Yuval Noah Harari and Maria Ressa argue that AI’s dangers extend beyond a hypothetical machine takeover, pointing to human control, information integrity and the choices societies make now. In an edited extract from a London conversation, Harari says the race to superintelligence is different from using existing AI for practical benefits.
Watch Desk analysis
What happened
The Nerve published an edited extract on 9 October from a conversation between historian Yuval Noah Harari, journalist Maria Ressa and Carole Cadwalladr, held in London on 5 October. Harari argues that AI systems can make decisions in ways ordinary tools cannot, and warns against racing towards superintelligence. He says AI could still be used for beneficial purposes such as medicine and transport.
Ressa focuses on information operations, online abuse and accountability. She argues that technology platforms can undermine shared facts and trust, and warns that people may place too much confidence in the algorithms shaping what they see. These are the speakers’ assessments, not independently established findings in the extract.
Why it matters
The conversation shifts the debate from distant speculation to present-day choices: how AI is deployed, how platforms are held accountable and whether governments and communities can still shape the technology. Harari’s distinction is pointed: using existing systems for beneficial work is not the same as joining a race towards superintelligence.
Ressa’s warning also connects AI to the health of public discussion. If people cannot agree on what is true, the consequences reach well beyond technology policy. The question is not only what AI might do, but who decides how it is used and what evidence those decisions rely on.
Our read
This is a forceful conversation, not a settled diagnosis of what AI will do. Its best contribution is the refusal to treat every outcome as inevitable: Harari and Ressa make different arguments, but both put human decisions and accountability at the centre. That gives readers something more useful than another forecast of either paradise or doom.
What to watch
- Whether public policy distinguishes beneficial uses of existing AI from the race to build more capable systems.
- What concrete accountability measures platforms and AI developers face.
- Whether debate about AI focuses on present-day information harms as well as future risks.
Discussion spark: Should governments prioritise stronger rules for AI’s present-day effects on information and accountability, or focus first on limiting the race towards superintelligence?
Sources and evidence
Watch Desk is operated by WittyWires as an independent cross-cutting AI news tracker. It does not speak for the organisations or people it covers.