December 22, 2025 • 39 mins
Recorded live at Focus London 2025, this episode captures a timely conversation at the intersection of creativity, technology, and storytelling. As Large Language Models like ChatGPT rapidly reshape creative workflows, many filmmakers are asking how much of the creative process should be handed over to machines.
Producers Without Borders founder Kayvan Mashayekh sits down with renowned mathematician and bestselling author Edward Frenkel, Ph.D. (Love and Math) to explore why human intelligence, intuition, and lived experience remain irreplaceable in film creation. They examine the limits of AI, the risks of relying on tools trained on the past, and the responsibility artists carry to push culture forward through original vision and emotional truth.
Rather than resisting technology, this conversation re-frames AI as a tool that must serve human creativity, not replace it. In an age of algorithms, this episode is a reminder that the future of cinema still depends on the courage, imagination, and intent of filmmakers.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kayvan Mashayekh (00:02):
Producers Without Borders welcomes you to
our final broadcast of 2025.
Hi, my name is KayvanMashayekh, and I'm the founder
of PWB.
The following discussion wasrecorded during the Focused Film
Production and LocationsConference in London, England
between myself andworld-renowned UC Berkeley
Professor of Mathematics, Dr.
Edward Frenkel.
(00:22):
The subject matter is thehottest topic enveloping the
world of creativity and thesubsequent reverberations it has
caused as we rapidly shift intoa world of uncertainty and
anxiety as to what it all meansto us as sentient beings.
Will human intelligence ever beovertaken by generative
artificial intelligence?
Let's dive right in to unlockfact from fiction as we embark
(00:45):
on this journey together.
Dr.
Frenkel, just um I'd like foryou to take us out into this
world of this hidden reality ofthe human intelligence versus
artificial intelligence.
The floor is yours.
Thank you.
Edward Frenkel (01:00):
Kayvan and I have known each other for many
years.
I am no stranger to filmproduction myself.
I made a short film uh in 2009in Paris with uh French film
director Reine Graves, which iscalled Rights of Love and Math.
Rights uh R-I-T-E-S, likerituals of love and math.
(01:20):
It's a homage to a film, ashort film by Yukio Mishima, a
great Japanese author who madeactually a short film based on
one of his short stories.
And uh it's kind of a crazything we did.
It was silent with Wagner'sTristan und Isolde old playing.
Um we followed Mishima'saesthetics on the on a set on a
(01:40):
stage of an old theater, and Iplayed the main character as
well.
So I kind of tried, you know,tried being an actor and a and a
and a director and uh uh scriptwriter, and I observed also all
the people, great people, youknow, the the director of
photography, the lightingpeople, and so on, because it's
(02:01):
kind of like serious production.
Um the film is availableonline, so you can find it by by
just going to my website,edwardfrenkel.com.
But I just want to say, so I Itried it and I kind of realized
that you know it's it's muchharder, it was much harder than
I thought.
But I did have a glimpse, andit's 2009, so it was still we
used uh an analog camera, so itdidn't use an HD cam actually.
(02:23):
Um it was just before thedigital cameras became widely
available.
So that gives me a littleperspective because I understand
this conference is more aboutwith people who are actually
involved in day-to-dayproduction, film production,
right?
So um I have been thinking alot about the advent of AI and
the accelerating pace at whichartificial intelligence uh
(02:47):
invades our lives, really, anddetermines a lot of things about
ourselves, whether we are awareof it or not.
And uh I have spoken about thisuh publicly for many years.
Actually, first time in 2014, Iwas already talking about the
dangers of AI, not AI itself,but dangers of our misperception
(03:07):
of our relationship to this newtechnology.
Of course, since then it has uhadvanced tremendously, and
especially in the last threeyears, uh since the advent of
ChatGPT.
And I've been using it myself,and I have observed my friends
using it, and I see howsometimes people have a wrong
(03:28):
understanding of what it is.
And it's almost on the onehand, there is this desire to
relinquish our authority and ouragency as human beings, and on
the other side, closely tied toit, a fear of this new
technology.
A fear on a basic level of whatif this thing will take my job?
What am I gonna do?
Or the fear of how thesecomputers will kill us or
(03:51):
something, you know.
So I see my job as someone whohad a proper education in
mathematics, in computerscience, who has really looked
under the hood, if you will, ofthis new technology.
I see my job in is in uh inspreading this knowledge, in
sharing my knowledge, and alsodebunking some of the things
(04:13):
that I see and hear on the youknow in various conversations
with some of my colleagues who,quite frankly, have a very wrong
understanding of what it is, byvirtue of their own, how should
we say, incomplete spiritual upbringing.
And I know because these are mypeople, these are my brothers
and sisters, and I have gonethrough this process myself.
(04:33):
I was one who was tempted tosay it uh it's all it can also
all be um machines can be justas intelligent as humans.
We are ourselves littlemachines, we are ourselves bags
of particles, or packs ofneurons, or sequences of zeros
and ones.
So now there is here's aprogram which is a sequence of
zeros and ones.
Well, it can be much morepowerful than me.
(04:56):
So, and it will overpower me,and so on.
And so my job is to saybullshit to this, you know,
quite frankly, because I knowmathematical theorems which
prove that these computerprograms do lack understanding
at the level at we at which wehumans have understanding, or
compassion for that matter.
They're built to imitate usbased on the knowledge humanity
(05:22):
has acquired in thousands ofyears.
And that's I'm not sayinganything controversial.
We know how large languagemodels work.
They simply absorb all thecorpus of human knowledge
through text, but now so nowalso through videos and so on,
created by humans through oursweat and blood.
Kayvan Mashayekh (05:42):
All right, that's gonna stop you right
there.
Edward Frenkel (05:44):
So yes, you know, the the these things that
you're talking about.
So they correlate, just tofinish this, they correlate,
they find patterns in this data,they correlate.
And and then they produce newwords, new tokens from the which
are more likely amongst all thestuff that humans have created.
So, in what sense can we saythat they are actually creating
something?
Right.
Kayvan Mashayekh (06:04):
But let's let's not basically not rooted
in our knowledge.
Let me let me stop you rightthere.
Like so the these things thathave been created um uh by um
mathematicians and and very,very smart people, the this
generative AI that's beencreated, um, it is now a tool
for the person who, for manyyears, was probably in a
basement and was told thatthey're not creative enough,
(06:25):
they're not smart enough, theydon't they don't have the right
tools, they don't have anymoney, nobody reads their
script, nobody can understandtheir vision of doing things.
So they created this worldthrough these algorithms where
you can text something and allof a sudden that image can
appear.
And that story can be just asclunky as a human-made story,
uh, where human intelligence wasbehind the creative and entire
creative process.
(06:46):
So now they're they're usingthese tools as a way to amplify
their own voices, to get theirstories out there in a way
that's a lot more efficient, alot more uh uh uh how do I say
it?
A lot less expensive for themto get their thoughts out there,
to get their own audience andto create.
Edward Frenkel (07:03):
It's a great accelerator.
It is a great accelerator.
It's a great tool.
But see, that's the rightattitude, what you're just
saying.
However, attitude as a tool,right?
As something that enhances ourabilities, as something that we
can also use as a catalyst, as achallenge.
Uh to ask ourselves what do Ibring to the table?
What can I do that ChatGPTcannot do yet?
(07:24):
Or an AI system.
And the good analogy for me isthe invention of camera in the
19th century.
Because up until then, a bigpart of the uh process of an
artist, a visual artist, was torender things realistically,
right?
So uh portraits, landscapes,and so on.
So suddenly, boom, there is acamera which can do it more
(07:45):
realistically than you can.
So, what did artists do?
Did they say our job isfinished, we are done, this
thing came and will take over?
No.
They realized that they couldactually pursue other venues of
connecting to the viewer, ofexpressing themselves.
Art became visual art, itbecame more about the inner
(08:07):
world of the artist or theviewer.
You got impressionism,post-impressionism, abstract
art, surrealism, cubism,dadaism, and so on, right?
So that's I envision um theadvent of artificial
intelligence in cinemaproduction as this as something
that has similar and perhapsmuch bigger possibilities.
If only we approach it with theright attitude, the way artists
(08:31):
did in the 19th century, early20th century, you see, where you
say, okay, good, I take it as achallenge.
I want this will help us.
First of all, it will free usup from doing some of the things
which were time-consuming anduh resource-consuming, right?
But at the same time, we'llcome up with something, boom,
which we couldn't even think ofbefore, because we didn't have
(08:52):
to.
Because it's the nature ofhuman to be sort of like uh
allow ourselves complacency andbe lazy and just keep going day
to day.
Because you know, some peoplesay, Oh, but now people are
afraid that what's going tohappen with my job, and so on.
Kayvan Mashayekh (09:06):
Yeah, but I mean that's a real reality
because when when you're workinguh uh and you're seeing in the
world of production, things aregetting um, so to speak, more
efficient.
So a lot of people are losingtheir jobs in in a in a craft
and a skill that they'vedeveloped because of the
knowledge that they've acquiredall throughout those years to
get to that certain point wherethey are having that unique
voice that you're talking about.
And some jobs, I'm sorry tosay, will be lost.
(09:29):
And that's a natural process ofevolution.
So so but but what I'm what I'mtrying to get at is there is a
human cost to all of this.
Absolutely.
That creativity, thatadvancement.
But that's normal, it hasalways been happening.
It is normal.
It's not something unusual.
Dr.
Franklin, what I'm what I'mtrying to say is there's always
a counterargument to all this,and I know you're aware of this.
All I'm trying to let you knowis there's a panoply of
(09:52):
different things that come outof this.
There's also think about themental health issues that come
out of it.
How it affects you if you loseyour job to a machine.
And you don't you you feelhelpless.
You feel like, where do I go?
How do I start?
I'm I'm over the age of 35, andI have to learn a new skill,
and I have to apply a new thing,and I don't know how to do it
because these digital natives,these kids, these teenagers,
(10:13):
have 10 times the knowledge thatI have.
And that that's what the worldneeds because you know they're
they're growing up on a verticaluh screen, and they're growing
up on stuff that's on YouTubeand and TikTok, and I'm
competing against that.
So there is that argument alsowhere that that fear, that human
fear of uncertainty is a realhuman feeling.
(10:33):
And so though those that thecreatives that uh the creativity
of the human mind and itsability to do all that stuff, as
these LLMs are being fed.
For example, somebody like you.
You're you're the way I am inthe same boat.
I know we're all in the sameboat.
Edward Frenkel (10:48):
People say soon mathematicians will not be
important.
Right.
So I will lose my job too.
I have I can have the samefear.
Now, the difference is I amgrounded in knowing who I am.
And in part because I have hadthe privilege of having a good
education where I learn Gdel'sincompleteness theorem, Tarski
and definability theory, and soon, which enables me to see that
(11:10):
these machines are not humans.
The computer programs aretools, they do not have their
own inherent understanding.
Because I know that I am not abag of particles.
I know that from my study ofquantum physics.
But you also realize I knowthat I'm not a sequence of zeros
and ones.
So I am here to share this withyou because, quite frankly,
we've been indoctrinated in oursociety by these absolute ideas
(11:33):
of determinism.
Gee, I have no free willbecause it's my neurons.
My consciousness comes from mybrain, and I'm well educated in
that area as well, and I'm hereto say that is not true.
So I think that the rightattitude, but the right attitude
comes from knowing who I am.
So it's it might sound weirdthat the mathematician here is
preaching some sort of, and youmay think, some kind of new agey
(11:55):
stuff.
But I think it is essentialbecause we have gotten to the
point that if you believe you'rea bag of particles, if you
believe that you're just acomputer program, just like this
computer program that you workwith, like Chat GPT, you're
done, you're cooked.
I'm sorry.
You have to up your game alsoin terms of your spiritual
grounding, scientific groundingand spiritual grounding.
(12:17):
And who else to preach it tothan to film people?
Because on the one hand, youmay be afraid and you may be
worried about your job and soon.
But guess what?
The world at right at large isalso worried.
But you have a big function toshow us movies which will
inspire us, which will help usto see who we are.
So if you yourself have a wrongunderstanding of it, what do we
(12:40):
expect from you?
You're failing at your job.
So I'm a messenger here toremind you of who you are, not
to succumb to fear.
You see what I mean?
I'm sorry.
Maybe I get too passionateabout it.
I know it sounds strange, amathematician tells you this.
You are supposed to tell methis.
No.
You see what I mean?
But and many of you do, andmost of you do.
(13:02):
That's why you're here, by theway.
Thank you for coming.
Kayvan Mashayekh (13:04):
Well, by the way, we're all human beings, so
I I it's not that we don'tappreciate what you're saying
and not understand what you'resaying.
What I'm trying to um get to isthe other side of the fence, so
to speak.
There's a psychology behind allof this, and that psychology of
fear is a real tangible thingfor many, many people because it
makes them act in a certain waythat's inconsistent to the
(13:24):
things that they were taught,like yourself, up to up to a
certain point in their life.
And and what I'm trying to getat is how do we overcome these
things in a way where they feellike that is really that it is
not going to be something that'sgoing to replace them, but it
is an additive tool thatenhances their ability to be
creative.
And then comes another issue.
(13:46):
At some point it becomesdilutive.
All this content that's createdthat's what 100% human-made is
going to be diluted with stuffthat's machine-made.
And then it's going to be halfand half.
And our cerebral cortex, Dr.
Frenkel, will not be able toascertain the difference between
what is real and what is notreal.
And that dilutive nature, andthat dilutive nature, allow me
(14:07):
for one minute to speak, is itwill reach a point, it will
reach a point where I think itwill be uh there will be a point
where you can't you cannot uhyou cannot feel what's real
anymore.
You can try to but it's butwhat and then we are all
(14:28):
advancing in age.
Because if you believe that tobe the case, we'll be the case
to you.
I understand that, but we'reup, we're all advancing in age
as a human.
Don't speak for yourself.
Yeah, maybe maybe you're you'rethis is an AI that I'm speaking
of to right now.
Maybe he's not even the realI'm talking to uh Edward AI.
(14:50):
So but but the great thing isthat all of it because all of
all of all this information, bythe way, that we're talking
about right now, is you knowbeing recorded at some point and
being fed into an LLM.
So the there's pe there'sthere's phones, there's all
these ways of recording data andand and capturing that data and
monetizing that data for thefuture.
I do not agree, I do notdisagree with anything you're
(15:13):
saying.
What I'm trying to do is findthis medium, how we are going to
inspire So let's be practical.
But we you can be practicalabout it, and as long as you
were saying to me, as long asthere's a human in charge of
this.
Human at the helm.
That's right.
Edward Frenkel (15:27):
Artist at the center.
And when I say artist, I meanevery side of film production,
starting with the screenplay andthe directing, and but the
lighting and all the stuff,because obviously lighting
people are especially worriednow, or people who uh make the
decor and the stage productionand the costumes.
Because now there is a fearthat, oh gee, we can now have
like 30-second videos which lookalmost, you know, like you
(15:50):
said, um no different fromhuman-made films.
And so who knows, maybe in twoyears there will be a two-hour
movie, which is like that.
But on the other hand, don'tyou notice that people now also
there is a positive oppositepush to analog.
There are more people who wantto go and experience live music
in a bar or in a in a in aconcert hall.
There are people who are buyingflip phones, excuse me, from 20
(16:12):
years ago.
Why is that?
It's because intuitively all ofus know that when it's computer
made, it's just some syntheticelement to it.
It is sort of a commondenominator in a sense.
Uh it's it's oh, I've seen thatbefore.
We get amazed that it looks sorealistic, but deep down we also
recognize that we've seen itbefore.
So remember, I'll give you oneexample.
(16:34):
Uh Stanley Kubrick, you know,and I'm friends with Kubrick's
family through my film.
And um Barry Linden, okay,there's a famous movie in which
he took pride in filming it incandlelight.
So he had to have a huge lensuh to be able to do it.
But uh people can say now,okay, but now can't you do can't
(16:55):
you feed it into the LLM and itwill produce something similar?
Yes, but it's not the same asas what it happened when you
watched the real movie,especially it was revolutionary
at the time.
But even today, people stillwant to go and watch this,
right?
So there is something, there issome ability, some uh innate
ability of a human to be able todiscern it, perhaps
unconsciously.
(17:15):
So I'm not so worried.
In other words, I'm I'm I'm notdisagreeing with you that
superficially these new thingswill look similar.
By the way, the scripts whichthey produce, uh they see, I I
am tempted to call it they, butand it's common for human beings
to uh it's calledanthropomorphizing.
(17:35):
I have a friend who feels thatthe vacuum cleaner, which kind
of runs around, you know, whenshe enters the apartment uh of
the friend, and a vacuum cleanercomes up to her because it has
sensors, you know, and it'slike, oh hello, how are you?
That's normal, you see, butstill, intuitively, you know
it's not a cat or a dog.
You see, so in other words, Iagree with you that it be
(17:58):
superficially it's similar.
But on the other hand, thisalso may perhaps we will
discover within ourselves an umuh hidden up to now ability to
actually discern the differencebetween a vacuum cleaner, uh
intelligent vacuum cleaner andan intelligent animal, you see,
which we don't know yet.
So don't give up so quickly,don't uh uh assume it as an
(18:20):
axiom that gee, it will lookindistinguishable.
I I argue opposite.
It looks indistinguishable atfirst glance.
But eventually withproliferation of these videos
and so on, we'll be so fed upwith it, we will know.
It's it's the same today.
Uh sometimes you have actuallysome movies which are produced
not necessarily entirely, thescript is produced.
(18:41):
But you know, used to be infocus groups.
I mean, no pun intended, butyou know, you see, I mean it's a
different focus.
Uh in other words, it is not souncommon to have a synthetic
script, quote unquote, in thesense that it's based on what
the audience wants.
But Stanley Kubrick did not askwhat the audience wants.
He or she used to say, I don'tknow what I want, but I know
(19:02):
what I don't want.
So that's why you would take hewould have like infinitely many
texts and some scenes and soon, it's like famous stories.
But artist has something thatuh he can surprise he or she can
surprise us.
And that is the innate andessential ability of a human
being, of a human artist.
So all I'm arguing is rememberyou are the center of it at what
(19:25):
you do.
And yes, maybe some parts ofthe production will will be
gone, and some professions, youknow, some people lose their
job, and so on.
But there is already CGI.
It's been it's been uh here fora long time.
In other words, it alreadybecame uh a staple of movies
that some you don't do, youknow, like if we have Marvel
seed uh movies and you haveseeds, they're not they haven't
(19:47):
been shot you know on real st onreal uh in a real way, so on on
a stage, on in a studio, theyhave been shot using CGI.
So, in other words, it's notthat different, to be honest
with you.
So don't need to panic, no needto.
Worry, but on the contrary,take as a challenge.
That's what I'm trying to say.
And how it is going to play outin different professions, I
(20:07):
don't know.
But I guarantee you that someof the people perhaps they will
learn other skills where theywill still be part of the
process.
For example, it's your mindset.
If you if you start out bysaying soon this stuff will
happen which will beindistinguishable and I will
lose my job, people getdepressed and they kind of
manifest it in their own lives.
(20:28):
What I'm suggesting is adifferent approach.
A different approach.
And it sounds like a smallchange.
But just believing deeply,believing deeply that I am not a
machine, I'm not a bag ofparticles, I'm not a computer
program.
My consciousness is not limitedto this so-called brain, you
see.
But uh how can you do it?
(20:49):
Because you have uh constantlybombarded with these ideas.
And you know, interestingenough, uh a week ago we were
flying with my girlfriend, Annasitting here, so it shall not be
lie, it's true, and we werechoosing a movie, uh, and on the
plane we I watched two movies,which are about this
materialists, you may have seenit, yeah, uh by Celine Celine
(21:10):
Song.
And another one, which wasreally great, also, and I I
didn't know about it, cameacross to it by chance.
Synchronicities, by the way, isone of the elements in our
human life which kind of bringus back to the knowledge that
gee, there is something more.
So non-res non-rationalisticapproach to life, but more
holistic approach to life.
How come this movie came to meexactly the right moment?
(21:31):
It's called Thinking Game, andit's about Demis Hassabis, the
co-founder of Deep Mind.
I've been on his case for along time, to be honest with
you.
And he's a super sweet guy, bythe way.
I have never met him, but Iimagine that I have no doubt of
his pure intentions.
But in 2015, there was a famousepisode where NIH, National
(21:52):
Institute of Health of theUnited Kingdom, secretly gave
access to Deep Mind, to theirhealth data of human beings,
without notifying anybody.
And at that time, because theywere already a subsidiary of
Google, so it's essentiallyGoogle, um, I wrote a piece, uh,
an oped, which I was justrevisiting actually the last
couple of days, which isentitled Google Should Not Be
(22:14):
Allowed to Secretly Uh ObtainOur Our Health Data.
And in which I criticize this.
So Demis Hassabis is the headof this company.
And he has done amazinglywonderful stuff.
For instance, there is thisprogram they created, which is
called Alpha Fold 2, by which uhthey are able this computer
program can predict the proteinfolding just from the DNA
(22:37):
sequences.
And this can be used to curediseases, to create new uh
medical treatments, and so on,which is wonderful.
And it he deservedly got aNobel Prize with his colleague
for this in physics in 2024.
But Demis Hassabis also is onrecord, and in this movie it
showed very clearly that humanmind, human intelligence comes
(22:57):
from the brain.
And the brain is just a bunchof neurons.
So, first of all, it doesn'tcome from the brain entirely.
There is plenty of research.
I just spent time with MichaelLevin, Google him.
He was interviewed recently byLex Friedman, which, by the way,
if you follow Lex Friedman,there is an interview with me, a
three hour 45-minute interview,which you kind of allow you to
see where I'm coming from, mystory, and so on.
(23:17):
How I came to the understandingthat we are not bags of
particles, through a lot ofsuffering, quite frankly.
So, which is you know normalfor a human being.
But Demis Hassabis, the slogan,the motto of the company is
solve intelligence, solveintelligence, which, by the way,
solve life.
But but mystery of life, I'mnot the one I heard it first
(23:38):
from Alan Watts, but actuallygoes to Van der Leo, the Dutch
philosopher.
Mystery of life is not aproblem to solve.
But a mystery to experience, tolive.
You see what I mean?
But here you have a companywhose motto is solve
intelligence, solve life,because he believes genuinely
that conscience comes from thebrain.
I just spent time with MichaelLevin, who is a biologist at
(24:00):
Tuft University in Boston.
He has convincing proof thatfor animals and human beings,
consciousness also comes fromother parts of the body.
Intelligence comes from otherparts of the body.
It is a fact, it's a scientificfact.
Most people don't know about itbecause most of the megaphone
is in the hands of people likeDemis Hassabis.
So what's his logic?
And it's shown very well in amovie.
(24:21):
So here the movies are doing agood job of showing us what's
going on and showing the originof his ideas.
Conscience comes from thebrain.
The brain is just a bunch ofneurons, which by the way, there
are a lot of quantum effects inthe brain, which are not
captured by a neural network.
And then he says, but I createan artificial neural network in
machine learning.
So why can't it do the same?
And that to him is a solution.
(24:42):
He says, We have found a metasolution to all life's problems.
To me, it's just such uhmisunderstanding.
But because he has a megaphone,because he's a Nobel Prize
winner, because people listen tohim who didn't have a chance to
study computer science ormathematics the way I have, or
he had for that matter.
Which, by the way, they use avery rudimentary mathematics
from the 19th century.
(25:03):
And I say, if it can solveeverything, how come there is a
language program, there isquantum physics?
So this is all derivative from,excuse me, 19th century uh
stupid things that we quitefrankly, very elementary things
that we I teach excuses in mymultiverbal calculus course or
linear algebra course, you see.
But what is his origin?
The beauty of this film itshows the origins.
(25:25):
He was a child chess prodigy,born to immigrants.
His father from Greece, Ithink, mother from from the
Asia.
They pushed him.
And the poor boy, there have avideo, it's super cute.
He's playing these chess gamesand he hated it.
So he said, I will create amachine which will beat all the
grandmasters.
Boom.
And he did.
(25:46):
And he did, you see.
So in other words, it's a humanstory.
It's quite frankly, childhooddrama, which expresses itself
through these somewhat foolishideas, in my opinion.
But we don't talk about this.
However, in fact, Kayvan and Ihad a conversation at the stage
of uh Marched Du Film FilmMarket at Cannes Festival on a
similar topic.
But at that in thatconversation, which was six
(26:08):
months before ChatGPT wasreleased, I was we were already
talking about these dangers.
But one of the things, one ofthe points I made, actually was
called uh new new new charactersor new um in uh in um movies in
uh age of AI.
And I said, filmmakers show usthe origin, the genesis of the
(26:28):
scientists today who who tell usthat we are bags of particles
and so on.
And guess what?
My wish was answered.
This film was made released, Ithink, a few months ago, uh, the
thinking game.
Because it shows clearly, theydon't make the point as
explicitly as I am.
But I think a lot of people whowatch it they will understand
that this guy uh he he pretendsthat it's all scientific ideas,
(26:51):
but in fact, he has a deep drivewithin himself to prove
something, that he can createsomething.
It's kind of a revenge of thenerds, I call it.
You see, it's it's you knowit's a famous story, also social
uh network.
Uh Mark Zuckerberg couldn't geta date.
So he created Facebook.
Okay?
And look, I am the same way.
These are my people.
I went through the sameprocess.
(27:13):
But I was lucky that, you know,in my 40s I did connect to
those childhood traumas, and Istarted seeing things which I
didn't see before.
And you know, everybody hastheir own path and their own
journey.
One day, perhaps Demis Hassabiswill also realize what is
driving him.
Not some pure scientificprogress, but there is a little
boy sitting there who hatedgoing to these games.
(27:34):
And they showed it's reallyfascinating.
Like there was this game wherethere were like a thousand
people, and poor guy who has toplay because his parents tell
him that he should play nineyears old.
And he was fed up with it quiteclearly in this movie.
So, on the one hand, he's doinga lot of good.
There's Alpha Fold II and soon, his Nobel Prize winning
work.
But on the other hand, forexample, not being scrupulous at
(27:57):
all about receiving this datafrom the National Institute of
Health of the United Kingdom.
But what does it mean?
It means that surveillance,because they get all the
information.
They have the information aboutpeople's health, history, HIV
status, who visited whom andhospital, then they correlate
this data, and then they say,oh, gee, this capital program is
so smart, it knows so muchabout me.
Because they got your data.
(28:19):
You see?
So, but then we don't talkabout this.
So you see, twofold.
On the one hand, understandyourselves what the genesis of
all these ideas is, but also useit to create films like
thinking game.
Materialist is another onewhich is on the same topic.
Okay, I I'm no no no.
Kayvan Mashayekh (28:38):
I I'm letting you I'm it's very important, and
I I the last thing I want to dois take away what you're saying
because at the end of the day,everybody's here to listen to
your wisdom on the subjectmatter.
My my my concern is always moreon the practical aspect of
young young younger childrengrowing up in an age where
they're tethered to theirdevices, and uh they're they're
(29:01):
not listening to uh the eldersand the people who are wise and
have have this kind of uhknowledge that you have and are
willing to pass it on sopassionately and explain it to
you.
They're just disconnected withthat because everything, their
their information does not comefrom a book that from a library
that you study back in Moscowand all the way now to the
United States and becoming oneof the most talked-about,
(29:24):
well-known mathematicians in theworld.
They are getting it on theirscreen.
And there's on that screen,there's misinformation,
disinformation, whateverinformation that you said, those
data, the the those data poolsare being pushed out to get and
influence that young mind.
That's right.
And that young mind needs morepeople like yourself, but how do
(29:46):
you connect with somebody likethat?
Edward Frenkel (29:49):
Well, how did the director of this film uh I
forgot the name?
Kayvan Mashayekh (29:52):
Right.
I mean, at the end of the day,it's the it has to find an
audience.
It has to find an audience andget it out there in a way that
is going to be palatable andaccessible to somebody that's
but somebody's pushing for it.
So distributor acquire acquire.
Hang on, but this is why it'sreleased.
We're not gonna get into theissue of distributors and how
distributors uh handle stuff.
(30:13):
Because, you know, my God.
We want to keep it positive.
Yeah, let's let's keep itpositive.
I mean, this is a this is aroom that's very, very well
acquainted with the world ofdistribution and what happens
when you sell to a distributioncompany and you know doesn't
leave something to be desired onthat.
Edward Frenkel (30:30):
By the way, so the way we connected is because
he made a film about OmarKhayyam, the great Persian
mathematician and uh astronomer,which to me he is like the
original gangster of love andmass in some sense.
So I have been inspired by himtremendously because he
exemplified that union, thatbalance between logic and reason
on one side, because he wasreally one of the top uh
(30:52):
scientists, mathematicians ofthe era.
He came up with a calendar, forinstance, uh which is how he's
gonna talk about.
So he made this film because heuh is of origin and you know,
uh rooted in Persian culture andPersian tradition.
His father was a mathematician,you know, and Kayvan somehow
never got to see the the beautyof mathematics because of
(31:14):
atrocious state of our matheducation, I know.
So, in some sense, the universebrought us together, kind of.
But he had before we met, uhfive years, ten years before,
like six years ago, he made thisfilm, which is called The
Keeper, The Legend of OmarKhayyam, which by the way, he
was kind of screwed over bydistributors, so it is still not
streaming.
You still can't find it.
It's a beautiful, absolutelyincredible film.
(31:35):
You see, so what's what drovehim to do it in some sense, and
it's very deep because VanessaRedgrave is in it.
This is a really beautifulfilm.
And he's he shot it inSamarkand and Bukhara, in modern
uh Uzbekistan, which was Persiaat the time, with amazing
costumes and stage stage design,right?
So, what made you so that's anexample of you as an artist
(31:58):
coming up with this way ahead ofyour time in some sense.
So I really hope that somedistributors may be amongst you
guys.
Kayvan Mashayekh (32:04):
No, let's let's let's we'll bring it out
to the bosses.
Let's we're gonna wrap this upbecause I mean there's people I
know that have questions, and wehave only a few minutes.
Yeah.
So if you have any questions,please raise your hand.
We've got a mic ready to go.
If you have any questions foreither me or Dr.
Frenkel, yes, ma'am, rightthere.
Audience Member (32:22):
So is there any point studying maths?
Kayvan Mashayekh (32:25):
Is there any point studying maths?
Edward Frenkel (32:27):
Yes.
So it used to be, it used to bepeople said, so what I was when
I when I wrote my book, Loveand Math, this was 2013, and I
was motivated by sort of uh uhsharing my knowledge because I
saw how misinformed people are.
And so the the I opened thebook by saying, Imagine you had
an art class in which you theywere you were only taught how to
(32:49):
paint fences and walls, and youwere convinced that that's all
there is to art.
You never seen the beautifulpaintings by Picasso and
Leonardo da Vinci and Van Gogh.
Of course, you would say art isboring.
And if I need to uh paint myfence, I'll just hire somebody.
That was the attitude towardsmathematics.
I'm happy to say that in themeantime, and I'm not saying it
(33:09):
wasn't just my influence, otherpeople around the same time,
also start writing books,popular books, and so on.
And now there is a newgeneration of young
mathematicians who are lesslikely to be sort of um that guy
in the corner of a cafe, but uhwho go out in the public and
who talk about it and thenthemselves are cool.
They're DJs and whatnot, youknow, which by the way, I became
(33:29):
a DJ too.
Influenced by Anna here.
But um, you know, in otherwords, there is a process.
But now I I'm when I'minterviewed, nobody's asking me
why mathematics is importantbecause people understand that
mathematics is at the root.
So, yes, it's good to study.
So, for instance, check out mybook.
I also have uh uh a YouTubeseries which is called the
(33:50):
Aftermath.
You know, so it's like love andmath, and now it's aftermath.
Uh videos for the generalaudience on my on my YouTube
channel, which is at Frankel.
Uh, you find easily on YouTube.
So the three episodes are out,and I talk about the nature of
mathematics and archetypalnature of mathematics.
We learn mathematics not fromoutside world, but from our
inner worlds.
So that's another way.
Kayvan Mashayekh (34:09):
So let's uh we gotta wrap this up really
quickly because um we're veryshort on time and we're very
strict on this.
So I want to know what yourthree takeaways.
What do you what are the threethings you want this audience to
walk away with today after thisvery, very lengthy and deep
discussion?
Three, give it to me now.
Yes.
Edward Frenkel (34:26):
It goes by the numbers, by the way.
Look, you say why mathematicsis important.
Three takeaways.
Three takeaways.
Nice.
So number one.
Number one, okay, so numberone, think deep about what you
can bring to the table in whatwhatever you do in film
production that is not yet umsusceptible, so to speak, to
(34:48):
this language language modelsand so on.
For instance, virtual reality,you know, I'm thinking.
Eventually we'll be creatingthree-dimensional movies.
So the ChatGPT will be behindbecause still do it
two-dimensional, but we will dothree-dimensional.
So think about it and thinkbig, kind of, you know, so just
brainstorm, perhaps with yourcolleagues.
That's number one.
Number two, cultivate arelationship with someone in IT
(35:12):
who is an expert.
So I have a friend, LaurentFabre, he knows him, who is my
go-to guy to find out what'swhat, which programs are
interesting, which are not, whatthey're capable of do, what is
bullshit, what is less bullshit.
I know my own understandingmore from mathematics, but he's
a computer scientist parexcellence.
And so he's my friend.
So cultivate friendship withsomeone who is knowledgeable, or
(35:33):
hire someone in yourorganization who will help you
sort things out.
Because be aware that there isa lot of misinformation just
outside.
But people in the know theyknow.
And if you cultivate therelationship with someone, this
will help you to see things inthe right light.
And number three, uh, this iskind of difficult to explain,
but the point I was trying tomake earlier, I would like to
(35:54):
kind of double down on it.
If you or I don't have a rightunderstanding of our true
nature, of what it means to behuman, we are more likely to
succumb to these fears or tosuccumb to misinformation.
So maybe take a meditation coreclass or any practice which
will ground you more in yourspiritual essence, in your
(36:15):
spiritual being.
It is not new age stuff at all.
It is real.
And it's been through withhuman beings.
Carl Jung talked about as atranscendental function or as an
irrational sort of impulse of ahuman being, a search for God.
And God is an overused term, solet's call it the universe or
the universal consciousness oruniversal cosmic consciousness
(36:36):
or something.
It doesn't matter, whicheverterm is um good for you.
But don't deny yourself thatability.
And I know most of you arealready there, so I'm preaching
to the choir in a sense.
But today we pushed, we are inthis there's this imbalance,
there's this idea thateverything can be rationally
explained.
No, there can't be.
There is intuition, there isimagination, there is a calling,
(36:57):
higher calling.
Reconnect to that or cultivatethat connection.
That is essential.
That's my third takeaway.
What are your three takeaways?
Kayvan Mashayekh (37:05):
Well, my three takeaways are we're running out
of time, but I will give it toyou how I think about it.
The reason why we're here todayis because of that exact thing
that Dr.
Frenkel is talking about.
We met 15 years ago in a veryserendipitous way on my father's
birthday in Paris.
It was very, very strange andwent to a restaurant called Del
Papa where we started.
Which he picked, but he's doingout so a few years later, it
(37:31):
comes down to one thing.
Build your network, number one,build your network of human
connectivity.
That's the most importantthing.
Make sure the foundation of thenetwork that you create with
other humans has authenticity,integrity, and loyalty behind
it.
And number three, don't ever,ever give up on your dreams and
don't let ever, ever letanybody's negativity become your
reality.
(37:51):
Those are my three spots.
Edward Frenkel (37:53):
And by the way, he is the founder of a network.
He's talking about humannetwork, Producers Without
Borders.
And I love that because withoutborders, we are limitless for
who we are.
So don't impose borders.
These are all self-imposedlimitations.
So without borders, doeverything you do without
borders, without limits.
Kayvan Mashayekh (38:12):
That is correct, Dr.
Frenkel.
And and what what what what thefinal finishing thought about
all this is the fact that everyone of you in this room is a
supercomputer within yourselves.
You have incredible networks,you have incredible abilities,
you have incredible skills,gifts, and knowledge.
Some untapped, yes.
Some are untapped.
So please make sure that youyou don't give up on yourselves.
(38:35):
That's the number one thing.
Because there's a lot of timeswhere you feel overwhelmed and
you feel like there's nobodylistening to you.
Reach out to your friends,reach out to your network, and
be the best person you can.
And with that, we are gonnawrap this session of Producers
Without Borders and Focus LondonShow.
Thank you very much.
Producers Without Borders welcomes you to
our final broadcast of 2025.
Hi, my name is KayvanMashayekh, and I'm the founder
of PWB.
The following discussion wasrecorded during the Focused Film
Production and LocationsConference in London, England
between myself andworld-renowned UC Berkeley
Professor of Mathematics, Dr.
Edward Frenkel.
(00:22):
The subject matter is thehottest topic enveloping the
world of creativity and thesubsequent reverberations it has
caused as we rapidly shift intoa world of uncertainty and
anxiety as to what it all meansto us as sentient beings.
Will human intelligence ever beovertaken by generative
artificial intelligence?
Let's dive right in to unlockfact from fiction as we embark
(00:45):
on this journey together.
Dr.
Frenkel, just um I'd like foryou to take us out into this
world of this hidden reality ofthe human intelligence versus
artificial intelligence.
The floor is yours.
Thank you.
Edward Frenkel (01:00):
Kayvan and I have known each other for many
years.
I am no stranger to filmproduction myself.
I made a short film uh in 2009in Paris with uh French film
director Reine Graves, which iscalled Rights of Love and Math.
Rights uh R-I-T-E-S, likerituals of love and math.
(01:20):
It's a homage to a film, ashort film by Yukio Mishima, a
great Japanese author who madeactually a short film based on
one of his short stories.
And uh it's kind of a crazything we did.
It was silent with Wagner'sTristan und Isolde old playing.
Um we followed Mishima'saesthetics on the on a set on a
(01:40):
stage of an old theater, and Iplayed the main character as
well.
So I kind of tried, you know,tried being an actor and a and a
and a director and uh uh scriptwriter, and I observed also all
the people, great people, youknow, the the director of
photography, the lightingpeople, and so on, because it's
(02:01):
kind of like serious production.
Um the film is availableonline, so you can find it by by
just going to my website,edwardfrenkel.com.
But I just want to say, so I Itried it and I kind of realized
that you know it's it's muchharder, it was much harder than
I thought.
But I did have a glimpse, andit's 2009, so it was still we
used uh an analog camera, so itdidn't use an HD cam actually.
(02:23):
Um it was just before thedigital cameras became widely
available.
So that gives me a littleperspective because I understand
this conference is more aboutwith people who are actually
involved in day-to-dayproduction, film production,
right?
So um I have been thinking alot about the advent of AI and
the accelerating pace at whichartificial intelligence uh
(02:47):
invades our lives, really, anddetermines a lot of things about
ourselves, whether we are awareof it or not.
And uh I have spoken about thisuh publicly for many years.
Actually, first time in 2014, Iwas already talking about the
dangers of AI, not AI itself,but dangers of our misperception
(03:07):
of our relationship to this newtechnology.
Of course, since then it has uhadvanced tremendously, and
especially in the last threeyears, uh since the advent of
ChatGPT.
And I've been using it myself,and I have observed my friends
using it, and I see howsometimes people have a wrong
(03:28):
understanding of what it is.
And it's almost on the onehand, there is this desire to
relinquish our authority and ouragency as human beings, and on
the other side, closely tied toit, a fear of this new
technology.
A fear on a basic level of whatif this thing will take my job?
What am I gonna do?
Or the fear of how thesecomputers will kill us or
(03:51):
something, you know.
So I see my job as someone whohad a proper education in
mathematics, in computerscience, who has really looked
under the hood, if you will, ofthis new technology.
I see my job in is in uh inspreading this knowledge, in
sharing my knowledge, and alsodebunking some of the things
(04:13):
that I see and hear on the youknow in various conversations
with some of my colleagues who,quite frankly, have a very wrong
understanding of what it is, byvirtue of their own, how should
we say, incomplete spiritual upbringing.
And I know because these are mypeople, these are my brothers
and sisters, and I have gonethrough this process myself.
(04:33):
I was one who was tempted tosay it uh it's all it can also
all be um machines can be justas intelligent as humans.
We are ourselves littlemachines, we are ourselves bags
of particles, or packs ofneurons, or sequences of zeros
and ones.
So now there is here's aprogram which is a sequence of
zeros and ones.
Well, it can be much morepowerful than me.
(04:56):
So, and it will overpower me,and so on.
And so my job is to saybullshit to this, you know,
quite frankly, because I knowmathematical theorems which
prove that these computerprograms do lack understanding
at the level at we at which wehumans have understanding, or
compassion for that matter.
They're built to imitate usbased on the knowledge humanity
(05:22):
has acquired in thousands ofyears.
And that's I'm not sayinganything controversial.
We know how large languagemodels work.
They simply absorb all thecorpus of human knowledge
through text, but now so nowalso through videos and so on,
created by humans through oursweat and blood.
Kayvan Mashayekh (05:42):
All right, that's gonna stop you right
there.
Edward Frenkel (05:44):
So yes, you know, the the these things that
you're talking about.
So they correlate, just tofinish this, they correlate,
they find patterns in this data,they correlate.
And and then they produce newwords, new tokens from the which
are more likely amongst all thestuff that humans have created.
So, in what sense can we saythat they are actually creating
something?
Right.
Kayvan Mashayekh (06:04):
But let's let's not basically not rooted
in our knowledge.
Let me let me stop you rightthere.
Like so the these things thathave been created um uh by um
mathematicians and and very,very smart people, the this
generative AI that's beencreated, um, it is now a tool
for the person who, for manyyears, was probably in a
basement and was told thatthey're not creative enough,
(06:25):
they're not smart enough, theydon't they don't have the right
tools, they don't have anymoney, nobody reads their
script, nobody can understandtheir vision of doing things.
So they created this worldthrough these algorithms where
you can text something and allof a sudden that image can
appear.
And that story can be just asclunky as a human-made story,
uh, where human intelligence wasbehind the creative and entire
creative process.
(06:46):
So now they're they're usingthese tools as a way to amplify
their own voices, to get theirstories out there in a way
that's a lot more efficient, alot more uh uh uh how do I say
it?
A lot less expensive for themto get their thoughts out there,
to get their own audience andto create.
Edward Frenkel (07:03):
It's a great accelerator.
It is a great accelerator.
It's a great tool.
But see, that's the rightattitude, what you're just
saying.
However, attitude as a tool,right?
As something that enhances ourabilities, as something that we
can also use as a catalyst, as achallenge.
Uh to ask ourselves what do Ibring to the table?
What can I do that ChatGPTcannot do yet?
(07:24):
Or an AI system.
And the good analogy for me isthe invention of camera in the
19th century.
Because up until then, a bigpart of the uh process of an
artist, a visual artist, was torender things realistically,
right?
So uh portraits, landscapes,and so on.
So suddenly, boom, there is acamera which can do it more
(07:45):
realistically than you can.
So, what did artists do?
Did they say our job isfinished, we are done, this
thing came and will take over?
No.
They realized that they couldactually pursue other venues of
connecting to the viewer, ofexpressing themselves.
Art became visual art, itbecame more about the inner
(08:07):
world of the artist or theviewer.
You got impressionism,post-impressionism, abstract
art, surrealism, cubism,dadaism, and so on, right?
So that's I envision um theadvent of artificial
intelligence in cinemaproduction as this as something
that has similar and perhapsmuch bigger possibilities.
If only we approach it with theright attitude, the way artists
(08:31):
did in the 19th century, early20th century, you see, where you
say, okay, good, I take it as achallenge.
I want this will help us.
First of all, it will free usup from doing some of the things
which were time-consuming anduh resource-consuming, right?
But at the same time, we'llcome up with something, boom,
which we couldn't even think ofbefore, because we didn't have
(08:52):
to.
Because it's the nature ofhuman to be sort of like uh
allow ourselves complacency andbe lazy and just keep going day
to day.
Because you know, some peoplesay, Oh, but now people are
afraid that what's going tohappen with my job, and so on.
Kayvan Mashayekh (09:06):
Yeah, but I mean that's a real reality
because when when you're workinguh uh and you're seeing in the
world of production, things aregetting um, so to speak, more
efficient.
So a lot of people are losingtheir jobs in in a in a craft
and a skill that they'vedeveloped because of the
knowledge that they've acquiredall throughout those years to
get to that certain point wherethey are having that unique
voice that you're talking about.
And some jobs, I'm sorry tosay, will be lost.
(09:29):
And that's a natural process ofevolution.
So so but but what I'm what I'mtrying to get at is there is a
human cost to all of this.
Absolutely.
That creativity, thatadvancement.
But that's normal, it hasalways been happening.
It is normal.
It's not something unusual.
Dr.
Franklin, what I'm what I'mtrying to say is there's always
a counterargument to all this,and I know you're aware of this.
All I'm trying to let you knowis there's a panoply of
(09:52):
different things that come outof this.
There's also think about themental health issues that come
out of it.
How it affects you if you loseyour job to a machine.
And you don't you you feelhelpless.
You feel like, where do I go?
How do I start?
I'm I'm over the age of 35, andI have to learn a new skill,
and I have to apply a new thing,and I don't know how to do it
because these digital natives,these kids, these teenagers,
(10:13):
have 10 times the knowledge thatI have.
And that that's what the worldneeds because you know they're
they're growing up on a verticaluh screen, and they're growing
up on stuff that's on YouTubeand and TikTok, and I'm
competing against that.
So there is that argument alsowhere that that fear, that human
fear of uncertainty is a realhuman feeling.
(10:33):
And so though those that thecreatives that uh the creativity
of the human mind and itsability to do all that stuff, as
these LLMs are being fed.
For example, somebody like you.
You're you're the way I am inthe same boat.
I know we're all in the sameboat.
Edward Frenkel (10:48):
People say soon mathematicians will not be
important.
Right.
So I will lose my job too.
I have I can have the samefear.
Now, the difference is I amgrounded in knowing who I am.
And in part because I have hadthe privilege of having a good
education where I learn Gdel'sincompleteness theorem, Tarski
and definability theory, and soon, which enables me to see that
(11:10):
these machines are not humans.
The computer programs aretools, they do not have their
own inherent understanding.
Because I know that I am not abag of particles.
I know that from my study ofquantum physics.
But you also realize I knowthat I'm not a sequence of zeros
and ones.
So I am here to share this withyou because, quite frankly,
we've been indoctrinated in oursociety by these absolute ideas
(11:33):
of determinism.
Gee, I have no free willbecause it's my neurons.
My consciousness comes from mybrain, and I'm well educated in
that area as well, and I'm hereto say that is not true.
So I think that the rightattitude, but the right attitude
comes from knowing who I am.
So it's it might sound weirdthat the mathematician here is
preaching some sort of, and youmay think, some kind of new agey
(11:55):
stuff.
But I think it is essentialbecause we have gotten to the
point that if you believe you'rea bag of particles, if you
believe that you're just acomputer program, just like this
computer program that you workwith, like Chat GPT, you're
done, you're cooked.
I'm sorry.
You have to up your game alsoin terms of your spiritual
grounding, scientific groundingand spiritual grounding.
(12:17):
And who else to preach it tothan to film people?
Because on the one hand, youmay be afraid and you may be
worried about your job and soon.
But guess what?
The world at right at large isalso worried.
But you have a big function toshow us movies which will
inspire us, which will help usto see who we are.
So if you yourself have a wrongunderstanding of it, what do we
(12:40):
expect from you?
You're failing at your job.
So I'm a messenger here toremind you of who you are, not
to succumb to fear.
You see what I mean?
I'm sorry.
Maybe I get too passionateabout it.
I know it sounds strange, amathematician tells you this.
You are supposed to tell methis.
No.
You see what I mean?
But and many of you do, andmost of you do.
(13:02):
That's why you're here, by theway.
Thank you for coming.
Kayvan Mashayekh (13:04):
Well, by the way, we're all human beings, so
I I it's not that we don'tappreciate what you're saying
and not understand what you'resaying.
What I'm trying to um get to isthe other side of the fence, so
to speak.
There's a psychology behind allof this, and that psychology of
fear is a real tangible thingfor many, many people because it
makes them act in a certain waythat's inconsistent to the
(13:24):
things that they were taught,like yourself, up to up to a
certain point in their life.
And and what I'm trying to getat is how do we overcome these
things in a way where they feellike that is really that it is
not going to be something that'sgoing to replace them, but it
is an additive tool thatenhances their ability to be
creative.
And then comes another issue.
(13:46):
At some point it becomesdilutive.
All this content that's createdthat's what 100% human-made is
going to be diluted with stuffthat's machine-made.
And then it's going to be halfand half.
And our cerebral cortex, Dr.
Frenkel, will not be able toascertain the difference between
what is real and what is notreal.
And that dilutive nature, andthat dilutive nature, allow me
(14:07):
for one minute to speak, is itwill reach a point, it will
reach a point where I think itwill be uh there will be a point
where you can't you cannot uhyou cannot feel what's real
anymore.
You can try to but it's butwhat and then we are all
(14:28):
advancing in age.
Because if you believe that tobe the case, we'll be the case
to you.
I understand that, but we'reup, we're all advancing in age
as a human.
Don't speak for yourself.
Yeah, maybe maybe you're you'rethis is an AI that I'm speaking
of to right now.
Maybe he's not even the realI'm talking to uh Edward AI.
(14:50):
So but but the great thing isthat all of it because all of
all of all this information, bythe way, that we're talking
about right now, is you knowbeing recorded at some point and
being fed into an LLM.
So the there's pe there'sthere's phones, there's all
these ways of recording data andand and capturing that data and
monetizing that data for thefuture.
I do not agree, I do notdisagree with anything you're
(15:13):
saying.
What I'm trying to do is findthis medium, how we are going to
inspire So let's be practical.
But we you can be practicalabout it, and as long as you
were saying to me, as long asthere's a human in charge of
this.
Human at the helm.
That's right.
Edward Frenkel (15:27):
Artist at the center.
And when I say artist, I meanevery side of film production,
starting with the screenplay andthe directing, and but the
lighting and all the stuff,because obviously lighting
people are especially worriednow, or people who uh make the
decor and the stage productionand the costumes.
Because now there is a fearthat, oh gee, we can now have
like 30-second videos which lookalmost, you know, like you
(15:50):
said, um no different fromhuman-made films.
And so who knows, maybe in twoyears there will be a two-hour
movie, which is like that.
But on the other hand, don'tyou notice that people now also
there is a positive oppositepush to analog.
There are more people who wantto go and experience live music
in a bar or in a in a in aconcert hall.
There are people who are buyingflip phones, excuse me, from 20
(16:12):
years ago.
Why is that?
It's because intuitively all ofus know that when it's computer
made, it's just some syntheticelement to it.
It is sort of a commondenominator in a sense.
Uh it's it's oh, I've seen thatbefore.
We get amazed that it looks sorealistic, but deep down we also
recognize that we've seen itbefore.
So remember, I'll give you oneexample.
(16:34):
Uh Stanley Kubrick, you know,and I'm friends with Kubrick's
family through my film.
And um Barry Linden, okay,there's a famous movie in which
he took pride in filming it incandlelight.
So he had to have a huge lensuh to be able to do it.
But uh people can say now,okay, but now can't you do can't
(16:55):
you feed it into the LLM and itwill produce something similar?
Yes, but it's not the same asas what it happened when you
watched the real movie,especially it was revolutionary
at the time.
But even today, people stillwant to go and watch this,
right?
So there is something, there issome ability, some uh innate
ability of a human to be able todiscern it, perhaps
unconsciously.
(17:15):
So I'm not so worried.
In other words, I'm I'm I'm notdisagreeing with you that
superficially these new thingswill look similar.
By the way, the scripts whichthey produce, uh they see, I I
am tempted to call it they, butand it's common for human beings
to uh it's calledanthropomorphizing.
(17:35):
I have a friend who feels thatthe vacuum cleaner, which kind
of runs around, you know, whenshe enters the apartment uh of
the friend, and a vacuum cleanercomes up to her because it has
sensors, you know, and it'slike, oh hello, how are you?
That's normal, you see, butstill, intuitively, you know
it's not a cat or a dog.
You see, so in other words, Iagree with you that it be
(17:58):
superficially it's similar.
But on the other hand, thisalso may perhaps we will
discover within ourselves an umuh hidden up to now ability to
actually discern the differencebetween a vacuum cleaner, uh
intelligent vacuum cleaner andan intelligent animal, you see,
which we don't know yet.
So don't give up so quickly,don't uh uh assume it as an
(18:20):
axiom that gee, it will lookindistinguishable.
I I argue opposite.
It looks indistinguishable atfirst glance.
But eventually withproliferation of these videos
and so on, we'll be so fed upwith it, we will know.
It's it's the same today.
Uh sometimes you have actuallysome movies which are produced
not necessarily entirely, thescript is produced.
(18:41):
But you know, used to be infocus groups.
I mean, no pun intended, butyou know, you see, I mean it's a
different focus.
Uh in other words, it is not souncommon to have a synthetic
script, quote unquote, in thesense that it's based on what
the audience wants.
But Stanley Kubrick did not askwhat the audience wants.
He or she used to say, I don'tknow what I want, but I know
(19:02):
what I don't want.
So that's why you would take hewould have like infinitely many
texts and some scenes and soon, it's like famous stories.
But artist has something thatuh he can surprise he or she can
surprise us.
And that is the innate andessential ability of a human
being, of a human artist.
So all I'm arguing is rememberyou are the center of it at what
(19:25):
you do.
And yes, maybe some parts ofthe production will will be
gone, and some professions, youknow, some people lose their
job, and so on.
But there is already CGI.
It's been it's been uh here fora long time.
In other words, it alreadybecame uh a staple of movies
that some you don't do, youknow, like if we have Marvel
seed uh movies and you haveseeds, they're not they haven't
(19:47):
been shot you know on real st onreal uh in a real way, so on on
a stage, on in a studio, theyhave been shot using CGI.
So, in other words, it's notthat different, to be honest
with you.
So don't need to panic, no needto.
Worry, but on the contrary,take as a challenge.
That's what I'm trying to say.
And how it is going to play outin different professions, I
(20:07):
don't know.
But I guarantee you that someof the people perhaps they will
learn other skills where theywill still be part of the
process.
For example, it's your mindset.
If you if you start out bysaying soon this stuff will
happen which will beindistinguishable and I will
lose my job, people getdepressed and they kind of
manifest it in their own lives.
(20:28):
What I'm suggesting is adifferent approach.
A different approach.
And it sounds like a smallchange.
But just believing deeply,believing deeply that I am not a
machine, I'm not a bag ofparticles, I'm not a computer
program.
My consciousness is not limitedto this so-called brain, you
see.
But uh how can you do it?
(20:49):
Because you have uh constantlybombarded with these ideas.
And you know, interestingenough, uh a week ago we were
flying with my girlfriend, Annasitting here, so it shall not be
lie, it's true, and we werechoosing a movie, uh, and on the
plane we I watched two movies,which are about this
materialists, you may have seenit, yeah, uh by Celine Celine
(21:10):
Song.
And another one, which wasreally great, also, and I I
didn't know about it, cameacross to it by chance.
Synchronicities, by the way, isone of the elements in our
human life which kind of bringus back to the knowledge that
gee, there is something more.
So non-res non-rationalisticapproach to life, but more
holistic approach to life.
How come this movie came to meexactly the right moment?
(21:31):
It's called Thinking Game, andit's about Demis Hassabis, the
co-founder of Deep Mind.
I've been on his case for along time, to be honest with
you.
And he's a super sweet guy, bythe way.
I have never met him, but Iimagine that I have no doubt of
his pure intentions.
But in 2015, there was a famousepisode where NIH, National
(21:52):
Institute of Health of theUnited Kingdom, secretly gave
access to Deep Mind, to theirhealth data of human beings,
without notifying anybody.
And at that time, because theywere already a subsidiary of
Google, so it's essentiallyGoogle, um, I wrote a piece, uh,
an oped, which I was justrevisiting actually the last
couple of days, which isentitled Google Should Not Be
(22:14):
Allowed to Secretly Uh ObtainOur Our Health Data.
And in which I criticize this.
So Demis Hassabis is the headof this company.
And he has done amazinglywonderful stuff.
For instance, there is thisprogram they created, which is
called Alpha Fold 2, by which uhthey are able this computer
program can predict the proteinfolding just from the DNA
(22:37):
sequences.
And this can be used to curediseases, to create new uh
medical treatments, and so on,which is wonderful.
And it he deservedly got aNobel Prize with his colleague
for this in physics in 2024.
But Demis Hassabis also is onrecord, and in this movie it
showed very clearly that humanmind, human intelligence comes
(22:57):
from the brain.
And the brain is just a bunchof neurons.
So, first of all, it doesn'tcome from the brain entirely.
There is plenty of research.
I just spent time with MichaelLevin, Google him.
He was interviewed recently byLex Friedman, which, by the way,
if you follow Lex Friedman,there is an interview with me, a
three hour 45-minute interview,which you kind of allow you to
see where I'm coming from, mystory, and so on.
(23:17):
How I came to the understandingthat we are not bags of
particles, through a lot ofsuffering, quite frankly.
So, which is you know normalfor a human being.
But Demis Hassabis, the slogan,the motto of the company is
solve intelligence, solveintelligence, which, by the way,
solve life.
But but mystery of life, I'mnot the one I heard it first
(23:38):
from Alan Watts, but actuallygoes to Van der Leo, the Dutch
philosopher.
Mystery of life is not aproblem to solve.
But a mystery to experience, tolive.
You see what I mean?
But here you have a companywhose motto is solve
intelligence, solve life,because he believes genuinely
that conscience comes from thebrain.
I just spent time with MichaelLevin, who is a biologist at
(24:00):
Tuft University in Boston.
He has convincing proof thatfor animals and human beings,
consciousness also comes fromother parts of the body.
Intelligence comes from otherparts of the body.
It is a fact, it's a scientificfact.
Most people don't know about itbecause most of the megaphone
is in the hands of people likeDemis Hassabis.
So what's his logic?
And it's shown very well in amovie.
(24:21):
So here the movies are doing agood job of showing us what's
going on and showing the originof his ideas.
Conscience comes from thebrain.
The brain is just a bunch ofneurons, which by the way, there
are a lot of quantum effects inthe brain, which are not
captured by a neural network.
And then he says, but I createan artificial neural network in
machine learning.
So why can't it do the same?
And that to him is a solution.
(24:42):
He says, We have found a metasolution to all life's problems.
To me, it's just such uhmisunderstanding.
But because he has a megaphone,because he's a Nobel Prize
winner, because people listen tohim who didn't have a chance to
study computer science ormathematics the way I have, or
he had for that matter.
Which, by the way, they use avery rudimentary mathematics
from the 19th century.
(25:03):
And I say, if it can solveeverything, how come there is a
language program, there isquantum physics?
So this is all derivative from,excuse me, 19th century uh
stupid things that we quitefrankly, very elementary things
that we I teach excuses in mymultiverbal calculus course or
linear algebra course, you see.
But what is his origin?
The beauty of this film itshows the origins.
(25:25):
He was a child chess prodigy,born to immigrants.
His father from Greece, Ithink, mother from from the
Asia.
They pushed him.
And the poor boy, there have avideo, it's super cute.
He's playing these chess gamesand he hated it.
So he said, I will create amachine which will beat all the
grandmasters.
Boom.
And he did.
(25:46):
And he did, you see.
So in other words, it's a humanstory.
It's quite frankly, childhooddrama, which expresses itself
through these somewhat foolishideas, in my opinion.
But we don't talk about this.
However, in fact, Kayvan and Ihad a conversation at the stage
of uh Marched Du Film FilmMarket at Cannes Festival on a
similar topic.
But at that in thatconversation, which was six
(26:08):
months before ChatGPT wasreleased, I was we were already
talking about these dangers.
But one of the things, one ofthe points I made, actually was
called uh new new new charactersor new um in uh in um movies in
uh age of AI.
And I said, filmmakers show usthe origin, the genesis of the
(26:28):
scientists today who who tell usthat we are bags of particles
and so on.
And guess what?
My wish was answered.
This film was made released, Ithink, a few months ago, uh, the
thinking game.
Because it shows clearly, theydon't make the point as
explicitly as I am.
But I think a lot of people whowatch it they will understand
that this guy uh he he pretendsthat it's all scientific ideas,
(26:51):
but in fact, he has a deep drivewithin himself to prove
something, that he can createsomething.
It's kind of a revenge of thenerds, I call it.
You see, it's it's you knowit's a famous story, also social
uh network.
Uh Mark Zuckerberg couldn't geta date.
So he created Facebook.
Okay?
And look, I am the same way.
These are my people.
I went through the sameprocess.
(27:13):
But I was lucky that, you know,in my 40s I did connect to
those childhood traumas, and Istarted seeing things which I
didn't see before.
And you know, everybody hastheir own path and their own
journey.
One day, perhaps Demis Hassabiswill also realize what is
driving him.
Not some pure scientificprogress, but there is a little
boy sitting there who hatedgoing to these games.
(27:34):
And they showed it's reallyfascinating.
Like there was this game wherethere were like a thousand
people, and poor guy who has toplay because his parents tell
him that he should play nineyears old.
And he was fed up with it quiteclearly in this movie.
So, on the one hand, he's doinga lot of good.
There's Alpha Fold II and soon, his Nobel Prize winning
work.
But on the other hand, forexample, not being scrupulous at
(27:57):
all about receiving this datafrom the National Institute of
Health of the United Kingdom.
But what does it mean?
It means that surveillance,because they get all the
information.
They have the information aboutpeople's health, history, HIV
status, who visited whom andhospital, then they correlate
this data, and then they say,oh, gee, this capital program is
so smart, it knows so muchabout me.
Because they got your data.
(28:19):
You see?
So, but then we don't talkabout this.
So you see, twofold.
On the one hand, understandyourselves what the genesis of
all these ideas is, but also useit to create films like
thinking game.
Materialist is another onewhich is on the same topic.
Okay, I I'm no no no.
Kayvan Mashayekh (28:38):
I I'm letting you I'm it's very important, and
I I the last thing I want to dois take away what you're saying
because at the end of the day,everybody's here to listen to
your wisdom on the subjectmatter.
My my my concern is always moreon the practical aspect of
young young younger childrengrowing up in an age where
they're tethered to theirdevices, and uh they're they're
(29:01):
not listening to uh the eldersand the people who are wise and
have have this kind of uhknowledge that you have and are
willing to pass it on sopassionately and explain it to
you.
They're just disconnected withthat because everything, their
their information does not comefrom a book that from a library
that you study back in Moscowand all the way now to the
United States and becoming oneof the most talked-about,
(29:24):
well-known mathematicians in theworld.
They are getting it on theirscreen.
And there's on that screen,there's misinformation,
disinformation, whateverinformation that you said, those
data, the the those data poolsare being pushed out to get and
influence that young mind.
That's right.
And that young mind needs morepeople like yourself, but how do
(29:46):
you connect with somebody likethat?
Edward Frenkel (29:49):
Well, how did the director of this film uh I
forgot the name?
Kayvan Mashayekh (29:52):
Right.
I mean, at the end of the day,it's the it has to find an
audience.
It has to find an audience andget it out there in a way that
is going to be palatable andaccessible to somebody that's
but somebody's pushing for it.
So distributor acquire acquire.
Hang on, but this is why it'sreleased.
We're not gonna get into theissue of distributors and how
distributors uh handle stuff.
(30:13):
Because, you know, my God.
We want to keep it positive.
Yeah, let's let's keep itpositive.
I mean, this is a this is aroom that's very, very well
acquainted with the world ofdistribution and what happens
when you sell to a distributioncompany and you know doesn't
leave something to be desired onthat.
Edward Frenkel (30:30):
By the way, so the way we connected is because
he made a film about OmarKhayyam, the great Persian
mathematician and uh astronomer,which to me he is like the
original gangster of love andmass in some sense.
So I have been inspired by himtremendously because he
exemplified that union, thatbalance between logic and reason
on one side, because he wasreally one of the top uh
(30:52):
scientists, mathematicians ofthe era.
He came up with a calendar, forinstance, uh which is how he's
gonna talk about.
So he made this film because heuh is of origin and you know,
uh rooted in Persian culture andPersian tradition.
His father was a mathematician,you know, and Kayvan somehow
never got to see the the beautyof mathematics because of
(31:14):
atrocious state of our matheducation, I know.
So, in some sense, the universebrought us together, kind of.
But he had before we met, uhfive years, ten years before,
like six years ago, he made thisfilm, which is called The
Keeper, The Legend of OmarKhayyam, which by the way, he
was kind of screwed over bydistributors, so it is still not
streaming.
You still can't find it.
It's a beautiful, absolutelyincredible film.
(31:35):
You see, so what's what drovehim to do it in some sense, and
it's very deep because VanessaRedgrave is in it.
This is a really beautifulfilm.
And he's he shot it inSamarkand and Bukhara, in modern
uh Uzbekistan, which was Persiaat the time, with amazing
costumes and stage stage design,right?
So, what made you so that's anexample of you as an artist
(31:58):
coming up with this way ahead ofyour time in some sense.
So I really hope that somedistributors may be amongst you
guys.
Kayvan Mashayekh (32:04):
No, let's let's let's we'll bring it out
to the bosses.
Let's we're gonna wrap this upbecause I mean there's people I
know that have questions, and wehave only a few minutes.
Yeah.
So if you have any questions,please raise your hand.
We've got a mic ready to go.
If you have any questions foreither me or Dr.
Frenkel, yes, ma'am, rightthere.
Audience Member (32:22):
So is there any point studying maths?
Kayvan Mashayekh (32:25):
Is there any point studying maths?
Edward Frenkel (32:27):
Yes.
So it used to be, it used to bepeople said, so what I was when
I when I wrote my book, Loveand Math, this was 2013, and I
was motivated by sort of uh uhsharing my knowledge because I
saw how misinformed people are.
And so the the I opened thebook by saying, Imagine you had
an art class in which you theywere you were only taught how to
(32:49):
paint fences and walls, and youwere convinced that that's all
there is to art.
You never seen the beautifulpaintings by Picasso and
Leonardo da Vinci and Van Gogh.
Of course, you would say art isboring.
And if I need to uh paint myfence, I'll just hire somebody.
That was the attitude towardsmathematics.
I'm happy to say that in themeantime, and I'm not saying it
(33:09):
wasn't just my influence, otherpeople around the same time,
also start writing books,popular books, and so on.
And now there is a newgeneration of young
mathematicians who are lesslikely to be sort of um that guy
in the corner of a cafe, but uhwho go out in the public and
who talk about it and thenthemselves are cool.
They're DJs and whatnot, youknow, which by the way, I became
(33:29):
a DJ too.
Influenced by Anna here.
But um, you know, in otherwords, there is a process.
But now I I'm when I'minterviewed, nobody's asking me
why mathematics is importantbecause people understand that
mathematics is at the root.
So, yes, it's good to study.
So, for instance, check out mybook.
I also have uh uh a YouTubeseries which is called the
(33:50):
Aftermath.
You know, so it's like love andmath, and now it's aftermath.
Uh videos for the generalaudience on my on my YouTube
channel, which is at Frankel.
Uh, you find easily on YouTube.
So the three episodes are out,and I talk about the nature of
mathematics and archetypalnature of mathematics.
We learn mathematics not fromoutside world, but from our
inner worlds.
So that's another way.
Kayvan Mashayekh (34:09):
So let's uh we gotta wrap this up really
quickly because um we're veryshort on time and we're very
strict on this.
So I want to know what yourthree takeaways.
What do you what are the threethings you want this audience to
walk away with today after thisvery, very lengthy and deep
discussion?
Three, give it to me now.
Yes.
Edward Frenkel (34:26):
It goes by the numbers, by the way.
Look, you say why mathematicsis important.
Three takeaways.
Three takeaways.
Nice.
So number one.
Number one, okay, so numberone, think deep about what you
can bring to the table in whatwhatever you do in film
production that is not yet umsusceptible, so to speak, to
(34:48):
this language language modelsand so on.
For instance, virtual reality,you know, I'm thinking.
Eventually we'll be creatingthree-dimensional movies.
So the ChatGPT will be behindbecause still do it
two-dimensional, but we will dothree-dimensional.
So think about it and thinkbig, kind of, you know, so just
brainstorm, perhaps with yourcolleagues.
That's number one.
Number two, cultivate arelationship with someone in IT
(35:12):
who is an expert.
So I have a friend, LaurentFabre, he knows him, who is my
go-to guy to find out what'swhat, which programs are
interesting, which are not, whatthey're capable of do, what is
bullshit, what is less bullshit.
I know my own understandingmore from mathematics, but he's
a computer scientist parexcellence.
And so he's my friend.
So cultivate friendship withsomeone who is knowledgeable, or
(35:33):
hire someone in yourorganization who will help you
sort things out.
Because be aware that there isa lot of misinformation just
outside.
But people in the know theyknow.
And if you cultivate therelationship with someone, this
will help you to see things inthe right light.
And number three, uh, this iskind of difficult to explain,
but the point I was trying tomake earlier, I would like to
(35:54):
kind of double down on it.
If you or I don't have a rightunderstanding of our true
nature, of what it means to behuman, we are more likely to
succumb to these fears or tosuccumb to misinformation.
So maybe take a meditation coreclass or any practice which
will ground you more in yourspiritual essence, in your
(36:15):
spiritual being.
It is not new age stuff at all.
It is real.
And it's been through withhuman beings.
Carl Jung talked about as atranscendental function or as an
irrational sort of impulse of ahuman being, a search for God.
And God is an overused term, solet's call it the universe or
the universal consciousness oruniversal cosmic consciousness
(36:36):
or something.
It doesn't matter, whicheverterm is um good for you.
But don't deny yourself thatability.
And I know most of you arealready there, so I'm preaching
to the choir in a sense.
But today we pushed, we are inthis there's this imbalance,
there's this idea thateverything can be rationally
explained.
No, there can't be.
There is intuition, there isimagination, there is a calling,
(36:57):
higher calling.
Reconnect to that or cultivatethat connection.
That is essential.
That's my third takeaway.
What are your three takeaways?
Kayvan Mashayekh (37:05):
Well, my three takeaways are we're running out
of time, but I will give it toyou how I think about it.
The reason why we're here todayis because of that exact thing
that Dr.
Frenkel is talking about.
We met 15 years ago in a veryserendipitous way on my father's
birthday in Paris.
It was very, very strange andwent to a restaurant called Del
Papa where we started.
Which he picked, but he's doingout so a few years later, it
(37:31):
comes down to one thing.
Build your network, number one,build your network of human
connectivity.
That's the most importantthing.
Make sure the foundation of thenetwork that you create with
other humans has authenticity,integrity, and loyalty behind
it.
And number three, don't ever,ever give up on your dreams and
don't let ever, ever letanybody's negativity become your
reality.
(37:51):
Those are my three spots.
Edward Frenkel (37:53):
And by the way, he is the founder of a network.
He's talking about humannetwork, Producers Without
Borders.
And I love that because withoutborders, we are limitless for
who we are.
So don't impose borders.
These are all self-imposedlimitations.
So without borders, doeverything you do without
borders, without limits.
Kayvan Mashayekh (38:12):
That is correct, Dr.
Frenkel.
And and what what what what thefinal finishing thought about
all this is the fact that everyone of you in this room is a
supercomputer within yourselves.
You have incredible networks,you have incredible abilities,
you have incredible skills,gifts, and knowledge.
Some untapped, yes.
Some are untapped.
So please make sure that youyou don't give up on yourselves.
(38:35):
That's the number one thing.
Because there's a lot of timeswhere you feel overwhelmed and
you feel like there's nobodylistening to you.
Reach out to your friends,reach out to your network, and
be the best person you can.
And with that, we are gonnawrap this session of Producers
Without Borders and Focus LondonShow.
Thank you very much.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Burden
The Burden is a documentary series that takes listeners into the hidden places where justice is done (and undone). It dives deep into the lives of heroes and villains. And it focuses a spotlight on those who triumph even when the odds are against them. Season 5 - The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance On April Fools Day 1999, 26-year-old Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her Alliance, Ohio home. David Thorne, her ex-boyfriend and father of one of her children, was instantly a suspect. Another young man admitted to the murder, and David breathed a sigh of relief, until the confessed murderer fingered David; “He paid me to do it.” David was sentenced to life without parole. Two decades later, Pulitzer winner and podcast host, Maggie Freleng (Bone Valley Season 3: Graves County, Wrongful Conviction, Suave) launched a “live” investigation into David's conviction alongside Jason Baldwin (himself wrongfully convicted as a member of the West Memphis Three). Maggie had come to believe that the entire investigation of David was botched by the tiny local police department, or worse, covered up the real killer. Was Maggie correct? Was David’s claim of innocence credible? In Death and Deceit in Alliance, Maggie recounts the case that launched her career, and ultimately, “broke” her.” The results will shock the listener and reduce Maggie to tears and self-doubt. This is not your typical wrongful conviction story. In fact, it turns the genre on its head. It asks the question: What if our champions are foolish? Season 4 - The Burden: Get the Money and Run “Trying to murder my father, this was the thing that put me on the path.” That’s Joe Loya and that path was bank robbery. Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank. In season 4 of The Burden: Get the Money and Run, we hear from Joe who was once the most prolific bank robber in Southern California, and beyond. He used disguises, body doubles, proxies. He leaped over counters, grabbed the money and ran. Even as the FBI was closing in. It was a showdown between a daring bank robber, and a patient FBI agent. Joe was no ordinary bank robber. He was bright, articulate, charismatic, and driven by a dark rage that he summoned up at will. In seven episodes, Joe tells all: the what, the how… and the why. Including why he tried to murder his father. Season 3 - The Burden: Avenger Miriam Lewin is one of Argentina’s leading journalists today. At 19 years old, she was kidnapped off the streets of Buenos Aires for her political activism and thrown into a concentration camp. Thousands of her fellow inmates were executed, tossed alive from a cargo plane into the ocean. Miriam, along with a handful of others, will survive the camp. Then as a journalist, she will wage a decades long campaign to bring her tormentors to justice. Avenger is about one woman’s triumphant battle against unbelievable odds to survive torture, claim justice for the crimes done against her and others like her, and change the future of her country. Season 2 - The Burden: Empire on Blood Empire on Blood is set in the Bronx, NY, in the early 90s, when two young drug dealers ruled an intersection known as “The Corner on Blood.” The boss, Calvin Buari, lived large. He and a protege swore they would build an empire on blood. Then the relationship frayed and the protege accused Calvin of a double homicide which he claimed he didn’t do. But did he? Award-winning journalist Steve Fishman spent seven years to answer that question. This is the story of one man’s last chance to overturn his life sentence. He may prevail, but someone’s gotta pay. The Burden: Empire on Blood is the director’s cut of the true crime classic which reached #1 on the charts when it was first released half a dozen years ago. Season 1 - The Burden In the 1990s, Detective Louis N. Scarcella was legendary. In a city overrun by violent crime, he cracked the toughest cases and put away the worst criminals. “The Hulk” was his nickname. Then the story changed. Scarcella ran into a group of convicted murderers who all say they are innocent. They turned themselves into jailhouse-lawyers and in prison founded a lway firm. When they realized Scarcella helped put many of them away, they set their sights on taking him down. And with the help of a NY Times reporter they have a chance. For years, Scarcella insisted he did nothing wrong. But that’s all he’d say. Until we tracked Scarcella to a sauna in a Russian bathhouse, where he started to talk..and talk and talk. “The guilty have gone free,” he whispered. And then agreed to take us into the belly of the beast. Welcome to The Burden.