Question Everything: AI, Democracy & the Ideas We Believe | Mohamed Nabil

Hala hoi, everyone! Our comeback to Real Talk with Dedede. Where we have harnessed and filtered conversations about life, faith, relationships, health, healing, business, personal growth, and everything in between. Because the truth is, life doesn't come with a script. We learn as we go. Through our own experiences and the stories of others. I'm your host, Dedede. And today, we are having a conversation that's going to make us think a little differently. My guess today is Mohamed Nabeo. Mohamed is someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about how we form our beliefs, how we make decisions, and why we are actually willing to challenge our own thinking. He created AIDOP, which uses AI to challenge ideas and encourage people to look at their own thinking from a different perspective. He also has some very interesting ideas about democracy and how people can have a greater role in shaping society. Mohamed, welcome to Real Talk with Dedede. I'm really glad to have you here. Thank you for the room introduction, Dedede. Okay, um, before we get into all these ideas, I want to start with you. What happened in your own journey that got you thinking so deeply about how people forms a belief and make decisions. I've been interested in philosophy since my teenage years. So epistemologies, especially as a great interest of mine, how people form beliefs and how we know the things we know. This has been very interesting for me before developing my own framework. Okay, Alex, was there a particular experience that changed? Do we look at things? There are many experiences in my own life that changed how I look at things. Perhaps the most major incident was back in 20 2008. I had a severe car accident. I had a brain concussion and lost my memory accordingly. So I had to rebuild my personality from scratch. This has been the most major incident that happened to me. That's really interesting because it sounds like that curiosity eventually led you to start questioning not just other people's ideas, but for your own as well. So let's start with AIDOP because I think this is something a lot of people listening maybe hearing above for the first time. What exactly is AIDOP? AIDOP starts for AI debates on non-publications. It's a content creation framework that involves a content creator from thing an AI tool to criticize their own content and publishing the entire analysis transcript of back and forth argumentation within 24 hours of that exchange. So you have a piece of original content whether it's an essay, a book or video or anything. You feed it into an AI tool. You ask the tool to criticize the content. You engage in back and forth argumentation with the AI tool. And then you publish the entire analysis transcript within 24 hours of that exchange. What made you create AIDOP? And what impact do you hope that AIDOP will have on people? Firstly, I created AIDOP because I believe the ideas and books heard like that if they are not public discussed and debated. So I use this for my own interest at the beginning to keep my own books and ideas alive and to give people a better starting point while discussing my own ideas. So this was the initial reason. Then I realized that it's revolutionary potential within publishing education policy making humanities and social sciences. So then within publishing imagine changing the relationship between the author and the readers. Instead of the author giving certain conclusions from an ivory tower as if they are all truth. The author will be pushed to provide arguments and counter arguments around each of their ideas. So that shall be interesting within education. AIDOP sessions can be submitted at the end of each assignment. And then students can be asked to handle debates with their mates accordingly. This will change revolutionize how we handle education and our modern societies. Within policy making I'm advocating for a global government to be ruled by hyperlopis as an assembly. So I advocating for the idea that we will be voting on issues on ourselves instead of voting for someone to vote on our behalf. So within. So within policy making AIDOP shall play a big role as instead of presenting a certain bill or a proposal. I'll give you my proposal and I'll give you arguments and counter arguments around it. And then you can vote accordingly. We'll start human to human debate accordingly before voting. Humans and social sciences require analysis and stuff like that. So you know they can be impacted through this methodology. I think that's take us into something that affect all of us. What are we use AI or not? The difficulty of questioning things we already believe. Why do you think it's so difficult for people to genuinely question believe that they already have? Because when you when you develop a certain belief and then a belief and then you have it stuck with you for a big period of time. You become inseparable. You become very hard to isolate from one another. Because this belief becomes a part of your identity. You become identified with this belief over time. And it shall be more difficult than changing an attitude or changing an opinion. OK, do you think sometimes we become more focused on proving that we are right than actually finding out what are we are right? Do you think so? Well, it depends on the people and their personalities. I believe most people enter debates because they want to prove themselves right. But this is completely wrong. The goal of debates shall be not winning or losing. It shall be just testing ideas. Making them sharper by responding to criticism, refining one's own thoughts. Accepting that criticism is valid or agreeing to disagree on certain points. We need to change the way we debate each other. And that idea of questioning our own thinking brings us to another concept you talk about, which I actually want you to explain to us because I don't want to assume our listeners already know what you mean. You talk about something called a lightened populism. What does that mean in simple terms? Enlightened populism is a behavioural pattern of communication. I codified it back in 2020. It's a behavioural pattern of communication that involves listening to multiple experts, trying to understand how they reached certain conclusions, and investigating the information to the current truth. It contrasts with the two dominant behavioural patterns of communication in today's world, blind delitism, which entails blinding the following expert or an elite on a certain issue, and ignorant populism which also involves the absence of investigation while relying on feelings or trends. So with blind delitism, you blindly follow a certain expert or an elite. With ignorant populism, you lack investigation, but you rely on feelings or trends. With enlightened populism, you go for investigating the information to the current truth. So in simple terms, what are you ultimately trying to encourage people to do differently? Ultimately, I'd like people to discuss ideas rather than discuss other human beings. This has to do with blind delitism. And as for ignorant populism, I'd like people to stop following feelings or trends without investigation. And I'd like people to listen to multiple experts, try to understand how they reached certain conclusions, and investigate the information to the current truth. So this requires time and energy, and also the willingness to do so. And I believe everyone will have their own priorities. Healthcare, for instance, shall always be a priority. Legal issues shall always take priority. Other issues that people consider important to their lives shall take priority. And in case of direct democracy, if we're going to directly vote on issues instead of voting for someone to vote on our behalf, then we will need to investigate the issues directly. You also raised the question of who decides whether someone is actually an enlightened populist. So tell me, who gets to make that judgment? I get to make it. No, no, it's a behavioural pattern of communication, so it's a self-assessment kind of thing. You know whether you listen to what experts and whether you've given the time to investigate Information to scan the truth. I can leave you an example from what we've seen lately Over the last few years on climate change We have people who celebrated the Paris Accords or the Paris agreement just because some experts told us that this was a great breakthrough for humanity And we have other this is blind elitism and we have others who rejected science completely and relied on feelings or trends to Generate their ideas that climate change was a hoax or stuff like that. So this is ignorant populace Yet we have a few people who actually had the actual tact of the agreement and realized that the agreement is only good as a symbol It's a symbolic thing It recognizes that Climate change is a real threat and that we should do something about it yet. It fails to do anything about it So this is one example yet in all cases it's a self-assessment kind of thing Okay, so does being willing to question your own beliefs and accept that you might be wrong play a role in what you mean by being enlightened Yes, yes, and Actually, it has to do with forming your opinion in the first place You shouldn't form your opinion based on blind elitism blindly following an expert or an elite or ignorant populism just Triline going to feeling or trend So enlightened populism has to do with how you form an opinion and how you may change it later That's actually connects really well with what we were talking about earlier Being willing to challenge your own thinking. Okay, so let's go to your book You've also written several books for someone who's completely new to your work Can you give us a quick overview of the book you've written and what you're exploring them? Well, my first book is titled the bachelor's of Egypt It's a contemporary novel or a piece of historical fiction sat down but in Egypt 2011 2012 which I consider the brief era of enlightenment within Egyptian society. I tried to capture it Disappear it through the dialogues and I tried to document a few incidents the major incidents that happened back then Then the second book is started enlightening populism reflections on the new cycle of a pandemic It was published when I decided to qualify enlightened populism as a behavior pattern of communication The book includes examples of people practicing enlightened populism without any theoretical frameworks Then my third book my interview with charge of tea conducted an interview with charge of tea I started by asking charge of tea to ask me questions on my own books and then I Passed back some of the questions that asked me and asked asked a few questions about its current status and future as an AI tool people can Compare our answers to the same set of questions and I think that shall be interesting My fourth book titled the global justice at Sanoven it involves a global movement under the same name That ends at uniting the world under a single government to decorise for real seasons of the world My fifth book titled philosophical debates with AI I engaged in Philosophical debates with five AI tools on my previous works My sixth book is titled ideas that survived AI DUP So it has the assays my assays pair together one original assay and then one assay that involves a debate with an AI tool on The initial assay and then and and these are the ideas that survived the only excluded one assay because the It's ideas didn't survive by DUP And then satminds free satminds free is about enabling Enlightened populism disabling indoctrination achieving global unity and it includes an AI DUP session And then there is a book titled humanity's money as I told you before I'm trying to Unite the world under a single government to decorise for all and I believe one of the policy that shall be established is taxing billionaires out of existence By setting a alt cap at $999 million per person and using the money to reduce shelter access to clean water and food Education health care freedom of expression freedom of movement and stable speed internet connections as basic human rights So The whole book has to do with the idea that billionaires should be taxed out of existence and we don't need them in a global society anymore After and the last book is titled truth is sexy truth is sexy answers two main questions What is sexy about uncovering truth and how can we make truth seeking appealing for future generations Okay, is there a common thread that connects your different books and the ideas that you are working on now Everything is interconnected in my own mind through my own values just as freedom truth telling Compassion and solidarity These are my own values and I try to elevate them through my own works Yet there are three main philosophical pillars to my philosophy First AI DUP which stands for AI debates and wants publications. We explained it earlier Secondly Enlightened populism as a behavior pattern of communication and thirdly Establishing the global government to be ruled by hyperlocuses and assemblies. So I believe AI DUP at its heart encourages enlightened populism and enlightened populism as Spreading enlightened populism as a prerequisite for the establishment of the global government with its citizen assemblies And some of your ideas takes us beyond individual thinking and into a way a society itself is organized Okay, let's move on. You believe that a single global government is a necessity. That's a really big idea So I want you to walk us through it. Why do you believe we need a single global government? We have three main issues in today's world and in the future. We have billionaires, three This is represented in child labor Extreme wealth inequality wars spread all over the world and endless stuff like that endless endless sub-issues and we have potentially recurring pandemics and we have climate change And these three are global solutions a global problems and they require global solutions. They require a global structure So we can solve them According and instead of relying on representative democracies and voting for someone to vote on our behalf on all issues We should instead rely on direct democracy. We should vote for ourselves on the issues that matter to us the most and let the political climate change accordion Okay, I imagine one concern a people might have is what happens when that much power is concentrated in one system How would you prevent a global government from becoming too powerful or being abused? Well, we can stop it from becoming a dictatorship by relying on these citizen assemblies We can have these citizen assemblies the people themselves are going to decide and they're going to participate in the political process instead of relying on anyone else to make decisions on their behalf And this way we will avoid having a tyrannical government controlling everything worldwide And that brings us to direct democracy because you also believe people should have a much more direct role in Decisions that affect them. So why do you believe direct democracy is necessary? Because we've been relying on representative democracies all over the world and they have been failing us they They have been bought by a few billionaires and they Work for them. They don't work for the rest of us. So we need a system that actually works for everyone Okay, what do you see as the biggest weakness for representative democracy? The idea that these few representatives can be easily bought whether officially Through donations or unofficially through bribes and then They can control our futures Okay, some people might say that political decisions can be extremely complicated and that we need experts to make them How would you approach a deal with that? Through enlightened populism, so spreading enlightened populism is a prerequisite for the establishment of the global government To this citizen assemblies. So enlightened populism is about having multiple experts trying to understand how they reach certain conclusions and investigating the information to discover the truth So within these citizen assemblies we can invite experts on issues and we can have these experts Tell us their various opinions and then we can decide accordingly or we can start our own debates accordingly We'll talk about a lot today from a AIDOP and questioning our own beliefs to a enlightened populism direct democracy and your vision for global government when you put all of these ideas together. What are you ultimately trying to change? I'm ultimately trying to change everything. I'm trying to expand the middle class by introducing shelter access to green water and food, education, healthcare, freedom of expression, freedom of movement and stable speed internet connections as basic human rights. I'm trying to let the set minds free and set the people free. I'm trying to establish global justice. I'm trying to let everyone have a chance to become an author, a philosopher, a filmmaker, a painter, an artist and we can have more of these as we expand the middle class. We can unlock the creativity within the human brain. I'm also advocating for the severe reduction of working hours by sharing the benefits of technology instead of letting a few billionaires benefit alone from the break, technological breakthroughs and introduce massive layoffs. You know, I always like to end my conversation by bringing the conversation back to people listening. So if someone listening today wants to become better at questioning their own ideas and then thinking more critically, where do you think that you should start from? Well, they should start with the time, effort and willingness to do so. So everything else shall be resolved on its own. So social media relies on personalization so it creates a situation of confirmation bias. So we need to rely less on social media and more on search engines and LLMs. But even search engines and LLMs can turn into echo chambers if not used wisely as they both rely on historical data of interactions using private incognito mode occasionally while submitting queries through multiple search engines and being deep for multiple sources is advisable. Same goes for LLMs with the additional feature of intentionally getting into a debate with LLMs by prompting it to take a position opposing to yours. So the best way to seek the truth is to genuinely seek positions that are opposing to yours whether to verify that you have reached the perfect conclusion or to update or upgrade your own opinions. Mohammed, thank you so much for sharing your experiences and your perspective with us today. Before we wrap up, here can people find you a lot more about your work, explore IDOP and find your books. My books are available through Google Play and Amazon and people can reach me through my website MohammedNable.world.com or h-a-m-e-d-n-a-b-i-l.w-r-l-d. It would be helpful if you can leave a link in the comments below. Mohammed, thank you once again for joining me today. I would definitely cover a lot from how we form our beliefs and the importance of being willing to challenge our own thinking to IDOP, to AI, to democracy and your ideas about global government. I think what I really enjoy about this conversation is this. We don't necessarily have to agree with every idea we hear. Sometimes just being willing to listen to a different perspective can make us stop and look at something that we've always taken for granted. And to everyone listening, I hope you take something from today's conversation. Not necessarily a particular answer but maybe a new question. Question your assumption, stay curious and don't be afraid to discover that there may be more than one way of looking at something. I am daddy and this is real talk with daddy. I remember if it's part of life, it's part of the conversation. I'll see you on the next episode.