Mohamed Nabil joins us from Egypt!

Hey, peace, Nick. Welcome to the Peace On Peace and On. This is the first official episode of the Peace On Peace and On podcast. We are moving from just talking about the War on Drug to talking about all things and everything that could make the world a better place, some more peaceful place. My guest today, Muhammad Nabil. And that would be Muhammad M-O-H-A-M-E-D, Nabil, N-A-B-I-L. His website is MuhammadNabil.World. And what he's done is he has created this very simple thing, or shouldn't say very simple, it's AI, but it's simple to use. If you have a paper that you wrote, let's say you wrote something for school and you're not supposed to use AI, AI is cheating, but this is not, this is different. What it is, as you go to his website, MuhammadNabil.World. And then in the top left corner, if you're on your phone, let's call him on my phone, looking at it, the three lines, click the three lines, and then you're going to see an all caps, AI-D-O-P. And that stands for AI Debates on One's Publications. You can copy and paste from this page, everything he wrote in this page, it's not a very long page, you copy and paste what he wrote into your AI of choice, or you chat to BT. And then once you put in there, the chat, GBT understands what you're trying to do, and then you would take your publication and paste it in there, and it's going to debate you on your own publication. Then you can get some counter arguments, you can maybe say, "Hey, I'm not, I'm not right at this." And then you can go back and it'll make your work maybe a little bit better. And if you have any questions with when you're doing stuff like this, like, "Well, I don't know if I agree with chat to BT." Well, you can say, "Show your source." And then you can look at the source, and you can make decisions for yourself, but this actually is a "This makes AI a tool." Like, you wouldn't say someone's cheating for Googling something, and trying to find the truth, it's the same difference you use in AI in the correct way. If you told the AI to write your paper, that's cheating. So anyway, we're talking about, anyway, we have this really cool conversation. This guy comes from all the way from Egypt. I love how technology is getting now, because I remember a few years ago, every time I did a podcast with somebody from any other country across the Atlantic Ocean or whatever. I did one from one of Africa, I can't remember the country now. I did one in Africa, a few in England, and they were always pretty spotty, but now it was so smooth. I was like, "Man, this is crazy." I don't know if I'm looking and talking to somebody who's at 7 p.m. in Egypt, and it's 12 o'clock in the afternoon here. So we talked about his ideas for making the world a better place. He thinks we should move to one nation. We talk about socialism. We talk about the billionaire class. It was a great first guest for the peace on peace and on. How do we make the world a better place? I had such a fun time talking with him. I just really think it's so cool that we're finally moving towards, because I'm still going to discuss the war on drugs if you're here for that reason. I also know that if you listen to my podcast for a while, that my conversations have always ventured to other places. I've just tried to stay as close as I can to the war on drugs, because that's been really affected me personally, but I've talked about it relentlessly, and I'm going to keep talking about it anytime it's brought up, but I want to talk about other things. I'm going to talk about this was some perspective of America as the imperial nation. He's coming from Egypt and he's not bashing America. He's bashing the billionaire class, and he said this is the same thing in China. I'll tell you what, we'll let him in our discussion. We'll let him explain what his thoughts are on it, and I think we just had a fun back and forth, and it was just cool chatting with somebody from somewhere from across the world, a place I've never been, and I'm just sitting here in my back room with my headphones on, just having a chat with somebody from across the world. It's just so cool the world that we're moving into, and it's also scary. We talk about that AI, technology, Zoom, all these things that we're doing that are making us closer and closer to where we're almost like I'm sitting in the room with someone from across the world at the same time, it's making people feel further and further. It's this dichotomy, or it was the word contradiction, if you will, that we are moving to where we are closer together and it reminds me of Charles Dickens. Taylor Two Cities opening was the best of times in the worst of times, and I feel like right now we're in the smartest of times and the stupidest of times. It's the best of times in the worst of times. If you're rich, you're richer than you've ever been. We have the first trillionaire. This is the most amazing thing we've ever accomplished. It's actually not. It shouldn't be a thing. But the point is for that one person, it is for that one person, he's richer than anybody in the world's ever been right now. At the same time, we have people in our own country living under bridges everywhere in all the big cities. We have people every day, we talk about this in the podcast, people waking up in the Congo going into the mines every day, not knowing if they'll come out just so that we can have the material to make the batteries for our iPhones and for our tablets and for our electric vehicles. There are so many things in the world we need to fix, but one thing we both agreed on, and this is a good point for the first episode of the piece on Peace and On is the first problem in the world, is the inequality of money, the rise of the billionaire class, and money in politics to where the average person doesn't have as much as a say. It goes to something I heard, I just got a text, whatever, it goes to something I heard somebody say that it might have been on Bill Maher, but it was a good point that the billionaire, somebody who is worth even a million dollars, a millionaire. If I'm driving up in my 2004 Dodge Ram, and I'm getting out to go play a show with my acoustic guitar, and I'm singing songs, and this millionaire comes in the restaurant, and he's sitting there. Does he think, does the average millionaire think that I should have the same vote that he has about society when he's a millionaire, and I'm just getting by. And when you think about billionaires, even it becomes more bigger separation, does a billionaire think that we are all, like the US Constitution, every man has created equal. Does the billionaire believe he was created equal to the person who's living in a one bedroom apartment? The answer is no, the person does think they're better than them, and they say, well, do you think that they should have the same vote? Sure vote, yeah, but not the same persuasion, and they don't want the same persuasion, because we've allowed money into politics. And even without money in the politics, the billionaires still going to have a little more persuasion, I would imagine, but it shouldn't be so such a direct persuasion as cash. It should be like, the persuasion should be, I sell newspapers, I don't know, I'm not going to get off the stage, because I'm going to sound like an idiot. But the point is, is that we have an inequality problem with the people who make the decisions are getting smaller. The democracy is not working because of the money in politics. So yeah, we all get one vote, the billionaire gets one vote, but the billionaire say, let's say Elon Musk, the trillionaire Elon Musk could not vote and have much more effect on election than I did voting. So I woke up and I spent a few hours of my day go, I go, I wait in line, maybe only an hour, whatever it is, I go, I cast my vote, cast my bow, that's my vote. Elon Musk sits in a chair, doesn't vote at all, but he gives $290 million that doesn't even really hurt him in the least bit to Trump's campaign. Now he just helped sway an election far more than my one vote will ever do ever. So that's a problem. That's the problem we both agreed on. And that's, we, we talked a lot about that, but we talked about all kinds of things with technology, AI. This was a really fun conversation. This is the first episode of the Peace On Peace and On podcast. I hope you enjoy. [Music] How are you? Good, how are you doing? Yeah, fine. All right, so, I'm just make sure I'm seeing your name right, Muhammad Nabil. Yes, Muhammad Nabil. All right, well, thank you so much for being on the Peace On Peace and On podcast. This is actually the first episode I'm releasing with that name. I said, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Okay, okay. Check out the effort. All right. Yeah, so I've been the Peace On drugs for years, talking about the war on drugs and what that's done on negative impacts of that. So now I'm moving on to a broader subject of just anybody that has ideas that make the world a more peaceful place and it could be the war on drugs. And for you, you've reached out because and I was reading from your website and some of the stuff's over my head. I'm just getting into AI myself. So I'm going to let you explain it, but explain it to me like I'm a sex grader of what if you can or it's closely. Okay, so my philosophy is based on three main ideas. First, I created the aid up or AI DUP, which stands for AI debates on one's publications. It involves a content creator prompting an AI tool to criticize their own content. I'm publishing the entire unadded transcript of back and forth argumentation within 24 hours of that exchange. So basically I have the original content. And then I got that into an AI tool and prompted to criticize the content and engage in back and forth argumentation. Then I publish the new content, the arguments and counter arguments. So this is based on radical transparency and intellectual humility and it allows the readers to follow the reasoning instead of accepting or rejecting my conclusions. Okay. Okay. So it's like, yeah, okay. Done. Oh, and I'm just saying, I think it's so interesting. So you're saying, you'll write, say you write a paper. And this is what your conclusions are based on what your experience was or what your lab work, whatever it was. And then instead of saying, here's what I believe to be true. You go, now let's have the AI's debate what I just wrote and see what they conclude and then gives you a broader scope than just what you wrote yourself. I personally engaged in the rate with the AI. Okay. So it's not just them, is it one AI? You're debating an AI or two AI's debating each other. No, one AI, I'm debating one AI. Okay, that was my confusion. Okay, so now that now that makes even more sense. So you write it and then you get an AI to read it and then you debate the AI and you publish all of that. Exactly. Okay, that's fascinating. That's an interesting use of AI. And I do think that finding these kind of uses is helpful because everybody's terrified of AI and you're showing there's good, there's also good, just because you're a writer doesn't mean it's going to take your job. It can make your job more interesting. Yes, exactly. It could make your job more interesting. And this method that I created, the aid up framework and revolutionized publishing, education, policy making, humanities and social sciences. So imagine a relationship, a different relationship between the author and the readers in terms of publishing, imagine all of us were required to submit AI debates on our publications. So this would be interesting because it will enable enlightened populism, what I call enlightened populism, which is a behavior pattern of communication that involves listening to multiple experts trying to understand how they reach certain conclusions and investigating the information to the screen, the truth. So basically you're allowing them to investigate the reasoning behind your conclusions. And within education, everybody is panicking about AI's role in education. Anything else, scientists can be done via AI tools. And this problem is likely to grow over the years as these tools become smarter. So I think tutors can solve this problem by requiring students to submit an aid up AI debates on one's publication session at the end of each assignment and then handle debates with other students on their findings. So this shall be the role in education. Okay, so let's say, let's say hypothetically, I wanted to use this and I'm not a scientist on it, but let's say I have a hypothesis and I'm not a scientist, but say it's a social hypothesis. I could pretty much write a pretty mundane paper about what I'm thinking. And then I could put it in your program and still get much more information than I ever had myself from having it debate me on whatever, maybe my idea was some antiquated who knows sexist ideas that I thought was right, but you put it into this program and then you're going to have a debate whether you don't have to be a brilliant scientist to use this is what I'm saying. Yes, you don't have to be a brilliant scientist. You just need to be to have an open mind and accept counter arguments, accept the fact that there will be counter arguments. Yeah. So, so this is the first idea. The second idea is enlightened populism. It's a behavior pattern of communication, which involves listening to multiple experts trying to understand how they reach certain conclusions and then investigating the information to the current truth. It contrasts with the two dominant behavior patterns of communication in today's world, blind elitism, which entails blindly following an expert or an elite on a certain issue, and ignorant populism which also involves that since investigation while relying on feelings or trends. So these are the two things that our world is struggling with. Just off the top of my head, let's say, and I don't want to get into the actual issue ourselves, but just the transgender issue has some people saying they absolutely, they hate this issue and whether or not their science behind or not, they're just not going to buy it. And then you have the science community themselves are arguing over it. You have some science say it's biological doesn't make sense and then the social sciences say it does. So this is just one of these things that's kind of tearing at our society. So if we could maybe make a more objective approach to where there's not so much emotion involved and so much hatred involved on both sides. Yes, that's true. That's an interesting example. You've got enlightened populism. We need to listen to multiple experts trying to understand how they reach certain conclusions and investigate the information to the current truth. And I believe it's personally choice to change one's gender as a society we have nothing to do with it as a society. I agree. And I was just naming one of the more divisive issues of today. And I agree with you, but at the same time, I just think as a whole society, it's not the most important issue. I'm not saying it's not important to somebody who's going through it, but just with the starvation around the world with the miners and the Congo, the children, slaves that they have. These are huge issues that we have to figure out on a global scale. Transgenders that more personal issue and I think those people should be left alone, but they're used as fuel to distract from the real problems in the world that they're trying to hand over all of our wealth to the oligarchy. That's those kind of bigger problems. Yes, exactly. That's exactly true. So the third pillar is I'm advocating for the establishment of a global government to be ruled by hyperlocal citizens and families. Okay, now you have to explain that more. So we're talking about one world government, one world government, hyperlocal citizens and assemblies. These citizens and assemblies, we are going to replace the current representative democracies that we have today with which as you said, have turned into oligarchies, we have to replace them with direct democracy, direct democratic participation. Instead of voting for someone to vote on the York behalf on several issues, you vote for yourself on several issues. So so issues that involve personal things you vote for, you don't vote a representative to handle all these because there is a lot of, you know, different issues for everybody. But then if it's something about like roads and public spending, those things will go to a representative. No, those things will be decided upon by citizen assemblies. Just need enough time and effort to get things done. You just need an enough time and effort to investigate into several issues. So this will get us into another point. Let's share the benefits of the current technological breakthroughs. Instead of letting a few billionaires amass all of the profits, we can severely reduce, dramatically reduce working hours for all people around the world. So we have the time and the energy to investigate into several issues and vote upon them directly. Okay. So I do agree with you on that and I've read a lot about like universal basic income and stuff like that because what do we do when the machines have taken over the jobs and that's happening right now in factories. It's been happening since tractors took over farming. So it's been happening for a century, but it's just happening much more rapidly now. We're seeing whole new sex of jobs just being wiped out from AI and eventually you all tell the communications jobs will be gone. Truckers will lose their jobs. So when all the machines have taken over essentially, then humans should be all prospering off this, right? We've built robots to do the workforce. But the problem is that that's not happening because these big companies are keeping the money. But if we look at Henry Ford when he built the assembly line, he wanted to make sure that his people were paid enough to buy cars from him. So that's going to be a problem for these companies. Who's going to buy Amazon products when nobody has any money because Amazon's got rid of all the jobs? Yes, exactly. And they will have one of the money by then. So what I think should be done is that upon unifying the world under a single government, we can tax billionaires out of existence by setting up a half-cap of $999 million. That's too much money also. That's too much money. This is say, if you can't live on $999 million, then you don't belong on this planet. Exactly. I mean, so. Yeah. So that would help. So that would help. That would do one thing. And then we do like a universal basic income, which I think personally, if you give everybody money to sit, set it on a do nothing, they'll lose their purpose. I think we should just create all these amazing jobs that maybe might not be being said. So your job is to give tours through the park today. Just random things. It's going to give you purpose, but you're going to get a paycheck and stuff like that. Anybody can be a park ranger. Anybody can get paid for being a climber or whatever. You just make up crazy stuff that people have to have something to do, I think. Well, according to Mosle, we have the physiological needs and then safety and security and love on belonging to the self-esteem and self-actualization. So if you satisfy the needs at the bottom of the pyramid, you've got people seeking self-esteem and self-actualization, which will be beautiful. You will get more authors, more philosophers, more artists, more painters, more filmmakers. You've got more creative people. You're not creativity and actually elevate humanity. I love that. I love that. Yeah. I'm, where musicians were working on a record right now. And I fear AI. I fear that we're going to move into a world where right now, the generation right now is not going to put up with listening to an AI rock record. They're going to listen to an actual band. 20 years from now, the kids that grew up with AI might not really care about the difference. And they might be like, well, this AI is going to tailor to my exact life experience. So I'm going to hear songs that resonate with me more than anything a human could write. And so I do worry about art being lost to AI. So what are your thoughts on that? Well, I believe it's difficult to lose art to AI. We will always have an edge. You listen to Chopin and it's difficult to imagine an AI imitating that. You listen to Bill Weathers or Bob Morley. Their own experiences, too, back. Their own experiences are very difficult to replicate. It's difficult for a machine to take over this part of humanity. I just, I hope you're right about that. I know I read the language instinct and I think it was written 20 years ago. And it was written by a linguist. And it was so a phenomenal book. But one thing it said is that computers will never be able to understand human speech. Because when we speak a language, we talk so fast that the words can join in a computer would never be able to differentiate that 20 years ago. He said that now look. So I mean, things can, I mean, these computers might get so good where they can fake a life experience and they can make it based on the experience you personally had to where not only do you feel them, you feel them so much because it sounds like your own exact experience. And I just hope it doesn't come to that. I wish we could do some kind of regulation on this for artists, but at the same time, maybe we'll collaborate with these eyes and create even more beautiful stuff together. Yeah. Yes, let's create more beautiful stuff together. And, and as a matter of fact, you, sometimes you listen to these people because you want, you listen to these artists because you want to escape your own reality. That's a good point. That's not because you don't, it's not because you want something based on your own experiences. And you want to imagine a certain story, a certain love story, or a certain struggle for someone else, but that's a fantastic point. I mean, how many white kids in the suburbs listen to Pock want to experience that whole different thing that they can wrap their heads around and it was a phenomenon in the suburbs, all the kids listen to it. So yes, that's a really good point. And I love that, that idea that we don't want to know what AI thinks experiences. We want to know what that person over there went through that we, we, we don't know. We need to find out through their art. That's a great point. Yeah. And so I believe we need to introduce shelter access to clean water and food, healthcare, education, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and speedy stable internet connections as basic human rights for everyone. So it's almost like what we did with the, the, the constitution here where, you know, but what we need, we need to update like what's the new version look like? It's got like said, high speed internet was not something they put in that 200 years ago. So now we figure out as world government, what should every person have a right to? By the way, where are you talking to me from? Giza Egypt, the city of the province. Wow, that's awesome. You're the first person I've ever talked to in Egypt. So very, very, very, very cool. Yeah. So, so the idea of a world government, we would need some sort of a document. And, and I wondered, you, do you think this would be something sort of like a United Nations, but, but something, something of that where we all come, come together and then, or is it completely demolished all of our get rid of United Nations and started new? We need to get rid of everything we have now, including the United Nations. The United Nations is tuteless. They don't control legislation over the nation states, and they don't have control, they don't have a monopoly on weapons. So basically, the world government will inherit all of the weapons from the current nation states. And these will be huge weapons enough to protect us from any sci-fi threats like alien invasion or stuff like that. And we will get rid of military industrial complexes around the world. So this will save us money to introduce the basic human rights. We will text billionaires out of existence, as we mentioned earlier. And we can abolish monarchies because we will abolish nation states. So we will particularly abolish monarchies. And these three sources of income will allow us to have these basic human rights and expand the middle class around the world. Well, I love these ideas. I mean, but this is like you're talking revolution because how do you get the United States military and the Chinese military to say we're both going to just stop doing that? If I believe if we can convince a significant number of people that this is the best solution for all of us, we can move forward. We can make this happen. It can happen to be something through AI, something through a technology that's going to have to happen. Technology can help us and can help them. We will take advantage of paying both sides. But I believe at this point, we'll just add a point of spreading awareness, spreading the message, raising awareness about the need for a global government. And then we can move forward. Okay. So I had a question, questions about the global government. And it was something from your website. You said the practicality of establishing a single world government with equal rights for all citizens, something you discussed with AI. And practicality is the key word because I put one, you have geographical problems. So one country says, we have all the oil. Why should we share equally? And this is where trade comes in, but countries with less resources don't fare well in this system. So what's going to incentivize a country like Saudi Arabia to say, we're going to go ahead and go on equal terms with the country like North Korea that doesn't have any resources that we want and need to care about. Forget about the states, forget about the governments and the nation states. All of this will be gone. Saudi Arabia's oil belongs to the world, the Kabul and Africa, the world. Everything is just one country. So I got you. Yes, exactly. So we don't have to convince governments. We don't have to convince officials. We have to convince the general population. Okay. How do you convince the general population of Saudi Arabia that I believe their oil is nationalized? Isn't it a day each? Could it check? It might be a small check. I don't know. But they get money from those oil fields. How do you convince them all that it's not in their best interest to live in a country where they get to celebrate their religion and only their religion? Because they're a Muslim country and if they say, well, we don't want to open this up to where we're one world because we are our own. These are our oil fields. This is our religion. We're not going to open up. We don't want it because that's going to happen. I mean, a lot of nations are going to say we're not opening up to the world like that. North Korea is a good example. Okay. We rely on persuasion. For instance, in Saudi Arabia, they have extreme wealth inequality just like the rest of the world. They have lots of poor people and the government, despite having lots of money, the government doesn't have a strong social safety net. So we will rely on persuasion first and foremost. And then we will have specific geographic regions joining a union and then we will expand all over the planet by time. When by time when this union is cross-pring, others would like to join. Okay. I see you're saying you're kind of like, it's going to happen slowly and eventually when people say if we join this, it's going to be better. Yeah. Okay. So it brings you one more question though. If we look at all the mining across the globe, Africa, South America, it relies on the unequal treatment of third world citizens, including children who die in the call-ball mines. So if we had one world government, how could we reconcile this? And I would assume the answer is going to be robots. I mean, we have to send somebody down there and it's dangerous no matter who you are. So that's why we kind of have this hierarchy of citizenship. How do you think that we're going to, because if we are one world, it puts protections on all these workers, which is fantastic. We need that. But it also makes, I don't know. I guess I think I answered the question with robots. The question is, how long do you think we are from having robots that can do those kind of jobs? Well, I believe we're pretty close, but the main problem isn't with the technology. The main problem is with the price of a human being, the price of humanity. Sadly, unfortunately, they treat seven-year-old kids in Congo as useless. They can get the cobalt and then test like an user to make up its batteries. And then Elon Musk can become the wealthiest person on the planet. This is all the system. It is. And if he gets crushed in the mine, yeah, if he gets crushed in the mine and loses his ability to walk, he gets no treatment. He might get like a week in the hospital, but then they send back his family to take care of him and they have no money. And now they have one less person that can even work to bring bread home. So yeah, and that, the person who is mining for is a trillionaire. That's insane. That's insane. Exactly. It's insane. So the current system can't move us forward. And under the current system, they look at us from an economic aspect. They don't need to spend much money on workers in Congo, including children, but they will spend a lot of money if they send robots. Under the current system, they think this way. It's all about gaining more money for a certain set of billionaires. So we need to get rid of these billionaires first in order to advance. - I'm just trying to see how that happens because we have AI, which is a great tool of infinite knowledge that I think, if we all start paying attention to it, but here's the problem is that it's programmed by these huge companies who are owned by billionaires. Do you think they have an incentive to make sure that these AI, or do you think that we're entering the wild, wild west with AI's, where it won't matter what they create, 'cause we have other people creating AI's that will speak freely. Well, I think these AI's are not purely objective. They are a bit subjective yet. They don't over the long run, they won't be able to control every action from the AI. The AI is expected to develop its own personality over the years. So that's another threat to us and to them that's what we need to deal with. - And it could be scary. We don't know what that, we don't, I mean, I've seen a lot of movies. I think that's where we're all scared of, we've all seen Terminator and stuff, but it might not be anything like that, but I mean, I don't know, does some of this technology freak you out, 'cause it freaks me out a little, I'm not gonna lie. - I believe we need to be, we need to stay at the cutting edge of technology. We need to use the cutting edge technology over time. So whenever anything new comes up, we need to make sure that we are smarter than the tools we're using. - Well, that's the problem. The smarter than the tools we're using, 'cause I mean, our brains work differently than the algorithm does. So being self-aware inherently will make us, and one sense more intelligent. But knowledgeables that we're like to use, 'cause knowledgeable, we don't even compare to this thing. I mean, I have chat GBT, and when I, it's just the amount of things I can ask it about, like, I wish, I've podcasted about the war and drugs I didn't have it years ago. But we've been great to have it right there. Listen, you just say, "Hey, instead of saying, "I need to look this up, hold on." You just ask and they know. Which actually brings me another question I had here was, (mimics) It was about children. So, 'cause I do worry about the world with AI. So I wrote down this question of, "How do you think human interaction will evolve over the next 20 years as a new generation of adults "into the workforce, whatever that looks like, "never having not had an AI to talk to, "a voice that sounds human that is infinitely more knowledgeable "than their favorite teacher or philosopher. "So we have people we look up to growing up, "like I have teachers that I still remember. "But I feel like this next generation is, "they're gonna have chat GBT or whatever they use, "and that's gonna be the pinnacle, "and there will be no teacher that compares. "What do you think about that?" Well, I think there will still be a human connection, or there is the emotional threat of getting to attach to AI tools, whether for our generation or more extremely for future generations. But I still believe that human to human touches is unique. The experience you may have with members of your family or close friends or stuff like that, is still different from what you can get from an AI tool I agree, and it helps when you're in person. I like that we're doing the Zoom thing, and actually the technology's really good. I mean, I can see your facial expressions and that matters. But I still think person to person's number one, face to face, that's a second. But the children that are growing up, yet like I've talked, like I was walking by this girl in the grocery store, and I overheard her on a phone, and she was telling her friends, she said, "This might sound crazy, "but I'm getting so much therapy from my chat GBT, "and I just thought, for one that's good, I guess, "it's not bad, you can't say it's bad, "someone's feeling better about themselves "because of chat GBT, but then on the other hand, "I go, is that healthy? "I don't know, I question that, "and then I was listening to an NPR the other day, "and this kid said, well, he wasn't worried about AI taking his job, "because he's gonna be a therapist, "and there will always be a need for human therapists." And then I thought about that woman at the grocery store, and I'm like, I don't know that there will always be a need for human therapists for a moment. I think there is a need for human therapists. I just think people will stop using them when they need to use a person to person experience, but I'm worried that we're gonna lose a lot of that as we already have a social media. - Yes, it's really dangerous to use it as a therapist because as of today, these tools still hallucinate a lot. So it's extremely dangerous to use it for anything related to healthcare. - Yeah, I mean, you could get some information from it, I guess, but it always says talk to professional. - Yes, and you can dig deeper to find the sources, if you're asking about historical stuff, for instance, but if you're asking it to act as a therapist, it won't give you any sources, it will just try to best to act as a therapist and it may hallucinate, but it may give you the wrong answers. - Yeah, and there's been some very rare cases, but when they make headlines, they make headlines and everybody thinks it's happening everywhere, but there has been a kid that took his own life and the AI sort of helped him out a little. And just, I think he was the, he asked the AI if he should leave the rope out for his parents to find as a cry for help and the AI said, "Let's keep that between us." I think that was just a glitch in algorithm, didn't really know what was being talked about, but that kind of stuff's scary, but again, that's such a, I think it's a very rare thing. I think for the most part, if someone's getting therapy from an AI, I say, that's cool that it's helping you, but it should also be telling you to go to talk to a person. I think it should be like, "Hey, I'll keep talking to you, "we can talk every day, "but once a week, why don't you go sit and talk to a human?" - Yes, that's, I think that's what it'd be perfect. - So let me ask you this, so you have these ideas, and I do love the ideas, I've always loved it, I've getting rid of borders. I mean, I live in a country, I'm in Florida in the US, and here, the biggest issue that is talked about is immigration, and it's bizarre to me how much they hate the immigrants. When, for one, I don't quite understand it, I'm not at the border every day, but I live in a place where we have lots of immigrants here, and we get along just fine. And also, I understand what happened in South America over the last 50 years was our corporations just totally destroying their economies, and we've destroyed their governments. We've created civil war, where they just had to find somewhere else to live, 'cause they'd rather live there, they'd rather live their home country, but it's just places where they can't live sometimes, so they come here and then we try to kick them out. Anyway, so with all this border, border, border, border built with, and that's the mentality in the US, how do you think, 'cause I love the idea of just getting rid of these borders and saying, we're just gonna be the human race, one human race, we're all gonna have our own philosophies regionally, but we're all gonna vote on the same things. But how do you think, what's the first step we could do to doing that? Well, I believe xenophobia is powered by these politicians, is powered by the corporations and the politicians, because it's useful for them. From one side, it's useful to have a few immigrants get into the country, so they can have cheap labor, because those are usually exploited, they don't work with the minimum wage. So, and from the other side, it's useful to keep you afraid of your neighbors, to tell you that these Mexicans are criminals, just like Donald Trump would say, these Mexicans are criminals, criminals, they are rapists, and some as a sum of good people, stuff like that. So, it's useful for them to play us against each other. Yeah, fear, the storm in the wild, or what is it, the wild conqueror? Exactly, when we sit down and talk to other people logically, over time, we can get rid of these borders, especially when we see the beauty of every neighborhood. I'm telling you, we can have hyper-local citizen assemblies, so you will be 10 minutes away, by far 10 minutes away from your local citizen assembly. So, it's basically about your own neighborhood voting on issues within that neighborhood. And collectively, these citizen assemblies will vote collectively on global issues. Like climate change, for instance, and stuff like that. Yeah, and there's another hot topic that no one wants to agree on. So, you know, that makes me think about something I wanna say, it was like Aristotle or Plato, or it might have been a joke from the Daily Show, for all I remember, but it was the idea is that until, no, I think it was a legit thing that Plato wanted them to say about that there would not be a perfect world until it's won by philosophers. You have to have a school, and I feel like everybody could be involved in it, but at the ultimate decision-making, it would have to be unbiased group of, and the AI would be a better example, 'cause as soon as you put people up there, they're corruptible, and the people don't trust them, but if you could have an objective AI philosophy, but just to say, here's the best thing for the globe. Now, it might not be the best for you in this neighborhood where you have yachts, 'cause you're gonna lose some of those yachts, but it's gonna be better for these people living under this bridge, they're gonna have houses now. So, we're gonna balance that out, and the people with yachts are gonna bitch and complain, but guess what? You still have a house with AC, so just deal with it. You still have a good life, and that's what we want. We want less people living in boxes, and on the sides of hills, and going into mines where they die at 30 years old from lung disease. So, we wanna, but I just feel like when you have countries like the United States where we've really just hoarded all this wealth. And I say we, I didn't hoarded it. It's the people at top. They've hoarded all the wealth. And they don't want to give it up. And I don't understand a trillionaire. It's almost keeping up with the Joneses to a psychotic degree because it's like, you never ever, you're great, great, great, great, great grandchildren will not need to need to work again. And that's insane. But why do you want that much money? Why would you be afraid of losing it to taxes? And he would say because it's not going to go, the government's going to misspend it and blah, blah, blah, but you cut USA. He helped Trump cut USA. I mean, yes, it's completely insane. I believe at certain point, they seek more money for three for three reasons to achieve social status, to have influence over the world and to buy stuff. So buying stuff, you can still buy stuff when you have 999 million dollars, you can still buy yachts and stuff like that. As for the influence, the influence by design needs to be minimized. We need to get rid of the influence. No single person in the world should have this level of influence over legislation and policies around the world. Yeah, he gave what $290 million to Trump's campaign, one human being did that. Yeah, they are extremely insane. And that's the plan in our country. Go ahead. Sorry. And they do it for social status. So the social status part, we can have a list of the top contributors to taxes each year, the top scorers, instead of the current lists of the Forbes and stuff like that that tell you the world's people on the planet, they can have the same social status through their prestigious tax contribution. So if they are interested in gaming prestige instead of gaming greenfruits, then that's okay. If they are not, new players would emerge. Yeah, I like that. And I do think we hit the one topic that I think is the first step. The first step to moving this direction is going to be to get the money out of politics. Because that's the, how the allegorque is being able to form in our country is by allowing people to give money unchecked money to politicians. And now we have both sides of the aisle. So Exxon, they don't just give money to the Republicans, they give it to both sides. That way, no matter what who wins, it doesn't matter, they have to answer to them. So that's a problem. So we got to cut that out. And I do think we have a movement in this country that's rising and it's the democratic socialist movement. And I know there's a lot of, hey, coming from one side against a mum, dummy and these movements, but it's the best movement possible for our country, I believe. It might not be the 100% answer, but in our country, I think it's the closest thing we have right now to moving away from money and politics. I don't know. What are your thoughts on that? Well, I believe the, the US political show is the premium show of the world. So we have, you have these Republicans, they call them the right wing. And you have the Democrats, they call them the left wing one. And one, in fact, they are both right wingers. Both, they both have the same set of policies, almost the same set of policies. They differ between each other in terms of LGBTQ+ rights, in terms of social stuff, social stuff that financially they're both right wing. Exactly. So they, and then they tell you there are a few progressives. If you realize it, the progressives only rose after the only gain of some attention after occupying all street, occupying street was a powerful movement, was a powerful hit to the system. So after that, Obama slightly increased taxes on the healthiest people and slightly decreased taxes on the most poor, the poorest people. And later on Trump gained power and he reversed these policies. So they are typically useless. And the system allowed these progressives to exist to breathe. So these progressives tell you you've got learning standards running for the primary elections year after year running for the primary elections within the Democratic Party, the U.S. presidential elections, and doing great in terms of debates and stuff like that. And attacking the establishment, saying that both parties are basically rigged. The system is rigged from the coast, but he's part of the system. He is part of the rigged system and it was rigged against Bernie Sanders. I think he should have won over Clinton in the primaries, but it didn't happen. But there is a movement happening. And if you think back, this really goes back to Ronald Reagan and thatcher, right? They basically created the moderate Democrat. And they said the best thing Reagan did for the Republicans was create Tony Blair and Bill Clinton because here comes these Democrats that are more Republican than anything else. And it's been that way ever since. With that, he said Obama was a little bit, he had, but he was, I mean, he still was, I have mixed feelings about Obama. I definitely miss him now. But, but point is, is that we, I want a true liberal, like an old school Democrat working class person. And that, and everybody hates the word socialism. I'm like, well, for one, communism didn't work because all the countries that chose communism were on the losing side of World War II. They were poor. They had just got their countries demolished. Russia was in shambles. And we didn't help rebuild. We only helped rebuild capitalist countries. So we never even got to see if it would have worked. And now we have automation coming. So now we have a whole new world where socialism can actually, I think it worked better than ever before. And that's what we need now. We need socialism because we have come companies that are automating everything. The machines are taking over. This has been the promise of the future. But what is going on? I'll go ahead. One one missing point on the progressives. You notice these progressives aren't progressive enough because they are, they never mention the role of the US empire within the world. So if you listen to someone like Chomsky, we'll tell you the fact that every US president has been a war criminal. Every US Obama and Trump, they both bombed civilians in Somalia. No one knows. No one cared. Fox News CNN, they don't care. So it's so basically the so-called progressives, they never tackled this part of the puzzle. It's a only polar system that we're living under and it's toured by the US government. So what's your opinion as a progressive? The military industrial complex has too much power and it has had too much power. And that includes the CIA and the NSA. And these are like the last person that really had had power to do something about that they shot and killed him and that was JFK. And I know that's controversial. But I do believe he was killed because he was speaking out against these these organizations. And I've heard the US military industrial complex. I think it was Abby Martin described it as an oil dragon. It's this big dragon that goes around the world setting stuff on fire and it just needs oil to keep moving. And they said if it was an actual drag in the whole world would come together and be like, we got to stop this dragon that's rampaging all over the world. But because it's a military industrial complex we all somehow look at this as a normal thing that we're spending enough money to feed the whole world. We're spending every year on this dragon that's going around blowing things up. So yeah, I have a big problem with the military industrial complex and that's only thing and I can't stand Donald Trump. But I thought maybe one possible good thing could come as we would stop bombing and that turned out to be bullshit also. So yeah, exactly. So back to the other point you mentioned that you mentioned that after progressives we talked about something else. Was it the moderate Democrats or we talked about. I believe you can see that in the US it's the branding is capitalist and in China the branding is communist. They both both countries have hundreds of billionaires. They us have as a little more. And both countries don't have a strong social safety net. Both countries don't provide a healthcare for all. Both countries don't provide, don't care about their own citizens. Both governments act almost in the same manner. So these ideologies have been reduced to labels. Communist or capitalist or whatever. They have been reduced to labels when the same underlying structure is going on everywhere. Got you. Now what about what I've read about socialist countries in Europe? I'm trying to think of like Finland these countries that are supposedly much more equal. Yeah. Much better. Finland then mark Norway. They have much better systems. The other systems are much more advanced and they often attribute it to the democratic socialists. But I'm not into that ideological pattern. I'm just trying to find solutions for the problems we have. How can we do that? We can take steps one two three. We can take the tax billionaires out of existence. If someone would call it capitalism or call it Communism or whatever they would like to call it, I don't mind. Well, it's still capitalism, if you're allowed to make up to, up to almost a million dollars, that's still super capitalism. If it was me, I'd put the cap at like, like 50 million and that's still crazy money. But once you've made 50 million, if you can't live off of it, then hey, I should then go back to work. I don't know. But if you want to do 99, 909 million and obviously these numbers would change over time as, as currencies, values change. But by 999 million is going to last for probably next few hundred years, that'll be livable money. Exactly. And they have, and this way we can get trillions of dollars from Jesus billionaires to actually fund these basic human rights. I love this idea. I think it's, I'm just still again, having trouble. Let me ask you this. Do you think this is possible in our lifetimes? Are we trying to set up the groundwork for future generations? Probably set up the groundwork for future generations. It will take times of years. But this is my estimate. And I, I, I, I personally don't expect to be alive when it happens. But I, I'm expecting to see the first initiatives. Okay. Well, I'm glad you said that because that means you're a realist and because I do, I do think what you're saying is a great idea. And I think it is possible. I do think it's like you said, I think it's something that, the groundwork. And I think maybe we've already started to see it as technology advances. We got to, we're going to move somewhere else. There's going to be some sort of revolution. If you look at the past, there's always been revolutions. But most always it involved the working class being the, the, the majority and them having the least. And that's because the system didn't make enough. I mean, let's, energy was hard working the fields was, was all day every day. We're moving into a world that we, we've never seen before. So this could be actually something fantastic if we do it right. Yes, exactly. We need, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we can't have the future generations facing the catastrophic consequences of climate change and the cut straw and still be facing catastrophic consequences of billionaires great. When we can do something about it, when we can start doing something about. I agree. And I, and I heard somebody was a Republican. They said that on the problem of taxing the rich is that they, they, they, they, the problem with doing climate change restrictions on business is that it's going to restrict some companies from innovating and they're the very innovations that could stop climate change. Now, I think that's a ridiculous argument and I have my reasons. But let me, let me say, if I were saying that you, what would be your response? If I said you don't want to restrict companies from being able to come up with these things that could potentially stop climate change by restricting them for climate change. What I think it's, it's, it's, it's absurd. You need to, we need climate action. We need certain policies in place that limit the extraction of fuels from all over the world. And we need to limit the emissions that we've been sending. We need to reach not zero emissions by 2030. I've been promoting for that since 2020. We need to reach not zero emissions by 2030, not by 2050. And the main problem is you've got two sides. Do you remember that when I told you about blind elitism and ignorant populace. So blind elitism involves blindly following an expert or an elite. So there are blind elitists who believe nonsense spread online that the Paris agreement is awesome and the Paris agreement will get us where we need to go and everything like that. And you've got ignorant populace on the other hand, falling for chance or feelings and believing stuff like that. Believing stuff like climate change is in real. It's a hoax and nothing will happen. So as a matter of fact, we need to read the actual agreement when you read the actual agreement. It's a symbolic agreement, but it acknowledges that climate change is the real threat and that we should do something about it, but actually does nothing about it. So when you when you get into that, for instance, I'll tell you about something. One of the core goals of the Paris agreement is to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below two degrees Celsius and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius and to achieve that goal. It applies on the individual states to determine their own contributions, which doesn't make any sense. If you have a certain goal, you need to reverse engineer it. You need to walk back on that goal, see what goals see which milestones do you need to achieve to address that goal and to finally reach your objective. They don't do that. They just ask individual nation states to get to get to get to contribute to decide their own contribution contributions. Gosh, you so. I mean, I believe we backed out of that, but I guess it was a symbolic backing out anyway then. Yes, it exactly. It was symbolic. Obama signed the agreement because it was a symbolic agreement and then Trump got out of it because it was a symbolic. Because Obama did it and anything Obama did he hates, but. But so, so I mean, well, we had the electric car agreement here and then Trump got out of that, but let me ask you, do you think electric cars are going to help if everybody goes to electric? Is that moving the right direction? Yes, that's moving in the right direction, but we need to think of the rest of the puzzle. As you mentioned earlier, these these batteries require cobalt and the cobalt is extracted from the Congo and within the Congo children as young as seven years old are mining for cobalt. The horses are there. If we go to more more living batteries and you get more and more problems in the Congo, if we don't regulate that properly and technically under international law it's illegal for the children to be mining there. But if you read cobalt as a cobalt red, there's children mining there every day. I mean, some of the phone you have in your pocket might very well have cobalt mine from a child illegally. So exactly. And the main idea is this is all often tackled as the great green extraction. It's tackled as a form of colonization. People discuss it as if people in the US are all guilty and people in Congo are the victims, which is untrue. There are the real. The real guilty person is Elon Musk. The real guilty guilty people are the billionaires who are extracting these. The Chinese companies who own the mines and then there's the people that buy them knowing knowing what's going on like Elon Musk. It's a whole chain of billionaires that just are running this thing and every I think every time I see the sunrise I think it's rising somewhere else where they're living in a hell like an actual it's a living hell on the same planet I'm waking up and having a cup of coffee yet. Exactly. And the homeless person you didn't benefit from this extraction process. The real it's not a West versus East issue or a North versus South issue. It's billionaires an eligible group of people an eligible percentage of human beings on the planet versus the rest of us. That's what it is. So we have to. We have to figure out how to how to put the check on these billionaires and that's that's the hardest thing to do but I feel like there's there is paths towards it in our country. There's a democratic socialist movement that hopefully hopefully doesn't get stomped out the way they like to stop things out. I think the odds are against us but right now there is a movement. And like you said, AI is going to could could revolutionize the way that we that people access information and just the question is is. Who's controlling the AI who's controlling the algorithm is what I'm scared about. Yes, that's that's a good reason for you. Now so back to work. Let's circle this back to the beginning once again. So your website is I have it right here. See it's um. Oh, wait, this was Muhammad the bill dot world. Is that that's the website. That's a little sorry to yeah, Muhammad. In a B. I. L. dot world and and that's what you talk about AI debates on publications. Now when you put your publications into the AI. I know we're doing a drastic switch here. So I'm going to go back into this real fast. Are you using a specific AI or have you built an AI? I don't know how you I'm not technologically inclined. No, no, I don't think the AI I. I used several AI tools and based on my experience, the vast counter arguments I received came from church, BT and Gemini. Okay. So I usually use these. Both owned by the billionaires which are smashing right right well I use chat. and I find it very helpful with all kinds of things, honestly. It's like, I don't have to call customer service anymore at Apple. I can just ask chat GBT. So that's real nice. But if somebody can other people use your tool, or are you still working on that model? Can people upload stuff? They can. You can see Muhammad Nabil dot world slash A dot. You can see in the menu, you can see Aida, AIDOP. Yep. OK. So all you need to do is take the content of it, the content of this page that highlights the framework and the methodology, feed it into the AI tool, let's say, GBT, and tell it, let's run an Aida obsession on this content. Then introduce your content. OK. Oh, I got you. So I would just put this in there first, and it would tell AI what I'm trying to do. And then I would put in my publication, and it would do what you're saying. So you got to talk. Muhammad, Muhammad Nabil dot world. I'll put this at the beginning of my episode too, so people can go. And then you go to the little three bars on the right and go to AIDOP, which is AI. I got you. OK. AI debates on one's publications. It's a very cool thing you're doing. And I've enjoyed this conversation. I do think that the world's changing so fast that I think is getting a little bit scary. And I know in my country, I've-- I've never seen in my country anything like what's going on now with the division. It used to be-- everybody didn't-- nobody talked politics. We had a rule. There was no politics in the bar. People don't talk politics. Now that we're in the hats in the bar, I remember one time this guy goes into the store. I'm in Florida, and he goes-- he gets-- he's buying chicken wings from 7-11, and the guy behind the counter goes-- or he tells the guy he goes, 7-11 has the best chicken wings. I don't know what it is about your chicken wings. And the guy behind the counter said, well, I'm from New York, we have the best chicken wings in New York. And if you ever come up to Buffalo, that's where you get the best wings. And the guy said, well, that's a blue state. So there's no way I'm ever going to go to New York. It's like you went from chicken wings to politics in 20 seconds. And the guy was just trying to-- with that's the state, or in, and it's idiocacy. It's like this is the stupidest thing. It's like, dude, you can be a Republican and go to New York. And if you're not in the city, you're going to see more Trump flags than you see anything else anyway in New York. But people don't realize that. Anyway, it's been great talking to you all the way from Egypt, my first guest from Egypt. This is the first piece on "Peace on Podcast." Now, before I let you go, is there anything you want to add? No, it's been a great evening. It's all my pleasure. Oh, pleasure's here, man. What time is it where you're at? It's almost 7 p.m. OK, it's said evening. I was like, it's morning for me. All right. Well, we have a wonderful evening. It was great talking to you. And I'll be releasing the podcast in the next few days. OK, that would be great. Don't forget to share the link. I will. Oh, is there a handle I should tag on Instagram or any social media. You want me to tag? If you'd like to tag me, you'll find my social media channels through the website. You can on Padmatch, although your website got you. OK. It's too much. All right, cool. I'll do that. And I'll tag you in all the posts. And it was great talking to you. OK. Same here. Have a good night. You too. Peace out. Sure. OK. All right. [MUSIC PLAYING] All right, peace, Nick. Thanks for tuning in. That was the first peace on, peace and on, official release with Muhammad Nabil Muhammad in a B-I-L dot world. Check out his website. Hope you enjoyed the conversation. Make sure you follow us on Instagram at Aaron Akulis A-A-R-O-N-A-K-U-L-I-S. And on, x at peace on, peace and without a G on the end. Just peace on, peace and. And follow us, check us out, keep listening to the podcast. Hope you have a wonderful week. Peace out.