Joel Pearson

Yeah, I think so, yeah.

Yeah.

I haven't seen any, I mean, I feel that sometimes, but I haven't seen any like official data to support that.

There is emerging data that suggests if you use AI to help make a decision, you feel less morally responsible for that, even though you're putting it down as your decision.

Oh, that's terrifying.

Which is scary because we know that AI is being used for military operations and

So this idea that, yeah, even just discussing it and bouncing ideas back with an AI, people feel less responsible for the final outcome.

So the second half of that is that when you set up the experiment like that, most people, the majority will say, yes, I'll pull the lever to save the lives.

But then if you say, okay, exact same scenario, there's no lever.

but there's a guy in front of you and you have to touch him and push him off a bridge and that will derail the train or whatever.

So you're still killing the one person, but you're saving the five.

And if you have to touch the person and push, then most people say, oh, no, no, I can't do that.

Because the physical act... So as you have to touch and push and do it, people can't do that.

But if you separate out and have that lever thing, then that separation, that longer lever, that distance makes people feel okay about it.

So AI is like that, like adding the lever, adding the distance from the decision.

Yeah.

Joel, how do we solve that?

Well, we have to study it.

We have to understand it rapidly.

And this is why I came up with this neurofuturism sort of discipline, if you like, because AI is moving so fast, like I said, it's exponential and science, psychology, neuroscience, all that's the science we have can't keep up with at the moment.