Imagine a machine deciding who gets life-saving surgery in a split-second, armed with endless data and razor-sharp logic. No hesitation, no bias, no emotional baggage. Sounds like a dream... or does it? What do you think: does AI make better decisions than humans?

Well, it’s true that there are no existential crises or coffee breaks for our robot friends.

They’re brilliant at optimize outcomes by crunching numbers, without getting tired, distracted, or irrational. Some chatbots actually even give good moral advice (one could say better than some philosophers? 😅). Have a look if you’re curious: petersinger.ai. But here’s the kicker, machines don’t actually “understand” morality. Why is that? Because they don’t feel empathy or anguish when making tough calls. They don’t lose sleep over the weight of their decisions. They don’t consider the messy, lived experiences of the people affected by them.

Take existentialists like Simone de Beauvoir (yes, we’re name-dropping).

They’d argue that morality is rooted in freedom and authenticity, every decision we make defines who we are and carries the weight of our responsibility to others. Machines? They don’t have freedom, they’re programmed. They don’t have authenticity, they’re mimicking patterns. They’re not moral agents, they’re tools.

But here’s where things get spicy.

AI can actually push us to think deeper about our own ethical frameworks. By exposing our biases and presenting alternative perspectives, it can sharpen our reasoning and force us to confront uncomfortable truths. For instance, Amazon’s AI recruiting tool 10 years ago was a fiasco but it helped everyone realize how deep recruiting biases are, and that was definitely a win to make us aware that we had to fight against them.

So maybe the question isn’t whether AI is “better” at morality but whether it challenges us to be better moral thinkers ourselves?

Should we trust AI with big decisions?

Maybe as collaborators, not captains of the ship. Machines might help us see clearer, but the messy beauty of morality, its empathy, its anguish, its humanity, is something only we can bring to the table. Or at least that’s my take… what’s yours?

Using AI to translate animal communication isn’t just a tech challenge. It’s a philosophical one. AI is making serious moves in decoding animal sounds (listen to this podcast episode from The Economist), but here’s the kicker: even if we crack their “language,” would it make sense to us? I'm really not sure we can ever truly understand what animals are saying when their entire experience of the world is so different from ours! How can we figure what it's like to be bats “seeing” with sound. Or birds feeling Earth’s magnetic fields. And what about dolphins living in a 3D underwater soundscape. Don't let me start with how we’re here struggling to swat a fly because it sees us in slow motion.🤦♀️

If AI manages to translate what animals say, it might force us to rethink language, meaning, and our place in nature. Because what does that say about how we treat them? Imagine if we discover they’re saying profound things like, “Hey, don’t overfish my home”?

I'm curious... if you could chat with a dolphin, what’s the first thing you’d ask? Better yet, what do you think they’d roast us for? 😅

Word on the street is Microsoft’s latest quantum breakthrough (see Nature’s article link below) might finally let us crack open the box and see what’s really going on. But here’s the kicker: quantum computing isn’t just about faster tech or breaking encryption. It’s a philosophical mic drop. What if reality isn’t just yes or no? What if it’s yes AND no… or maybe even something else entirely?

See, quantum computers don’t follow the same rules as our everyday classical computers. They thrive in the chaos, living in that weird, paradoxical space where things can be two things at once. It’s like the universe is giving us a hint that we’ve been thinking way too small all the time. Human level thinking will probably always be too small to understand it all. It doesn’t stop us for craving more anyway!

While engineers are out here solving problems we didn’t even think actually had solutions, philosophers might buckle up to be ready for a world where zero and one can coexist. Where truth isn’t fixed but fluid? Where the impossible suddenly feels like it’s just around the corner? Strap in, this isn’t just science anymore. It’s a whole new way of seeing reality!

How could our world react to such a weird perspective to grasp? When we see human beings kill each other for failing to see the world the same way, I’m not overly optimistic about human kind capacity to fully apprehend quantum physics. But maybe it’s fine not to understand how quantum computing works if we can benefit from it. Or is it?

Freedom sounds simple—do what you want, right?

But John Stuart Mill had a different take (he’s a 19th-century philosopher who spent a lot of time thinking about this, so pretty legit). He believed that liberty comes with one big condition: you’re free to do whatever you like, as long as you don’t harm others.

Sounds fair enough, doesn’t it?

But when you really think about it, this idea of “don’t harm others” gets complicated fast. For Mill, freedom wasn’t just about doing your own thing—it was about understanding how your actions affect the people around you. Liberty, he thought, isn’t something we keep to ourselves; it’s something we share.

Now, let’s bring this into today’s world

Think about all the big issues on the global stage—peace talks, climate change policies, trade negotiations. These are all about the same question Mill asked: where does my freedom end and yours begin? Can one country pursue its own goals without stepping on another’s toes?

Take peace talks as an example

One nation might feel justified in defending its borders or expanding its influence, while another sees those actions as threats to their sovereignty or safety. Mill would argue that true freedom doesn’t mean ignoring these tensions—it means recognizing how actions ripple outward and finding ways to address those ripples responsibly. His principle of “non-nuisance” isn’t just a moral idea—it’s a practical guide for resolving conflicts and building trust.

And then there’s climate agreements

One country might say, “We need more factories to grow our economy,” while another says, “Your growth is destroying our environment.” Again, Mill would remind us that freedom isn’t just about personal or national gain—it’s about understanding how interconnected we all are and making choices that respect those connections.

And what about compromise?

Mill believed that freedom works best when it’s built on conversation. The best solutions don’t come from one side winning and the other losing—they come from honest dialogue where both sides figure out how to move forward together. It’s not easy, but it’s how progress happens.

Are we living up to Mill’s vision of freedom today?

Are we using our liberties to build bridges or just digging deeper trenches? Every negotiation—whether it’s between nations or neighbors—is a chance to show whether we can balance our rights with our responsibilities to each other.

Mill would remind us that freedom isn’t just about doing whatever we want—it’s about finding ways to live together without harming each other. That’s where real liberty begins.

What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts on how Mill’s ideas apply today.

Every “trustworthy” AI system quietly betrays at least one sacred principle. Ethical AI forces brutal trade-offs: Prioritizing any one aspect among fairness, accuracy, and transparency compromises the others. It's a messy game of Jenga: pull one block (like fairness), and accuracy wobbles; stabilize transparency, and performance tumbles. But why can’t you be fair, accurate, AND transparent? And is there a solution?

The Trilemma in Action

Imagine you try to create ethical hiring algorithms. Prioritize diversity and you might ghost the best candidates. Obsess over qualifications and historical biases sneak in like uninvited guests.

Same with chatbots. Force explanations and they’ll robot-splain every comma. Let them “think” freely? You’ll get confident lies about Elvis running a B&B on a Mars colony.

Why Regulators Won’t Save Us

Should we set up laws that dictate universal error thresholds or fairness metrics? Regulators wisely steer clear of rigid one-size-fits-all rules. Smart move. They acknowledge AI’s messy reality where a 3% mistake margin might be catastrophic for autonomous surgery bots but trivial for movie recommendation engines.

The Path Forward?

Some companies now use “ethical debt” trackers, logging trade-offs as rigorously as technical debt. They document their compromises openly, like a chef publishing rejected recipe variations alongside their final dish.

Truth is: the real AI dilemma is that no AI system maximizes fairness, accuracy, and transparency simultaneously. So, what could we imagine? Letting users pick their poison with trade-off menus: “Click here for maximum fairness (slower, dumber AI)” or “Turbo mode (minor discrimination included)”? Or how about launching bias bounties: pay hackers to hunt unfairness and turn ethics into an extreme sport? Obviously, it’s complicated.

The Bullet-Proof System

Sorry, there’s no bullet-proof system since value conflicts will always demand context-specific sacrifices. After all, ethics isn’t about avoiding hard choices, it’s about admitting we’re all balancing on a tightrope—and inviting everyone to see the safety net we’ve woven below.

Should We Hold Machines to Higher Standards Than Humans?

Trustworthy AI isn’t achieved through perfect systems, but through processes that make our compromises legible, contestable, and revisable. After all, humans aren’t fair, accurate, and transparent either.

How Far Will You Speak Up? Integrity is more than a virtue; it is the foundation of our identity. It represents the alignment of our actions, values, and commitments into a coherent whole, forming the essence of who we are. To abandon these commitments is to lose touch with the very core of our being.

History is full of moments when individuals chose not to stay silent, even when the odds seemed insurmountable. Václav Havel, a playwright turned dissident and later president, is one such figure. But his story isn't about grand gestures or dramatic heroics. It's about the quiet, steady courage of living in alignment with one's values, even when doing so carried immense personal risk.

Havel didn't set out to lead a revolution. He simply refused to accept lies as truth or to conform to a system that demanded silence. Through his plays, essays, and actions, he challenged the oppressive structures around him, not with force, but with integrity. And though his path led to imprisonment and hardship, it also helped spark a peaceful revolution that changed history.

Not everyone is called to, or capable of, Havel's level of sacrifice. But his life invites us to reflect: where could our own integrity lead us? What courage might it give us in moments that matter? Integrity doesn't always demand dramatic acts of defiance; sometimes it's found in the quiet choices we make every day, choices that ripple outward in ways we may never fully see. Integrity is how we stay true to ourselves every day, not just in big moments. Our values shape who we are, defining our identity through consistent choices and actions.

Here’s a powerful inspiration extracted from my latest book (beautifully translated by Carol Volk):

When the Berlin Wall fell, "poets, philosophers, and singers became members of Parliament, government ministers or even presidents." Those who refused to "be reasonable" and "went on thinking about how to make the world a better place" rewrote history. Based on his successful experience, despite what initially seemed like impossible odds, Havel has a message of encouragement to share that is all the more convincing as it is anchored not in "reasonable" or even "idealistic" beliefs but in reality.
"Many people said it couldn't be done, and that I had gone mad," he recalls. "And look: it can be done, and we are all sitting here together." Hope is not unreasonable in the end but "the victory of reason over the political stereotypes to which inertia tries to fetter us." That is why he concludes that "it is never pointless to think about alternatives that may at the moment seem improbable, impossible, or simply fantastic. [...] Rather it appears that there are moments in history when dreaming on principle may in fact come in handy."

The Marshmallow Test: Trust Issues Start Young

What if I told you some kids fail the Marshmallow Test not because they lack self-control, but because they’ve already figured out adults are about as trustworthy as a raccoon guarding an open bag of chips? Why wait for a second marshmallow when the adult in charge looks like they’re about to eat it themselves? These kids aren’t impulsive—they’re just realists in a world where promises vanish faster than campaign slogans after election day.

Promises, Patience, and Sweet Lies

For those who missed the memo, the Marshmallow Test is a famous psychological experiment where kids are given a choice: eat one marshmallow now or wait 15 minutes and get two. It’s often seen as a predictor of future success, and every parent secretly hopes their child will resist that marshmallow, picturing it as the golden ticket to Ivy League diplomas, corner offices, and a perfectly polished future. But here’s the kicker: kids don’t wait because they’re born with superhuman willpower; they wait because they trust that the second marshmallow will actually show up.

Trump and the Case of the Vanishing Marshmallows

And that brings us to Trump. His presidency was like throwing kids into a Marshmallow Test with an adult who keeps saying, “Just wait a little longer,” while sneakily scarfing down all the marshmallows behind their back, and after you waited and there’s no marshmallow left, they’d declare, “The deal’s off.” Whether it was pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, reversing healthcare protections, or rolling back rights for marginalized groups, his policies created an environment where no one could trust what tomorrow might bring.

Short-Term Thinking: The Ultimate Buzzkill

This isn’t just bad governance; it’s psychological sabotage. When people lose faith in the future, they stop investing in it. Businesses delay innovation—why take risks when regulations flip-flop every four years? Families postpone major life decisions—just look at how birth rates dropped during COVID-19 as financial and health uncertainties skyrocketed. Society becomes stuck in short-term thinking, grabbing at immediate gains instead of planning for long-term success.

Macron, Sarkozy, and Europe’s Trust Meltdown

And let’s not pretend this is just an American issue—Europe has its own cautionary tales we’d be wise to avoid. Remember Macron dissolving France’s National Assembly after his party lost its majority? He promised voters their voices would shape governance but then failed to appoint a government reflecting their choices. Or Sarkozy, who pushed France into joining a European treaty despite voters rejecting it in a referendum? These moves didn’t just undermine democracy—they shattered public trust in institutions and leadership itself.

Kierkegaard Was Right (But Marshmallows Prove It)

Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard once said, “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” Trust is what allows us to live forwards—to make sacrifices today because we believe they’ll pay off tomorrow. When leaders like Trump (or Macron or Sarkozy) undermine that trust, they don’t just disrupt progress; they erode our collective ability to plan for a better future.

The Real Lesson of the Marshmallow Test: Snack Now or Later?

Isn’t the real lesson of the Marshmallow Test less about patience and more about trust? I mean, who’s going to wait for a second marshmallow if you’re not even sure it’s coming—are we optimists for holding out, or just realists who know when to grab the first snack and run?

Yesterday, DeepSeek just wiped $1tn off the US stock market——should we embrace its groundbreaking AI despite concerns over censorship, data security, and ethical implications?

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗗𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝗮 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲-𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿?
This Chinese AI model is flipping the script in a big way. Training DeepSeek to become “smart” costs 20 times less in processors compared to its American competitors. Naturally, Nvidia—the go-to supplier of those pricey processors, one of America’s top AI giants—took a massive hit, with its stock plummeting and dragging along that jaw-dropping $600 billion loss. Ouch.

𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐔𝐬𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐒𝐞𝐞𝐤?
Now, beyond the jaw-dropping numbers, here’s the million-dollar question: should we even use DeepSeek? Technology isn’t some neutral tool—it comes baked with the values and intentions of its creators. Jumping on the DeepSeek bandwagon without thinking critically is like ignoring the moral and political baggage it might carry. Sure, it’s cheaper and crazy powerful, but it appears to censor answers to sensitive questions about China and its government. I strongly encourage you to read its answers when The Guardian asked questions about Tiananmen Square and Taiwan (click on the image below to see a video comparing its answers with ChatGTP's). And what about data security? And are we okay with potentially handing over our information to a state whose track record on human rights and surveillance raises more than a few eyebrows?

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗺𝗮: 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝘃𝘀. 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀
Here’s where philosophy swoops in to save the day (thanks, Hans Jonas!). His “principle of responsibility” urges us to think ahead about how our tech choices might impact humanity and the planet. So, let’s ask ourselves:

Food for thought, right? I’d love to hear where you stand on this tricky balancing act!

It’s Blue Monday—the so-called “most depressing day of the year.” So I want to share a philosopher’s perspective on despair. Nietzsche knew a thing or two about enduring hardship. Nietzsche reminds us that even in despair, we always have the choice to interpret our lives as we see fit.

Listen to the episode to get the juicy details 🎧

Elon Musk is channeling serious Machiavelli vibes—warning us about AI doom one minute, backing deregulation the next (as part of Trump's first day moves). Is he a bold visionary rewriting the rules to shape the future, or a tech power player playing both sides? Love him or hate him, Musk is proving that great leaders don’t follow the rules—they make their own.

Listen to the episode for the juicy details.🎧