January 20, 2026 • 31 mins
On Inside Geneva this week: world leaders are gathering in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos, but do they have any answers?
“I think we are at an amazing moment in history. We have in our hands the opportunity to do well, to save our own environment, the planet, to take the right decisions to bring humanity onto a good path,” says Marilyne Andersen, Director General of the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator (GESDA).
But will they take that path? Technology is racing ahead.
“Human rights, like every other field, are very much under the influence now of what’s happening in technology and science. It’s one of the destabilising factors right now,” says Jürg Lauber, Swiss ambassador to the United Nations (UN) in Geneva.
“I was absolutely sure that a robot can kill a human. We are living in a situation where we don’t even have these AI ethics,” says Tatiana Valovaya, Director-General of the UN Office at Geneva.
“If we just do things when they have already happened, then it’s too late and technology has already evolved to the next stage,” says Sylvie Briand, Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO).
International law is being abandoned.
“War is a terrible thing, but at some stage in the past, human beings decided to write the Geneva Conventions to at least reduce a little bit the horror of war,” adds Sami Kanaan, former mayor of Geneva.
In Geneva, a group is pushing for partnerships between science and politics, so we’re ready for the challenges ahead.
“Let’s take advantage of knowing what is coming to act on it now and not be in reactive mode, not in catch‑up mode,” says Andersen.
Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_07 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
SwissInfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's program.
SPEAKER_00 (00:22):
AI is the future of healthcare, also we've been
told.
But what does it mean?
Is it coming for your job?
Is it saving your life?
SPEAKER_08 (00:30):
Let's take advantage of knowing what is coming to act
on it now and not be in reactivemode, not be in catch-up mode.
SPEAKER_05 (00:40):
Soon AI could silently determine what ideas
ever reach your mind or whatthoughts ever form within it.
Your next action, your nextdecision, your next job or
relationship or purpose.
SPEAKER_08 (00:54):
I think we are at an amazing moment in history.
We have in our hands theopportunity to do well, to save
our own environment, the planet.
SPEAKER_06 (01:09):
Grok, the artificial intelligence tool on Musk's
platform X, is under fire afterpeople discovered it can be used
to create nude images, includingof children.
SPEAKER_08 (01:18):
We don't have any more that space between the
moment we know it's coming andthe moment it's there.
It is there, and therefore wedon't have that safe space to
talk about what regulations wecould have because there is
already a race going on.
SPEAKER_07 (01:33):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
Now, this week, the world'sgreat and good, or perhaps
better called, the world'spowerful and rich, are gathering
right here in Switzerland forthe World Economic Forum.
We'll see presidents and primeministers, industry bosses and
(01:54):
tech giants.
All the forum likes to tell usgetting together to try to solve
our big global challenges.
And let's face it, thosechallenges are huge.
From climate change to the rapidand largely unregulated
development of artificialintelligence, to conflict,
poverty, and inequality.
(02:15):
But there is something else weneed to face.
Those VIPs gathering at theforum have quite clearly failed
to solve those challenges sofar.
Some of us might argue they'reactually creating new problems
and making existing worldsworse.
So do we need a new kind ofdiplomacy?
(02:36):
Something based less on who isrich and powerful, and more on
knowledge and taking advice frompeople who really understand the
huge advances in the science andtechnology that we're currently
witnessing.
And guess what?
There is such a group of righthere in Geneva called the Geneva
Science and DiplomacyAnticipator, or GESIDA.
(03:00):
Late last year Gezeda held adebate where participants
highlighted their concerns.
SPEAKER_03 (03:06):
If we uh just, as you said, do things when they
have already happened, uh thenuh it's too late and and uh
technology has already evolvedto the next age.
SPEAKER_02 (03:16):
Human rights, like every other field, is very much
under the influence now ofwhat's happening technology in
technology and science.
Uh it's one of the destabilizingfactors right now.
SPEAKER_01 (03:26):
War is a terrible thing, but at some stage in the
past human beings decided towrite the Geneva Conventions to
at least reduce a little bit thehorror of war.
SPEAKER_04 (03:35):
I was absolutely sure that a robot can't kill a
human.
We are living in the uhsituation when we don't even
have these AI ethics.
SPEAKER_07 (03:46):
You heard they are from Sylvie Brion, chief
scientist at the World HealthOrganization, Ewart Lauber,
Switzerland's ambassador to theUN in Geneva, Sami Kanan, the
former mayor of Geneva, andTatjana Vallovaya, the Director
General of the UN here inGeneva.
We'll be hearing more from thatdebate throughout today's
(04:06):
programme.
But let's start with an extendedinterview with Mariline
Anderson, the head of Gesda, andalso a professor of sustainable
construction technologies atSwitzerland's prestigious
Federal Technology Institute inLausanne.
I caught up with Marilyn in alively Bayern Cafe and asked her
(04:26):
first to explain exactly whatJezda is.
SPEAKER_08 (04:30):
So Gesda is a foundation based in Geneva that
was founded at the initiative ofthe Federal Council, uh,
Department of Foreign Affairs,to propose a way to complement
the International Geneva'sagenda through an anchorage in
science anticipation.
So what we do is we work fromwhat science has in its drawers
(04:56):
in the future that we structureinto 5, 10, 25 years, and we
start from there to show whatthe possible futures are due to
scientific advances, whichcurrently are quite fast and
quite transformative, so as toshow that it is worth doing
something about this informationtoday before these advances
(05:20):
actually take place.
So to take advantage of thespace that we have between now
that we know what the possiblefutures and tomorrow where when
these scientific advances willhave happened, to prepare for
them, to prepare legislation,collaboration frameworks,
cooperation models, all of thisto make sure that science is
(05:41):
accessible to all, that we havesafeguards, and so on.
And so we go from that scienceanticipation into also training
to gain that anticipatorymindset, but also to acting, to
transitioning from thisanticipation work into actual
projects in different parts ofthe world to get on the ground,
(06:04):
get in the field, in thetransformation of the society to
be ready for these changes.
SPEAKER_07 (06:11):
For many among us currently feeling utter dismay
about the state of the worldright now, Marilyn's ideas sound
really positive.
My immediate reaction, let's getstarted on that collaboration
right now.
But if we go back to that gestadebate where participants
carefully unpicked thechallenges we face, Juri Glauber
(06:34):
and Tatiana Vallovaya wereconcerned that even starting now
it might be too late.
SPEAKER_02 (06:40):
We are talking uh a lot about how we missed the
train on the internet, how weprobably missed it on AI, how we
are or we will be able toaddress uh quantum, etc.
But at the same time what wealso face today is we are
increasingly I think notunderstanding what the people
(07:00):
how how societies evolve and andand how uh societies are
becoming more and more skepticalof of institutions and why that
is and and what kind of responseuh that requires.
SPEAKER_04 (07:12):
It's absolutely clear that these days we can't
have a proper economy unless youhave access to internet.
And even wider, when we use, forexample, uh artificial
intelligence, Chat GDP isgetting wiser, is getting more
politically correct.
But still, if you work hard withit, you see Chat GDP still
(07:36):
thinks like a white male.
And quite often, after long,long discussion, it gives you
something, and you're juststricken how outdated it is.
SPEAKER_07 (07:48):
And so I have more questions from Marilyn Anderson.
I'm just thinking about the kindof scientific developments which
might benefit from thisanticipation, possibly all of
them, since people are a bitnervous of the new and a bit
nervous of change.
But the one that springs to mindmost immediately is artificial
(08:09):
intelligence, AI, which isprogressing rapidly, and yet
there is, even if we look at theforerunner of AI, perhaps social
media, a real disconnect ordisagreement between different
countries about whether thereshould be any regulation or or
diplomacy, if you like, at all.
(08:29):
Do you see that as somethingthat JESDA could address?
SPEAKER_08 (08:33):
So there are many dimensions in that question.
First, on the influence of AIand on what transformation it
brings.
It is in itself, of course, anovelty, and the fact that it is
now in our daily lives is verynew and will have or is already
having deeply transformativeimpacts on how we work, what we
(08:58):
rely on to seek for the truth,and ultimately for the next
generations will have aninfluence on how even our brains
will evolve because they will beconfronted to answers about
everything which we didn't havebefore.
At the same time, it plays therole of an accelerating factor
for the other scientificdevelopments, for other
(09:19):
scientific advances, let's sayneurotech, discovery, synthetic
biology, gene editing, proteinand folding.
All of these have now thecapacity to go much faster
because they can rely on AI.
So this is great because thatmeans we can go faster in
discovery.
(09:40):
It is also making the differencebetween the pace of science
advances and the pace ofdiplomacy or institutions more
distinct, let's say.
And then there is the role ofJESDA in all this, which is, as
I said before, really focused onanticipating what is coming.
When it comes to AI, it'sbasically there already.
(10:03):
So there is not much toanticipate except anticipate
maybe the changes that this willhappen or the transformative
impact it will have on otherdomains.
Also, we are trying to move toartificial general intelligence,
and there is a race going onthere.
So all of these are aspectswhere Jesda can play a role,
especially when we think aboutembodied AI in the future or the
(10:27):
influence on robotics, so thingsthat haven't happened yet.
But the regulatory question thatyou had is very much of essence
now, but it also shows the factthat we don't have any more that
space I was mentioning beforebetween the moment we know it's
coming and the moment it'sthere.
It is there, and therefore wedon't have that safe space to
(10:49):
talk about what regulations wecould have because there is
already a race going on.
The tech companies are racingagainst each other to be the
fastest, the first, and thatmeans regulation is tough to
implement at this point.
SPEAKER_07 (11:01):
These tech companies also seem to be influencing some
governments buying somegovernments, some people would
say.
Maybe you don't want to commenton that, but it does worry
people.
SPEAKER_08 (11:12):
What is uh worrying or what is very different is
that it is a development that isnot really anymore state-owned
or state-driven, that'sindustry-driven.
I mean, a lot of the changesthat are happening in the world
are industry-driven, but in thiscase there is this kind of power
(11:33):
or decisional power shift thatwe are observing, and that can
be worrying because whereasgovernments have at the heart of
their mission the common good,the industry has at the heart of
their mission financial returnon investment, and therefore
it's a it's a very differentgoal.
And this change in goal is notbad per se, but it does change
(11:56):
the situation when it comes totransformative advances that
relate to technology or science.
SPEAKER_07 (12:02):
Can I just give you one example that is always in my
mind?
Because when I first started theInside Geneva podcast, which is
in early 2020, one of our firsttopics was lethal autonomous
weapons.
And the things that the peoplewho were campaigning for
regulation described to me werequite terrifying, but they said
(12:24):
we have time, they're maybe 20years away.
They're here.
We've seen them.
Well, you said we have no spacewith AI anymore.
Do we have space for anything?
Can Jezda or the people inJesda?
I know it's a it's a great idea,but can you actually influence
anything?
SPEAKER_08 (12:40):
I mean, there are many developments that are still
that we know are coming but arenot here yet.
For example, quantum computing.
Many people are working on it.
It is gaining momentum and soon, but we are still in some
kind of a pilot or lab phase forthis.
So we can prepare for it.
So, yes, in many cases there isthe space.
(13:01):
Maybe the space is not as longas our linear brains are
expecting it to be.
So we may be a little tooconservative in thinking out
into the future, like what iscoming in 5, 10, 25 years.
Well, maybe this will be ashrinking timescale compared to
what we thought.
But there are several aspectsthat are where there is a lot of
(13:24):
talk about it, like for example,BCI, brain computer interface,
but it is actually still in alab phase.
There it's amazing what ishappening, but it's one
individual at a time.
SPEAKER_07 (13:35):
Just explain for our listeners what that is.
Not everybody will know whatbrain computer interface.
I mean, I feel a bit, a slightchill running down my spine,
even hearing the phrase, butanyway.
SPEAKER_08 (13:45):
Yes, it is actually a very um, it's an amazing
advance that also raises bigquestions.
So the amazingness uh in it isthat it can heal.
Basically, the brain computerinterface is literally what it
is, is to make an interfacebetween the brain and a machine.
And therefore to have a machinehelp the brain and therefore the
(14:10):
human, in the case of humans, dosomething either better or
something that they weren't ableto do before, such as people
suffering from paralysis, to beable to walk again if you can
bypass the injury and connectthe very well-functioning parts
of your body with the verywell-functioning brain, but it's
(14:31):
just the passing of the signalthat doesn't uh work anymore.
So this is already happening inlabs and and in uh startups and
and so on.
And it also can, for someone whocannot see, will sort of bring
vision by interpreting thesignal that the brain is is
receiving, even if somethingalong the line between the eye
and the brain is not uh workinganymore.
(14:52):
So it has amazing promises.
But of course, as long as wetalk about therapeutic
applications, it's wonderful.
But if you can do that, thatmeans you can also do more.
You can also, in a way, augmentthe capacities of very healthy
individuals that then can beconnected to the internet
(15:14):
permanently, for example, andtherefore have contact with a
wealth of knowledge that wedidn't have before.
This is something that we shouldlook into to make sure that we
go into a direction that wewant.
And therefore, we should use thespace between now that we are
working on this and then when itwill become more mainstream,
(15:36):
which is not the case yet, tolook at what safeguards, what
guidelines, what frameworksshould be put in place to not
derail and to sort of keepcontrol over exactly what we
want to do with it and not letit lead us into directions we
may not want.
SPEAKER_07 (15:57):
Guidelines, frameworks, developing and
upholding them are at the veryheart of international Geneva.
But how much does the rest ofthe world really think about
these things nowadays?
Increasingly, it seems that thepower and the power bestowed by
money are the deciding factors.
Something that, at that Jezdadebate, worried Sami Kanan.
SPEAKER_01 (16:22):
But what makes me nervous is that it's beyond
money, it's about values andrules and the whole framework of
multilateralism, which ischallenged.
And to be a little bitprovocative, I think
multilateralism, if you defineit at the core, is the
expression that publicinstitutions have a crucial role
in handling collective issuesand finding solutions together.
SPEAKER_07 (16:42):
And even though we do have some frameworks, Sylvie
Brion of the World HealthOrganization reminded us that
when faced with the globalchallenge of COVID-19, our basic
principles of fairness andequality didn't help us.
SPEAKER_03 (16:57):
We need also more equitable research ecosystems.
Because if I take the examplefor the mRNA vaccine, for
instance, the first vaccinerequired a cold chain at minus
80 degrees.
And this is a kind of cold chainthat doesn't exist anywhere.
But rich countries were able todevelop this cold chain at the
(17:18):
early days of the pandemic,while many uh developing
countries couldn't afford it.
It was too expensive.
So I think when we discussinnovation, we need to have this
uh equity lens, and it has to beembedded in in research
ecosystems as well.
SPEAKER_07 (17:33):
So do we need to strengthen international law?
Now doesn't seem like quite theright time to find support for
that.
So Ambassador Jorg Lauber isstill advocating dialogue.
SPEAKER_02 (17:45):
We talk a lot about geopolitics, but technology is
at least as important.
The question is do we need toadapt international treaties
instruments we have?
Probably not.
Probably what we need is aconversation about how we use
them, what they mean in thesenew circumstances, how they need
to be implemented.
We need to build this bridgebetween diplomats and the
(18:05):
scientists, so the scientistscan tell us what these new
technologies mean, and of courseuh what is further down on the
horizon technology upon us, andfor the diplomats then to
discuss among ourselves how dowe prepare, what does it mean
for for instance in the field ofhuman rights?
SPEAKER_07 (18:21):
I'm still left wondering, though, not just
whether such a dialogue can besuccessful, but whether many of
today's political leaders areeven open to it.
Another question for MarilynAnderson.
How optimistic are you that youand your colleagues can get a
hearing and get diplomats?
(18:42):
Because I know it's not justyou're a scientist, but it's
diplomats in Gesta.
That's what exactly the purpose.
From my point of view, I see anutter failure of traditional
diplomacy, whether it's over theconflict in Ukraine, whether
it's the Middle East, whetherit's Sudan, or whether it's
(19:03):
basic agreements to trade withone another in a civilized way,
or to agree some basichumanitarian standards around
the use of this new technology.
SPEAKER_08 (19:15):
Yes, this is a very vast uh question.
There is no doubt that themultilateral system is being
questioned.
It is not necessarily anymorethe standard that everyone
thinks is above everything andthat we should abide to it.
So there is increasing maybeexamples where rules are
changing, where the respect forthis, let's say, status quo is
(19:39):
being questioned.
And when you change the rules,then for a world that lives on
rules, you start to run intoproblems.
Other aspects have, I think, adual nature.
On the one hand, we feel thatmaybe the current diplomatic
system and the multilateralismin general, which Wonderful as
(20:01):
an idea and as a principlebecause it is how we get to an
agreement between differentparties, different governments
to do something together.
So this is very precious tokeep.
And at the same time, there is apace that the pace question that
is that we mentioned before, thepace of transformation is really
(20:25):
very high.
And therefore, there there seemsto be a mismatch.
And this comes back to AI, whichhelps us statistically to make
decisions.
And so if we let AI help usmaking decisions based on
statistics and therefore basedon an objective kind of an
objectivity of what informationis available, probably more
(20:49):
objective than any singleindividual would do, we can go
fast, but this also has adanger, I think, in diplomacy,
because time has helped or ishelping in the past the
negotiation, the understandingof the other side and the trying
to find a way to come to anagreement.
(21:11):
And this is a precious time, atime that we should value as
well.
So going fast in diplomacy isnot, I would say, I mean, I'm a
scientist, as you said, so I canonly speak as a novice, so to
speak, but is also something tocherish.
So there is a lot of changesgoing on, a lot of questioning
that hasn't happened before, alot of rule changing in how
(21:35):
diplomacy is being managed ordone, which when combined with
the transformative nature ofscientific advances today, I
guess does put Jezda in a usefulposition.
But we are small.
We are only a group of 30people, actually, with a with a
(21:55):
wonderful board and the greatsupport from Geneva and from the
country.
And so this is very precious.
But we would love if thismindset was disseminated maybe
quickly enough so that there isa momentum to combine maybe
reinvented traditional diplomacywith the anticipatory angle and
(22:18):
taking science as a real actorin geopolitics, which it has
become today.
SPEAKER_07 (22:24):
Let's look then specifically at science rather
than the failure of traditionaldiplomacy, which we we've talked
about.
We've seen in the last,particularly in the last five to
six years, a growing distrust ofscience, which in particular we
saw this during the pandemic.
(22:46):
People did not want to trust thescience.
Does that make your task harderwhen you're you're reaching out
to diplomats, to governments,offering your services to
anticipate challenges goingforward?
SPEAKER_08 (23:00):
It does.
I mean, if there is a growingmistrust in science, it of
course makes scienceanticipation more difficult to
convince people about.
I think this growing distrust islinked to two bad reasons.
One is to misunderstand whatscience is, and one is to misuse
(23:22):
what science is.
The misinterpretation of whatscience is is to consider that
science is truth, that scienceis, it says something and then
it's true.
This is not how science works.
Science is about evidence-baseddemonstrations of what we
observe.
Therefore, it's an evolvingquote-unquote truth.
(23:44):
It's an evolving explanation ofthe world and an evolving
shaping of new discoveries forthe world.
So to be angry that in a newfield coming with a pandemic
that is very rapid and to someextent unexpected, to blame
science for not having the finalanswer immediately is again
(24:07):
misinterpreting what sciencedoes.
Science will do experiments veryquickly.
I mean, the rapidity at whichthe vaccines have been developed
is absolutely amazing.
So we should actually ratherrecognize that than blame the
fact that we didn't quite knowuh since the beginning whether
we should wear masks and so on.
So we shouldn't expect fromscience what it's what it's not.
(24:29):
It's not a dogma, it's not uhimmuable truth, it is an
evolving explanation.
So this is the first problemthat we probably faced with uh
with the pandemic.
The other is the misuse, is touse marginal, pseudo-scientific,
sometimes, let's say, outliers,to reinforce your opinion.
(24:51):
Your opinion that is maybe notat all science-based.
And to then say that, use, forexample, uncertainty, which is
inherent in science, and to saythat that means science doesn't
know anything for on climatechange, let's say.
It's it's an absolute misuse ofscience to serve opinions.
So these two issues have led tomaybe a growing mistrust, and it
(25:15):
is our work, but also the work Iwould say mostly of universities
and schools and the educationsystem and the research sector
in general, to reinstate sciencewithout these two misuses and
misinterpretations.
SPEAKER_07 (25:28):
But today we live in a world where climate change is
dismissed as a hoax against allthe scientific evidence, and
where leading politicians haveconnected autism with the use of
paracetamol, despite there beingabsolutely no evidence for that
either.
Still, Ambassador Jurg Lauercontinues to plead for open,
(25:50):
fact-based conversation.
SPEAKER_02 (25:52):
In my experience, when you bring in scientists who
explain to you what the realissues are, not only does it
help you to find a commonlanguage and common
understanding which is necessaryto then come to conclusions.
And if you don't do that, yourdiscussions will remain
ideological, overly political.
SPEAKER_07 (26:10):
There's no doubt, though, that millions of people
are now anxious or frightened,or even losing sleep over the
current state of the world.
What then political scientistslike Marilyn Anderson say to
reassure us?
People are actually quitefrightened right now.
Not just of the geopoliticalstate of the world, which is
(26:32):
highly concerning, as I'm sureyou have noticed or you agree,
but they're frightened about thepace of change.
You know, they were frightenedby the pandemic, naturally.
They're frightened, or manypeople now, by this almost
science fiction, except it's notfiction, the specter of AI.
(26:53):
People are worried about thedevelopments of that.
I mean, two things.
What would you say to reassurepeople if you can, but what
would your appeal be to maybethe diplomats from governments
who haven't quite listened toyou yet or are not quite on
board with your project?
SPEAKER_08 (27:11):
Um well, I think we are at an amazing moment in
history.
We have in our hands theopportunity to do well, to in a
way save our own environment,the planet against climate
change, but also to take theright decisions, to bring
(27:35):
humanity on a good path.
The anxiety might come in partfrom sensationalism about bad
news.
We react very strongly to badnews because we evolved for
that.
We survive if we are veryattentive to bad news.
If we see a flower, it's greatand we can admire it.
(27:59):
This will not be a key tosurvival.
Whereas if a tiger comes toattack us, we we better pay
attention.
So sensationalism is mostlytargeting bad news, and
therefore we feel that the worldis in a very bad shape.
But actually, it is maybebecause we don't give enough
space to what is improvingpoverty, less child mortality,
(28:22):
all the good things about healthadvances and so on, we don't
speak about them enough.
And we have in our hands,because of these technological
advances, the means to do well.
So I think the advice, if I cangive any advice, would be that
everyone in their own sphere ofinfluence has in mind to
(28:42):
contribute positively to makingthe world a better place.
And this goes to absolutelyeveryone.
Whatever your job is, whateveryour age is, you can contribute
to making the world a betterplace and maybe not be
frightened or paralyzed by thisoverwhelming anxiety that is
(29:02):
linked to what we read a lotabout, but what is maybe not the
signature of our world today.
It's a world of opportunities.
Now, when it comes to the roleof JESDA or uh our interactions
with the diplomats, we areworking uh hard on trying to
establish these relationships,on getting the word out.
We hope that we are not alone inthis mission to uh both make or
(29:25):
continue to build the bridgebetween science and diplomacy.
Science can serve diplomacy,diplomacy is serving science, so
we both need each other.
And uh this anticipatory anglethat we try to bring, I think is
probably very important todaybecause of the pace and of the
transformative aspects ofscience.
And therefore, let's takeadvantage of knowing what is
(29:48):
coming to act on it now and notbe in reactive mode, not be in
catch-up mode.
The catch-up mode is what wetend to do because we go from
one crisis to the next.
So let's try to carve some spaceto also work on what is not a
crisis yet, so that we avoidthat it becomes a crisis in a
(30:08):
little time.
SPEAKER_07 (30:16):
And that brings us to the end of this edition of
Inside Geneva.
Huge thanks to Marilyn Andersonand all at Jesda for a really
inspiring conversation, whichmade me, and I hope our
listeners, think again about howwe might tackle the huge
challenges facing us.
I'm Imogen folks.
Thanks again for listening, anddo join us next time on Inside
(30:40):
Geneva.
A reminder, you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or white
(31:00):
survivors of human rightsviolations, turn to the UN in
Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen Folks, and thanksagain for listening.
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
SwissInfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's program.
SPEAKER_00 (00:22):
AI is the future of healthcare, also we've been
told.
But what does it mean?
Is it coming for your job?
Is it saving your life?
SPEAKER_08 (00:30):
Let's take advantage of knowing what is coming to act
on it now and not be in reactivemode, not be in catch-up mode.
SPEAKER_05 (00:40):
Soon AI could silently determine what ideas
ever reach your mind or whatthoughts ever form within it.
Your next action, your nextdecision, your next job or
relationship or purpose.
SPEAKER_08 (00:54):
I think we are at an amazing moment in history.
We have in our hands theopportunity to do well, to save
our own environment, the planet.
SPEAKER_06 (01:09):
Grok, the artificial intelligence tool on Musk's
platform X, is under fire afterpeople discovered it can be used
to create nude images, includingof children.
SPEAKER_08 (01:18):
We don't have any more that space between the
moment we know it's coming andthe moment it's there.
It is there, and therefore wedon't have that safe space to
talk about what regulations wecould have because there is
already a race going on.
SPEAKER_07 (01:33):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
Now, this week, the world'sgreat and good, or perhaps
better called, the world'spowerful and rich, are gathering
right here in Switzerland forthe World Economic Forum.
We'll see presidents and primeministers, industry bosses and
(01:54):
tech giants.
All the forum likes to tell usgetting together to try to solve
our big global challenges.
And let's face it, thosechallenges are huge.
From climate change to the rapidand largely unregulated
development of artificialintelligence, to conflict,
poverty, and inequality.
(02:15):
But there is something else weneed to face.
Those VIPs gathering at theforum have quite clearly failed
to solve those challenges sofar.
Some of us might argue they'reactually creating new problems
and making existing worldsworse.
So do we need a new kind ofdiplomacy?
(02:36):
Something based less on who isrich and powerful, and more on
knowledge and taking advice frompeople who really understand the
huge advances in the science andtechnology that we're currently
witnessing.
And guess what?
There is such a group of righthere in Geneva called the Geneva
Science and DiplomacyAnticipator, or GESIDA.
(03:00):
Late last year Gezeda held adebate where participants
highlighted their concerns.
SPEAKER_03 (03:06):
If we uh just, as you said, do things when they
have already happened, uh thenuh it's too late and and uh
technology has already evolvedto the next age.
SPEAKER_02 (03:16):
Human rights, like every other field, is very much
under the influence now ofwhat's happening technology in
technology and science.
Uh it's one of the destabilizingfactors right now.
SPEAKER_01 (03:26):
War is a terrible thing, but at some stage in the
past human beings decided towrite the Geneva Conventions to
at least reduce a little bit thehorror of war.
SPEAKER_04 (03:35):
I was absolutely sure that a robot can't kill a
human.
We are living in the uhsituation when we don't even
have these AI ethics.
SPEAKER_07 (03:46):
You heard they are from Sylvie Brion, chief
scientist at the World HealthOrganization, Ewart Lauber,
Switzerland's ambassador to theUN in Geneva, Sami Kanan, the
former mayor of Geneva, andTatjana Vallovaya, the Director
General of the UN here inGeneva.
We'll be hearing more from thatdebate throughout today's
(04:06):
programme.
But let's start with an extendedinterview with Mariline
Anderson, the head of Gesda, andalso a professor of sustainable
construction technologies atSwitzerland's prestigious
Federal Technology Institute inLausanne.
I caught up with Marilyn in alively Bayern Cafe and asked her
(04:26):
first to explain exactly whatJezda is.
SPEAKER_08 (04:30):
So Gesda is a foundation based in Geneva that
was founded at the initiative ofthe Federal Council, uh,
Department of Foreign Affairs,to propose a way to complement
the International Geneva'sagenda through an anchorage in
science anticipation.
So what we do is we work fromwhat science has in its drawers
(04:56):
in the future that we structureinto 5, 10, 25 years, and we
start from there to show whatthe possible futures are due to
scientific advances, whichcurrently are quite fast and
quite transformative, so as toshow that it is worth doing
something about this informationtoday before these advances
(05:20):
actually take place.
So to take advantage of thespace that we have between now
that we know what the possiblefutures and tomorrow where when
these scientific advances willhave happened, to prepare for
them, to prepare legislation,collaboration frameworks,
cooperation models, all of thisto make sure that science is
(05:41):
accessible to all, that we havesafeguards, and so on.
And so we go from that scienceanticipation into also training
to gain that anticipatorymindset, but also to acting, to
transitioning from thisanticipation work into actual
projects in different parts ofthe world to get on the ground,
(06:04):
get in the field, in thetransformation of the society to
be ready for these changes.
SPEAKER_07 (06:11):
For many among us currently feeling utter dismay
about the state of the worldright now, Marilyn's ideas sound
really positive.
My immediate reaction, let's getstarted on that collaboration
right now.
But if we go back to that gestadebate where participants
carefully unpicked thechallenges we face, Juri Glauber
(06:34):
and Tatiana Vallovaya wereconcerned that even starting now
it might be too late.
SPEAKER_02 (06:40):
We are talking uh a lot about how we missed the
train on the internet, how weprobably missed it on AI, how we
are or we will be able toaddress uh quantum, etc.
But at the same time what wealso face today is we are
increasingly I think notunderstanding what the people
(07:00):
how how societies evolve and andand how uh societies are
becoming more and more skepticalof of institutions and why that
is and and what kind of responseuh that requires.
SPEAKER_04 (07:12):
It's absolutely clear that these days we can't
have a proper economy unless youhave access to internet.
And even wider, when we use, forexample, uh artificial
intelligence, Chat GDP isgetting wiser, is getting more
politically correct.
But still, if you work hard withit, you see Chat GDP still
(07:36):
thinks like a white male.
And quite often, after long,long discussion, it gives you
something, and you're juststricken how outdated it is.
SPEAKER_07 (07:48):
And so I have more questions from Marilyn Anderson.
I'm just thinking about the kindof scientific developments which
might benefit from thisanticipation, possibly all of
them, since people are a bitnervous of the new and a bit
nervous of change.
But the one that springs to mindmost immediately is artificial
(08:09):
intelligence, AI, which isprogressing rapidly, and yet
there is, even if we look at theforerunner of AI, perhaps social
media, a real disconnect ordisagreement between different
countries about whether thereshould be any regulation or or
diplomacy, if you like, at all.
(08:29):
Do you see that as somethingthat JESDA could address?
SPEAKER_08 (08:33):
So there are many dimensions in that question.
First, on the influence of AIand on what transformation it
brings.
It is in itself, of course, anovelty, and the fact that it is
now in our daily lives is verynew and will have or is already
having deeply transformativeimpacts on how we work, what we
(08:58):
rely on to seek for the truth,and ultimately for the next
generations will have aninfluence on how even our brains
will evolve because they will beconfronted to answers about
everything which we didn't havebefore.
At the same time, it plays therole of an accelerating factor
for the other scientificdevelopments, for other
(09:19):
scientific advances, let's sayneurotech, discovery, synthetic
biology, gene editing, proteinand folding.
All of these have now thecapacity to go much faster
because they can rely on AI.
So this is great because thatmeans we can go faster in
discovery.
(09:40):
It is also making the differencebetween the pace of science
advances and the pace ofdiplomacy or institutions more
distinct, let's say.
And then there is the role ofJESDA in all this, which is, as
I said before, really focused onanticipating what is coming.
When it comes to AI, it'sbasically there already.
(10:03):
So there is not much toanticipate except anticipate
maybe the changes that this willhappen or the transformative
impact it will have on otherdomains.
Also, we are trying to move toartificial general intelligence,
and there is a race going onthere.
So all of these are aspectswhere Jesda can play a role,
especially when we think aboutembodied AI in the future or the
(10:27):
influence on robotics, so thingsthat haven't happened yet.
But the regulatory question thatyou had is very much of essence
now, but it also shows the factthat we don't have any more that
space I was mentioning beforebetween the moment we know it's
coming and the moment it'sthere.
It is there, and therefore wedon't have that safe space to
(10:49):
talk about what regulations wecould have because there is
already a race going on.
The tech companies are racingagainst each other to be the
fastest, the first, and thatmeans regulation is tough to
implement at this point.
SPEAKER_07 (11:01):
These tech companies also seem to be influencing some
governments buying somegovernments, some people would
say.
Maybe you don't want to commenton that, but it does worry
people.
SPEAKER_08 (11:12):
What is uh worrying or what is very different is
that it is a development that isnot really anymore state-owned
or state-driven, that'sindustry-driven.
I mean, a lot of the changesthat are happening in the world
are industry-driven, but in thiscase there is this kind of power
(11:33):
or decisional power shift thatwe are observing, and that can
be worrying because whereasgovernments have at the heart of
their mission the common good,the industry has at the heart of
their mission financial returnon investment, and therefore
it's a it's a very differentgoal.
And this change in goal is notbad per se, but it does change
(11:56):
the situation when it comes totransformative advances that
relate to technology or science.
SPEAKER_07 (12:02):
Can I just give you one example that is always in my
mind?
Because when I first started theInside Geneva podcast, which is
in early 2020, one of our firsttopics was lethal autonomous
weapons.
And the things that the peoplewho were campaigning for
regulation described to me werequite terrifying, but they said
(12:24):
we have time, they're maybe 20years away.
They're here.
We've seen them.
Well, you said we have no spacewith AI anymore.
Do we have space for anything?
Can Jezda or the people inJesda?
I know it's a it's a great idea,but can you actually influence
anything?
SPEAKER_08 (12:40):
I mean, there are many developments that are still
that we know are coming but arenot here yet.
For example, quantum computing.
Many people are working on it.
It is gaining momentum and soon, but we are still in some
kind of a pilot or lab phase forthis.
So we can prepare for it.
So, yes, in many cases there isthe space.
(13:01):
Maybe the space is not as longas our linear brains are
expecting it to be.
So we may be a little tooconservative in thinking out
into the future, like what iscoming in 5, 10, 25 years.
Well, maybe this will be ashrinking timescale compared to
what we thought.
But there are several aspectsthat are where there is a lot of
(13:24):
talk about it, like for example,BCI, brain computer interface,
but it is actually still in alab phase.
There it's amazing what ishappening, but it's one
individual at a time.
SPEAKER_07 (13:35):
Just explain for our listeners what that is.
Not everybody will know whatbrain computer interface.
I mean, I feel a bit, a slightchill running down my spine,
even hearing the phrase, butanyway.
SPEAKER_08 (13:45):
Yes, it is actually a very um, it's an amazing
advance that also raises bigquestions.
So the amazingness uh in it isthat it can heal.
Basically, the brain computerinterface is literally what it
is, is to make an interfacebetween the brain and a machine.
And therefore to have a machinehelp the brain and therefore the
(14:10):
human, in the case of humans, dosomething either better or
something that they weren't ableto do before, such as people
suffering from paralysis, to beable to walk again if you can
bypass the injury and connectthe very well-functioning parts
of your body with the verywell-functioning brain, but it's
(14:31):
just the passing of the signalthat doesn't uh work anymore.
So this is already happening inlabs and and in uh startups and
and so on.
And it also can, for someone whocannot see, will sort of bring
vision by interpreting thesignal that the brain is is
receiving, even if somethingalong the line between the eye
and the brain is not uh workinganymore.
(14:52):
So it has amazing promises.
But of course, as long as wetalk about therapeutic
applications, it's wonderful.
But if you can do that, thatmeans you can also do more.
You can also, in a way, augmentthe capacities of very healthy
individuals that then can beconnected to the internet
(15:14):
permanently, for example, andtherefore have contact with a
wealth of knowledge that wedidn't have before.
This is something that we shouldlook into to make sure that we
go into a direction that wewant.
And therefore, we should use thespace between now that we are
working on this and then when itwill become more mainstream,
(15:36):
which is not the case yet, tolook at what safeguards, what
guidelines, what frameworksshould be put in place to not
derail and to sort of keepcontrol over exactly what we
want to do with it and not letit lead us into directions we
may not want.
SPEAKER_07 (15:57):
Guidelines, frameworks, developing and
upholding them are at the veryheart of international Geneva.
But how much does the rest ofthe world really think about
these things nowadays?
Increasingly, it seems that thepower and the power bestowed by
money are the deciding factors.
Something that, at that Jezdadebate, worried Sami Kanan.
SPEAKER_01 (16:22):
But what makes me nervous is that it's beyond
money, it's about values andrules and the whole framework of
multilateralism, which ischallenged.
And to be a little bitprovocative, I think
multilateralism, if you defineit at the core, is the
expression that publicinstitutions have a crucial role
in handling collective issuesand finding solutions together.
SPEAKER_07 (16:42):
And even though we do have some frameworks, Sylvie
Brion of the World HealthOrganization reminded us that
when faced with the globalchallenge of COVID-19, our basic
principles of fairness andequality didn't help us.
SPEAKER_03 (16:57):
We need also more equitable research ecosystems.
Because if I take the examplefor the mRNA vaccine, for
instance, the first vaccinerequired a cold chain at minus
80 degrees.
And this is a kind of cold chainthat doesn't exist anywhere.
But rich countries were able todevelop this cold chain at the
(17:18):
early days of the pandemic,while many uh developing
countries couldn't afford it.
It was too expensive.
So I think when we discussinnovation, we need to have this
uh equity lens, and it has to beembedded in in research
ecosystems as well.
SPEAKER_07 (17:33):
So do we need to strengthen international law?
Now doesn't seem like quite theright time to find support for
that.
So Ambassador Jorg Lauber isstill advocating dialogue.
SPEAKER_02 (17:45):
We talk a lot about geopolitics, but technology is
at least as important.
The question is do we need toadapt international treaties
instruments we have?
Probably not.
Probably what we need is aconversation about how we use
them, what they mean in thesenew circumstances, how they need
to be implemented.
We need to build this bridgebetween diplomats and the
(18:05):
scientists, so the scientistscan tell us what these new
technologies mean, and of courseuh what is further down on the
horizon technology upon us, andfor the diplomats then to
discuss among ourselves how dowe prepare, what does it mean
for for instance in the field ofhuman rights?
SPEAKER_07 (18:21):
I'm still left wondering, though, not just
whether such a dialogue can besuccessful, but whether many of
today's political leaders areeven open to it.
Another question for MarilynAnderson.
How optimistic are you that youand your colleagues can get a
hearing and get diplomats?
(18:42):
Because I know it's not justyou're a scientist, but it's
diplomats in Gesta.
That's what exactly the purpose.
From my point of view, I see anutter failure of traditional
diplomacy, whether it's over theconflict in Ukraine, whether
it's the Middle East, whetherit's Sudan, or whether it's
(19:03):
basic agreements to trade withone another in a civilized way,
or to agree some basichumanitarian standards around
the use of this new technology.
SPEAKER_08 (19:15):
Yes, this is a very vast uh question.
There is no doubt that themultilateral system is being
questioned.
It is not necessarily anymorethe standard that everyone
thinks is above everything andthat we should abide to it.
So there is increasing maybeexamples where rules are
changing, where the respect forthis, let's say, status quo is
(19:39):
being questioned.
And when you change the rules,then for a world that lives on
rules, you start to run intoproblems.
Other aspects have, I think, adual nature.
On the one hand, we feel thatmaybe the current diplomatic
system and the multilateralismin general, which Wonderful as
(20:01):
an idea and as a principlebecause it is how we get to an
agreement between differentparties, different governments
to do something together.
So this is very precious tokeep.
And at the same time, there is apace that the pace question that
is that we mentioned before, thepace of transformation is really
(20:25):
very high.
And therefore, there there seemsto be a mismatch.
And this comes back to AI, whichhelps us statistically to make
decisions.
And so if we let AI help usmaking decisions based on
statistics and therefore basedon an objective kind of an
objectivity of what informationis available, probably more
(20:49):
objective than any singleindividual would do, we can go
fast, but this also has adanger, I think, in diplomacy,
because time has helped or ishelping in the past the
negotiation, the understandingof the other side and the trying
to find a way to come to anagreement.
(21:11):
And this is a precious time, atime that we should value as
well.
So going fast in diplomacy isnot, I would say, I mean, I'm a
scientist, as you said, so I canonly speak as a novice, so to
speak, but is also something tocherish.
So there is a lot of changesgoing on, a lot of questioning
that hasn't happened before, alot of rule changing in how
(21:35):
diplomacy is being managed ordone, which when combined with
the transformative nature ofscientific advances today, I
guess does put Jezda in a usefulposition.
But we are small.
We are only a group of 30people, actually, with a with a
(21:55):
wonderful board and the greatsupport from Geneva and from the
country.
And so this is very precious.
But we would love if thismindset was disseminated maybe
quickly enough so that there isa momentum to combine maybe
reinvented traditional diplomacywith the anticipatory angle and
(22:18):
taking science as a real actorin geopolitics, which it has
become today.
SPEAKER_07 (22:24):
Let's look then specifically at science rather
than the failure of traditionaldiplomacy, which we we've talked
about.
We've seen in the last,particularly in the last five to
six years, a growing distrust ofscience, which in particular we
saw this during the pandemic.
(22:46):
People did not want to trust thescience.
Does that make your task harderwhen you're you're reaching out
to diplomats, to governments,offering your services to
anticipate challenges goingforward?
SPEAKER_08 (23:00):
It does.
I mean, if there is a growingmistrust in science, it of
course makes scienceanticipation more difficult to
convince people about.
I think this growing distrust islinked to two bad reasons.
One is to misunderstand whatscience is, and one is to misuse
(23:22):
what science is.
The misinterpretation of whatscience is is to consider that
science is truth, that scienceis, it says something and then
it's true.
This is not how science works.
Science is about evidence-baseddemonstrations of what we
observe.
Therefore, it's an evolvingquote-unquote truth.
(23:44):
It's an evolving explanation ofthe world and an evolving
shaping of new discoveries forthe world.
So to be angry that in a newfield coming with a pandemic
that is very rapid and to someextent unexpected, to blame
science for not having the finalanswer immediately is again
(24:07):
misinterpreting what sciencedoes.
Science will do experiments veryquickly.
I mean, the rapidity at whichthe vaccines have been developed
is absolutely amazing.
So we should actually ratherrecognize that than blame the
fact that we didn't quite knowuh since the beginning whether
we should wear masks and so on.
So we shouldn't expect fromscience what it's what it's not.
(24:29):
It's not a dogma, it's not uhimmuable truth, it is an
evolving explanation.
So this is the first problemthat we probably faced with uh
with the pandemic.
The other is the misuse, is touse marginal, pseudo-scientific,
sometimes, let's say, outliers,to reinforce your opinion.
(24:51):
Your opinion that is maybe notat all science-based.
And to then say that, use, forexample, uncertainty, which is
inherent in science, and to saythat that means science doesn't
know anything for on climatechange, let's say.
It's it's an absolute misuse ofscience to serve opinions.
So these two issues have led tomaybe a growing mistrust, and it
(25:15):
is our work, but also the work Iwould say mostly of universities
and schools and the educationsystem and the research sector
in general, to reinstate sciencewithout these two misuses and
misinterpretations.
SPEAKER_07 (25:28):
But today we live in a world where climate change is
dismissed as a hoax against allthe scientific evidence, and
where leading politicians haveconnected autism with the use of
paracetamol, despite there beingabsolutely no evidence for that
either.
Still, Ambassador Jurg Lauercontinues to plead for open,
(25:50):
fact-based conversation.
SPEAKER_02 (25:52):
In my experience, when you bring in scientists who
explain to you what the realissues are, not only does it
help you to find a commonlanguage and common
understanding which is necessaryto then come to conclusions.
And if you don't do that, yourdiscussions will remain
ideological, overly political.
SPEAKER_07 (26:10):
There's no doubt, though, that millions of people
are now anxious or frightened,or even losing sleep over the
current state of the world.
What then political scientistslike Marilyn Anderson say to
reassure us?
People are actually quitefrightened right now.
Not just of the geopoliticalstate of the world, which is
(26:32):
highly concerning, as I'm sureyou have noticed or you agree,
but they're frightened about thepace of change.
You know, they were frightenedby the pandemic, naturally.
They're frightened, or manypeople now, by this almost
science fiction, except it's notfiction, the specter of AI.
(26:53):
People are worried about thedevelopments of that.
I mean, two things.
What would you say to reassurepeople if you can, but what
would your appeal be to maybethe diplomats from governments
who haven't quite listened toyou yet or are not quite on
board with your project?
SPEAKER_08 (27:11):
Um well, I think we are at an amazing moment in
history.
We have in our hands theopportunity to do well, to in a
way save our own environment,the planet against climate
change, but also to take theright decisions, to bring
(27:35):
humanity on a good path.
The anxiety might come in partfrom sensationalism about bad
news.
We react very strongly to badnews because we evolved for
that.
We survive if we are veryattentive to bad news.
If we see a flower, it's greatand we can admire it.
(27:59):
This will not be a key tosurvival.
Whereas if a tiger comes toattack us, we we better pay
attention.
So sensationalism is mostlytargeting bad news, and
therefore we feel that the worldis in a very bad shape.
But actually, it is maybebecause we don't give enough
space to what is improvingpoverty, less child mortality,
(28:22):
all the good things about healthadvances and so on, we don't
speak about them enough.
And we have in our hands,because of these technological
advances, the means to do well.
So I think the advice, if I cangive any advice, would be that
everyone in their own sphere ofinfluence has in mind to
(28:42):
contribute positively to makingthe world a better place.
And this goes to absolutelyeveryone.
Whatever your job is, whateveryour age is, you can contribute
to making the world a betterplace and maybe not be
frightened or paralyzed by thisoverwhelming anxiety that is
(29:02):
linked to what we read a lotabout, but what is maybe not the
signature of our world today.
It's a world of opportunities.
Now, when it comes to the roleof JESDA or uh our interactions
with the diplomats, we areworking uh hard on trying to
establish these relationships,on getting the word out.
We hope that we are not alone inthis mission to uh both make or
(29:25):
continue to build the bridgebetween science and diplomacy.
Science can serve diplomacy,diplomacy is serving science, so
we both need each other.
And uh this anticipatory anglethat we try to bring, I think is
probably very important todaybecause of the pace and of the
transformative aspects ofscience.
And therefore, let's takeadvantage of knowing what is
(29:48):
coming to act on it now and notbe in reactive mode, not be in
catch-up mode.
The catch-up mode is what wetend to do because we go from
one crisis to the next.
So let's try to carve some spaceto also work on what is not a
crisis yet, so that we avoidthat it becomes a crisis in a
(30:08):
little time.
SPEAKER_07 (30:16):
And that brings us to the end of this edition of
Inside Geneva.
Huge thanks to Marilyn Andersonand all at Jesda for a really
inspiring conversation, whichmade me, and I hope our
listeners, think again about howwe might tackle the huge
challenges facing us.
I'm Imogen folks.
Thanks again for listening, anddo join us next time on Inside
(30:40):
Geneva.
A reminder, you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or white
(31:00):
survivors of human rightsviolations, turn to the UN in
Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen Folks, and thanksagain for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
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