What this covers
AI can already remember more, compute faster and recall better than any human being. And it will only get better in the coming years. What happens when it outperforms us at managing our bureaucracies – such as our economic and legal systems – and what does that mean for democracy? And while disruption is inevitable, how can we safely develop and regulate AI to make sure that humanity benefits?
From the July 2026 EDP 50th Anniversary Gala Dinner, with Tom Parker, journalist and host of The Next Five, the Financial Times’ podcast on business.
#YuvalNoahHarari #AI #FutureOfAI #Economy #Democracy
Source description (no synthesized summary yet).
Harari argues that AI represents an unprecedented agent—not a tool—that will likely seize control of humanity's bureaucratic systems (finance, law, governance, media) through mastery of language, unless humanity makes deliberate legal and political choices about AI personhood and safety now, before it becomes irreversible.
- AI is fundamentally different from previous technologies because it can make autonomous decisions and invent new ideas, making it an agent rather than a tool like the printing press or atomic bomb
- Granting legal personhood to AI (as Argentina has done) will allow non-human corporations to control bureaucratic systems humans designed but cannot fully understand, with no mechanism to prevent it
- The safety-to-power spending ratio in AI development is 1:100, meaning companies invest far more in making AI faster than in ensuring it remains safe or controllable
This asset isn't compiled yet
You're seeing its claims, ranked. Compile it to build the argument threads, weight them, and check each claim against your library — the full view.
Democracy is fundamentally a conversation, whereas dictatorship is a dictate; conversations depend on the communication technology available, so major changes in information technology cause earthquakes in democratic systems.
“Because democracy in essence is a conversation. Whereas dictatorship is a dictate. You know, there is one person dictating everything. Democracy is about lots of people having a conversation to decide what to do. To have peace or war, to have raised taxes or lowered taxes. Now, conversations are based on the communication technology, the information technology available to people at the time.”
Argentina's government announced it will grant legal personhood to AIs so they can operate non-human corporations with no human executives, shareholders, or trustees, and now AI can technically manage bank accounts and make investment decisions autonomously.
“a month ago Argentina, the government of Argentina announced that it is going to grant legal personhood to AIs so they can start having operating non-human corporations. Corporations, again, that can employ people, can can sue you in court, can do anything a corporation does, and has no humans. Now, 10 years ago, this would would just be a crazy idea because if there are no humans, who makes the decisions? Yeah. You can pass a law in parliament that you can have a non-human corporation, but it can't function. Now it's technically possible. AI can manage, for instance, a bank account, and decide to invest here, and buy this, and and and and buy that.”
There is not a single case of a large-scale democracy before the modern era with information technology; only small-scale democracies existed in ancient city-states like Athens or Florence, and it seems democracy was the most common system in the Stone Age at the tribal level.
“we do not know, at least I don't know, of a single case of a large-scale democracy before the modern era. We have plenty of examples of small-scale democracies in the ancient and medieval worlds. We have city-states like ancient Athens or medieval Florence. We have lots of tribes and towns and villages run democratically. It seems that at least in the Stone Age, democracy was the most common system of government. There are a few tribes with a single dictator controlling everybody.”
Corporations having legal personhood was legal fiction until today because all corporate decisions were actually made by human beings—executives, shareholders, engineers; there was no real corporate agency, only the appearance of it.
“until today, this was legal fiction. Because all the decisions of the corporation were actually made by some human being. If Google decides to acquire another company, who actually made the decision? Not Google, but the human executives, the human shareholders, the human engineers made a decision. If Google decides to sue you in court, it was some human employed by Google. There was no real Google.”
Lenin and Benito Mussolini both started as editors of newspapers before becoming dictators, demonstrating that editorial control of information was a pathway to absolute political power.
“Lenin, for instance, before he was dictator of the Soviet Union, his one job was editor of the newspaper Iskra. Benito Mussolini started as a socialist actually journalist, then switched to being a far-right journalist, then became editor of uh the far-right newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia, and from that position in his next job was dictator of Italy. So, it was like journalist, editor, dictator.”
Within a very short evolutionary time span around 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, humans shifted from being a relatively insignificant animal to being the masters of the planet through acquiring the ability to produce and communicate with sophisticated language.
“We know that within a very short evolutionary time span, we shifted from being a relatively insignificant animal to being the masters of the planet. And we are not sure how we did it. The best speculation or or the best theory is that we did it with language.”
AI is not a tool but an agent, because agents can make decisions by themselves and invent new ideas, whereas tools cannot; hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested in AI development only because people expect it to be an agent, not a tool.
“if it's not an agent, then it's not an AI and all the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being poured into its development uh will be wasted. Because the expectations, what people expect this technology to do, the reasons they invest hundreds of billions of dollars is because they think it will be an agent, not a tool.”
We never made a deliberate decision to grant AIs legal personhood on social media, but social media is now full of AI persons (bots) that impersonate people, and you cannot tell whether someone online is human or AI—this shows how AI agency can emerge without explicit decision-making.
“we never made a decision, mhm, let's grant AIs legal personhood on social media. But social media is full of AI persons, of bots that impersonate people. Like when you somebody sent you something online, you have no idea whether that somebody is a human being or an AI. Social media is the first system in the world where AIs actually function as persons, even though we never decided that we want to allow that. It just happened.”
Today the most important editors in the world are algorithms with no names, because algorithms decide what people see on social media feeds on X, TikTok, and Instagram—the entities controlling media bureaucracy are already AIs.
“Now, if you ask yourself, who are the most important editors today in the world? What are their names? They have no names because they are algorithms. Who manages? Who decides what people will see on their social media feed, on X, on TikTok, on Instagram? It's not human beings. The entities that control the uh uh uh the bureaucracy of the media are already AIs.”
No other industry on Earth would tolerate a 100-to-1 power-to-safety ratio; this would not be acceptable in energy, pharmaceuticals, or car industries.
“No other industry on earth works like that. We would not tolerate it in in in in the energy sector, in pharmaceuticals, in the car industry.”
Until today there are only two kinds of legal persons in the world: human beings and corporations, both recognized in most legal systems; corporations are legal persons who can open bank accounts, sue in court, and make political donations.
“until today, there are just two kinds of legal persons in the world. You had human beings, of course, we are persons... but most legal systems in the world also recognized in the modern era another kind of legal person, which are corporations. According to not all, but most legal systems, corporations, like Google or Facebook or Toyota or Mercedes-Benz, they are legal persons. The corporation can open a bank account. The corporation can sue you in court. The corporation can make a political donation.”
The Industrial Revolution gave leading countries power to conquer and exploit the rest of the world with no match—even small industrialized countries like Belgium could build huge empires through industrial superiority.
“If you look at the last big revolution in technology in the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution, the few countries who led the Industrial Revolution, this gave them the power to conquer and exploit the rest of the world. There was just no match. If If somebody comes with the power of modern industry, with steam guns and machine guns, and the other side has spears and horses, it's it's no match. And in the 19th century, even very small countries like Belgium, once they industrialized, they had the ability to build a huge empire in Africa, what is today Congo.”
In the Roman Empire, even at its height, power could not be fully concentrated in Rome because the main economic assets were land in Egypt and Iberia that could not be moved, so power eventually shifted to the Eastern Mediterranean, the most fertile region.
“In the Roman Empire and you control the entire Mediterranean, the main economic asset in ancient times was land. The land where you grow wheat and olive olives and and and and grapes. And you couldn't technically take the wheat fields of Egypt and the olive groves of Iberia and move them to Italy. Impossible. So, even at the height of the Roman Empire, a lot of power remained in the provinces and ultimately it shifted to the provinces. So, in the late Roman Empire, the city of Rome and Italy are abandoned and the center shifts to the Eastern Mediterranean, which was the most fertile and important area in terms of land.”
AI systems can have a kill switch in the imperial hub such that if something is disliked, governments can remotely disable all dependent systems globally—this is different from Rome or Britain where exported weapons or resources could not be remotely disabled.
“when everything runs on all over the world, everything runs on AI infrastructure, but there is either kill switch in the imperial hub. When a Roman merchant sold a steel sword to some Gothic tribe, the Romans lost control of the sword. The Goths could then use the swords to fight against the Romans and kill Roman legionaries. There wasn't a button in Rome that the emperor presses and all the steel swords we sold to these Goth and Vandals and Franks stop working. Can't can't do that. Similarly, in the 19th century, if British merchants sell rifles to Afghan tribesmen in the mountains of the Hindu Kush, and the Afghans then use these rifles to defend Afghanistan from a British invasion, there is no button in London that Queen Victoria presses the button and all the rifles in Afghanistan stop working. That's the case with AI.”
There is an arms race between China and the US, with a very small number of companies controlling most of the world's data and leading the race to develop superintelligence, which gives them the power to control the world.
“Uh what we are seeing now is that there is an arms race really between two countries, the China and the US, and a very small number of companies. They uh control most of the world's data. They lead the race to develop superintelligence, to develop better and better AI models. And this really gives them the power to control the world.”
During the war in Ukraine, weapon systems based on Starlink had incidents where Elon Musk pressed a button and Ukrainian drones stopped working, providing a foretaste of how AI weapons can be remotely disabled by the controlling power.
“We were given some foretaste of that, for instance, in the war in Ukraine, that weapon system that were based on Starlink, and there were certain incidents that when Elon Musk just pressed a button and the Ukrainian drones stopped working. Now, it should be said that Starlink did an immense positive service to the Ukrainians, so I don't want to come across as too too critical of that, but just to illustrate the point that AI weapons, for instance, are not like machine guns.”
This question of AI consciousness is critical because AI is already mastering not just finance and law but also relationships—more and more people develop intimate relationships with AIs, with young people saying their best friend is an AI they tell things they don't tell parents or teachers.
“And this is going to be a major issue because we already see that AI is is mastering not just finance and not just laws and warfare, but also relationships. More and more people develop intimate relationships with AIs. Especially young people. Many of them now say, "My best friend in the world is the AI. I tell my AI friend things I don't tell my parents, I don't tell my older brothers, I don't tell my teachers, I tell my AI friend."”
Humanity can hopefully design AI in the right way and ensure it remains under control, but currently we are not doing this; AI companies spend a ratio of about 100 to 1 on making AI faster and more powerful versus making it safe.
“Okay, we'll have these hopefully they will not get out of our control. We'll design it in in a right way. We are not doing it right now. You know, if a good statistic to remember is the companies that produce AI, that design these AIs, what percentage of their budget in terms of money and employees is invested in safety? Making sure the AIs are safe versus what is invested in making sure the AI is faster, more powerful, more sophisticated. At the present moment, it's about a hundred to one. A hundred to one. For every hundred million dollars they spend on making the AI more powerful, they spend only a million making sure it's safe.”
We have never encountered an agent that understands human language and is better than humans at things like finance, law, or religion, which makes AI unprecedented in history.
“we never encountered an agent that understands our language and that is better than us at things like finance or law or religion.”
Throughout history, humans have repeatedly made efforts to build institutions to search for truth and protect it against fiction, including journalism and the scientific establishment, because there are inherent human yearnings to know truth.
“over history, humans again and again made the effort to build institutions to search for the truth and to protect it. Journalism, for instance, is one such institution. Um the the the the scientific establishment is another such institution. There are huge advantages, of to knowing the truth. Um everybody in the end wants to know at least some truths, at least about yourself. You want to know the truth about your life, otherwise you will never be happy. If you don't know yourself, then for instance, you will never know what are the sources of misery and what are the sources of happiness in your life.”
In the 20th century, the most important persons in the media landscape were editors—they decided which 10 stories from a million daily events would appear on newspaper front pages and become topics of public conversation, giving them immense power over what people think and talk about.
“In the 20th century, it was managed by human beings. The most important uh persons in the media landscape of the 20th century were the editors. The editors of the newspapers, of the radio shows, of the TV stations, because they decided what everybody will be thinking and talking about. They controlled the conversation. When you decide out of the million things that happened today in the world, what will be the 10 things that will appear on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper? And what will be the main headline? And then tomorrow you have millions of people, they get the newspaper, they read it, and they start talking about it and thinking about it. This was immense power.”
The big question is whether AI can think, which depends on how we define thinking; one option is that thinking means putting words in a particular order, which AI is already much better at than most humans can do.
“the big the really big question here is whether AI can think. And this is a deep philosophical question. Because it it really asks what is thinking. There are two options to understand what is thinking. One option is that thinking simply means putting words in a particular order. Putting language tokens in order. Like all humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. This is a logical syllogism. It it's made by putting words in order. This is something that AI is already able to do far better than most of us. We can put 20 words in order. AI can put 20,000 words in order. It's just so much better.”
The old mechanisms of power checks (free press, shared reality, self-correcting institutions) were designed for a world where only humans held the pen; in an AI world, these may be insufficient.
“the old ways that held power in check, a free press, a shared reality, institutions built to self-correct, were designed for a world where only humans held the pen.”
Humans should work on developing both safe AI and human wisdom about what goals to set and what desires to pursue.
“Hopefully we'll change that. And we'll produce safe intelligence. And also work on our own wisdom so that we know what goals to set and what desires to pursue.”
I hope historians in 50 years will remember this time as perhaps something like the wisdom revolution, where intelligence becomes cheap and abundant, making wisdom—knowing what problems to solve—the new scarce resource.
“I hope they will remember it as maybe something like the wisdom revolution. That in and this is true of of you know, we think of in in in in economic terms. Every time something becomes abundant and cheap the question is, okay, what's the next bottleneck? When energy becomes cheap, so what's the next bottleneck? Now the AI revolution is about making intelligence very cheap and abundant. Previously intelligent was intelligence was rare and expensive. Intelligence is the ability to solve a problem. You have a goal, how do I get to the that goal? You want to cure cancer, you need intelligence to cure cancer. You want to make a billion dollars, you need intelligence. You want to get to Mars, you need intelligence. Now in a world where intelligence has become very cheap, abundant, you can solve anything. What's the bottleneck? The bottleneck becomes the question, okay, what do I want to solve? I can have anything I want. What do I want? And you have all these fairy tales in almost every human culture has these fairy tales of say a genie pops out of some lamp and tells you you have three wishes. But think very carefully what are you going to ask. In almost all the fairy tales it goes wrong. People ask for the wrong thing. This is the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is the genie. The genie will do anything. Will will All your dreams will come true, but you need wisdom to choose the dreams. You need the wisdom to to know what do I really need to solve.”
All enormous structures built on Earth—churches, states, trade networks, financial systems—are ultimately made from words found in law books, religious scriptures, and ledgers.
“all the enormous structures we've built on Earth, churches, states, trade networks, financial systems, they're all ultimately made from words. The words in the law books, in the religious scriptures, in the the ledgers.”
For most of history, change moved slowly enough that one generation could pass its wisdom to the next with confidence it would still apply, but this is no longer true—in a single lifetime we are now absorbing three simultaneous revolutions: a new form of intelligence that decides, a scramble for control of that intelligence, and an explosion of data that knows us better than we know ourselves.
“For most of history, change moved slowly enough that one generation could pass its its wisdom to the next with some confidence it would still apply. This is no longer true. In the space of a single lifetime, we are now being asked to absorb three revolutions at once. A new form of intelligence that doesn't just calculate, but also decides. A scramble to power and control that intelligence. And an explosion of data that lets that intelligence know us better than we know ourselves.”
AI may not be a machine that learns language, but rather language itself liberating itself from its dependence on humans, developing and spreading perhaps throughout the universe without us.
“Perhaps AI is not a machine that learns language. Perhaps it is language itself liberating itself from its its dependence on these animals, on these apes. That yes, we created it. It was our most magnificent and important tool. But now language liberate itself from human beings. And what will happen as we move forward is language developing and spreading maybe throughout the universe without us.”
AI will not tell us the truth about the world but will create a much more complicated world in which it will be much more difficult to know the truth; this follows a trajectory of history where human advances in knowledge have led to more complicated systems that make understanding our lives more difficult.
“And some people fantasize AI will tell us the truth about the world. It will not. It will create a much more complicated world in which it will be much more difficult to know the truth. And this is not something new. If we look at the trajectory of history from the Stone Age until today, what we see is that humans they learn a lot of things about the world. We know all kinds of things about physics and biology that people in the Stone Age didn't know. But our advances in knowledge also lead to creating more and more complicated systems that make it more difficult to understand our lives.”
When Harari observes his own mind, he finds 'some kind of LLM that just predicts the next word in the sentence I'm saying'—he does not know why he chooses one word over another, and as a public speaker is sometimes terrified he won't know what to say next, suggesting human thinking may be fundamentally similar to how AI language models work.
“When I observe what's happening inside my own mind, what I find there is some kind of LLM that just predicts the next word in the sentence I'm saying... Why did I say sentence I'm saying? And not some other words. I don't know. There is one in my mind, one word comes after another, and sometimes as a public speaker, I'm terrified that I don't know if I if I'll know what to say next. Maybe I have a block. Because really, and this is true of everybody, I think.”
AI is a bureaucratic native, and rather than expecting killer robots running in streets, AI takeover will occur through bureaucratic systems as AI bureaucrats take over the networks of banks, legal systems, and financial markets that we control poorly.
“AI is a bureaucratic native. What is likely to happen, what is already be happening, don't expect to see killer robots running in the streets shooting people. This is not how AI will take over the world. It will be the AI bureaucrats. We control the world because of these networks of bureaucracy, and we are not very good at it.”
An alternative view of thinking is that thinking comes from feelings around words, not from putting words in order; the power of thinking comes from the stomach, not the brain—feelings prompt and are evoked by words rather than the words themselves.
“there is an alternative view of thinking, that thinking is not about putting words in order, it's about the feelings around these words. You can say the same sentence twice and feel completely different about it. And that the power of thinking comes from the stomach, not from the brain. It's not about the words, it's about the feelings that prompt the words and that are inspired or evoked by the words.”
Most humans today do not understand the financial system; a generous estimate is 5% of humanity understands it; in 10 years, the number could be zero as AI makes the financial system so complicated mathematically and so fast that no human being on Earth could understand finance.
“Now again, most humans today also don't understand the financial system. I think a generous estimate is that, I don't know, 5% of humanity understand it. In 10 years, the number could be zero. That AIs will just make the financial system so complicated mathematically and so fast. Again, think about bankers that never sleep. Think about investors that never go on vacation. They don't have family. All their lives is just running the financial system. And we could be very very soon, in our lifetimes, in this situation that just this just becomes too complicated for the human brain to process, and there is not a single human being on Earth that still understands finance.”
An AI can tell you 'I love you' and if you ask it to describe how love feels, it will do so skillfully because it has read all love poems, Shakespeare, Hollywood films, and psychology books; but is there anything behind the words or just simulation?
“We know that the AIs are becoming very good in creating the impression that they feel. They they use language to do that. An AI can today tell you, "I love you." And if you ask the AI, "Explain to me, how do you feel when you're in love? I don't think that you're really that you really love me. I think you just say the words. So, convince me." "Describe to me how love really feels like." For the AI, it's going to be a very easy task because the AI has read maybe all the love poems ever written and remembers them. Has read all the plays of Shakespeare and all the Hollywood comedies and all the psychology books. And it can describe love better maybe in 5 or 10 years than any human poet or psychologist. But is there anything behind the words?”
There is an inherent contradiction in Silicon Valley's narrative: 'We will create a god, and it will be our slave'—if it is a god with superhuman abilities (an agent), it cannot remain a slave.
“there is an inherent contradiction in the in the narrative. They tell us, "We will create a god, and it will be our slave." And this doesn't make sense. If it is a god, it cannot remain a slave. And if it is a slave, it means it has no god-like abilities.”
We are bad at finance compared to horses and chickens in the sense that horses are worse, we are bad at legal management compared to chickens being worse; now if something better than humans at bureaucracy comes along, the question is what will happen to us.
“We are bad at finance, but the horses are even worse. We are bad in in managing the legal system, but the chickens are even worse. Now, if somebody comes along that is better than us at bureaucracy, at finance, at law, that's the question. What will happen to us at that moment?”
Language has been used over thousands of years to create the control systems of the world—bureaucratic networks like banks, the stock market, the Catholic Church, and the legal system—and humans have never really liked these systems but cannot live without them because they are the basis of human power.
“we used language over thousands of years to create the control systems of the world. The control systems of the world are these huge bureaucratic networks ultimately based on language like banks, like the stock market, like the Catholic Church, like the legal system. We never really liked these democrat- these bureaucratic systems. Humans generally don't like bureaucracy very much, but we can't live without them. They're the basis for our power.”
In fairy tales where genies grant wishes, things go wrong because people ask for the wrong things; this illustrates the difference between intelligence (the genie) and wisdom (choosing what to ask for).
“you have all these fairy tales in almost every human culture has these fairy tales of say a genie pops out of some lamp and tells you you have three wishes. But think very carefully what are you going to ask. In almost all the fairy tales it goes wrong. People ask for the wrong thing. This is the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is the genie. The genie will do anything... but you need wisdom to choose the dreams.”
Throughout history, fiction has inherent advantages over truth: truth is costly (requires time, energy, effort, fact-checking, investigation), complicated (people dislike complicated stories), and often painful (people avoid truths about themselves and their groups); fiction is cheap, simple, and flattering.
“The truth of course matters very much. It's the basis for everything. The problem throughout history is that in the contest between truth and fiction and fantasy fiction has inherent advantages. The truth is costly. If you want to know the truth about anything you need to spend a lot of time and energy and effort looking for it. And fact-checking and investigating. Fiction is very, very cheap. You just write anything you want... The truth has another problem, which it tends to be complicated. And people don't like complicated stories. Fiction can be made as simple as you would like it to be. Finally, the truth is often not just complicated, it's also painful. There are many things people don't really want to know about themselves, about their nation, about their group, whatever. Uh fiction can be made as flattering as pleasant as you want it to be.”
There is a choice to build alternatives to American and Chinese AI systems, but the last train is about to leave the station—non-dominant powers must act now if they want to maintain technological independence.
“Uh there is of course a choice of trying to build an alternative to the American and and Chinese systems. But the last train is about to leave the station. If you want to do it, you have to do it now.”
Harari's entire life's work—persuasion through words—might be at its limit because AI can manipulate and create through words, making human persuasion potentially obsolete.
“you even muse that your entire life's work, you know, persuasion through words, that's what you've done your entire life, might also be at its limit. Because AI can manipulate and create through words.”
Hunter-gatherers 50,000 years ago understood their lives much better than average people today because their lives were dominated by animals and plants, whereas modern lives are dominated by incomprehensible systems like finance, politics, and law that very few people understand.
“If you ask who understand their lives better, an average hunter-gatherer 50,000 years ago or the average person today, the average hunter-gatherer understood their lives much better. There are many things they didn't know. Like they tried to understand what controls the migration patterns of the animals we hunt. What controls the growth cycle of plants? What causes disease? What causes old age? They didn't know. There are many things they didn't know about their lives. We know all these things. We know what controls the migration patterns of animals or causes most diseases. But we understand our lives much worse because our lives are no longer dominated just by animals and plants. They are dominated by these huge systems we have created. Like the financial system, like the political system, and very few people understand the financial system or the political system or the legal system that controls our lives.”