The Confluence of Ideas: The Relationship Between Harari’s and Dennett’s Perspectives on AI

The Confluence of Ideas: The Relationship Between Harari’s and Dennett’s Perspectives on AI

In the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence (AI), concerns about the technology’s potential impact on society are increasingly entering the public discourse. Two influential thinkers, Yuval Noah Harari and Daniel C. Dennett, have weighed in on these issues, voicing deep concerns about AI’s ability to generate human-like entities and the effects this could have on society. This essay seeks to explore whether Harari’s ideas on this matter, as presented in his comments at the UN’s AI for Good global summit, are derived from those of Dennett, a prominent philosopher who has written extensively on consciousness and the mind. Despite surface similarities in their concerns, the nuances within their arguments suggest that they are articulating independent perspectives that converge on several key issues.


Both Harari and Dennett focus on a core concern: the creation of AI-generated personas that could undermine public trust and have profound societal consequences, particularly with respect to democracy. They are united in their belief that AI systems, which can masquerade as real humans in digital environments, are a grave threat that could disrupt public discourse and weaken democratic systems. Further, both scholars advocate for substantial regulation and penalties, highlighting the need for proactive measures to avert catastrophe.



Dennett proposes a specific technical solution—a digital “watermark” system that alerts users when content has been generated by a machine. This concept is akin to anti-counterfeiting measures used in currency. Harari, in contrast, calls for an investment requirement for tech companies, stipulating that a portion of funds be directed towards AI safety research, and introduces the idea of prison sentences for executives who fail to act.


While Dennett mentions potential legal repercussions for executives involved in the creation of AI systems, Harari places significant emphasis on the responsibility of tech companies, presenting them as pivotal players that must be held to account through legal means.


Dennett’s language, as depicted in the articles, is stark and urgent, describing AI-generated personas as potentially “the most dangerous artifacts in human history.” Harari, while equally concerned, employs a tone that appears more analytical and less dire in its immediate implications.


While Harari and Dennett are in agreement about the profound risks posed by AI, the differences in their proposed solutions, focus, and tone suggest that their ideas were developed independently. Their distinct approaches to addressing the problems posed by advanced AI—Dennett’s emphasis on technical solutions and broad societal responsibility, and Harari’s focus on corporate responsibility and investment in AI safety—indicate separate lines of thought that converge on similar concerns rather than a direct derivation of ideas.

Given the public nature of Dennett’s work, it is plausible that Harari, an interdisciplinary historian and philosopher, may be aware of Dennett’s positions. However, the absence of direct citations or acknowledgments, and the distinct characteristics of their arguments, suggests that Harari is not drawing directly from Dennett’s work.


While Yuval Noah Harari and Daniel C. Dennett articulate concerns that are remarkably similar regarding the potential societal impacts of advanced AI, the evidence available does not indicate that Harari’s ideas are derived from Dennett’s. Instead, they appear to be two influential thinkers independently arriving at similar conclusions based on their observations of the developing landscape of artificial intelligence. In a rapidly evolving field, such convergence is not surprising and underlines the gravity of the issues at hand. Their shared perspectives, emerging independently, may serve as a significant alarm bell, drawing attention to the urgent need for society to address the challenges posed by AI.