WSIS Forum 2026
AI-generated report
ENFR

Rethinking learning for the AI era

12 speakers
Summary

This discussion, moderated by Hao Liu centres on how learning and education must be reimagined in the AI era, drawing on both European and Chinese traditions of knowledge acquisition.

Jovan Kurbalija of DiploFoundation opened by proposing that humans have historically learned through two fundamental methods: apprenticeship (learning by observing and doing) and storytelling . He argued that AI tools such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek now threaten the latter, as students can generate essays with minimal effort, raising the question of whether the ability to construct and tell one's own story remains important . Hong Guan of BIT's School of Global Governance responded by outlining five meta-capabilities considered essential for the AI era: learning agility, execution capability, communication skills, leadership potential, and critical judgement , emphasising that AI should improve education rather than replace it .

Student voices added practical perspectives. A Stanford University student expressed concern that classmates were uploading entire textbooks into AI tools to pass exams without genuinely learning, and questioned who would generate new knowledge if everyone depended on AI . Another student highlighted the risk of accepting AI-generated answers uncritically, arguing that students must develop the habit of questioning before consulting AI, not only after .

Senior practitioners from aviation and international organisations stressed that AI is a powerful tool but cannot substitute human vision, face-to-face interaction, or critical judgement . Ana Paula emphasised that adaptability and critical thinking are increasingly rare and valuable skills that can be deliberately cultivated . Maricela Munoz reinforced that distinctly human qualities - curiosity, compassion, and ingenuity - remain irreplaceable .

Jovan Kurbalija closed by reflecting that AI acts as a mirror revealing who we are, and invoked Pope Francis's encyclical Laudate Deum to argue that humans have a right to remain imperfect and should not be "optimised" by technology, a message he suggested resonates across philosophical and religious traditions worldwide .

Keypoints

  • Overall Purpose

  • The discussion aims to explore how learning and education must evolve in the AI era, drawing on both European and Chinese traditions. Panellists, experts, and students examine the tension between AI as a productivity tool and the enduring importance of fundamentally human skills such as storytelling, critical thinking, and adaptability.
  • --

  • Major Discussion Points

  • Two foundational modes of learning - apprenticeship and storytelling - are being disrupted by AI. Jovan Kurbalija argues that throughout history, humans have learned in two core ways: by observing masters (apprenticeship) and by constructing and sharing narratives (storytelling) . He contends that AI now threatens the second mode, as students can generate polished essays with minimal effort, undermining the cognitive and emotional process of building a narrative .
  • Students are using AI to pass without genuinely learning, raising urgent questions about the purpose of education. A Stanford University student described classmates uploading entire textbooks to AI tools the night before exams, passing with high marks but retaining nothing . This prompted the broader question of who will generate new knowledge in the future if students rely entirely on AI synthesis rather than original thought .
  • Five meta-capabilities are proposed as essential for the AI era. Hong Guan outlined a framework developed at BIT's School of Global Governance: learning agility, execution capability, communication skills, leadership potential, and critical judgement . She argued that AI should not replace education but should push institutions to raise their standards, shifting the university's role from providing answers to helping students ask better questions .
  • Critical thinking and adaptability are becoming increasingly rare and therefore increasingly valuable. Ana Paula observed that as access to information becomes cheap and ubiquitous through AI, the ability to evaluate, filter, and make sound decisions in a sea of contradictory data is now at a premium . She emphasised that adaptability is a learnable skill, not an innate trait, and that continuous learning is the quality most likely to sustain professionals through an unpredictable future .
  • Human qualities - curiosity, compassion, and imperfection - remain irreplaceable and must anchor education in the AI era. Maricela Munoz stressed that humanity's inherent curiosity and ingenuity place humans in a strong position relative to machines, and warned against over-dependence on AI during hiring and professional development . Jovan Kurbalija echoed this in his closing remarks, referencing Pope Leo XIV's encyclical Dilexit Nos to argue that humans have a right to remain imperfect and that this imperfection is the source of life's ultimate meaning and beauty .
  • --

  • Overall Tone

  • The discussion maintains a consistently warm, intellectually curious, and collaborative tone throughout. The moderator, Hao Liu, sets an inclusive and informal atmosphere from the outset, encouraging open participation and limiting interventions to three minutes to keep energy high . Jovan Kurbalija's framing is reflective and philosophical, inviting challenge rather than asserting certainty . When students speak, the tone becomes more candid - but panellists respond with encouragement rather than alarm. Towards the close, the tone shifts gently towards the inspirational, with Maricela Munoz and Jovan Kurbalija offering humanistic reassurances about the enduring value of human qualities . Boris Engelson introduces a brief note of gentle scepticism and paradox , but this enriches rather than disrupts the overall spirit of open, good-natured inquiry.
Speakers Overview
JK
Jovan Kurbalija
149 wpm · 12 min
HL
Hao Liu
144 wpm · 12 min
HG
Hong Guan
97 wpm · 6 min
S2
Student 2
192 wpm · 4 min
S1
Student 1
103 wpm · 3 min
S4
Student 4
104 wpm · 2 min
CR
Catalin Radu
147 wpm · 4 min
NN
Nabil Naoumi
143 wpm · 4 min
AP
Ana Paula
162 wpm · 5 min
S3
Student 3
113 wpm · 2 min
MM
Maricela Munoz
156 wpm · 3 min
BE
Boris Engelson
123 wpm · 4 min

Rethinking Learning for the AI Era: An Expanded Summary

#

Setting and Context

This discussion took place at what appears to be a WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) international forum, moderated by Hao Liu. From the outset, Liu established an inclusive and informal atmosphere, inviting all participants to share ideas and reminding the room that every intervention should last no more than three minutes . He framed the session as a follow-up to a previous year's discussion on AI education comparing European and Chinese experiences , and introduced Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation to explain the conceptual design of the session .

---

#

Two Foundational Modes of Learning

Jovan Kurbalija opened by proposing a deceptively simple but historically grounded framework: throughout human history, learning has relied on two core methods . The first is apprenticeship - learning by observing masters - which he argued underpins everything from the construction of the Great Wall of China to the Egyptian pyramids . The Diplo Foundation has translated this into what it calls "AI apprenticeship," where participants learn about AI by actively developing AI tools . The second mode is storytelling: the construction and sharing of narratives, whether around a fire, in a master's thesis, or in an academic article . Kurbalija acknowledged that his framing was rooted in Euro-Mediterranean tradition and explicitly invited Chinese participants to confirm or challenge whether these same modes apply in their context .

Kurbalija's central concern was that AI now threatens the second mode. He noted that platforms such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek can generate polished essays with minimal effort, meaning that a student who has been at a party until midnight can return home, enter a few prompts, and submit an excellent essay by morning . Rather than condemning this behaviour, he acknowledged it as natural: "if pedagogy is not associated with a common sense behaviour of people, it's not good" . His question, posed openly to the room, was whether the erosion of storytelling as a practised human skill constitutes a genuine problem . He argued that it likely does, because constructing a narrative requires the author to think about openings, tensions, and structure - cognitive processes that are bypassed when AI generates the text .

---

#

Storytelling as Motivation and the Chinese Tradition

Hao Liu responded by affirming that storytelling is critically important in Chinese history as well, confirming the cross-cultural resonance of Kurbalija's framework . He argued that throughout history, successful leaders have been skilled storytellers who built shared dreams, motivated followers without material reward, and made those dreams feel achievable . Crucially, he contended that this motivational power of storytelling cannot be extracted from AI tools: "you cannot take that from GPT, you cannot take that from DeepSeek" . This exchange produced one of the session's unexpected consensuses: despite Kurbalija's stated uncertainty about Chinese traditions , both Chinese and European participants converged on the view that apprenticeship and storytelling are universal human learning modes.

---

#

Five Meta-Capabilities for the AI Era

Hong Guan, representing BIT's School of Global Governance, introduced a structured framework of five meta-capabilities that her institution considers essential for the AI era, framing it as a "rebuilding" model designed to address the gap between existing educational approaches and the demands of an AI-driven world . The first capability is learning agility - the ability to learn how to learn, adapt quickly, and acquire new knowledge and skills in a rapidly changing environment . The second is execution capability - the ability to set goals, assess resources, make decisions, and deliver results, developed through real-world, project-based learning . The third is communication skills, understood not merely as writing and speaking correctly but as the ability to work effectively across different cultural backgrounds and with people from around the world . The fourth is leadership potential, defined not as occupying a high position but as taking responsibility, supporting teams, managing organisational relationships, and helping others move forward . The fifth and arguably most important is critical judgement - the capacity to evaluate information and make sound decisions in an AI-saturated world .

Hong Guan was clear about the underlying philosophy: "AI shouldn't replace education. AI should push us to make education better" . She argued that the role of universities must shift from providing answers to helping students ask better questions, exercise sound judgement, and act with responsibility .

---

#

Student Perspectives: Execution, Dependency, and Critical Reflection

The session then opened to student contributions, which added candid, experiential depth to the discussion. The first student, from BIT's School of Global Governance, focused on execution capability, arguing that in the AI era, idea generation has been largely commoditised: "everyone can use AI to generate a lot of solutions, ideas... within five minutes" . The real challenge, she argued, is turning AI-generated content into real-world practice . She described how her school's international study programmes - including visits to Geneva, Vienna, Egypt, and organisations such as the ITU and UNIDO - required students to develop complete execution plans with clear goals, resource assessments, and defined deliverables . This structured, project-based approach, she argued, produces genuine growth precisely because it is demanding .

The second student, a first-year undergraduate at Stanford University, offered the most emotionally resonant and intellectually challenging contribution of the session. She stated plainly that "AI is ruining education" , describing how classmates would upload entire textbooks into Claude or ChatGPT the night before exams, pass "with flying colors," and then "forget everything" the day after . She questioned the fundamental purpose of higher education under these conditions: "what's the point of being in school if you're just going to do this?" . She went further, making a pointed epistemological argument: ChatGPT does not understand what it says; it is "just a large language model that synthesizes everything that you put into it" and "doesn't understand a single thing" . Her deepest concern was not personal employment but systemic: "if every person at Stanford and every person at every other university is using AI, then who's going to generate this new knowledge for the future of humanity?" . She also noted the cultural dimension of the problem at elite institutions, observing that many of her peers were preoccupied with building AI-related startups rather than engaging in genuine intellectual inquiry . Her contribution was so striking that Kurbalija remarked warmly - in keeping with the session's informal atmosphere - that the Diplo Foundation might consider recruiting her, noting that they could not match a Stanford salary .

A third student raised a subtler but equally important concern about critical judgement. They observed that when students ask AI a question they do not fully understand, the AI's response often gives them a false sense of comprehension, causing them to stop asking further questions . Because they lack the background knowledge to evaluate the answer, they absorb it passively without genuine understanding . Their proposed remedy was practical and metacognitive: students should engage in critical reflection before consulting AI, clarifying precisely what they are confused about so that they can evaluate the AI's response with greater discernment . A fourth student extended the communication theme, arguing that AI has not weakened the importance of communication competence but has in fact strengthened it, since effective human-AI interaction now requires the ability to formulate precise, well-structured instructions .

---

#

Institutional Responses: Oral Examinations and Assessment Reform

The Stanford student's account prompted an immediate institutional response from Hong Guan, who contrasted BIT's approach with the written assessment model that appears to prevail at Stanford. She stated that BIT does not use the traditional examination model; instead, it employs oral examinations conducted across multiple rounds of questioning . This format, she argued, makes AI-assisted cheating effectively impossible, since genuine understanding is revealed - or exposed as absent - in real time . Jovan Kurbalija validated this approach by asking the Stanford student directly whether she had actually read the 500-page textbook , and she confirmed that she had - implicitly illustrating that direct questioning distinguishes genuine learners from those who rely on AI. Hao Liu reinforced the principle during the session itself by asking students to speak without manuscripts, noting that this reveals whether the ideas are genuinely their own .

Kurbalija expressed broader concern about the cultural environment at elite universities, describing it as "very worrying if at Stanford University you have this startup obsession, not people reflecting" . He argued that university should be "a place where you spend free time... to think, to reflect, to stay back, to have like-minded people, to engage, to question your thoughts" , and that the persistence of old assessment models was driving the problem . Hao Liu also floated an informal, off-the-cuff proposal for a two-tier credentialing system: one degree category indicating AI-assisted completion and another indicating independent completion, allowing AI use to be acknowledged transparently rather than prohibited or ignored .

---

#

Perspectives from Aviation and International Organisations

Two senior aviation experts offered perspectives grounded in professional practice. Catalin Radu, introduced by Hao Liu as a former Director General of Civil Aviation for two countries and a former ICAO official, framed AI unambiguously as "a tool to be used by human in a proper way to get better results, more effective, more productive" . He noted that AI has already transformed his own working practice, reducing the need for multiple administrative assistants . However, he emphasised that human vision, critical thinking, and face-to-face interaction remain irreplaceable, particularly for sensitive strategic discussions . His most urgent message was directed at organisations: AI adoption must happen system-wide and immediately. "It should happen now, today. So it's already late," he stated, arguing that treating AI as the responsibility of a single designated individual is wholly insufficient . He described AI readiness not as optional but as "mandatory" for organisational survival .

Nabil Naoumi, introduced by Hao Liu as the youngest president of ICAO's Air Navigation Commission - described as the highest technical body in that organisation - offered a complementary perspective. He argued that AI's greatest practical value lies in its ability to produce drafts and compile information rapidly, allowing expert groups to focus their energy on refinement and decision-making rather than information gathering . He echoed Radu's urgency: "if you just start now to think about AI, you are already too late. It is part of our daily business" . He drew a historical parallel with the arrival of the internet 25 years ago , suggesting that adaptation to transformative technology has always been necessary. He also illustrated how deeply AI has already penetrated aviation: aircraft systems are now capable of autonomous emergency landings, communicating with air traffic control, and safely landing a plane if a pilot becomes incapacitated . He noted that decision-makers in aviation are actively considering replacing the two pilots in a cockpit with AI systems, given the growing complexity of aircraft and the global shortage of pilots .

---

#

Critical Thinking, Adaptability, and Lifelong Learning

Ana Paula, who founded AIM Global at UNIDO and also served as Chief of Digital Innovation and AI before taking up her current role as Chief of ICT, brought a practitioner's perspective shaped by decades of technological change. She began by noting that the specific knowledge she studied - electronics engineering, programming in assembly language - is largely obsolete today , and that what has sustained her career is not any particular technical expertise but a commitment to lifelong learning established in her early teens . Her core argument was that as AI makes information cheap and ubiquitous, the ability to evaluate, filter, and make sound decisions in a sea of contradictory data is becoming increasingly rare and therefore increasingly valuable: "critical thinking is coming at a premium now because information is now cheap" . She also challenged the assumption that adaptability is an innate trait, arguing that it is a learnable skill that can be deliberately cultivated and improved over time . She noted that learning itself is evolving in the AI era: when teachers expect students to use AI, the bar is raised considerably higher, requiring deeper engagement rather than less . Her closing message was that "continuous learning" and adaptability are "the skills that will propel into the future, whatever that is" .

---

#

Human Qualities and the Irreplaceability of Authentic Humanity

Maricela Munoz, a diplomat with experience in international science and technology governance and a participant in the Diplo Foundation's apprenticeship programme - alongside other colleagues such as Leonardo - offered a humanistic perspective that complemented and deepened the preceding contributions. She argued that humanity's inherent curiosity and ingenuity place humans in a fundamentally strong position relative to machines: "our humanity and our curiosity will be always above any machine who can imitate, for example, critical thinking" . She noted that in professional contexts, she actively looks for candidates who remain "very human and very natural" and use technology as a tool rather than depending on it . Her framing echoed Radu's earlier point that AI is ultimately a tool in service of human agency, though she approached it from a more humanistic angle. She cited the singer John Legend's observation that technology cannot know "what love is, what pain is, and so many other human characteristics" , arguing that the creation of knowledge, wisdom, and unique vision "remains a quality and a project and a vision for a human being" . Her practical recommendation was that technology should be used to free humans from mundane tasks, creating more time for reflection, vision, and creative thinking . She closed with an encouragement to the younger participants to "continue being us, fresh," affirming that their critical thinking and human qualities are already present and valuable .

---

#

The Contrarian Voice: Persistence of Tradition and Unresolved Paradoxes

Boris Engelson, described by Kurbalija as the Diplo Foundation's "resident contrarian," introduced a layer of philosophical scepticism that enriched the discussion considerably. He observed that dissatisfaction with schooling is not a modern phenomenon: "one of the first texts of the history of writing, dating back to Sumer, was a complaint of a pupil" . Despite centuries of reform calls, "the format remains nearly intact through the century and even with the most modern technologies" . He noted with gentle irony that the very session discussing educational reform was itself conducted in a traditional lecture-panel format , suggesting that there must be "deep reasons why this model cannot change" . He also articulated a second, unresolved paradox: the tension between the Renaissance ideal of total encyclopaedic knowledge - embodied by Pico della Mirandola, whom Engelson described as a Renaissance man who "knew everything" - and the Einsteinian ideal of radical disruption . Both models are necessary, he argued, yet they are fundamentally difficult to reconcile within a single educational system. He concluded by noting that he prefers to live with unanswered questions rather than pretend to have answers , a stance that added intellectual honesty to the discussion.

Kurbalija, in introducing Engelson, also reflected on the limits of common sense as a guide for critical thinking. He noted that Engelson had taught him that "common sense has one dangerous element - that is a common, and very often common sense is not critical thinking, it's just very often cacophony" . This created a productive tension with Kurbalija's own earlier argument that pedagogy must align with common-sense behaviour , suggesting that the relationship between pragmatic realism and genuine critical inquiry is itself complex and unresolved.

---

#

Closing Reflections: Technology as Mirror and the Right to Imperfection

Jovan Kurbalija's closing remarks synthesised the session's themes into a broader philosophical reflection. He introduced the concept of "Esprit Tech de Genève" - a fan featuring eight philosophers, including Borges, Calvin, Rousseau, Voltaire, Piaget, Bonnet, and others - as a symbol of the idea that every place has its own philosophical tradition relevant to navigating the AI era . He encouraged participants to develop their own localised "Esprit Tech," drawing on the wisdom of Confucius, Lao Tse, African Ubuntu, and other traditions, rather than defaulting to a Western-centric framework .

His most resonant observation was that AI "puts a mirror in front of us to see who we are" - a metaphor suggesting that the discomfort AI causes is not merely a technical or pedagogical problem but an invitation to deeper self-understanding. He invoked a papal encyclical - which he described informally as a "Magna Carta of our era" and referred to as "Humanitas" - to make the case that humans have "a right to be imperfect" and that "in our imperfection is our ultimate purpose and beauty of the life" . He argued that this message resonates across philosophical and religious traditions from Asia to Africa and Latin America, because it is "centered in the role of humans, what it matters to be human" .

---

#

Practical Initiatives and Forward-Looking Commitments

Before closing, Hao Liu drew attention to the AI Philosophy Caravan initiative, which offers participants an immersive, multi-city learning experience engaging with government officials, industry representatives, academics, and local communities to understand real-world AI governance models across sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing . He noted that the upcoming 2026 edition would adopt a modified format - establishing a base in one city and inviting people to travel to meet the group, rather than requiring all participants to travel continuously - in response to feedback from previous participants . Participants were encouraged to follow the organising team on LinkedIn for updates . Hao Liu also took a moment to thank Sorina, described as the person "standing behind the curtain, making so many things happen," in recognition of the behind-the-scenes work that made the session possible.

---

#

Overall Assessment

The discussion achieved a notably high degree of cross-cultural and cross-generational consensus on several core themes: that AI is a tool which must remain in service of human agency; that critical thinking and adaptability are the most valuable skills in an AI-saturated world; that distinctively human qualities - storytelling, curiosity, compassion, and the capacity for genuine reflection - cannot be replicated by machines; and that Chinese and European learning traditions share the same fundamental modes of apprenticeship and storytelling. The most productive tensions emerged between the student voices - particularly the Stanford student's frank account of AI undermining genuine learning - and the professional voices of Radu and Naoumi, who enthusiastically endorsed rapid AI adoption . Boris Engelson's contrarian observations about the structural persistence of traditional schooling and the paradox between encyclopaedic knowledge and disruptive innovation added philosophical depth that prevented the discussion from settling into easy optimism. The session moved from diagnosis through institutional response to humanistic synthesis, leaving participants with both practical frameworks and enduring questions about the nature and purpose of learning in the age of AI.

—
Hao Liu
The stage is on the floor, which means that everyone, everyone has the opportunity to share your ideas. You can also, through the naughty questions, difficult questions, don't worry. As a moderator, I will not answer. I will seek help from our panelists and also the young students. They may have disruptive solutions. But I also have the rules for the house, which means that every intervention should not more than three minutes. You can come back, but not more than three minutes. When you will take more time, I will cut to your microphone. I'm on my promise. So now I would like to invite Jovan, the executive director of the Diplo Foundation, to share how that we created this session, which is also the following session of last year. Last year we have discussed the education in AI, a comparison of Europe experience and the Chinese experience. Please, Jovan.
—
Jovan Kurbalija
Thank you. Thank you. Great to. see you all today. Well, the concept of the session is the following. It's relatively simple. How do we learn? How have we been learning since time immemorial? How do we learn today? And how are we going to learn in the future? Now, my assumption is, and I would like to hear both Chinese tradition and European tradition in science, that we learn in two ways. We learn by observing others, and this is called apprenticeship but all the great things in the history from Great China Wall to pyramids were basically built by people observing their masters and learning from their experience. This is one line, and we use it at the Diplo as AI apprenticeship, where you learn about AI by developing AI. This one idea. And it would be great to see also how is it in Chinese tradition that way of learning. The second way of learning is storytelling. Therefore, I can observe how to fix the table, how to make the change. is how to make pyramids or whatever, historically, how to hunt the big game in the nature. But there are limits about it. Then the second method is storytelling. You have to tell the story. You tell the story around the fire, or you write master thesis, or you write a doctorate, or you write an academic article and a journalist article. Therefore, my starting hypothesis, that is how I said everything can be challenged here, is that we have two ways of learning, by observing, apprenticeship, by learning by seeing the master, and by hearing the stories and telling the stories. And let's say you can say, but what about PhD? But PhD elementary is telling the story. We tell the story with, okay, hypotheses, background maps, materials, documents, data, but this is our story. that we tell therefore this is assumption that we are doing these two things since time immemorial we observe apprenticeship and we tell the or listen to stories now fast forward Bologna all of these things commodification of the knowledge degrees I don't know what is situation in China you will you will tell us about that and here we are today storytelling is now in form last form that we use that I writing essays is more or less done platforms can generate nice stories and you don't need to sit and to write your essays or master thesis you can go have a fun have a parties and you come in the evening and you put a few smart prompts and tomorrow you have an excellent essay I'm not advising you to do it especially younger young colleagues in audience but this is reality And my point is, if pedagogy is not associated with a common sense behavior of people, it's not good. Common sense behavior is that you use tools that you have. And if you have a party till 11 o 'clock at midnight and you have to submit tomorrow assignment, of course that you will use deep seek or charge EPT or whatever else to write your essay. Now, we have a serious problem. What to do with apprenticeship? Apprenticeship is easy. And a few colleagues can reflect from our methodology of learning about AI by developing AI. Maricela, Leonardo, there are a few colleagues who went through apprenticeship program. But storytelling is a bigger challenge. How we continue learning to tell the story. And this is so powerful, so deep in the human nature, in our emotions, in who we are. And so deep in anthropological in all. Therefore, that would be my reflection is more Eurocentric. I'm from Europe, and I speak from what I know. Let's say not Eurocentric, Euro -Mediterranean. Let's say Middle East also. Its storytelling is important, especially in the Middle East cultures, if somebody from Middle East can confirm. But I don't know. I know very little about Chinese traditions on apprenticeship and storytelling. Is it the same? The same. Okay. Therefore, we have the same problem. What to do to train two of you, three of you, how to tell the story? That's a challenge. If you can just use DeepSeek and charge EPT, why you would need to learn how to tell the story? Is it a problem at all? Do you think? Maybe it's not a problem. I feel it's a problem because by telling the story, you construct the narrative. You think about opening. You think about tension in the story, and there are many elements. But I think it's a problem. But maybe it's not a problem. That would be the first question. Is it a problem or not?
—
Hao Liu
Well, thank you so much, Jovan, for the introduction. The storytelling is critically important. In our history, you will find that all of the successful people are good storytelling people. So they build a big dream, let you know, okay, if we can achieve that dream, everybody will have a better life. And then they will share a serious story to let you believe that dream will come into reality. Motivate those people working on the same dream and following those stories. That is how motivating people without paying them anything. Not a medal, not the gold, not the silk, but the storytelling is naturally motivation of people. This is the way. And this is also quite a critical capability. We cannot have. you cannot take that from GPT you cannot take that from deep seek well I would like give a priority for all of the comments stories that you want to share you can you can share your story and we can practice how that you are using your story to let us know what what learning will be in the era but before I give the floor to our student I would like to invite the ding one my partner who is always supporting me and we our team work together introduced the five meta capability in a era because of people are talking about so many capability after a long round of discussion we found that the following five meta capabilities are critical important she will introduce rows of five meta capabilities that we are working on and then after that we will give the floor to our young generation so that but address or intervene in the storytelling model, okay? You have time to prepare. P
—
Jovan Kurbalija
Prepare story like you're waiting for a bus in Geneva, which is not so precise these days because of heat, you know.
—
Hong Guan
Okay. Thank you, Jovan. Thank you, Hao. Thank you, my colleague and students. Actually, I'm very happy to be here, but a little bit nervous because when we're talking about the education and the learning system, it's really, really hard to explain, to share the situation, to share the explanation, because we're living to the different system and living in the different education system and civil system. So everyone has a different idea about learning. So I just share our experience on the learning rebuilding model. We call it rebuilding because every country or every area have their already very successful learning model. But compared with AI era, it's, I don't know, suitable or not. So we try to find some way to sort the gap. So I just be short. First one, it's learning agility. Because now students must learn how to learn. And they need to adapt to the new situation, learn how knowledge quickly, and also under the government, global governance. no problems stay the same for long. So first is how to learn the idea, to learn the skill, to learn everything. And the second is execution capability. So how to learn is just on the top. I think the good idea is not enough, and students must know how to set goals and use resources and make decisions and deliver results. So we try to use real text and project -based learning to share the ideas to our students. And the third one is communication skills. It's not only for... how to write correctly and how to listen, how to... speak, but also how to work with different backgrounds, different cultures, people from all over the world. So it's the most important thing in the recent years. And the fourth is leadership potential. It's not only how to get the high position like our two best friends. They're already at a high position in the UN family, but it means to take also responsibility and supporting a team and understanding instructions, managing relations in an organization and help others move forward. So it's quite high quality and reliable. And for the fifth, It's critical judgment. As Jovan said, how to let students know the critical thinking and let them have the critical judgment to everything for the AI world. I think it's most important as other force, I think, nowadays. So at BIT, which our university, especially in our school of global governance, we try to think like this way. AI shouldn't replace education. AI should push us to make education better. So the role of universities now to provide understanding and answer is to help students ask a better question. make better judgment and act with the responsibility. So it's our story.
—
Hao Liu
Now we open the floor for the young generation, and then we move back for our panelists, for our colleagues in the UN system. I know some of the students have a big dream. They also wanted to work in the international organization on the global governance issues. They are practicing every day, but you need to share your story first. Who will be the first one? Okay, please. Who will shoot your video?
—
Student 1
Our Dean Guan just mentioned the execution capacity, so I want to share something about my understanding and experience about that ability. I want to ask you a question. Why? Why execution capacity matter in the AI era? I think in my opinion, in the past we may lack like knowledges, ideas, solutions, but now everyone can use AI to generate a lot of solutions, ideas, like those things within five minutes or less than five minutes. But there remains one question, is that how can we turn the AI -generated contents into real practice? That's a problem. So I want to share my experience in our school, SDG, School of Global Governance. We have winter semester, summer semester every year, and we went to Geneva, we went to Vienna and Egypt. and we went to a lot of international organizations like ITU, UNIDO, those international organizations to carry out the practical study. But before, every time before departure, our professor will keep challenging us with asking constant questions like what are our goals and what kind of resources you can assess and how can you use these resources better. And like those questions keep asking us. And the most important question is that what kind of results we want to deliver. So that is to say we have to have a complete and clear execution plan. That's really... That's really tough for us. but that really gets us real growth. So that's my understanding why our school emphasizes the execution capacity in this era. Yeah, that's what I want share.
—
Hao Liu
Okay, thank you for your story. And practice in the real world. Be your own program manager, your director of this whole journey, and attract the resources that can support you. Any other students want to? Okay, please. You can take the microphone there.
—
Student 2
Hi. This is not necessarily a narrative or a story, but I just wanted to share my experience of AI as a student. I'm a student at Stanford University. I just finished my first year. And I think the truth is that I feel like there's this huge AI craze everywhere, especially the past two days being here at WISES. But I feel like the truth is that AI is ruining education, because I'm at Stanford. And I will take this math class. It's called Math 51. It's a linear algebra class. And the book is about like this thick. You have to work through it in one quarter, which is 10 weeks, which is arguably a lot to work through, right? But some of my friends would, instead of kind of like going through the book page by page and spend like eight hours in the library, they would upload the entire book into Clod or ChatchVT, and then they would cross -reference it just looking at Clod the day before lecture. And so a lot of times what happens is that the day before exams, my classmates would upload the whole textbook and the entire course material and all the lecture videos onto Clod, and then they would pass the test with flying colors. But then the day after the exam, they forget everything. And so I think this raises the question of like what's the point of being in school if you're just going to do this? Like what's the point? You're not really learning anything. And I feel like the truth is that AI isn't really. Driving innovation either because I feel like there's a lot of talk about. AI driving the future of innovation and the future of academia, but I feel like the truth is that AI doesn't understand what it's saying, right? I feel like AI is just a large language model that synthesizes everything that you put into it, and it literally is just a series of weights where if you put in one word, it predicts the most likely next word, and Chaj VT doesn't understand a single thing that it's saying, and the only reason it has so much knowledge is because we put so much knowledge into it, and so I guess the question is like if every person at Stanford and every person at every other university is using AI, then who's going to generate this new knowledge for the future of humanity? And so I think that right now a lot of people, including me, are somewhat worried about where I'm going to work after I graduate, but I feel like even more concerned I am about the fact that I don't really know where all this is heading because I feel like everyone is super... crazy over AI, and I feel like... a lot of people are becoming dependent on AI. And so I think I'm a little worried, less so about my own employment, which is also very important, but more so about who's going to be writing all these new research papers, who's going to be making new discoveries in all of these different fields. And if everyone at Stanford is preoccupied with making a startup that's about some AI chatbot or some AI assistant on your phone, then what are we really contributing to society? And so all of this isn't really necessarily a story or a question, but I think it's just some of my own personal experiences coming from college. And so, yeah, thank you.
—
Jovan Kurbalija
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Maybe, can we hire you for a diploma? We cannot offer you Stanford salary, but on a more serious note, did you read this 500 pages?
—
Student 2
I did read the 500 pages.
—
Jovan Kurbalija
Okay. Not a contract. Are your deep insights, which are fantastic, are you minority or majority in your group, social group? I
—
Student 2
n terms of like using AI?
—
Jovan Kurbalija
No, in terms of understanding what's going on.
—
Student 2
Like understanding what's going on with linear algebra or understanding
—
Jovan Kurbalija
what's going on with the purpose of knowledge or purpose of studying of completely craziness of educational model. What you just explained to us about overall context, yes.
—
Student 2
Yeah, well, I think, well, I don't want to put myself on some like moral high ground, but I think that at least in terms of like my raw observation of how many people are using AI, I would say that I am one of the fewer people. I would say that there's more people using AI than there are people who aren't using AI.
—
Hao Liu
We have one solution, easy. In the future, we will have two different degrees. They need to mention that this is an AI assistant degree, not AI involvement degree. So you can choose. Easier. You use AI, okay, we can also give you a degree, but we need to know that it's AI assistant.
—
Jovan Kurbalija
It's very worrying if at Stanford University you have this startup obsession, not people reflecting. You know, university is a place where you spend free time. You are not paid, family or whoever, scholarship pays you to think, to reflect, to stay back, to have like -minded people, to engage, to question your thoughts. And that's a bit worry for me. And it's not obviously this is an example from Stanford, but it is all over the place. Because we are using the old model. Is BIT the same?
—
Hong Guan
No, we don't have that hesitation because for us it's easy. We don't use that model of examination. We have oral examination. You don't have time to prepare to using AI. We ask questions one round, a second round, two, two, you feel. But we will evaluate your performance based on your how, when, and you feel. Yes, we know how to torture you. We know how to challenge you. Don't worry. We know how to. Those are people who are really reading that 500 pages. We definitely to be distinguished students. Those are only using the large model language to help to cheat. Okay, it's not a difficult job.
—
Hao Liu
And now let's open the floor again for the other students. And then we will take back so that let our experienced colleagues to give comments and share their ideas about learning in AI. Sarah. Okay, that's young. Yes. T
—
Student 3
hanks for the professional sharing.
—
Hao Liu
Can you come down to the center? Come here, don't worry. Okay. No, no, no, put your smartphone down. So this is the way. If you don't have a manuscript, we will know whether that is your idea or it is AI's idea.
—
Student 3
Okay, thanks for your sharing. So as an ungraduate student, I'd like to share some brief thoughts about the critical judgment, especially using the AI. So first of all, I'd like to share a very interesting phenomenon that happened on me and some of my friends and classmates. When we ask a question that we doesn't make sure or we do not know and to AI and what it gives us may mostly make us feel, oh, I may know the answers. And so we stop asking the further questions. And this is because when we ask about questions, we don't know the relative knowledge. So we have no capacity or enough capability to make sure whether this answer is reliable, accuracy, and have the well -known knowledge, and it's useful for us. So as a result, when we receive the response from the AI, and sometimes the response is generated, by AI, we are just filling the knowledge, but we cannot fully understand the meaning of it or have some. personal judgment about the few knowledge. So why is it related to the critical thinking? I think it's part of the critical thinking, just like Dean Grant has mentioned, the reflective practice. But what I think is we have to make the critical practice be longer, which means not only practice after using the AI, we have to make it before using it. Before using AI, we can ask ourselves questions, what is exactly we are confusing about? When we know it, we can have our maybe better judgment about the response and have the critical thoughts. And that's all. Thank you.
—
Hao Liu
Thank you. We gave one more slot for the young generation, and then we need to take a floor back, because I invited so many big heads to stay with us. I need to give them time, because otherwise, next year, even after this round, they will complain. B
—
Jovan Kurbalija
e careful. Boris wrote already two pages, you know. Okay, don't worry.
—
Hao Liu
Three minutes, you can. One more slot. Okay, the floor from far behind.
—
Student 4
Thank you. Just now, I hear the presentation from a professor. There is a word I have a deep impression, which is the communication competence. I think nowadays, under the AI era, I think communication competence is not just between human to human, but also including human to AI. like before AI emergence we just need to consider like we speak clearly and listen carefully to others while we're communicating but now AI we need to think about the words we key in the chat box and the precise instructions that we give it to them so the AI can give us the feedback they can give us the outputs which meet our expectations so I have a feeling is AI didn't weaken the communication competence importance but also like strengthen it and people have to care more about this because they're like working together like sorry sorry do you have Yes, yes, like become more effective and more productive.
—
Hao Liu
Okay, don't feel the pressure. This is a session that relaxes. And can I invite our two aviation experts to, because I know Nabil Naoumi traveled a long journey, seven and a half hours from Germany to join us here. And in the history of International Civil Aviation Organization, he is the youngest president of Air Navigation Commission, which is the highest technical body. And besides him, we also have Catalin Radu, who was, I think he's also unique, because he's the one who had worked as direct general of Civil Aviation Authority for two countries. Can you imagine? And he had also worked in International Civil Aviation Organization under safety. Recently, he did a good job, which is that his company now, he's going to quit roles of government agency, the UN bodies, and he's going to be a part of the government agency. And he's going to be a part of the government agency. And he's going to be a part of the government agency. And he's going to be a part of the government agency. And he's going to be a part of the government agency. And he's going to be a part of the government agency. And he's going to be a part of the government agency. And he's going to be a part of the government agency. He helped Kyrgyzstan to build up their safety. management system and they are removed from the EU blacklist, which is a big contribution for the people, for the industry, and also for Kurdistan. I am waiting that you will receive the medal from their president. Well, based on you two decide who will take the microphone first, because I know you are always fighting with each other. When you are working at the secretary, he's the ANC president, but don't fight today. So based on your experience and how that when you are working and running to get another position working in ICAO or in your civil authority, the AI was not so popular like today. So if you will got an AI as accessible as right now, whether your experience, your position and your working model will be changed and whether such a change will let the world to be different. Or nothing will be changed and how that you will use the AI for your learning. If you come back to that. young age.
—
Catalin Radu
Thank you and it's a great pleasure to be here today. First of all I want to thank Liu Hao and the whole team organizing this and with Diplo and all the attendants it's a great pleasure and yes from our perspective as let's say senior experts in the aviation field and geopolitical influence because working in UN gives you this picture of geopolitical influence in all the things that you do including the technical aspects. Yes AI it's a fantastic tool and when I'm saying it's a tool it's indeed a tool to be used by human in a proper way to get better results, more effective, more productive and this is what it's fantastic nowadays to be able to use, to learn how to use this tool to get the best from it and help you and your team. to manage the issue that you have, the problems that you have to solve in a better way, in a more rapid and more effective way. I can tell you as an expert I don't hire now two, three assistants to help me with all my bookkeeping or all the things that you need an assistant for. Nowadays it's much more easier. However, in critical thinking, in the way you see the vision for your business or for your future challenges that you have in front of you, you need to think clear. If you want to use AI to use it to get more information, specific information in one topic, but at the end it's your vision and you have to be based on human interaction. Also the face. Face -to -face interaction is extremely important. I just talked recently with some of my colleagues, the Rector General as well, of Civil Aviation of the World, and we really appreciate what's happening nowadays, but still we want to meet face -to -face to discuss sensitive elements of our business that can be solved just like that instantly, while if you go for the video calls or interaction or different systems, it's much more complicated. In the same time, I think it's extremely important also to see the bigger picture and not to be afraid. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't realize nowadays that it's the moment that you should implement AI in your company, in your business, in your organization, and not just to have one guy saying he's the AI guy in the organization. No, you need to have the whole system change and to be not AI ready, but to start implementing AI at the level of the whole organization, all together. Thank you. and change the processes and after that the model. But it should happen now, today. So it's already late, I can tell you. So for the wise people in the room and the new generation, push for this because it's the future and it's not that you have to have it. It's mandatory, you know. You cannot survive the next era without starting to implement and to modify the processes inside your organization. But once again, thank you for
—
Nabil Naoumi
Yes, thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank you too, so Liu Hao, Dean Guang, for the invitation, for the kind invitation. It's a pleasure for me to be here and to see that the BIT and you personally. So Nabil. Your capacity as a professor, always doing these tours with your students. Thank you. introducing the new technologies and doing a lot for the university. In my opinion, I think the great thing about AI is that it is not just giving you information, information, raw material that you can work on and then add your special needs to it, that it's become like a draft for a decision for the governance side, but it saves you time. So from my experience, and you mentioned the ICAO, having around the table, government, and then the government, and then the government, and then the government, a group of experts from different nations, different experiences, the associations, representatives, and everyone, you never start the meeting by... looking for ideas. Someone has to do a draft, first of all, to collect all possible information and present it to you, and then you start working on it. So with the AI, you can have the draft within minutes, within seconds, and then you start working on it. As Catherine said, yes, if you just start now to think about AI, you are already too late. It is part of our daily business. It has always been part of our daily business. The only new thing is that the AI is now thinking by itself. I remember days when I joined for the first time the university more than 25 years ago. Oh. Internet. We had the old computers that you know now from museums. You turn it on, and you go for breakfast, you come back, maybe the internet is online. Remember that time? So, no cell phones, no internet everywhere, and even the internet was done. Back at that time, you know, the old windows, it's completely out of the world. Now, even, and to give you an example from the aviation, flying, there are already manufacturers who have emergency systems that can land the aircraft by themselves. If something happens to the pilot, and you know there are single pilot's cockpits, the aircraft will take over the communication. The aircraft knows that you have maybe a heart attack or something happened to you, will communicate, will change direction, change altitude, will land you safely. And it is on the market. You can buy it. So that's why in aviation now we are considering as decision makers to replace the two most expensive passengers on board for the pilots by intelligence. You're hitting the job opportunity over the captain. Look, it is a growing market. You don't get enough pilots. which is also one of the opportunities for the student who can study something and then go flying, so there are many opportunities there but the complexity of the airplanes if you watch movies and you see those historical airplanes with a small propeller and things like that that the pilot is fixing, he's the engineer, he's everything, the aircraft nowadays, depending on the situation and we had many incidents that the pilots didn't know what's happening all of them have computers now you will give an order to the airplane to climb or to descend but the airplane may refuse so no, that's not a good decision you see the AI is already there so yeah I would be happy if you have questions that maybe we can answer directly, I know you are very mindful of the time
—
Hao Liu
Thank you, Nabil. Okay, I would like to maybe invite Ana Paula. Ana Paula has a dual position in UNEDO because before she took the position of the chief of ICT, she was the founder and also of the AIM Global in UNEDO. She had also worked as the chief of the digital innovation and AI in UNEDO. So I think you have both the policy background, the technical background. She's also the data scientist. I think you probably from the computer data perspective, you know more than us. I will be very happy to get your idea about the learning in the AI era.
—
Ana Paula
Thank you very much, Liu Hao. Thank you for the opportunity of speaking. So he said, first, let's talk to the young generation, right? But he didn't want to say. So let's talk from the point of view of the old generation. So question number one. When I was doing my first degree, I already had a vision what I was going to be working with. Am I doing what I thought I was doing when I was studying? Absolutely not. I am trained in so many things, but what prevailed? A commitment from a young age. Actually, I was probably 13, 14. I love studying. I'm going to study and learn for the rest of my life. That stayed, and that's what kept me going because what I studied first practically doesn't exist anymore. I started in electronics. I'm an electronics engineer. Does electronics still exist? Yes, but it's very, very different. It's not what I was. If you see the stuff that I was doing back in the day, I'm not going to say when because otherwise the kids will all get scared. Yes, I was working with discrete components. I was programming in assembly. I was working with a lot of computers. I was working with a lot of computers. I was working with a lot of computers. For the 80. You don't even know what I'm talking about. So, yes, the work will change. And what you think you're going to be working 10 years, you're probably wrong. You're probably wrong. So that's why she mentioned in the presentation about adaptability, about resilience. Because, yes, we don't know where we are going. But neither did we back in the day. So we still don't know where we are going. Nobody knows where we are going. The technology is changing so fast. Everything is changing so fast. The future of work is still a burden. But from what I've seen over these, I'm not going to tell how many years, certain skills are becoming more and more precious because they are becoming more and more rare. Critical thinking is coming at a premium now because information is now cheap. It comes from all over. AI knows more than you could ever. It would be. AI can give you information in ways that you could never. So access to information became very cheap and became very ubiquitous and became very, very. So the notion of holding power, expert power through information, yes, that's changed already. And so talking about adaptability again, because that's one of the things that I learned a little later in life, that adaptability is actually skill. It can be learned. It can be improved. It's not an innate, it's not something that you were born with. Of course, there are character traits, but that's just how you adapt. Resilience, adaptability, those are all things that you can get better at over day after day after day. And that's something that still carries me forward. I'm still studying. I'm still studying. I'm on my third degree now. And I am also learning how to learn with AI, like you are, like you are. And it's not easier. I mean, yes, some things, if you compare to how I was doing it before, I could get those answers so much faster. But now the questions got much harder. The teachers are actually getting very smart in catching us. So, and they are very specific on when you use AI and when you don't use AI. And when the teacher already expects you to use AI, oh, the bar is so high. The bar is so high. I use all my tokens in one evening. So I have to use all my tokens. So learning is also evolving. The way that the topics are being taught is also evolving. But those are the two things that I wanted to stress a bit. Critical thinking is getting more and more precious. And that's something that you can learn because information is all over. You need to know. What is correct. You need to know how to make a decision. in a sea of information and contradictory information, and everybody is proclaiming to be an expert. And, yes, adaptability, continuous learning, those are the skills that will propel into the future, whatever that is, because we also don't know. But I guarantee you it's not what you think it is right now.
—
Jovan Kurbalija
Thank you, Ana. When you said critical thinking, I will just build on that. At Diplo, we have one interesting function, which is resident contrarian or chief contrarian officer. This is a person whose job, he's not employed by Diplo, but whose task is to challenge us. And he is today with us, he is Boris Engelson here. He's a resident contrarian in Diplo. He writes blog posts. And whenever we think that we have... common sense, this is what I learned from him common sense has one dangerous element that is a common and very often common sense is not critical thinking, it's just very often cacophony therefore I revisited the word common sense by reading Boris' text, by the way I strongly advise you to read his text because you think I'm certain about something and then you read the text and say oh my god it is not that way, maybe Boris some reflection from your side on our discussion today so
—
Boris Engelson
first I heard the onset that here you would tolerate even nasty questions but it's very difficult to be nasty with such open minded people like you so the second thing is that indeed I am a bit contrary and unwittingly I just never managed to get into the world of adults, you know, a little bit like the child of the king's new clothes.
—
Jovan Kurbalija
ou're celebrating 80th birthday.
—
Boris Engelson
Yeah, yeah, yeah, soon. But I just like to make two reflections. These are, I don't know, it's neither an analysis nor possibly a narrative, just things which came to my mind in relation with the topic. Topic, from time immemorial, pupils hate school. One of the first texts of the history of writing dating back to summer was a complaint of a pupil. I have heard during my life scores of discussion, analysis, with or without Piaget, with or without teachers, saying we should change the school system. Today, even teachers and ministers hate school. And still, when we come even here, listening to debates or lecture on AI, it is still the traditional school format. And I am not trying to make fun of that. People are not stupid. There must be deep reasons why this model cannot change. I am not sure to understand what are the reasons, but I am just impressed how permanent this system is and might still be the same in one million years. That's one thing. But maybe one element of the answer is in a few things you have been alluding to here, common sense and et cetera. There is an inbuilt tension in any society. Between two models. One, we want absolute total knowledge. One of the models was Pic de la Mirando, a Renaissance man. He knew everything. Another one, we want to become heroes of disruption and innovation, like Einstein. And these two models do not really fit together, and still we need both of them in our life. But common sense can be very useful for esprit critique, and at the same time, the theory of relativity was challenging any form of common sense. So that's all I had to say. The reason I am a bit contrarian is that as children, I have questions, and when I cannot silence the question, I prefer to live along with the question than pretending having an answer. So I have no answer to these two paradoxes. I just air them why the school system pervades even with AI. Of course, the web has changed a bit the learning model, but I don't know. But still, the... The format remains nearly intact through the century and even with the most modern technologies. And that other paradox, how can we live at the same time with a model of total established knowledge and total disruptive dreams and ambitions?
—
Hao Liu
Thank you. That is why we are always working together because before you even invite you, take the floor. I consider it a time to invite this gentleman. But I'm not quite sure whether you agree with me. I think we may also invite Maricela because she has a diplomatic career. She also involved for the apprenticeship project of a diplomat. and she is also working on the future of the science and technology and how that we can build the governance on that. I think you may have your unique angles for this question for today, which is on the screen, the rethinking learning for the AI era.
—
Maricela Munoz
Thank you, Professor Liu. I was not expecting to speak because I was enjoying so much listening to everyone and I prefer to be here so I can look at you. I just thrilled to listen to you, how critical you are already with all your insights and thinking that, of course, artificial intelligence is a tool and will continue to be a tool and quantum technologies and other technologies would also help us do better if we put our minds to it. And I, of course, concur with the critical thinking and adaptability, but I think that one of the underlying elements is that, in the end, we are. We are set to win if it is a race because we're human. And our humanity and our curiosity will be always above any machine who can imitate, for example, critical thinking. And when I am, for example, interacting with younger generations, which is really refreshing, or I am about to hire someone, I really pay attention to how they produce materials or how they present themselves. And when I see that perhaps they depend too much on artificial intelligence, I get discouraged. And I prefer people who remain very human and very natural and use technology as a tool. So I will be given perhaps a warning there. Always be yourselves. You already have all the qualities, all the human qualities, the compassion, the ingenuity, the curiosity, the critical thinking. So you're set to win in any process. Pathway that you decide for yourself. And the other thing is that imagine that. But there are things that cannot be replicated even with the best of technologies, even with the technology that we still do not know today. And I was listening to a panel earlier today with John Legend, a very famous singer. And he was saying that he rarely uses technology, but when he does, he uses it as an assistant because he doesn't think that technology knows what love is, what pain is, and so many other human characteristics. So I think that to create knowledge and to be wise and to be unique remains a quality and a project and a vision for a human being. So let's continue using technology to do our work better, to perhaps do less boring stuff and use the time to reflect and to take a pause and to imagine things out of the box, to be visionary. But again, I want to encourage you to continue being us, fresh. This session is as innovative as you are already today. because this critical thinking and these human qualities are with you since the beginning. Thank you.
—
Hao Liu
Thank you, Maricela. I think we are running out of time, but I ask our colleagues who are supporting us. They gave us five more minutes. So I will give the microphone to Joven so that we will have closing remarks. But before that, I wanted to tell our colleagues one critical important information that here, 45 minutes is definitely not enough. But if you want to continue to have a discussion with us, we also have another opportunity because we introduced the AI philosophy caravan last year, which means that you can stay with us, travel from city to city, and in a military training model because you need to. travel to different cities, meeting different people, the government officials, the industries, academia, the local communities, so that you know the real scenario and what is happening in agriculture, in manufacturing, and in different sectors of the industry, how AI is working and what different governance models are established and how that culture, philosophy matters to the different governance model. So we will circulate that information. If you are following us on the LinkedIn, you will get that information. Every year we are changing the style. So I got a complaint from Maricela last year to say this is really a military training model. We changed this this year. We set up our base in one city and we are inviting people to travel to meet us, but if we choose to travel to the other cities, it is still flexible. But still, you need to get ready to have more exercise so that you can survive for that 10 days of caravan journey. and this year let's see whether this based model will work even better I can receive less complaints but I know you are enjoying that journey ok so that is kind of advertising for our AI caravan of 2026 now I would like to give the floor back to Jovan for the closing remarks.
—
Jovan Kurbalija
Thank you that was an interesting idea once we discussed the importance of philosophy by the way you have here the fan which you can use with 8 philosophers which we think can answer many questions of our era including the Borges, Calvin, Rousseau, Voltaire, Piaget, Bonnet and others and this we call it Esprit Tech de Genève but every place has its own Esprit wherever you are you have a great Ubuntu civilization in Africa people were thinking and reflecting on society in China Confucius Lao Tse and that was this idea came in discussion and to tell you the truth I have many ideas but I thought this wouldn't be realized but then how he called me one day are you coming last year are you coming for the philosophy tour in China and I said oh my god this guy really took me seriously and unfortunately I couldn't make it but it was an interesting tour many colleagues told me they basically were discussing legacy of Confucius Lao Tse other philosophers of China therefore think about Esprit Tech of your place this is Esprit Tech de Genève you can have Esprit Tech in any place any city people were living reflecting on love, hate purpose how to survive how to live meaningful life how to realize your potential how to protect your dignity and that's probably the key message also of at least for me from this summit and this discussion of AI technology is a commodity is commodity these days but one useful things it brings us like put mirror in front of us to see who we are maybe sometimes we don't like the mirror but there is at least in my part of the world saying that if you break the mirror you won't have a luck for seven years therefore we should accept what we see who we are and here I would like to conclude with one great paper which I think is Magna Carta of our era is Pope Magnifico Humanitas Encyclica which is fascinating paper which Pope basically wrote hey guys come down we were thinking for I'm not paraphrasing it paraphrasing in very simple language we were thinking for 20 centuries and don't be too excited about technology there are the same tradition is on Confucius and Buddhism and Islam and these people have been reflecting around and one of the message for me from Pope and I think Maricela said that and few of us is that he argues that we should be accepted as imperfect as we are I call it once that we have human rights to be imperfect we should not be optimized and whatever Silicon Valley wants to optimize us to make us perfect always think about this encyclical fascinating document which basically tells no we have a right to be imperfect and in our imperfection is our ultimate purpose and beauty of the life and ultimately humanitas it was written by Pope who is leader of Catholic Church but his message resonates in all thinking and religious traditions from Asia to Africa and Latin America because it is centered in the role of humans, what it matters to be human. And that's basically, probably would be within five minutes, my reflection on this discussion. You have a few things here, passport, if you need a Swiss passport, just come to me. It's available, Geneva passport to be precise. And yeah, a few other documents, but thank you. Thank you for a great discussion. T
—
Hao Liu
Thank you all. Thank you all for your time, for your engagement, and I hope to see you for the AI Caravan and the next year's session. And don't forget, Sorina is also the one who is standing behind the curtain, making so many things happen. I asked her opinion, but she's always shy. Thank you so much, Sorina. Okay, the session is over. Enjoy your time.

Disclaimer: This is not an official session record. DiploAI generates these resources from audiovisual recordings, and they are presented as-is, including potential errors. Due to logistical challenges, such as discrepancies in audio/video or transcripts, names may be misspelled. We strive for accuracy to the best of our ability.