How can we make technology work for us and not the other way around? What is the difference between “algorithms” […]
How can we make technology work for us and not the other way around? What is the difference between “algorithms” and “androrithms”? Does outsourcing thinking to AI erode people’s capacity to think and leads to the rise of “super-stupidity”? And what will human agency look like in the future?
Leszek Jazdzewski (Fundacja Liberte!) talks with Gerd Leonhard, a top-rated futurist and a leading global keynote speaker, the author of 5 books including the bestseller “Technology vs. Humanity” and a filmmaker. He is a fellow of the Royal Society for the Arts in London, and the CEO of The Futures Agency in Zurich, Switzerland. Tune in the for their talk!
This podcast, as well as previous episodes, is available on SoundCloud, Apple Podcast, Stitcher and Spotify.
Watch the video of the conversation: youtu.be/wjDpqHZpXFM
Gerd Leonhard will be a guest during this year’s edition of the Freedom Games, a festival of ideas co-organized by the European Liberal Forum on October 23-25, 2026, in Lodz, Poland. Find out more: igrzyskawolnosci.pl/event/igrzyska-wolnosci-2026
This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with the Movimento Liberal Social and the Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.
Leszek: Hello, and welcome to Liberal Europe. Today we are going to talk about the Freedom Games, because we are starting this edition — we are announcing the first keynote speakers — and I have a great guest today to discuss the theme of the 26th edition, Tech for Humanity. Gerd Leonhard, who is a futurist, acclaimed author, and keynote speaker — including at Freedom Games. Gerd, very welcome to Liberal Europe.
Gerd: Great, thanks for having me.
Leszek: I want to ask you an opening question, which is also our title, and this seems to be the main body of your work — this Tech for Humanity idea: how can we make technology work for us, and not the other way around?
Gerd: You know, I’ve been talking about this for 10, 12, maybe more years. My last book was in 2016, and it was called Technology vs. Humanity. The subtitle, which was kind of strange at that time, was “the coming clash between humans and machines.” And this is what we have today. We have a clash between humans and machines. The only way we can really fix this problem is by changing the underlying economic paradigm. The current paradigm is about growth, profit, jobs, power, military. All technology has these angles. And as you can see, the big AI companies are struggling with the power and military discussion — like Anthropic being barred, or Fable 5 being taken offline for political reasons. So now we have to look at this and say: if we want a better future, it’s not enough to have great technology. We also need a greater organisation of the economic logic. What happens when people don’t really have to work that much anymore? Are we going to have a super fund of AI? These are big conversations, because our society is changing as a consequence of technology — not just little things like our job or the way we communicate, but all of it. So we have to say: the current economic paradigm, which is basically about profit and growth, probably won’t work here. Because technology makes it super fluid and abundant. It’s a different paradigm.
Leszek: It seems like transforming the logic along which capitalism works is quite a challenge, to be honest. I wonder if you see this as really achievable. Because so far, it seems that it is mostly about efficiency and maximising profits. If something is achievable, there’s no question of whether it’s good or bad — it just has to happen, because otherwise someone else will achieve that competitive advantage. This works between companies, but also between states. Do you think we’re really able to transform this logic — the one along which Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and all the others are working?
Gerd: You know, if you go back to nuclear disarmament, the invention of nuclear weapons, and the nuclear proliferation treaties — even Russia, and then eventually China and the US, agreed at the table that continuing to just go crazy about nuclear weapons wasn’t going to work. Today, you’re saying: well, if we don’t ramp up AI and AGI, China will take over. That may very well be true if we do nothing. But what we really have to do is work with them to figure out the frameworks. Many people say, no, that’s not possible. I think it is possible, and these conversations are already ongoing, because these are existential issues. To say that we have no choice but to run the arms race of AI is kind of naive, and pessimistic as well. Because if we were to just race to the top of the technology pyramid — with quantum computing, nuclear fusion, AI — then by around 2050, we will explode. Because it just leads to conflict. And we have this current trend, coming of course from the United States, of dominant-power diplomacy, which has completely failed in this regard.
Leszek: It seems to me that one of the key issues of your work is this call for restoring human agency in the future, and battling this sense of inevitability, whether it’s utopian or dystopian. How do you see this happening — that we can, instead of living in someone else’s future, reshape our future? How do you see this process coming?
Gerd: You know, how do things change in human lives? It’s pain and love. And right now, here in Europe, we have a lot of pain. We are totally dependent on American technology, and of course also on American military. We have not achieved sovereignty in that regard. We don’t even have a foreign minister for all of Europe. Things like that — we should have a Minister of the Future for Europe, for all of Europe. To achieve more balance and sovereignty, we are finally now forced — because of Trump, thank God, that’s actually a good thing — we are forced to come into our own and think about how we can be in charge of our own destiny. For that to happen, we need a united Europe. A united Europe is a super tough mission. But I always say: what is the alternative? Much worse. It’s not the biggest and easiest thing to do, but it’s the best decision to make compared to all the other decisions. So here we are, being forced to come together. That means joint military, joint cybersecurity, of course digital currency — all the things we’ve been talking about for 20 years. Humans will only change, society will only change, if we experience significant pain — that we can’t get stuff done — or if we fall in love with an idea. Those are the two things that change humans. And I think we’re in that very process right now. I wouldn’t be as pessimistic as to say this can’t be done. I think we need reason. And that reason is emerging, including the energy crisis and the demise of oil and gas.
Leszek: It sounds extremely logical. But at the same time, I do feel that at least in recent years, the logic of politics is not the logic of reason. If you look at what you described — the energy crisis, or more broadly the climate challenge, and when you think about a more united Europe — we see more and more populist parties in many different states, including in your home Switzerland, actually going in exactly the opposite direction. Do you think it’s just a phase in the process? Or do you think this is necessary pain? Because it seems that politically, it is almost impossible to do the right thing anymore.
Gerd: The sad and scary part is that we probably need more reason to actually get a move on. Now we’re seeing that US technology is banned or barred from Europe because of the White House decision just a few days ago. We’re seeing all of these things where we are essentially second-tier users and we can be blocked anytime. And of course, we’re now seeing this whole discussion about the military becoming more independent. So all the pain will get larger — for example, with an international incident where an AI finds a backdoor to all systems and just destroys our economy for three weeks. That is quite likely to happen, unfortunately, because we can’t seem to predict or advance in foresight enough to say, well, if this happened, we’re defenceless. There is precedent for this. We had the Montreal Protocol only after we realised the ozone layer was being destroyed by our refrigerators. So we have to have reason. I think we’re getting more reasons now, including the Iran crisis and the oil and gas discussion. In a really perverse way, the current situation will lead to people trying to reduce the dominance of oil and gas — because it’s obviously not working. So yes, I’m optimistic in that regard, but I’m pessimistic as to what the trigger will be.
Leszek: I wanted to slightly change the subject for a minute, because you write in your book that you try to visit the near future — five to eight years out — and then come back to now. I think I also saw the term “nowist,” or you sometimes describe yourself as a futurist. Can you let our listeners understand how your crystal ball works? How do you work as a futurist? Because it’s something more than just being a business keynote speaker giving hope to people.
Gerd: Well, first of all, I have a mission: the human future. I don’t have a clear description in terms of, you know, trying to get people to figure out how to make more money. My work really isn’t about predictions. There really is no such thing as predictions, except for, you know, Arthur C. Clarke and people like that 50 years ago. Today, it’s about observations. When you observe what goes on, and you count it all together, and you look at five to 10 years out — reasonably close — then at a certain point you find what I call the hard futures, the definitive future. When you discover the definitive future — one of them is that machines are becoming intelligent. Another is that oil and gas will not be the driver of energy in the future. Those are definitive futures. When you discover those, then you have to take action from there, and you develop scenarios. That’s what I do. My work is all based on this objective of human flourishing and planetary flourishing — not just human. That’s the goal. Hence I come to my economic paradigm, which is People, Planet, Purpose, Peace and Prosperity, as the guideline for action. This is where we have to say: our stock markets should be incentivising this kind of behaviour, not the behaviour that makes money at all costs. This is where we are lagging behind. This is why climate change, the move towards green energy, and even AI protection won’t really work until we touch this. What is the incentive? If the incentive is to make more money, then we’re clearly going to kill ourselves. If the incentive is these five things, then I think we have a chance.
Leszek: Well, maybe it’s a question of prompting humanity in the right way. You described something — I think it’s your own words — androrithm, in opposition to algorithm: the human qualities that machines can’t replicate. I wonder, if you see now that we see such substantial progress in AI, do you think there is a qualitative difference between human and machine intelligence? Or do you think, with this exponential progress in AI, we might realise that our intelligence is also just a very complex algorithm that machines can now replicate — but also surpass?
Gerd: Intelligence isn’t consciousness. They are related, but they are not the same. Consciousness is about experiencing things. That’s how we become conscious — because we exist. We have agency because we exist. Machines don’t exist. They can copy and simulate existence, of course — they’re very good at that. But their intelligence is, sooner or later, unlimited, as opposed to our own intelligence, which is limited by what’s in here, by what’s with us. But consciousness is different. If we say that intelligence, when it gets big enough, is consciousness, I think that will be a very big mistake. Because you can ask any philosopher or any neurologist what the difference is — but human intelligence entails a lot of really murky things: emotional intelligence, social intelligence, musical intelligence, kinaesthetic intelligence. We have a body. Any therapist will tell you: we don’t think with the brain, we think with the body. So we’re going to get to the point where AI can simulate all of these things, and act like it actually is conscious. It can pretend to be conscious, like you can pretend to be your friend or your therapist. But that is not the same thing. As we know from video games, pretence and games are not the same thing as reality. Will we eventually have a machine that we can teach to be conscious? That is possible, probably — but not something we would want. Because imagine the consequences. We would be out of control very quickly. So I think, for our own good, the perfect way out is to say: intelligence we use, because it’s superior in terms of logic. But decision-making, values, ethics, understanding — that should be our story. And we have to protect this. This is my view on the future of technology and humanity.
Leszek: One thing we don’t take into account when we think about intelligence is also the will — the capacity to act and decide. I think we overestimate how much our will is shaped by just our conscious brain.
Gerd: Well, it’s a logical discussion. People think that we make decisions based on logic. We don’t. We make decisions based on 100 things. And if we just give the computer and the AI the ability to make decisions based on logic, we’re going to miss everything else — which is about 90% of what really matters. This is one reason why we should not have AI in the military in any such position. Because not only is it flawed, and it’s after all an algorithm — it doesn’t understand what’s called alignment. It’s not aligned with what we would be doing. This is why a doctor can use AI to get up to speed quicker. But in the end, human alignment is what matters most.
Leszek: I think you wrote something along the lines that machines should not have ethics. But do you think our ethics will have to adapt to living with the machines?
Gerd: Oh, absolutely. This is not a question of what we can do, but of what we should do. Right now, we’re at the point where we’re seeing this question — if we can do something, how can we do it, how much does it cost — that question is being replaced by why we should do it. Can I upload my brain to the internet and live forever? Well, we’re pretty close to that. Can I be superhuman by wearing a brain-computer interface? Yes, probably very soon. But the question is why? Does it actually make us happier as humans? Do we have human flourishing as a result? Or do we become like the machine? As I keep saying: we’re probably in more danger of becoming machines than the machines are of becoming human. And that is a huge challenge for us.
Leszek: You also warned that many people will use AI to outsource cognition and social interactions, producing what you call super stupidity. Can you explain what you mean by this?
Gerd: Well, I think humans are naturally lazy in many ways. And if we have a machine that does the thinking for us, we would just say: well, is this the right woman to marry? Check her emails and give me advice. Check out her photos to see if she’s serious. We could do that. Of course, we can write a love letter using AI, we can do all these things. So there’s a significant danger that we stop using our brain. And you know what happens when you stop using things — you start losing things. It’s like when you don’t learn how to handwrite. That alone wouldn’t be a big problem — if we don’t know how to handwrite. But the brain is developing along with the writing. There’s a reason we have to make effort to get a result. The process gets the other result. So if we shortchange this all the time beyond a certain level, then we are decapitating ourselves. I think it all started with the internet itself, which was initially a boon for information. But then we started saying: okay, whatever the search engine says is true. And now it’s like 1000% worse, because it’s just one AI giving me an answer on who I should vote for. This kind of laziness leads to abdication, to loss of control, and ultimately to dehumanisation.
Leszek: Speaking of voting, do you think liberal democracy is compatible with communication driven by algorithms, social media, and AI?
Gerd: Well, first, I would say — in terms of politics, we really have to say goodbye to the old-fashioned categorisation of socialism, communism, capitalism, populism. None of that matters anymore. The only question is: is what we can do in terms of policy going to make a good future or a bad future? Some things we’re going to do to make a good future will sound more autocratic — like having really tough environmental laws, or more taxation, or a European social fund for AI. That’s kind of like socialism. So what we need to think about is: is our policy future-fit? Does it fit into that future scenario? Is it relevant when everything around us is changing? Can we still talk about what’s liberal or not? I think it’s just a question of what is suitable, what has good results. And I think a lot of that will be kind of liberal in that sense. But we urgently have to move past this thinking in Europe that it’s a black or white thing — or that we are just kind of waiting for somebody else to make the future. This is a European disease, where we say: oh, no, we’re not in charge of that. So we’ll just wait for Silicon Valley to give us another product.
Leszek: I wonder where you see legitimacy coming from for this sort of decision-making. I think in some place you called for creating a kind of council of wise people. I understand that the way you explained it, legitimacy should come from the ability to shape a good future. But it sounds very much like a kind of Republic of the Wise from Plato — the philosopher-kings. Do you think this is the way, the only way, to approach a future-oriented system? So far, legitimacy has come from individual support for the political system. Do you think we are going to step back and come back to more oligarchical or even autocratic regimes?
Gerd: That’s a very good question. I think of it more like the Star Trek economy. Going back to Star Trek: we have money, we have work, kind of — but not in the sense that we have it today. Just think of work becoming something you may do at different times, but not the centre of life. We have strong democratic principles. But we also need a council of people that does nothing else but look at these really hairy issues. We used to call that the UN. And now the UN has become this bloated, bureaucratic, well-meaning organisation — but what is their power? So I think if we had a council — going back to Star Trek — 30 to 40 people on a global level, they wouldn’t necessarily run things. But they would say: look, the council says that having unlimited human genome editing is not a good idea. And then we could base our democratic decisions on that. Because these are complicated decisions. Here in Switzerland, we vote three or four times a year. Some of those issues are utterly complicated — like the one we rejected, thankfully, yesterday: the 10 million population limit, which was ludicrous, proposed by the right-wing party here in Switzerland. But we make decisions like that every three or four months. So I think we need guidance on these issues. And they can’t be guided just by business people, CEOs, or the World Economic Forum. Yeah, they’ve done a pretty good job at giving us guidance — but obviously, they’ve become part of the problem, not part of the solution. So the democratic aspect here really isn’t going to be entirely easy, because of speed — that’s one thing — and because of the multitude of opinions. But I think when we’re facing really existential issues, like right now, this very moment — we’re facing existential issues of too much AI. Once we have the first incident, we’re all going to be on the same page. And I wish we could avoid that. But it does seem likely to happen.
Leszek: You mentioned Star Trek, and I wonder which other science fiction work do you think could be the most inspiring, or raise the most important questions — not really predicting, but describing the future of humanity? I was thinking that, for example, if most humans live to work, we might be facing something similar to Brave New World, where everyone is entertaining themselves to death — that seems more likely than perhaps Orwell’s 1984. I wonder which other works — cyberpunk, William Gibson — inspire you or you find interesting in this aspect?
Gerd: Well, I think the most really powerful book right now is Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Ministry for the Future. It actually takes place in Zurich. And it’s the vision of having a ministry that is in charge of developing the future plans for humanity, and what happens with them about climate change and technology. Very powerful book, and with a positive future. From science fiction films, it’s very hard to extrapolate to real-world action, because they’re not really meant for that. Except for movies like Her, where the actor falls in love with the operating system. That is a very, very good depiction of the worst case — which is: we get really inside the computer and we’re utterly lonely and useless. That is kind of the bottom line of this film. Or of course, the original Blade Runner. What we are creating now is replicants, basically. Humanoid robots plus AI equals replicant. So we can take pages from this. But in terms of real-world decisions, it all comes down to: what is the direction we’re going? What is the goal? And how do we collaborate to avoid a race towards zero? Whatever the technology is — whether it’s quantum or fusion or AI — we need to agree on what the joint objective is. That reminds me a lot of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. We agreed that the primary goal was to be alive, not to kill each other. I think a similar process is happening right now.
Leszek: Just a very quick last question. You say that the real question is not what the future will bring, but what do you want the future to be? What can our individual listeners do? What can they decide, or what sort of habits can they create to change something in their lives starting tomorrow — creating the future, and not just being recipients of it?
Gerd: Yeah, I call this the future mindset. I talk about this a lot. The future mindset is a mindset that’s curious and informed about what’s going on in the near future. As Bill Gates used to say: we should spend 45 minutes to one hour in the future every day. And we’re not talking about watching Netflix. We’re talking about reading the good books, reading the articles, staying informed. Because when you have a future-ready mindset, and your mind has already looked at these issues, you know how to react. You have more foresight. You have observed. You don’t have to predict — but you have to be aware. And that should be everybody’s job. The other thing is that we cannot go into the future based on fear. Sometimes we have to sidestep the fear funnel of social media, where it’s like: okay, this guy did this, AI is going to kill us all. We have to sidestep this fear reaction. And of course, when we have fear, we usually vote for the wrong people — that’s another thing. So we need to lose the fear, acknowledge it and say: okay, I’m really worried about this. But I always say: the future is better than we think. Because all the cards we have today — the possibilities of fixing cancer, of solving climate change, of reinventing energy — that’s like 95% good. We just have to agree on the process and the collaboration for it to actually come alive.
Leszek: Well, I think that’s a good place to end. Gerd Leonhard, thank you so much for being with us at Liberal Europe. See you at the Freedom Games.
Gerd: Thank you. Thank you so much.