions. We have challenges to think more deeply. Question our assumptions and engaging conversations is greater curiosity and intellectual honesty. You wish you continued success with your books, AIDOP and your ongoing work, exploring the intercession of AI, philosophy and society. Thanks again for being with us today. Thank you very much for hosting me. It has been a pleasure. OK, so for those who would like to connect with you and those who want to get your book, how can they do that? Well, they can connect with me through my website, www.mnabeel.org, and more H-AM-D-N-A-D-I-L dot W-O-R-L-D. It would be helpful if you can leave it in the description of the episode. All right, more thank you so much. I really appreciate you. And thanks to my audience as well. You guys are the real reason why we are able to do this. And we have a wonderful day ahead. Thank you more. Bye. Thank you. Good work.