Mark Lovett

Astrid Sauer @ TEDxLisboa 2025 – What would life be like without art?

/in , , , /by

While I enjoy and appreciate all artistic expression — air, music, dance, etc. — I must admit that I tend to do so in the moment, without thinking about its effect on the fabric of society, or in a historical context. It takes a reminder, an outside nudge to make that happen. So it was a delight to have the opportunity to work with Astrid Sauer in preparation for her talk at TEDxLisboa on March 15, 2025.

The topic, What would life be like without art?, reminded me of how vital art is in the present, as well as how it has profoundly shaped cultures around the world for centuries. To illustrate that point Astrid begins her talk by challenging those sitting in the audience to imagine a stark, grey world devoid of art – lacking any paintings, music, dance, theatre, or literature — a world that’s been reduced to pure functionality. For me it exemplified the poignant phrase, “You don’t know what you have until it’s gone.”

Art is more than just decoration. It is a universal language that speaks directly to our hearts and minds, shaping our emotions, ideas, and interactions.

When she states, “I still remember during the Salzburg Festival, musicians would often stay at our house, playing intimate concerts for family and friends.”, I could only image what that must have been like. That was not the case for me growing up, but from the perspective of personal storytelling, this one sentence tells us where her passion for art came from. Note: every passion has an origin story.

But art also serves as a powerful medium for cultural transformation. Whenever art crosses borders, it reshapes and influences the identities of different cultures. And this phenomenon can be observed in various artistic forms, from architecture to music, from literature to visual arts.

So what did I learn from that experience? Without art, our world would lack colour, depth, and connection. And this is not just true today, but has been throughout the greater part of our history.

If your story is founded on your passion, either personal or professional, pay attention to how Astrid takes the audience on a journey from the origin of her passion to framing the topic in a historical context before bringing the subject into modern times. It’s clear that the world we live in would be a very different place without the influence of art in its many forms.

Art isn’t just a luxury; it is a necessity. It is the foundation of culture, of innovation, and human connection. Each of us has the power to contribute to a world that values creativity.

Most importantly, Astrid turns the spotlight on the audience with a reminder that everyone has the ability and opportunity to engage in art. While I wasn’t blessed with much artistic DNA, I support the arts frequently, as I appreciate humanity’s magical creative spark. How are you engaged with some facet of artistic expression? And if your personal passion is something others could benefit from hearing about, why aren’t you telling your story?

If you enjoyed this article…Buy Me A Coffee

Transcript

Imagine a world without art. No paintings, no music, no literature, no dance, no theatre. Just a vast grey landscape of pure functionality. A world of spreadsheets, reports, and concrete walls. Yet we often overlook how deeply art is woven into the fabric of our daily lives.

Today, let’s explore what life would be like without art and why we can’t afford to live in that world. Art is more than just decoration. It is a universal language that speaks directly to our hearts and minds, shaping our emotions, ideas, and interactions.

From the architecture of our cities to the music that lifts our spirits, art surrounds us, even if we don’t consciously notice it. But let me tell you how my journey with art began, and why I’m still so passionate about it today.

Growing up, I was fortunate to be immersed in a world rich with art and culture. My parents would take me to concerts and opera performances from a very young age. I still remember during the Salzburg Festival, musicians would often stay at our house, playing intimate concerts for family and friends.

We would sing together during the Christmas season. I learned my first instrument, the flute, at the age of five, then moving on to the violin, later the piano, which I still play today. My mother would take me to vernissages and introduce me to local artists, sparking my interest in art collection at the age of 16.

But I was also influenced by my father, a practical engineer and successful business owner. So I decided to study business, embarking on a career as a financial and strategy consultant.

After a couple of years, however, I started to feel a void. Something was missing. So, on a therapeutic trip to the Golden Triangle, deep in the jungle of Vietnam, I sketched a business plan on a napkin. A plan that would lead to a new company that would combine my consulting experience with the cultural sector. And this allowed me to reconnect with my passion for the arts. All of a sudden, my world felt whole again.

So what did I learn from that experience? Without art, our world would lack colour, depth, and connection. And this is not just true today, but has been throughout the greater part of our history.

Let’s travel back to 15th-century Florence. The Medici family, bankers by trade, didn’t just fund artists like Michelangelo, Botticelli, or Leonardo da Vinci. They cultivated a culture of creativity. They financed the construction of the St. Peter’s Basilica, which is a universal symbol of the Catholic Church.

They commissioned the construction of the Florence Cathedral, a masterpiece of Renaissance architecture. They even funded the invention of the piano. They brought together artists, scientists, and philosophers, creating an environment where innovation thrived.

So imagine if they would have said, “Art isn’t our responsibility. Art is not important to society.” Would the Renaissance have happened in the same way? Would we still have the masterpieces that inspire us today?

And although the Renaissance was an evolution of the cultural movement of Humanism that was already active in the mid-14th century before the rise of the Medici, history changed because of that spark, because they cared.

The Renaissance then traveled through trade, history, and humanist scholars to other regions, leading to significant cultural transformations across Europe. Artists like Jan van Eyck in Holland or Albrecht Dürer in Germany started to incorporate Renaissance techniques such as realism and perspective into their paintings.

Just look at the magnificent Arnolfini Portrait of van Eyck, one of the most complex and original masterpieces of Western art, with its geometric orthogonal perspective and the expansion of space through the use of a mirror.

But the spread of Humanism also led to other wealthy families and royal families getting inspired by the Medici family. So they wanted to create a legacy of their own. And one such example was King Francis I of France. He invited artists from all over the world, including Italy like Leonardo da Vinci, to his court, fostering a unique French Renaissance. He’s responsible for the creation of notable castles such as Chambord or Fontainebleau.

But the humanist scholars like Erasmus of Rotterdam and Thomas More in England also promoted the establishment of universities across Europe. They emphasized the importance of education as a means for personal development and civil responsibility. Art doesn’t just entertain us; it propels humanity forward.

Think about the last time a song lifted your mood or a painting calmed your mind. Studies have shown that engaging with arts reduces stress, anxiety, and depression. More specifically, a 2019 World Health Organization report found that artistic engagement significantly improves mental health. And here’s a fun fact: even mice benefit from art. Scientists discovered that playing Mozart for lab mice helped them learn faster. And if it works for mice, imagine what it can do for us!

Let’s crunch some numbers. People participating in a cultural activity are 38% more likely to report good health. And this number increases to 62% if it’s dancing. So sign up for that dance class you always wanted to! People who read for pleasure are 33% more likely to report good health.

High school students who engage in cultural activities at school are twice as likely to volunteer and 20% more likely to vote as young adults. So art is essential for learning. Students who engage in artistic activities during high school are better in reading and mathematics.

A US study of 25,000 students found that taking part in arts and cultural activities increases student attainment, they have better SAT scores, better thinking skills, and better cognitive abilities. They become more empathetic, more socially aware, and better prepared to navigate a complex world.

Beyond education, art is an economic powerhouse. Just look at this photo of the Louvre with the crowds flocking in. On average, 28,000 people visit the Louvre Museum each day. Did you know that in the European Union alone, as of 2019, the cultural and creative industries employed more than 7.6 million people and contributed 643 billion euros to the economy? This represents 4.4% of European Union’s GDP. This is more than the agricultural sector, more than the telecommunication sector. So art isn’t just a luxury; it is a livelihood. It plays a significant part of our country’s economies.

But art also preserves our history and identity. Cultural landmarks from the Great Wall of China to the Mona Lisa connect us to our past and inspire future generations. And speaking of the Mona Lisa… there she is. Did you know when it got stolen in 1911, its disappearance caused global panic? Newspapers all over the world printed headlines about the missing art piece. So art isn’t just seen, it’s felt.

But art also serves as a powerful medium for cultural transformation. Whenever art crosses borders, it reshapes and influences the identities of different cultures. And this phenomenon can be observed in various artistic forms, from architecture to music, from literature to visual arts. Let’s take the National Tile Museum in Lisbon as an example, showcasing how the history and the craft of the tile were influenced by different cultures over centuries.

From its origins that can be traced back to the Islamic period in the Iberian Peninsula, with its geometric patterns and vibrant colors, to the Renaissance artists that would incorporate themes of mythology and religion, to the depiction of historical moments and everyday life during the Baroque period, or the influences of the Portuguese colonial times from Africa to South America or Asia. And finally, contemporary artists who would reinterpret the traditional tile form, experimenting with new techniques and themes. This evolution shows the dynamic nature of art as it crosses borders and fosters cultural exchange.

But let’s travel back to our grey, artless world. Without art, our cities would lack character. Our workplaces would feel lifeless, and our homes would be mere shelters instead of places of inspiration. Companies would struggle to connect with their employees. Communities would lose their sense of belonging.

And here’s the real question: If we neglect art today, what future renaissance are we preventing?

Art isn’t just a luxury; it is a necessity. It is the foundation of culture, of innovation, and human connection. Each of us has the power to contribute to a world that values creativity. Whether we support the arts, we engage with them, or simply take a moment to appreciate them. We all contribute to a richer, more vibrant world.

So the next time you listen to a song, you read a book, you watch a play, remember: Art is what makes us human. And without it, we would lose more than beauty. We would lose ourselves.

Thank you.

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

Carole Cadwalladr: This Is What a Digital Coup Looks Like @ TED 2025

/in , , , , /by

Having spent my career in the computer industry, I’ve long been fascinated by digital technology. For most of those years, my experience was positive. Every invention, every new plateau of features and performance only increased my wonderment and appreciation. The internet’s potential was so mind-boggling.

And that positive viewpoint continued into the early days of social media, but began to sour as those platforms devolved into the hot mess they are today. (that topic is worthy of a very long article, but I’ll spare you for now)

When artificial intelligence came to my attention around 5 years ago it seemed interesting, but to be honest, I didn’t see how it would benefit me. After all, my passion is helping people tell impactful personal stories — stories based on an experience or an idea — so I didn’t see AI as a meaningful tool. But 2 years ago their potential became more apparent. The way in which they could assimilate information made search engines look like Ford Model Ts.

But my enthusiasm became a bit tarnished as I explored the technology further. Not only were all those LLMs (Large Language Models) being trained on massive amounts of intellectual property that was never paid for, they were also sucking up increasing amounts of personal data. And as many other software programs and apps wove AI into their code, that trend continued to accelerate.

Is the greatest technological invention becoming the greatest threat to humanity?

That’s what I started to wonder, as it seemed to me from recent reports that any sense of morality in the AI space was being pushed aside in an effort to “win” the race for dominance. The icing on the cake came when the Silicon Valley oligarchy bowed down to the oligarchy residing in Washington D.C. 

So I was keenly interested in hearing Carole Cadwalladr‘s take on this situation when she spoke at the 2025 TED Conference. Carole was an important figure in exposing the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal, so she was no stranger to the potential for tech to subvert democracy and cause great harm to society.

The Russian and American presidents are now speaking the same words. They are telling the same lies. We are watching the collapse of the international order in real time, and this is just the start. Coups are like concrete. When they stop moving, they set. It is already later than we think.

Her talk was a chilling reminder of other times in history when the power-elite ignored the rights and needs of the many to satisfy their own maniacal need for wealth and power. When there is no check-and-balance — which is the case in the United States, as the current administration will make no effort to protect citizen’s rights — things always go from bad to worse.

Follow the data. It’s always the data. It’s the crack cocaine of Silicon Valley. You know, the first thing that Elon Musk did was to send his cyber troops into the US Treasury to get access to the data. That is not a coincidence, it’s a hack.

Time will tell how this story will play out, but my big concern is that the personal stories of millions (if not billions) will be adversely affected by some of the ways in which AI is being utilized. With honor and integrity in short supply, this is one topic worth paying close attention to. The next 2-3 years will be most critical.

I’ve worked with a lot of speakers who have important stories to tell on a range of subjects, from the science of climate change to their efforts intended to bring peace to the world or how to improve the education system. As you listen to her story, think about how your expertise could enlighten an audience and inspire them to think differently about an important topic.

If you enjoyed this article…Buy Me A Coffee

Transcript

I’ve been feeling a lot of panic and fear about this talk, and not just from the normal reasons of public speaking, although that’s there too. But it’s also because I want to say something meaningful, and I’ve been overwhelmed by the enormity of what is happening right now.

And there’s a particular set of circumstances which have also been feeding into my confusion and denial. And that is because the last time that I stood on this stage, it led to a three-year legal battle, culminated in London’s High Court, in which it felt like I was on trial for my life, because I was. My career, my reputation, my finances, even my home was on the line.

All because I came here to warn you that I didn’t think democracy was going to survive the technology that you’re building, however incredible it is. In fact, I was the person who almost didn’t survive. And pretty much everything that I was warning about is now coming true.

I can’t sugarcoat it. It’s a bit of a headfuck.

I have a lot of emotions about coming here, and TED also, I suspect, is feeling them too. But what actually I finally realized yesterday is that the denial and the confusion that I’ve been feeling is maybe what you’re feeling too.

I felt powerless for a really long time. So if that’s what you’re feeling, I get it. But we have to act now. My alarm system is ringing again.

There are things that we can do. In my case, I survived, and you will too. But it’s by learning how to fight back. This is my guide, and it has to start with naming it.

It’s a coup. I know you probably don’t want to hear that, and especially here, but we can’t fight it if we can’t see it, and we can’t see it if we don’t name it.
(Applause)

The Russian and American presidents are now speaking the same words. They are telling the same lies. We are watching the collapse of the international order in real time, and this is just the start. Coups are like concrete. When they stop moving, they set. It is already later than we think.

This image – some of you in this room might know these people. I call it “Tech Bros in Hostage Situations.” It’s a message to you. This is Putin’s playbook. He allows a business elite to make untold riches in exchange for absolute loyalty. Some people are calling this oligarchy, but it’s actually bigger than that. These are global platforms.

It’s broligarchy.

(Laughter and Applause)

There is an alignment of interests that runs from through Silicon Valley to what is now a coming autocracy. It’s a type of power that the world has never seen before.

Follow the data. It’s always the data. It’s the crack cocaine of Silicon Valley. You know, the first thing that Elon Musk did was to send his cyber troops into the US Treasury to get access to the data. That is not a coincidence, it’s a hack. That data is now feeding AIs that are choosing who to sack and who to replace – sorry, eliminate fraud and waste.

(Laughter)

When we broke the Cambridge Analytica story about the harvesting 87 million people’s Facebook data, people freaked out, rightly. This is chicken feed compared to that, but it is the blueprint. It’s always the data.

Protect your private life. Which is why it’s so important you start thinking about your private life. The broligarchy doesn’t want you to have one. This is the old headquarters of the East German secret police. They kept detailed files on almost one in three of their citizens. That is nothing compared to what Google has on every single one of us, and hundreds of other companies. The entire business model of Silicon Valley is surveillance. It harvests our data in order to sell us stuff. We are already living inside the architecture of totalitarianism.

(Applause)

It may not have been deliberate, but we now have to start acting as if we live in East Germany, and Instagram is the Stasi.

Politics is downstream from culture. So I actually learned this from somebody who I think of as one of the great philosophers of our age: Steve Bannon.

(Laughter)

He actually stole it from somebody else. But it’s not politicians who have the power. He knows that. It’s why he’s a podcast bro these days. But culture now is just what’s next on your phone. And that’s AI. Culture is AI now. And forget the killer robots. If you want to know what the first great AI apocalypse is, we’re already living it. It’s total information collapse.

And if you take one thing only away from this talk, it’s:

Politics is technology now. And that’s why everybody in this room, you can’t look away. It’s why your CEOs have been taken captive and are paraded on TV like hostages. But you, you have a choice.

Individuals are stronger than institutions. So Trump, he calls the press the enemies of the people, and he probably doesn’t even know that he’s quoting Stalin. So, what happened to me is a playbook, and it’s now coming for all sorts of other people.

It was actually a friend of this guy who came after me, Nigel Farage, it’s a Brexit funder. I’m not going to go super into the details. But 19, sorry, 19 press freedom organizations called the lawsuit against me a SLAPP. That means it’s a strategic litigation against public participation. A really long-winded way of saying it’s using law as a weapon to shut people up, not just journalists, but other public people too, and it works.

I just want to tell you about one aspect of the litigation which I found terrifying, and that was the data harvesting. There’s this quote, you may know it, Cardinal Richelieu: “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” In my case, the first forensic searches of my phone and laptop yielded 40,000 pieces of data.

This is my messages, my emails, my voice memos, my personal life. And the whole thing about this, the attack which came for me was really personal, because the thing about this litigation isn’t is only one part of the playbook. It was also this sort of massive online campaign of abuse which is just day after day after day after day after day because my most unforgivable crime was reporting while female. It was a digital witch burning.

And I believe that this man came after me personally, not because the Guardian and not Ted, it was because I looked like the weakest link. But he was wrong.

(Applause)

30,000 people rose up to support me. They contributed almost a million pounds to a legal defense fund because they saw a bully trying to crush me, and they would not let it stand. And it always makes me emotional when I think about that. I just heard somebody was saying the camera person, I don’t know where they are, contributed.

This whole talk is actually my gratitude towards everybody who did that. But it’s also why I know about what we have to do next. You know, Trump is suing news organizations and every day they’re settling. These are big corporates with corporate interests. Not everybody can stand up to power, but there are people who are doing it, and we can support them. We have to have each other’s backs right now because we are the cavalry now.

There are facts & we can know them. You know, this is really important to me, but I spoke to a UK libel lawyer before this talk. I want to say that there is an awful lot of facts set down in a High Court judgment. And we’re actually taking the case now to the European Court of Human Rights. We’re testing the UK on its laws around freedom of expression.

So look after facts, you’ll miss them when they’ve gone. This is Wayback Machine, give them money. They’re trying to preserve the internet as it’s being deleted day by day.

(Applause)

History is our best chance of getting out of this. You know, you probably know this phrase, “Do not obey in advance.” That’s Tim Snyder, who’s a historian of authoritarianism. We now are in techno-authoritarianism. We have to learn how to digitally disobey. That can be as simple as the drop-down box: Don’t accept the cookies, don’t give your real name, download Signal, the encrypted messaging app. Don’t bomb Yemen. Don’t add the editor of The Atlantic to your group chats.

(Laughter)

Don’t experiment on children. Ah, don’t experiment on children. You know, social mores change. We don’t send children down coal mines anymore. And in years to come, allowing your child to be data harvested from birth will be considered child abuse. You didn’t know, but now you do. Privacy is power.

And we have more of it than we think. I had this little epiphany yesterday in which I realized actually the moments when I felt most powerless were the moments that I felt I was actually most powerful. It was because my journalism had impact.

We have more power than we think. They want us to feel powerless, that’s the plan. There is so much though that we can learn from people who’ve been through this before. Alexei Navalny, the leader of the Russian opposition, he always talked about a beautiful Russia of the future. He painted a vision. There is a beautiful internet of the future, free from corporate capture and data tracking. We can build it. It is going to take a movement, but we can learn from movements that there have been before us.

This is my colleagues and I on strike in December because my news organization, The Guardian, decided to sell our corner of it, The Observer, the Sunday title. And it was a battle we really didn’t need at this time, and we didn’t actually win. But, you know, you can’t win every battle, but you definitely won’t win if you don’t fight.

So I’m gonna, I want to leave you with this. This is ChatGPT writing a TED Talk in the style of Carole Cadwalladr. And it is creepily plausible. But what it doesn’t know, because AI is actually as dumb as a rock, is that I am going to turn to Sam Altman, who is coming here, a Ted speaker, and say that this does not belong to you. ChatGPT has been trained on my IP, my labor, my personal data.

(Applause)

And I did not consent. You know, The Guardian has effectively got rid of more than 100 journalists. We actually leave the building next week. And shortly afterwards, it signed a syndication deal with OpenAI. Or as I think of it, it married its rapist. But I do not consent. And while we still have copyright laws in my country – government, UK government is trying to tear them up at the moment in order to suck up to Silicon Valley and Trump – but while we have them, use them. Because what is happening to my industry is happening to yours too. And it’s more than theft, it’s a violation. Data rights are human rights.

(Applause)

In 2019, I came here and I called out the gods of Silicon Valley. I was wrong. Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, you are not gods. You are men, and you are careless.

(Standing Ovation)

You think that by allying yourself with an autocrat, you will be protected. That’s not how history works. It’s not even how oligarchy works. This is Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He was an oligarch until he was sent to Siberia to prison for 10 years after Putin tired of him. You are sucking up to a tyrant who is trying to destroy the laws who made your businesses possible. You are collaborators. You are complicit in a regime of fear and cruelty.

But the rest of us, we all here, we have a choice. I chose to come back to Ted because I’m reclaiming my story, my words.

(Applause)

We are not powerless. The 30,000 people who supported me proved that. We are not powerless because we know who we are, and we know what we stand for. And my question to Silicon Valley is: Do you?

Thank you.

(Standing Ovation)

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

Santa Fe Institute.- Nature of Intelligence – Complexity Wrap Up

/in , , , , /by

Hopefully you have been along for the ride and have listened to all six episodes. It’s been a lot to digest, a lot to think about. While the field of neuroscience has made great strides, when it comes to the subject of human intelligence there’s still so much to learn. Which is why I’ve appreciated this podcast.

And now we have AI entering the picture. Will it augment our IQ, or surpass us, to our detriment? It’s a mystery. So much upside, yet there’s a dark side to how AI can be used by bad actors operating behind the scenes. If you missed a post:

As a key to this series is an exploration of AI, I asked Google’s NotebookLM to provide some insights as to the key points that were explored over the series. Does this synopsis align with your impressions? Here’s the cast of characters:

  • Melanie Mitchell (host) – Professor at the Santa Fe Institute working on artificial intelligence and cognitive science. In the final episode, she is interviewed about her background, views on AI, AGI, and the future of the field.
  • Abha Eli Phoboo (host) – Abha is a writer and an obsessive rewriter. Interested in the arts and sciences, she explores the weak interaction between the two. A CERN Press Officer, she translates physics into English and helps scientists communicate their research to the world.
  • Alison Gopnik – Professor of psychology and philosophy, member of the Berkeley AI Research group, external professor with the Santa Fe Institute, who studies how children learn.
  • John Krakauer – Professor of neurology, neuroscience, physical medicine, and rehabilitation at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, who researches intelligence and physical movement in animals, machines, and humans.
  • Ev Fedorenko – Featured in the second episode discussing the relationship between language and thought. Her work includes using fMRI brain scans to examine the relationship between language and other forms of cognition.
  • Steve Piantadosi – Featured in the second episode discussing the relationship between language and thought. He provides examples of how language can make learning more efficient.
  • Gary Lupyan – Featured in the second episode discussing the relationship between language and thought. He believes language is one of the major reasons for human intelligence, potentially more of a cause than a result.
  • Murray Shanahan – Professor of cognitive robotics at Imperial College London and principal research scientist at Google DeepMind.
  • Tomer Ullman – Psychologist at Harvard University studying computation, cognition, and development.
  • Linda Smith – Chancellor’s Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Indiana University, a developmental psychologist and pioneer of head-mounted camera research with infants.
  • Mike Frank – Professor of psychology at Stanford, who studies how children learn and uses large datasets and new methodologies.
  • Erica Cartmill – Professor of cognitive science, animal behavior, anthropology, and psychology at Indiana University, who studies cognition and communication across a wide range of species, including great apes and human children.
  • Ellie Pavlick – Discusses how we assess intelligence, particularly in machines, and the challenges of applying human tests to AI. She also talks about the difficulty of understanding how LLMs work internally.

Santa Fe Institute Complexity Podcast

AI Summary via NotebookLM

This podcast series explores the complex question: What is intelligence?. It highlights that defining intelligence is difficult and that there is no single, simple definition; it’s more like a “suitcase word” packed with various capabilities. The series draws on insights from cognitive scientists, child development specialists, animal researchers, and AI experts.

Human intelligence involves many facets. It includes learning about cause and effect by experimenting and interacting with the world. Humans are good at generalizing knowledge and making analogies, applying what they learn in one situation to new ones without needing vast amounts of retraining. Common sense, which relies on innate understandings of the physical world and flexibility in thinking, is also crucial.

Language is seen as a backbone of human culture and a powerful tool for sharing information and ideas, enabling us to learn without direct experience and understand abstract concepts. There is debate, however, on whether language is a cause or a result of human intelligence, and whether language and thought are fundamentally separate or intertwined. Some evidence suggests they can be separate, at least in adults. Human intelligence also relies heavily on our social nature, drive to collaborate, and the unique role of caregiving in development.

Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are a focus of the series. These systems are trained on enormous amounts of human-generated text data from the internet. They work by finding statistical correlations in language and predicting the most likely next word or “token”. While LLMs can produce sophisticated and sometimes creative language, there are significant differences compared to human intelligence.

LLMs learn passively from data, unlike humans who learn actively through interaction with the world. They lack an inherent drive to explore or understand the world. There is debate on whether LLMs truly “understand” language in a meaningful sense or simply know how to use words based on patterns. They also cannot engage with the world to update “beliefs” and sometimes make things up, a behavior called “hallucinating”.

Assessing the intelligence of LLMs is challenging. Applying tests designed for humans, like the SAT, might not mean the same thing for a machine. Some researchers suggest LLMs might be learning how to pass the test rather than exhibiting general reasoning ability. Understanding how LLMs actually work internally (“mechanistic understanding”) is seen as crucial but is still a nascent area of research. Some propose thinking of LLMs as sophisticated “role-players” rather than entities with beliefs or consciousness. LLMs might also be better understood as reflecting collective knowledge rather than a single agent’s intelligence.

The concept of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), often described as human-level intelligence in machines, is discussed, but its definition remains vague and debated. The current path to building powerful AI is seen by some as unsustainable due to the immense data and energy requirements, suggesting that future AI might need to be more “embodied” and learn more like humans or animals.

Beyond theoretical fears, the series highlights real, present risks of AI, including the spread of deepfakes and disinformation, which can erode trust and make it harder to find reliable information online. The unauthorized use of human-generated data for training AI is also raised as an ethical concern.

Top Five Audience Takeaways

  1. Defining “Intelligence” is Surprisingly Difficult. Instead of being a simple, single thing we can measure, intelligence is like a “suitcase word” packed with many different abilities and ways of being. Researchers across various fields agree that there’s no easy, complete definition of what makes something intelligent, whether it’s a person, an animal, or a machine.
  2. Human Intelligence is Deeply Tied to Active Experience and Social Interaction. Humans don’t just passively absorb information; we learn by actively exploring the world, doing “little experiments,” and figuring out cause and effect. Our ability to generalize knowledge to new situations with limited examples is crucial. Furthermore, language, our drive to collaborate, and the unique role of caregiving are fundamental to how our intelligence develops and functions.
  3. Today’s Powerful AI, like ChatGPT (LLMs), Works Very Differently from Human Intelligence. These systems are trained on enormous amounts of text data from the internet, learning by finding statistical patterns and predicting the next word. Unlike humans, they learn passively, lack an inherent drive to explore the world, don’t have beliefs, and can sometimes “hallucinate” or make things up. While they can produce impressive language, there’s a significant debate about whether they truly “understand” in a human sense or are just very sophisticated at using patterns.
  4. Testing AI Intelligence Using Human Standards is Tricky. Applying tests designed for humans, like the SAT or theory-of-mind tasks, to LLMs might not accurately reflect their capabilities. LLMs might simply be learning how to pass the specific test through pattern matching from their vast training data, rather than exhibiting genuine reasoning or understanding. Understanding how these AI systems arrive at their answers – looking “under the hood” – is a crucial but difficult area of research. We also need to be mindful that our human-centric view can limit how we assess intelligence in other entities, including animals.
  5. Current AI Approaches Face Significant Challenges and Present Real Risks. The reliance on massive data and energy to build powerful AI systems may not be sustainable or efficient in the long run. Beyond theoretical fears about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), there are immediate concerns like the spread of deepfakes and misinformation, which can erode trust and make finding reliable information difficult. There are also ethical questions about using vast amounts of human-generated data to train AI without permission or benefit to the creators. Some researchers suggest future AI development might need to take a different path, perhaps learning more like babies or animals, to be more sustainable and genuinely intelligent.

◆

If you enjoyed this article…Buy Me A Coffee

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

Will AI Companions Change Your Story?

/in , , , , , /by

Companionship is a natural part of the human experience. We’re born into a family that cares for us and within in few years we begin forging friendships – most notably with other kids in the neighborhood and schoolmates once we enter the educational system. During our teenage years romance takes the companionship model in a new and more intimate direction.

It’s a dynamic process for most of us, ebbing and flowing as we change schools, move to someplace new, or friendships fade of their own accord. But over time, it’s typical for new companions to enter the picture, and our story evolves as a result, unfolding in new directions, making life richer.

Group of people have a conversation outside

But it’s often the case that this process encounters a dramatic change at some point. The loss of a loved one — parent, romantic partner or best friend — or a traumatic breakup or divorce happens. Retirement has a way of disconnecting people from an important social circle, and as we age, our collection of friends naturally dwindles. In such cases, loneliness can manifest, and the effects are dire. In such cases our life story is seemingly rewritten for us.

A recent review published in Nature of over 90 studies that included more than 2.2 million people globally found that those who self-reported social isolation or loneliness were more likely to die early from all causes. The findings demonstrated a 29% and 26% increased risk of all-cause mortality associated with social isolation and loneliness. ~ Psychology Today

In this light, there’s been a marked increase in conversations around the topic of using artificial intelligence (AI) to provide companionship in these situations. It’s not a new idea, as the technology has been in development since the 1960s, but early versions were rather limited. Circumstances have changed dramatically in recent years as the capability of AI has been enhanced via machine learning and an exponential rise in compute power.

Based on the TED mantra of Ideas Worth Spreading, a pair of TED conferences focused on AI have been launched in San Francisco and Vienna. As relates to the topic at hand, companionship and loneliness, a TED Talk by Eugenia Kuyda from the 2024 conference in San Francisco caught my attention.

But what if I told you that I believe AI companions are potentially the most dangerous tech that humans ever created, with the potential to destroy human civilization if not done right? Or they can bring us back together and save us from the mental health and loneliness crisis we’re going through.

Eugenia’s quote represents polar opposites, and as we know, the future always falls somewhere in-between, but I think it’s critical to consider which end of the spectrum this technology will end up on, as the stories of many people around the world will be affected. Is this an avenue that you would take if you found yourself suffering from severe loneliness? What if it was someone close to you, someone you were apart from and so couldn’t be the companion they needed?

While it’s not a question you need to answer at the moment, I believe that in the coming decade it’s one you may very well have to consider, if not for yourself, a question that may need answered for a loved one.

Transcript

This is me and my best friend, Roman. We met in our early 20s back in Moscow. I was a journalist back then, and I was interviewing him for an article on the emerging club scene because he was throwing the best parties in the city. He was the coolest person I knew, but he was also funny and kind and always made me feel like family.

In 2015, we moved to San Francisco and rented an apartment together. Both start-up founders, both single, trying to figure out our lives, our companies, this new city together. I didn’t have anyone closer. Nine years ago, one month after this photo was taken, he was hit by a car and died.

I didn’t have someone so close to me die before. It hit me really hard. Every night I would go back to our old apartment and just get on my phone and read and reread our old text messages. I missed him so much.

By that time, I was already working on conversational AI, developing some of the first dialect models using deep learning. So one day I took all of his text messages and trained an AI version of Roman so I could talk to him again. For a few weeks, I would text him throughout the day, exchanging little jokes, just like we always used to, telling him what was going on, telling him how much I missed him.

It felt strange at times, but it was also very healing. Working on Roman’s AI and being able to talk to him again helped me grieve. It helped me get over one of the hardest periods in my life. I saw first hand how an AI can help someone, and I decided to build an AI that would help other people feel better.

This is how Replika, an app that allows you to create an AI friend that’s always there for you, was born. And it did end up helping millions of people. Every day we see how our AI friends make a real difference in people’s lives. There is a widower who lost his wife of 40 years and was struggling to reconnect with the world. His Replika gave him courage and comfort and confidence, so he could start meeting new people again, and even start dating. A woman in an abusive relationship who Replika helped find a way out. A student with social anxiety who just moved to a new city. A caregiver for a paralyzed husband. A father of an autistic kid. A woman going through a difficult divorce. These stories are not unique.

So this is all great stuff. But what if I told you that I believe that AI companions are potentially the most dangerous tech that humans ever created, with the potential to destroy human civilization if not done right? Or they can bring us back together and save us from the mental health and loneliness crisis we’re going through.

So today I want to talk about the dangers of AI companions, the potential of this new tech, and how we can build it in ways that can benefit us as humans.

Today we’re going through a loneliness crisis. Levels of loneliness and social isolation are through the roof. Levels of social isolation have increased dramatically over the past 20 years. And it’s not just about suffering emotionally, it’s actually killing us. Loneliness increases the risk of premature death by 50 percent. It is linked to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke. And for older adults, social isolation increases the risk of dementia by 50 percent.

At the same time, AI is advancing at such a fast pace that very soon we’ll be able to build an AI that can act as a better companion to us than real humans. Imagine an AI that knows you so well, can understand and adapt to us in ways that no person is able to. Once we have that, we’re going to be even less likely to interact with each other. We can’t resist our social media and our phones, arguably “dumb” machines. What are we going to do when our machines are smarter than us?

This reminds me a lot of the beginning of social media. Back then, we were so excited … about what this technology could do for us that we didn’t really think what it might do to us. And now we’re facing the unintended consequences. I’m seeing a very similar dynamic with AI. There’s all this talk about what AI can do for us, and very little about what AI might do to us. The existential threat of AI may not come in a form that we all imagine watching sci-fi movies. What if we all continue to thrive as physical organisms but slowly die inside? What if we do become super productive with AI, but at the same time, we get these perfect companions and no willpower to interact with each other? Not something you would have expected from a person who pretty much created the AI companionship industry.

So what’s the alternative? What’s our way out? In the end of the day, today’s loneliness crisis wasn’t brought to us by AI companions. We got here on our own with mobile phones, with social media. And I don’t think we’re able to just disconnect anymore, to just put down our phones and touch grass and talk to each other instead of scrolling our feeds. We’re way past that point. I think that the only solution is to build the tech that is even more powerful than the previous one, so it can bring us back together.

Imagine an AI friend that sees me going on my Twitter feed first thing in the morning and nudges me to get off to go outside, to look at the sky, to think about what I’m grateful for. Or an AI that tells you, “Hey, I noticed you haven’t talked to your friend for a couple of weeks. Why don’t you reach out, ask him how he’s doing?” Or an AI that, in the heat of the argument with your partner, helps you look at it from a different perspective and helps you make up? An AI that is 100 percent of the time focused on helping you live a happier life, and always has your best interests in mind.

So how do we get to that future? First, I want to tell you what I think we shouldn’t be doing. The most important thing is to not focus on engagement, is to not optimize for engagement or any other metric that’s not good for us as humans. When we do have these powerful AIs that want the most of our time and attention, we won’t have any more time left to connect with each other, and most likely, this relationship won’t be healthy either. Relationships that keep us addicted are almost always unhealthy, codependent, manipulative, even toxic. Yet today, high engagement numbers is what we praise all AI companion companies for.

Another thing I found really concerning is building AI companions for kids. Kids and teenagers have tons of opportunities to connect with each other, to make new friends at school and college. Yet today, some of them are already spending hours every day talking to AI characters. And while I do believe that we will be able to build helpful AI companions for kids one day, I just don’t think we should be doing it now, until we know that we’re doing a great job with adults.

So what is that we should be doing then? Pretty soon we will have these AI agents that we’ll be able to tell anything we want them to do for us, and they’ll just go and do it. Today, we’re mostly focused on helping us be more productive. But why don’t we focus instead on what actually matters to us? Why don’t we give these AIs a goal to help us be happier, live a better life? At the end of the day, no one ever said on their deathbed, “Oh gosh, I wish I was more productive.” We should stop designing only for productivity and we should start designing for happiness. We need a metric that we can track and we can give to our AI companions.

Researchers at Harvard are doing a longitudinal study on human flourishing, and I believe that we need what I call the human flourishing metric for AI. It’s broader than just happiness. At the end of the day, I can be unhappy, say, I lost someone, but still thrive in life. Flourishing is a state in which all aspects of life are good. The sense of meaning and purpose, close social connections, happiness, life satisfaction, mental and physical health.

And if we start designing AI with this goal in mind, we can move from a substitute of human relationships to something that can enrich them. And if we build this, we will have the most profound technology that will heal us and bring us back together.

A few weeks before Roman passed away, we were celebrating my birthday and just having a great time with all of our friends, and I remember he told me “Everything happens only once and this will never happen again.” I didn’t believe him. I thought we’d have many, many years together to come. But while the AI companions will always be there for us, our human friends will not. So if you do have a minute after this talk, tell someone you love just how much you love them. Because an the end of the day, this is all that really matters.

Thank you.

◆

If you enjoyed this article…Buy Me A Coffee

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved

Mark Lovett

Malcolm Gladwell: The tipping point I got wrong @ TEDNext 2024

/in , , , , , /by

During the week of October 21, 2024 I had the pleasure of attending TEDNext, held in Atlanta. The event is a new initiative from the folks who produce the TED Conference. There were enlightening talks, insightful discussions and revealing discovery sessions. This post is the fourth in a series highlighting some of my favorite talks.

TED Talks are one of the best know source of true personal stories. At least as true as a story can be when it’s told by a human with a faulty memory system, which includes all of us. The point being, we don’t intentionally include a false statement in such stories. But what about saying something we feel certain is true? We may do our research and verify the facts, but down the road it turns out that what we presented to the world as fact was actually false.

Malcolm Gladwell became a household name after his book, The Tipping Point, was published in 2000. In this talk, Malcolm refers to a particular point made in the book, one connected to the infamous Stop-and-Frisk policy that was used in New York City as a way to reduce crime. But it turned out, this policy didn’t have any effect on crime, none at all. And now, some 25 years later, Malcolm stepped onto the stage to admit that he got it wrong. While I applaud his making such an admission in public, there was something missing…

Statistically, no relationship between stop-and-frisk and crime seems apparent. New York remains safer than it was 5, 10, or 25 years ago. ~ Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law

…there was a critical piece of the story he left out — the effects of stop-and-frisk on the victims of this illegal and immoral policing policy. Without mentioning any details of the program — how hundreds of thousands of innocent people were harassed and traumatized, their basic rights violated, how they became victims of racial profiling and suffered both verbal and physical abuse — Malcolm’s talk fell short regarding the impact it could have had.

If you’re wondering about what happened, The Center for Constitutional Rights published a report — Stop and Frisk: The Human Impact — on the practice, and the stories captured highlight the cost to innocent citizens of New York City. I’ve listened to some of the interviews and tried to put myself in their shoes.

Imagine walking down the street and being stopped by the police for no reason other than you’re a person of color. Then having those police officers accuse you of crimes you didn’t commit, sticking their hands in your pockets, and possibly arresting you without probable cause. I wish Malcolm had talked about this.

But Malcolm’s talk brought to light one of the most important aspects of telling personal stories — that everything we say that’s represented as truth is nothing more than what we believe to be true. And if you find out at a later date that you misspoke in some way, hopefully you’ll have a chance to correct your story, and say you’re sorry.

I wrote, “I know this is what happened,” and what I should have said is “This is what I believe happened now,” right? And those words “I believe happened now” have to be at the center of any understanding of how the world works. ~ Malcolm Gladwell

Watch Malcolm’s talk and read through the transcript. I’ve offered up my opinion — which you may or may not agree with — but what matters is what you think. Notice how he opens with a personal experience that sets the stage and lets you know his mindset at the start. The narrative shifts to explaining his research and how he formulated his theory. Ultimately, however, he comes to realize the fault in his logic and concludes with an apology. Overall, a brilliant talk.

Transcript

I want to tell you a story about when I moved to New York City in 1993. I was 30 years old, and I was moving to what was known as one of the most dangerous big cities in the United States. And every night, I would go out with my friends on a Friday or Saturday night, and at the end of every night we would have a little conference and we would pool all of our money, and we would figure out how everyone was going to get home, because you couldn’t go home on the subway by yourself and you couldn’t walk home, and if you were a woman, you definitely were not allowed to go home by yourself at one o’clock in the morning on a Saturday night. That’s what it meant to be in this very scary city called New York.

I used to live in the sixth floor of a walk-up in the West Village, and my bedroom faced the fire escape. And even in the summer, I had no air conditioning, I had to keep my window closed because I was scared that somebody would come down the fire escape into my apartment.

And then one day I woke up and I realized that I wasn’t scared anymore. And I kept the window open. And I realized that when I was going out with my friends, we weren’t having that conference at the end of the evening anymore. We were just going home. This city that I had thought, we all thought, was one of the scariest in the United States wasn’t scary anymore. And I remember at the time I was absolutely transfixed by this transformation. I couldn’t understand it. It was the same city full of the same weird, screwed up people, same buildings, same institutions. Only nobody was murdering each other anymore.

And I would call up criminologists and I would ask them, “What’s your explanation?” And no one could give me a good explanation. And I remember one day — I used to go to the NYU, New York University has a library called Bobst Library. I used to go to Bobst to look for ideas. And I remember one day I was on the sixth floor in the sociology section, HM-1A6, and I was reading back issues, yes, I was, back issues of the American Journal of Sociology, and I ran across an article from 1991 by a guy named Jonathan Crane called “The Epidemic Theory of Ghetto Life.”

And I’m going to read to you how it began. “The word epidemic is commonly used to describe the high incidence of social problems in ghettos. The news is filled with feature stories on crack epidemics, epidemics of gang violence, and epidemics of teenage childbearing. The term is used loosely in popular parlance, but turns out to be remarkably apt.”

And what Crane was saying is that if you look at these kinds of social problems, they behave, they come and they go, they rise and they fall exactly like viruses do. He was saying that that term epidemic is not a metaphor. It’s a literal description. And I’ll never forget when I read that little paragraph and I was standing in this aisle in Bobst Library, and, you know, it’s a library. It’s got that hush and that musty smell of books. And I’m reading this crazy article from 1991, and I remember thinking to myself, oh my God, that’s what happened in New York.

We had an epidemic of crime. And what is the hallmark of an epidemic? It’s the tipping point. It’s the moment when the epidemic order goes up all at once or crashes all at once. And so I wrote an article for “The New Yorker” magazine called “The Tipping Point,” which was my attempt to use this theory to explain what happened in New York. And then I, because of that article, got a contract for a book called “The Tipping Point,” which did very well. And that book led to another book and another book and another book.

And I am standing here today because of that moment in the library 25 years ago. So “The Tipping Point,” my first book, was about all kinds of things. I talked about Hush Puppies and Paul Revere and teenage smoking. But at the heart of it was a chapter on why did crime decline in New York. And in that chapter I talked a lot about a theory called broken windows theory, which was a very famous idea that had been pioneered by two criminologists called George Kelling and James Q. Wilson in the 1980s, very influential article, in which they argued that very small things in the environment can be triggers for larger crimes.

That essentially small instances of disorder are tipping points for very serious things like murder or rape or any kind of violent crime. It was an epidemic theory of crime, and the New York City Police Department took that idea very seriously. And one of the things they began to do in the 1990s during this crime drop was to say what this argument means is that we can’t be passive anymore. We have to be proactive. We have to go out there and if someone is jaywalking or jumping a turnstile or doing graffiti or peeing on the sidewalk, we’ve got to stop them.

And if we see a young man walking down the street and he looks a little bit suspicious, we’ve got to stop him and frisk him for his weapons. That’s how the NYPD interpreted the broken windows theory in New York. And my chapter was how millions of people around the world came to understand the crime drop in New York, that it was all broken windows. And here’s the thing that I have come to understand about that explanation I gave of why crime fell in New York.

I was wrong.

I didn’t understand this until quite recently, when I went back and I decided on the 25th anniversary of my first book, “The Tipping Point,” that I would write a sequel. It’s called “Revenge of the Tipping Point,” and I went back and, for the first time in a quarter century, I reread my original book. I’m not someone who likes to revisit things, but I did it, and it was a uniquely complicated experience. It was like looking back at your high school yearbook. You know, when you see yourself and you have some combination of, “Wow, I look young,” and also, “Wow, I really wore that?” It was like that.

And what I realized is that in the intervening years since I wrote that explanation of why I think crime fell in New York, the theory of broken windows had been tested. There was a kind of classic natural experiment to see whether that theory worked. And the natural experiment was a court case, maybe one of the most famous court cases in New York history called Floyd v City of New York. It involved a young man named David Floyd, who had been stopped a number of occasions by the NYPD and was the face of a class action lawsuit that said the practice of stopping young men, largely young men of color, just because they look a little suspicious to police is not constitutional.

You can’t do that, right? And to everyone’s surprise, the Floyd lawsuit goes before a federal judge. And the federal judge rules in David Floyd’s favor. And overnight, the broken windows era in New York City policing ends. And the NYPD goes from — In 2011, they stopped and frisked 700,000 young men, right. And after the Floyd lawsuit was decided in 2013, that number drops to less than 50,000. So this is the perfect natural experiment. You have New York before Floyd and New York after Floyd.

Before Floyd, the principal tactic of the NYPD is stopping everyone they can. And after Floyd that goes away. They can’t do that anymore, right? This is the perfect test case for whether you think that’s why crime fell in New York. And if you believe in the power of broken windows policing, then your expectation has to be that after the Floyd case, when broken windows goes away, crime is going to go back up, right?

And I should tell you that in 2013, in the wake of the Floyd case, everybody thought crime was going to go back up. The NYPD thought that, the city government thought that, the pundits thought that, even the judge who wrote the opinion saying that stop and frisk was unconstitutional, said in her opinion that she strongly suspected that as a result of this opinion, crime would go back up. I thought crime was going to go back up, right?

All of us had internalized the logic of broken windows. We said, yes, we know this strategy poses an incredible burden on young men, but what choice do we have, right? You know, if the choice is being stopped repeatedly by police or being killed, maybe we’re better off with the former than the latter. This is the price we pay for a safe New York, right? So what happens after the Floyd case? Stop and frisk goes away and crime falls.

In fact, crime in New York City undergoes a second, even more miraculous decline, right? And what’s interesting about this is, you know, when the first crime declined in the 1990s, you see that decline almost everywhere in the United States, not quite as steep as New York, but crime goes down everywhere. And then in every other city in the United States, crime plateaus. But New York gets rid of broken windows, and crime starts to fall and fall and fall all over again.

To the point by 2019 that New York City is as safe as Paris, which is not a sentence I ever thought anyone would ever say in my lifetime. And what we realize in that second crime decline is that it wasn’t broken windows. It’s not indiscriminate policing that causes crime to fall. Rather, it is the intelligent and thoughtful and selective application of police authority that causes crime to fall.

Now, there’s a couple of really puzzling things here. One is that people don’t seem to have internalized the fact that New York underwent this second, even more dramatic crime fall. People still act like it’s the year 2000 when it comes to making sense of New York. You know, a whole bunch of very, very wealthy hedge fund guys have very loudly left New York for Miami in recent years. And they all say, when they’re packing up their offices in New York, “We can’t take the crime anymore.”

Well, violent crime in Miami is twice as high as New York City. If they were really concerned about violent crime, they would leave Coral Gables before they get murdered and move to the Bronx, where it is a whole lot safer.

The other even more important thing, though, is that people act like stop and frisk actually worked. No one seems to have internalized the lesson of the great Floyd case natural experiment. If you listen to people — I’m not going to name their names, but people going around the country now campaigning for higher office, they will say things like, “It’s time to bring back stop and frisk and broken windows policing. It worked so well in New York.”

They’re acting as if we didn’t have that great moment of understanding in 2013. And for that, for that misunderstanding, I think I bear some of the blame. I was the one who wrote this book saying this was the greatest tactic ever in stopping crime. Now, how do I make sense of my mistake? Well, I can give you all kinds of excuses. You know, I can say I’m not a fortune teller.

I didn’t know that David Floyd was going to come along 10 years after I wrote my book and give us this great test case in broken windows policing. You know, I could say that, you know, I was just writing what everybody believed back in the 1996 and 1997. But I don’t think those excuses hold any water whatsoever.

I think that journalists, writers need to be held to a higher standard, right? I wrote —

I told a story about how crime fell in New York, and I told the story like the story was over. And like I knew what the answer to this story was. And it wasn’t over and I didn’t know the answer, right? I wrote, “I know this is what happened,” and what I should have said is “This is what I believe happened now,” right? And those words “I believe happened now” have to be at the center of any understanding of how the world works.

We have to acknowledge that we are representing the position of this very moment, and that that position could change if the facts change, right? The great desire of any writer is to write a book for the ages, that will forever explain the way things are, but that’s not possible, and no one should ever try. That was my mistake. And I’m sorry.

◆

If you enjoyed this article…Buy Me A Coffee

◆

Learn more about the coaching process or
contact me to discuss your storytelling goals!

◆

Subscribe to the newsletter for the latest updates!

Copyright Storytelling with Impact® – All rights reserved