Dear friends in the Frisco Bay,

You’re cordially invited to an Anti-Debate on artificial intelligence ⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️

In fact, you’re invited to *two* local Anti-Debates on AI!

Here’s the context: The Anti-Debate is a new format for debate — where participants build on each other’s insights, so that greater complexity can emerge. It draws from a variety of dialogue and debate practices, from Talmudic havrutah to Bohmian dialogue. Come experience the Anti-Debate in action, and walk away with a more complex view of AI:

• On Monday 3/9 at LightHaven in Berkeley, game theory expert Liv Boeree will moderate between the lead author of AI2027 Daniel Kokotajlo and the lead author of America’s AI Action Plan Dean Ball. RSVP here.

• On Wednesday 3/11 at The Portal in Mill Valley, systems-change community organizer Jenny Stefanotti will moderate between the outgoing Executive Director at the Center for Humane Technology Daniel Barcay and AI researcher & entrepreneur Jeremy Nixon. RSVP here — if you’re not a Portal member, email me to get on the guest list: stephanie@infinitelunchbox.com

Love!
Stephanie

The gold of Faces of X is in the synthesis.

The format of the series is interesting, and the influencer stars are very talented, but the true payload is in the scripts’ attempt to articulate a synthesis perspective on complex social issues — like free speech, AI, and race.

Which is why it’s especially illuminating to discuss the synthesis with integral thinkers, like Corey deVos of Integral Life. (”Integral” refers to integral theory or meta-theory — a framework for understanding how different perspectives, disciplines, and worldviews fit together into a more complete picture of reality.) As a brilliant integral thinker, Corey is the perfect conversation partner with whom to discuss the synthesis section of Faces of X scripts — and explore the extent to which they fulfill their synthesis aspirations.

In my recent conversation with Corey, we dissect Faces of Free Speech from an integral perspective! Enjoy.

Deep Reckonings is a series of explicitly-marked deepfake videos that imagine the most morally courageous versions of our most controversial public figures. In one video, an imaginary Brett Kavanaugh wrestles with the way he responded to the sexual allegations against him. In another, an imaginary Mark Zuckerberg confronts his techno-utopianism. The series is an exercise in steel-manning where we often straw-man.

Launched in 2020, Deep Reckonings brought critical thinking to the emerging dialogue about the ethical implications of synthetic media — by proposing circumstances in which synthetic media might be used in prosocial ways. The project seeks not to deceive nor demean, but to imagine and inspire. In this spirit, Deep Reckonings asks: how might we use our synthetic selves to elicit our better angels?

In other words: deepfake it ‘til we make it 😉

Deep Reckonings won two Webby Awards in 2021. You can learn more about the project and watch the videos at: deepreckonings.com

What moves us to shift our political worldviews, transcend extremism, and make other kinds of transformative change?

Reckonings is a narrative podcast that explores how we change our hearts and minds.

Stories include that of a tough-on-crime prosecutor who revolutionized his understanding of criminal justice through a friendship with an inmate, the architect of Facebook business model who’s since devoted his life to tackling technology addiction, and a perpetrator and survivor of sexual assault who managed to work through it using restorative justice. Amid dystopian headlines, Reckonings takes on our thorniest issues — but in a way that’s transcendent.

During its tenure, Reckonings ranked in the top #40 documentary podcasts on iTunes, and was featured in The Constant Listener’s Best Podcasts. The show aired on radio stations nationwide, with a weekly spot on Oakland’s KGPC. Episodes were adapted for major podcasts, like Snap Judgment and Love+Radio.

If you’re new to the show, consider starting with these episodes:

• Episode #21 — a perpetrator and survivor of sexual assault who worked through it using restorative justice

• Episode #25 — the architect of Facebook’s business model who then devoted his life to tackling technology addiction

• Episode #18 — the reckoning of the former protégé of the late Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes

To hear lessons learned from the show about how people change their hearts and minds, check out this X thread and this interview on KALW’s Inflection Point.

To explore the entire Reckonings catalogue, visit: reckonings.show

Where I’m Coming From is an experience designed to build empathy by speaking other people’s perspectives in first-person.

Inspired by South Africa’s Truth & Reconciliation Commission and commissioned by San Francisco’s Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, participants first write testimonies about a specific issue. Then they’re invited to speak each other’s testimonies aloud, as if they are their own.

Where I’m Coming From has been facilitated in diverse settings on diverse issues — from a small Monterey diner immediately after the 2016 election, to Facebook HQ between members of its social science team and outside social scientists.

This short video illustrates the first installation of Where I’m Coming From — at the Yerba Buena Center in 2016:

We live in a cacophony. Our dominant media business model — based on maximizing engagement — is polluting our information commons, resulting in shorter attention spans, binary thinking, and hyper-polarization.

In theory, public debates should strengthen democracy, by exposing citizens to diverse perspectives and reasoned arguments. But in practice, debates are further polarizing us, as debaters straw-man each other to score points for their tribe. Recent U.S. presidential debates may not even qualify as actual debates, since participants are engaged less in a structured back-and-forth about opposing views, and more in an unstructured barrage of attack lines. Quoting The Consilience Project, “when open communication cannot be used to resolve conflict and coordinate behavior, societies are driven towards chaos, war, oppression, and authoritarianism.”

Meanwhile, humanity has a rich legacy of dialogic practices. Throughout history, wisdom traditions worldwide have developed unique forms of cooperative argumentation, such as Jesuit disputation, Tibetan Buddhist debate, and Talmudic havrutah.

In havrutah, for example, Jews study the Talmud in pairs because it’s by virtue of having different perspectives that students sharpen each other’s intellect. In Socratic dialogue, probing questions are used to stimulate critical thinking, and have become a foundational element of Western philosophical and educational traditions. In more modern times, the Oxford-style debate emerged to enable rigorous yet productive argumentation, and has been adopted in academic and public debate settings worldwide.

It’s time to draw from our legacy of dialogic wisdom, and innovate a debate format that can meet the moment.

Introducing The Anti-Debate — a new and open-source format for debate where participants build on each other’s insights, so that greater complexity can emerge.

The Anti-Debate derives its name from William MacAskill, philosopher and co-founder of Effective Altruism. In 2017, he proposed “anti-debates” as an alternative to a traditional debate – which would focus on seeking truth instead of defending sides. The idea was then popularized by philosophers Peter Limberger and Connor Barnes – who imagined how anti-debates could transform the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Since 2022, think tank Perspectiva has been experimenting with its own form of antidebate. The Anti-Debate you see here — and on the project website — is Synthesis Media’s manifestation of a big idea.

In order to create this Anti-Debate, I researched a variety of dialogue and debate practices – from Socratic dialogue to Oxford Debate to Bohmian Dialogue. I cobbled together a draft format, conducted trial runs, and came out with a v1 Anti-Debate that Synthesis Media is now launching to the world.

To be clear, the Anti-Debate is not anti-debate! It actually starts out like a traditional debate with opening statements and rebuttals, but then, it doesn’t stop there. It goes further! Thank you for clarifying your different perspectives. Now that you’ve put your ingredients on the table, it’s time to make something new 😉

You’re invited to use and remix the Anti-Debate! Naturally, it’s useful for people who facilitate debates, like podcast hosts and educators. But if you seek to engage different perspectives in a productive way — whether around the family dinner table, or in the boardroom, or in the bedroom — the Anti-Debate is for you.

Zooming back out: imagine if we used our different perspectives on our most important issues not to further divide us, but to see those issues with greater complexity. Ultimately, the goal of the Anti-Debate is not to change minds, but to expand minds. We’re not looking to convert you to me, or me to you, but to give all of us a more comprehensive view. We’re on the same team to sharpen each other’s intellect. Hence the tagline of the Anti-Debate: a debate that everyone can win.

And like anything, the Anti-Debate can be weaponized. Again quoting The Consilience Project, “individuals must therefore continually innovate in their approach to communication. We must work together always to find new ways to break the hegemony of bad faith. This should be done as if the future of civilization depends on it—because it does” (emphasis added).

To learn more about the Anti-Debate, check out the How-To Guide, and adapt it for your purposes — visit: anti-debate.org

Big news: we’re getting a rebrand!

Kind of.

Here’s what’s up: Faces of X is a project of Synthesis Media — a non-profit production studio devoted to expanding hearts and minds. If you like Faces of X, you’ll love Synthesis Media’s other work. Our next project is rolling out (The Anti-Debate), so it’s time to change expand our name from “Faces of X” to “Synthesis Media” 😉

On this Substack……you’ll still find Faces of X! (If you want exclusive Faces of X content, visit the dedicated Faces of X website.) You’ll also find other Synthesis Media projects, from The Anti-Debate — a new format for debate where participants build on each other’s insights, so that greater complexity can emerge, to Deep Reckonings — a series of explicitly-marked deepfake videos that imagine morally courageous versions of our public figures.

Don’t let the name change fool you! Stick around. Much more excitement to come ✨✨✨✨

What happens when you try to fix public debate instead of win it?

I just did a FUN Substack Live with the illustrious of Uncomfortable Conversations. We talked about the difference between both-sides-ism and synthesis. We also talked about my upcoming project: The Anti-Debate — a new format for debate where participants build off each other’s insights, so that greater complexity can emerge.

Enjoy!

Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps

SZEPS LIVE: "A Better Way to Debate?" with Stephanie Lepp

What happens when you try to fix public debate instead of win it…

Listen now

5 months ago · 10 likes · 1 comment · Josh Szeps and Stephanie Lepp

And if you do, check out our last conversation about Faces of X.

Starring game theory expert , Faces of AI integrates different perspectives on artificial intelligence into a synthesis view.

CREDITS

• Brought to you by: Synthesis Media

• Director: Stephanie Lepp

• Script: Stephanie Lepp and Liv Boeree

• Starring: Liv Boeree

• Music: design school, by Rob Voigt

• Special thanks: Igor Kruganov, Jonah Sachs, Daniel Rechtschaffen, Matt Pirkowski, Erik Brynjolfsson, Corey deVos, Jeff Salzman, and Zoë Haney

POINTS OF SYNTHESIS

• All perspectives have some partial truth, but some perspectives are more incentivized than others to ignore their blind spots — like those who have a financial stake in the AI arms race

• Different perspectives have identified real failure modes we need to avoid: too fast, too slow, too centralized, and too anarchic

• AI’s complexity is greater than any one individual mind (or perspective) can grasp

• We need more transparency from the labs — and lawmakers who actually know what to do with that transparency

• We need whistleblower protections, but we also need — but we also need to address the competitive pressures that make whistleblowing necessary in the first place

• We need critical AI decisions to be made by representatives of humanity’s collective interest — but only if “collective” means global, e.g. including China and the Global South

• This isn’t about being pro- or anti-AI, but about collaboratively facing the complex reality of AI

• A rite of passage prepares us for making a developmental leap — like from childhood to adulthood. For humanity, AI is our next one. Because if we can coordinate to build something this powerful, safely, together, we’ll have grown up in a meaningful way.

SCRIPT

ACCELERATIONIST: Artificial intelligence is the GREATEST FORCE MULTIPLIER ever known.

PESSIMIST: Um, I think you mean the most DESTRUCTIVE force ever known.

ACCELERATIONIST: Cancer, poverty, climate change — AI solves it all. Every day we delay is another day of preventable suffering. Time to LET IT RIP.

PESSIMIST: More like time to PULL THE PLUG. We’re racing to build minds vastly more capable than ours with zero guarantee they’ll care about us! Our greater intelligence has NOT fared well for other species.

AI SKEPTIC: Come on! Artificial super-intelligence is DECADES (if not centuries) away! AI today is just sophisticated pattern-matching with a marketing budget. We’ve got plenty of time.

GEOPOLITICAL REALIST: Time is precisely what we DON’T have. While y’all debate hypotheticals, CHINA is building AI for social control. If WE slow down, AUTHORITARIAN AI wins.

CHINA: [in Mandarin with subtitles] “Authoritarian AI”? YOUR social media ALREADY hijacks your citizen’s minds. WE use technology for social harmony and education — YOU use it for addiction and profit.

AI BUILDER: Which is why WE need to not only get there FIRST, but also get it RIGHT. We care about the safety of our users! Trust us, we’re on it.

GEOPOLITICAL REALIST: I admire your optimism, but the genie is out of the bottle — the question isn’t WHETHER we build it, but WHO gets there first.

RISK REALIST: But we don’t even know what “there” is! We have no idea what awaits us with AI, and especially not super-intelligent AI. Plus, we did technically “get there first” with social media, and we’re more DIVIDED and confused than we’ve ever been.

PESSIMIST: Well, we’ll all be unified in DEATH if these AI labs rush on super-intelligence. [Looks at AI BUILDER] Do you even realize that you’re building a technology more dangerous than nukes, and you expect it to not incinerate civilization?

AI BUILDER: But we DID create nuclear safeguards, and nukes HAVEN’T incinerated civilization.

RISK REALIST: Yeah but we had so many nuclear close calls during the Cold War, frankly it’s a miracle we’re still here…

HUMANIST: The real miracle is the beautiful web of life we’re all a part of — and I worry that it may not be able to co-exist with artificial intelligence. We may be bringing about our own obsolescence.

ACCELERATIONIST: More like bringing about our transcendence! AI can liberate us from the biological constraints that have caused MILLENNIA of suffering!

HUMANIST: Biology has developed from MILLIONS of years of evolution, and you want to alter it after a few years of AI research? That’s not wisdom my dear, that’s hubris.

ACCELERATIONIST: Tell that to the parents watching their children die of diseases we could have already cured. Your luddite thinking is trapping us in Humanity 1.0 when we could be Ascending the Kardashev scale and spreading intelligence across the universe!

AI SKEPTIC: “Ascending the Kardashev scale,” what?! All I see are a bunch of trumped up auto-complete bots being treated like sci-fi oracles. Frankly you sound a bit like one yourself.

ETHICS ADVOCATE: EXCUSE ME! While you’re all debating philosophical fantasies, AI is harming REAL PEOPLE RIGHT NOW ! Gig workers are getting replaced by algorithms! Facial recognition is turning minority neighborhoods into digital police states! Data centers emit more carbon than some countries — while you [looks at ACCELERATIONIST] claim it’s a climate solution!

And don’t get me started on wealth inequality — the rich keep just getting richer and richer, while YOU [looks at AI BUILDER] automate away all our livelihoods!

PESSIMIST: And STILL, none of this matters if we build a super-intelligence.

AI BUILDER: Look, every transformative technology creates challenges. The printing press ALSO destabilized society. We don’t abandon fire because it can burn us — we LEARN how to use it. AI is no different.

RISK REALIST: AI is WILDLY different — it isn’t just ONE civilizational risk, it’s an accelerant to ALL of them! Bio-terrorism… drone swarms… cyber-attacks… social unrest… AI is turbo-charging them ALL!

[DEVOLVES INTO CHAOS]

SYNTHESIS: My darling humans. How wonderful that you all care so much about what may well be THE most consequential technology ever built.

The issue is: you each think you’re exclusively right. But the reality is: you’re all partially right. Which means: you’re partially wrong. And some of you are highly incentivized to ignore your blind spots.

There are many wrong ways to build AI: too fast, too slow, too centralized, too anarchic. So you have all found different failure modes we need to avoid.

The truth is: none of you yet know how to navigate this landscape because AI’s complexity is greater than any one individual mind can grasp.

So, the task at hand is to identify the kernels of truth you’re each holding, and then integrate them into a more comprehensive view.

GEOPOLITICAL REALIST: And how exactly are we gonna do that?

RISK REALIST: Well, we’d need a better sense of what’s actually going on in the labs. So how about some transparency? Like maybe the labs can disclose their development process and their safety protocols LONG BEFORE they deploy?

AI BUILDER: But only if lawmakers actually know what to do with that!

ETHICS ADVOCATE: And how about some whistleblower protections — so employees can actually report risks without facing retaliation?

HUMANIST: And what if all these monumental decisions aren’t made in closed boardrooms, but by representatives of humanity’s collective interest?

SYNTHESIS: Yes, perhaps!

But ultimately, this isn’t about being pro- or anti-AI, but about collaboratively facing the complex REALITY of it. It’s about staying focused on your part, but within the context of the larger WHOLE.

In other words, it’s about doing the synthesis. I mean, of course I would say that ;)

But really, we do need all your viewpoints.

Artificial Intelligence is humanity’s most complex challenge, but it’s also our greatest opportunity. It’s our rite of passage. Because IF we can coordinate to unleash AI’s power responsibly — then we can coordinate to do anything.

CUTTING ROOM FLOOR

• In the words of Tristan Harris, “the upsides [of AI] don’t prevent the downsides, but the downsides can prevent the upsides.”

• When it comes to AI, the defining polarity is: innovation and safety. Some perspectives are holding the mantle of innovation – of the unprecedented breakthroughs AI could unleash. Other perspectives are holding the mantle of safety — warning that what we build could spiral out of control. The idea isn’t to choose between innovation and safety, but to hold both in dynamic equilibrium.

• We are not building AI. What’s building AI is: our misaligned incentives — where anyone who pauses for safety gets crushed by competitors, forcing everyone to race towards risks that nobody wants. Whatever is the proper balance between innovation and safety, we’ll never strike it with our misaligned incentives at the helm.

• AI labs can’t “solve alignment internally,” because alignment is upstream of the labs — in the incentive landscape in which AI is funded, developed, and used.

• Our most feared AGI scenario is already here. We already can’t pull the plug on something that’s perpetually upgrading its capacity and whose “objective function” creates major collateral damage. We’re already in a situation where no one wants microplastics in our lungs and oceans, but no one can stop it. And AI turbocharges that until we drown in paperclips.

• Look at what happened with OpenAI. They started as a NON-profit devoted to ensuring AI benefits humanity…and pivoted into a capped-profit devoted to winning the AI arms race. Companies like OpenAI think they’re working on the hardest problem, but doing anything other than racing for AI dominance would be much harder.

• This isn’t about being pro-AI or anti-AI, but about creating the conditions conducive to safe innovation. For example, by creating a global citizens assembly for AI, or shifting from GDP to a measure that accounts for more of what we truly value.

• At the deepest level, changing the incentive landscape is about zooming out from our desired part – GDP, biodiversity, or whatever – to serve the whole we’re all part of. It’s about shifting from a body’s organs competing against each other, to coordinating in service of the body’s overall health.

• The most talented engineers in the world think they’re working on the hardest problem. But the hardest problem isn’t building AGI. It’s coordinating to build AGI that’s truly win-win.

• In the words of Elizabeth Robson, AI is “accelerating ecological overshoot.” To provide one data point, according to the Civilization Research Institute’s AI Industry Trends, Rhetoric, and Risks, in order to train their first AI, OpenAI generated approximately 965 thousand metric tons of mining waste rock.

REFERENCES

• The Last Invention, Longview with Andy Mills (2025)

• AI 2027, Daniel Kokotajlo, Scott Alexander, Thomas Larsen, Eli Lifland, Romeo Dean (2025)

• Silicon Dreams and Carbon Nightmares: The Wide Boundary Impacts of AI with Daniel Schmachtenberger, The Great Simplification with Nate Hagens (2024)

• Daniel Schmachtenberger & Liv Boeree on AI, Moloch & Capitalism, Win-Win with Liv Boeree (2023)

• The AI Dilemma, Your Undivided Attention with Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin (2023)

• Daniel Schmachtenberger: Artificial Intelligence and The Superorganism, The Great Simplification with Nate Hagens (2023)

• The Dark Side of Conscious Ai | Daniel Schmachtenberger, Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal (2023)

• Bohm & Krishnamurti, J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm (1980)

  ---

Starring political commentator (Destiny), Faces of Free Speech integrates different perspectives on free speech into a synthesis view.

CREDITS

• Brought to you by: Synthesis Media

• Director: Stephanie Lepp

• Script: Stephanie Lepp and Steven Bonnell

• Starring: Destiny (Steven Bonnell)

• Music: Never Giving Up On You, by GARDNR

• Special thanks: Mary Anne Franks, Jonah Sachs, Corey deVos, Jeff Salzman, and Max Paine

POINTS OF SYNTHESIS

• When it comes to free speech, the defining polarity is: rights and responsibilities. Some perspectives are holding the mantle of our fundamental right to speak freely. Other perspectives are holding the mantle of our responsibility to protect people from the harm that speaking freely can cause. The idea isn’t to choose between rights and responsibilities, but to hold both in dynamic equilibrium.

• In some contexts, more speech might be a remedy for bad speech, but in outrage-fueled echo chambers, more speech just leads to more outrage.

• If we want more speech to be a remedy for bad speech, we have to improve the health of the information landscape in which speech happens. That means creating conditions that reward curiosity and critical thought over outrage and spectacle. Just like a healthy gut keeps harmful bacteria in check, a healthy information landscape reduces the need for constant cleanup.

• Ultimately, the goal is to create spaces where signal rises above the noise. Spaces that encourage the kind of speech that actually is a remedy for bad speech, and actually does protect democracy from tyranny. For instance, instead of asking ‘moderation yes or no,’ we can ask: ‘how do we use moderation in a way that allows us to need it less?

• Let’s reframe the debate: from ‘free speech versus safety’ to (bear with me here) ‘speech that undermines the possibility of future speech versus speech that preserves it.’ Sometimes protecting free speech will mean protecting controversial speech. Other times it will mean limiting coordinated harassment. But always with the aim of creating conditions for the widest breadth of voices to speak freely in a changing society.

SCRIPT

THESIS: Dude, free speech is THE foundation of liberal democracy.

ANTI-THESIS: No shit, Sherlock. But it’s not supposed to be an unbounded right.

THESIS: It’s literally the right that protects all the other rights! If you can’t dissent, then all other rights are on the chopping block.

ANTI-THESIS: Sure, but free speech must be balanced with other values — like truth, and safety! That’s why some speech is RESTRICTED — like, you can’t call 9-1-1 on your neighbors just because they’re irritated that you’re screaming at your monitor all day, or tell your fans to kill me just because I’m stealing your ladder points. And restricted speech ALWAYS lands hardest on vulnerable people.

THESIS: Um, “vulnerable people” have actually been PROTECTED by their freedom to speak! Remember civil rights? Woman’s suffrage? Stonewall? Do you think that those movements would have SURVIVED if MLK and Rosa Parks were banned from social media?

ANTI-THESIS: You think MLK and Rosa Parks would even be DISCOVERED on today’s social media?! They’d drown in the swamp of Russian spam and failed-comedian podcasts. Someone HAS to moderate.

THESIS: And you want to hand that power to Elon? To Zuckerberg?!

ANTI-THESIS: Okay, c’mon. Platforms are private companies that can make their own rules. If someone lied about you on your subreddit, I bet you’d ban them too.

THESIS: Duh! But yesterday’s crazy theory is today’s scientific consensus. Tesla, Galileo, Socrates — they were all so-called “misinformation-spreaders.”

ANTI-THESIS: Okay, in the past, the ruling class might have restricted speech to suppress Tesla and Galileo, but today, “free speech” has people believing in Jewish weather machines and flat Earth! That’s the PARADOX: when lies are constantly going viral, then shutting some people up might actually protect other people who are actually telling the truth.

THESIS: Look — there are two ways to combat bad speech: good speech or war. So unless you wanna switch to killing each other every single time we disagree, we need to allow ideas to be aired and challenged through debate. The remedy for bad speech…is MORE speech.

ANTI-THESIS: Okay, but speech actually CAN lead to war! Is the remedy to death threats just more death threats? Is the solution to child porn just more child porn??? We need restrictions, or else this whole conversation devolves into a dumpster fire.

SYNTHESIS: Okay, your micro is so bad you just need to F1 A everything because this is pathetic. And you, your macro is so bad I’m not even sure if you’re using hotkeys. The reality is, you’re each seeing different parts of the same BIGGER picture.

THESIS: Huh?

SYNTHESIS: When it comes to free speech, the defining polarity is: RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES.

One of you [cut to Thesis] is holding the mantle of our fundamental RIGHT to speak freely. The other [cut to Anti-Thesis] is holding the mantle of our RESPONSIBILITY to protect people from the HARM that speaking freely can cause. The idea isn’t to choose BETWEEN rights and responsibilities, but to hold BOTH in dynamic equilibrium.

But here’s the twist: we’re not balancing rights and responsibilities in a vacuum. We’re now balancing them on private platforms that are locked in an arms race to capture our attention — even if it costs us our sanity. In some contexts, more speech might be a remedy for bad speech, but in outrage-fueled echo chambers, more speech just leads…to more outrage.

So how do we protect free speech in this new landscape? Well, if we want more speech to be a remedy for bad speech, we have to IMPROVE THE HEALTH of the information landscape in which speech happens.

THESIS and ANTI-THESIS: Score! Totally!

THESIS and ANTI-THESIS: Wait, we agree?!

SYNTHESIS: Just like a healthy gut keeps harmful bacteria in check, a healthy information landscape reduces the need for constant cleanup. That means CREATING CONDITIONS that reward curiosity and critical thought over outrage and spectacle.

ANTI-THESIS: So….how do we do that?

THESIS: Well, before posting, you could ask: “would I say this to someone’s face?”

ANTI-THESIS: Yeah, and platforms can track metrics that actually indicate a healthy gut, so to speak — like positive engagement from people that are normally outside our normal bubbles.

THESIS: And we can create cultural norms around things like steel-manning — where instead of tearing down the WEAKEST versions of each other’s arguments, we represent the STRONGEST versions and engage with THAT instead.

ANTI-THESIS: And how about changing the social media business model? From an ad-based model that incentivizes inflammatory click-bait, to subscription- and COMMONS-based models that incentivize thoughtful discourse.

SYNTHESIS: Ultimately, the goal is to create spaces where signal rises above the noise. Spaces that encourage the kind of speech that actually IS a remedy for bad speech, and actually DOES protect democracy from tyranny. For instance, instead of asking ‘moderation yes or no,’ we can ask: ‘how do we use moderation in a way that allows us to need it less?

So let’s reframe the debate: from ‘free speech versus safety’ to (bear with me here) ‘speech that UNDERMINES the possibility of future speech versus speech that PRESERVES it.’ Sometimes protecting free speech will mean protecting controversial speech. Other times it will mean limiting coordinated harassment. But always with the aim of creating conditions for the widest breadth of voices to speak freely in a changing society.

THESIS: So….re-match?

ANTI-THESIS: Let’s go :)

CUTTING ROOM FLOOR

• On one hand, the trajectory of free speech has been evolutionary: over the long arc of history, we’re evolving from fighting with sticks and stones to ideas and words. On the other hand, free speech faces new threats: from business models built to maximize engagement at all cost.

• The poor state of online discourse can’t be blamed entirely on the platforms. The platforms are working exactly as designed in a business environment that rewards profit over long-term multi-stakeholder value. Which means we must go upstream of the business model, beyond capitalism — to the incentives that drive individual rational actors to create irrational collective outcomes. Specifically, we must go all the way to Moloch.

  Moloch is the ancient demon of coordination failure. It’s the force that traps us in tragedies of the commons, arms races, and other competitive dynamics where individual rational actors create irrational collective outcomes. In the context of free speech, the platforms know that maximizing engagement incentivizes inflammatory content, but if they don’t maximize engagement, they’ll lose to those who do. Don’t hate the players, change the game.

• We don’t have to choose between rights and responsibilities — we can create spaces that maximize both. In fact, it’s precisely by creating a healthy infosphere — that’s inclusive to diverse voices and free of profit-driven manipulation — that we can protect vulnerable communities from genuine harm while preserving space for dissent, scientific inquiry, and social progress.

REFERENCES

• Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment, Mary Anne Franks (2024)

• “Fearless Speech”: A Conversation With Mary Anne Franks, University of Virginia School of Law (2024)

• The Eternally Radical Idea, Honestly with Bari Weiss (2022)

• Currents 050: Greg Lukianoff on Free Speech, The Jim Rutt Show (2022)

• Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech For All Suzanne Nossel, Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College (2022)

• Open letter to Elon Musk from Greg Lukianoff on preserving free expression on social media, Greg Lukianoff (2022)

• Elon Musk Wants to Unlock Speech on Twitter. Here’s How He Can Advance Free Expression for Good, Suzanne Nossel (2022)

• Musk and Moderation, in Quillette by Jim Rutt (2022)

• Charlottesville reflections with Rodney Smolla: So to Speak podcast, FIRE (2020)

• Suzanne Nossel, Andrew Marantz, and Sewell Chan in Conversation | Open Book on Location, Altadena Library (2020)

• The Future of Free Speech, Suzanne Nossel | TEDxScarsdale (2018)

and I shot Faces of AI on Wednesday, October 15th.

A few days later — on October 21st — was TEDAI.

We were hoping to premiere Faces of AI at TEDAI, but the turnaround time was tight.

And.....we got it in! I sent the latest cut to TEDAI the day before the conference, and not only did they want to screen it, they chose to have it open the entire conference.

It was amazing to watch Faces of AI on an enormous screen surrounded by hundreds of people. People loved it! In fact, many people said it was the best thing of the entire session.

We’re almost done editing, stay tuned for the final video... ✨✨✨✨

Exciting news: Faces of AI & Faces of Free Speech are coming soon!

I just got back from shooting both videos in Austin, and the stars were AMAZING.

For Faces of AI, back for her second appearance on Faces of X, we have the illustrious . She’s a professional poker champion and game theory expert who’s holding the mantle of introducing Moloch into public consciousness. Faces of AI is our most ambitious episode yet: instead of our usual 3 perspectives — Thesis, Anti-Thesis, and Synthesis — there are 10! Meaning: 9 perspectives before Synthesis, including the AI Accelerationist, Alignment Pessimist, Capability Skeptic, and even China. Quite the epic chorus grappling with what might be humanity’s most consequential technology.

Subscribe now

For Faces of Free Speech, I was honored to work with the brilliant Steven Bonnell aka Destiny. Steven is a political commentator and gamer who’s known for engaging in good-faith debate and expanding his views based on new information. He recognizes insights on all sides of the free speech debate, which makes him an ideal conveyor of a Synthesis perspective. Given that he has almost zero experience with scripted content, I was blown away.

I can’t wait to share both videos with you — in the coming weeks!

Stay tuned 🤓

Last week, I staged a live performance of Faces of Artificial Intelligence!

A Faces of AI video doesn't exist yet (forthcoming :), so this performance was the debut. It was at FutureWorks — Indeed.com's flagship HR leadership conference.

Backing up for a sec: how did this come about??

Crazy story: a Marketing Director from Indeed.com was at TED, and loved my talk. She invited me to give a similar talk at FutureWorks. But instead of Faces of Capitalism, she requested Faces of AI. Which makes sense — the HR industry is already experiencing AI disruption. So much so that....Indeed's Marketing Director who invited me to speak at FutureWorks was then let go in a round of AI-driven layoffs! Oy. But she'd already made the handoff, and my presentation proceeded.

At TED, capitalism is somewhat theoretical. But at FutureWorks, AI is real.

And I could feel that in the audience. After our presentation, so many people came up to thank me — because we spoke precisely to the optimistic vs. pessimistic AI debate that was happening at the conference, and offered a more realistic and comprehensive view. People were especially grateful for the message of synthesis given that Charlie Kirk had been shot the day before ❤️‍🩹

So...what wisdom did we offer this AI-rattled industry? Watch the performance here, and check out the full transcript below:

And when will there be a video for Faces of AI? Hopefully by November. There will be more than 2 perspectives before we get to synthesis — likely 8 or 9! Including China. FUN. Stay tuned...

TRANSCRIPT: Faces of Artificial Intelligence

THESIS: Look, I've been in HR for 25 years, and AI is the most EMPOWERING force we've ever seen.

ANTI-THESIS: Honey, I’ve been around just as long, and AI is the most DESTRUCTIVE force we've ever seen.

THESIS: Think about it — each wave of innovation creates new jobs we couldn't have imagined. The internet gave us web developers and app designers…and AI will create WHOLE NEW INDUSTRIES.

ANTI-THESIS: But for every new job AI creates, it destroys MORE jobs — faster! We’re talking about MASS DISPLACEMENT of the very people we're supposed to support. Which means WE go from building careers…to managing layoffs

THESIS: Okay, but think about what happens when AI helps us see not just people’s PAST credentials…but their FUTURE potential! A “skills-first” approach could enable a brilliant candidate from a community college to get the same shot as one from the Ivy Leagues.

ANTI-THESIS: Um, AI doesn’t 'see' potential — it predicts the future based on the PAST, so it’s literally programmed with our old blind spots. We’re conjuring a corporate version of Minority Report.

THESIS: Listen, we’ve been through tech revolutions before — email replaced endless phone tag, and job boards opened up candidate pools beyond the local paper. Were they disruptive? Yes! But they freed us from busywork so we could focus on what matters: UNLEASHING HUMAN POTENTIAL. AI can put the human back in human resources.

ANTI-THESIS: At the end of the day, you and I got into HR because we love people. Our desks are cluttered with scribbled notes from late-night calls with anxious candidates, and reminders to follow up with hiring managers -- because we CARE about the person behind every application. But now, we’re training AI to replace all of that, and maybe even replace us! And once AI takes the human OUT of human resources, there’s no going back.

SYNTHESIS: Ladies, sorry to interrupt—

THESIS: Can I help you?

ANTI-THESIS: We’re in the middle of a conversation here

SYNTHESIS: I couldn’t help but overhear – you’re each seeing DIFFERENT parts…of the same BIGGER picture.

When it comes to AI, the defining polarity is: INNOVATION and SAFETY.

One of you [look at where Thesis was facing] is holding the mantle of innovation — of using AI to unlock new capabilities. The other [look at Anti-Thesis was facing] is holding the mantle of safety — all too real given recent AI-driven layoffs at companies in this room. The idea isn’t to choose BETWEEN innovation and safety, but to hold BOTH in dynamic equilibrium.

But here’s the twist: we’re not balancing innovation and safety in a vacuum. We’re balancing them in a BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT that too often rewards short-term profit over long-term value. For us, that becomes an arms race to deploy AI before our competitors – but sometimes without the proper safeguards.

This isn’t about being pro-AI or anti-AI, but about creating the conditions conducive to safe innovation. When we shifted from horse carriages to cars, we needed seatbelts. And if the cars become driverless? Then we need a whole new infrastructure.

Ultimately, AI’s most feared disruption is: JOBS. Which means the people in this room might have THE MOST IMPORTANT job: to re-imagine HUMAN work for an age of ARTIFICIAL intelligence.

The people in this room are uniquely equipped — because of everything we know and love about people — to imagine a world where: if the jobs don’t need the people, the people don’t need those jobs. What would the future of work – and of OUR work – look like if people’s livelihoods came not from plugging into the job market, but from contributing their unique genius?

THESIS: Now that’s exciting.

ANTI-THESIS: Okay. You’ve got my attention.

We may not know what makes humans unique. But whatever it is – wisdom, soul, something else – let’s use AI to elicit MORE of it. Let’s not just adopt AI, but shape the CONTEXT in which we adopt it — holding innovation and safety in proper equilibrium.

So you ARE both partially right. As am I. Our view will always be incomplete, but it's by integrating our different perspectives that we can see a bigger picture.

[SCREEN - Coming Up: Faces of X creator Stephanie Lepp]

STEPHANIE: So you might think that your way of seeing the world is right, but the three Arianna’s and I are here to suggest that perhaps you are all partially right. So instead of choosing one perspective and getting a partial view, how might we integrate different perspectives and gain a BIGGER view?

Well, THAT is the inspiration behind what you all just watched – a performance of my recent production: Faces of X. Faces of X is a series of short videos that integrate different perspectives on culture war issues – like gender, abortion, and race. You know, keeping it light ;)

The format is simple: each video first presents the strongest arguments on each side – the thesis and the antithesis – and then attempts to integrate them into a synthesis perspective. Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis are all played…by the same person.

So you all just watched a LIVE performance of "Faces of X." The great Arianna Ortiz just showed you "Faces of Artificial Intelligence," but the potential pipeline of the series is infinite. Imagine "Faces of Immigration," right? Imagine "Faces of Politics in the Workplace." Imagine "Faces of" whatever issue you and your team are wrestling with. And I do take requests, so come talk to me after ;)

But zooming out, what does it actually MEAN to integrate different perspectives? Well, one thing it doesn't mean is meeting in the middle. Given the complexity of the challenges we face, instead of meeting in the middle, I want to see us move from the horizontal plane to a new dimension, from common ground to higher ground. Let's think not just in terms of changing hearts and minds, but of EXPANDING hearts and minds.

One metaphor I love is: parallax vision. The view from our right eye is slightly different than the view from our left eye. Each eye gives us a view that's true, but partial. So it's by looking through BOTH EYES TOGETHER (along with other visual cues), that the world goes from flat to 3D. Integrating different perspectives quite literally gives us greater DEPTH.

So a question that I always get asked is: how? How do we integrate different perspectives -- especially in workplaces where different perspectives collide every day? Well, it's an art and a science, and something that has been explored at length by thinkers from Georg Hegel to Ken Wilber. But for us here today, I'm going to distill it into three questions that I ask myself. Here we go:

First question: Is there an either/or that can be flipped to a both/and? Well, on the issue of DEI -- yep, we're going there -- the goal is framed as increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion. But EACH of those values are part of a POLARITY – of seemingly-opposing values that actually need each other to exist. Diversity co-exists with unity, hence our national motto of e pluribus unum – out of many, one. Equality co-exists with meritocracy, because fairness without striving leaves us stagnant, and striving without fairness leaves too many behind. And inclusion co-exists with exclusion – because healthy boundaries are necessary for identity and belonging. Echoing Arianna, the idea isn’t to choose between diversity and unity (for example), but to hold BOTH poles of a polarity in dynamic equilibrium. From either/or to both/and.

Second question: Is there an opportunity to shift from “yes or no” to "under what circumstances, if any"? On the issue of politics in the workplace, we can shift from politics in the workplace: yes or no?” to “under what circumstances should politics be discussed in the workplace?” And if we leave out "all circumstances" and "no circumstances," and integrate what’s left, we’ll likely end up with guidelines that generally encourage political discussion in contexts that are 1:1 and informal (like over lunch and via text), and discourage it in contexts that are large-group and formal (like all-hands meetings and over Slack). From “yes or no” to “under what circumstances.”

And finally, are there perverse incentives that are making the issue harder to resolve? Back to the issue of artificial intelligence, we are up against: a fiduciary duty to maximize short-term shareholder value, and a hyper-competitive arms race to beat other companies for AI dominance. So if we addressed these upstream incentives, then more of us could trust that AI is being deployed not because it maximizes profit or wins a race, but because it genuinely creates long-term multi-stakeholder value. Are there perverse incentives?

Now this kind of integration does get confused with both-sidesism, the idea that all sides are equally relevant and valuable. It also gets confused with relativism, the idea that there’s no absolute truth, and everything is contextual.

But the reality is: it's unlikely that one of us is entirely right. (Usually that's a sign of tribalism.) It's also unlikely that all of us are equally right. (That's both-sidesism.) What's most likely is that most of us are partially right, and some of us are more right than others. Which doesn't make for a great tagline, but that's what's up when we're contending with the complexity of reality ;)

So the next time members of YOUR team are locked in an argument about some hot political issue, assume that they EACH have some nugget of insight, and your job is to help them find each other’s, and incorporate it into their OWN perspectives. Challenge them to not just listen to each other and hang out on the horizontal plane, but to enter a new dimension.

Thank you.

Political violence only heightens the need to not just change hearts and minds, but to expand hearts and minds.

For folks in Ashland, Oregon: join Marla Estes and Building Bridgers for a special screening of Faces of X *this* Wednesday, September 17th! Event details are here.

Kainos is one of my kindred Substacks. It's hosted by author and facilitator Alexander Beiner who — like me — is focused on bringing new ways of seeing and being from the margins of culture into the mainstream. Kainos tells stories that help people make sense of a time of upheaval and imagine new futures.

And right now, Alexander and I are doing somewhat of a series on Kainos.

First, he just interviewed me about Faces of X and the philosophy behind the project:

Kainos

What If We’re All Right? with Stephanie Lepp

Stephanie Lepp is an award-winning producer, storyteller, and speaker, whose work strives to expand hearts and minds. She’s the former Executive Director at the Institute for Cultural Evolution, a non-profit think tank that addresses political polarization at its cultural roots…

Listen now

8 months ago · 30 likes · 7 comments · Alexander Beiner and Stephanie Lepp

Soon, we'll be launching a series of 3 Anti-Debates — a new format for debate where participants build off each other's perspectives, so that a more complex view can emerge. Potential Anti-Debate topics include artificial intelligence, psychedelics, and progress, and we’re lining up some prominent public intellectuals. Stay tuned 💫

Do you have friendships that are getting caught in the culture war? Do you have political arguments that go back and forth, but without getting anywhere?

Consider hosting a Faces of X screening.

You’ll get more out of the series when you watch it with people — and perhaps even more when you watch it with people you disagree with 😉

First, consider which video(s) you’d like to screen. You can select individual videos here, or play this 20-minute video that strings together the videos on capitalism, gender, race, and abortion. You may also want to screen my TED talk, which includes a live performance of Faces of Capitalism, and my short talk about the power of integrating different perspectives.

Then consider how you’d like to debrief together. Here are discussion questions you can adapt for your purposes.

Is there anything I can provide to enhance your screening? Would you like me to Zoom into your screening live? Be in touch: stephanie@infinitelunchbox.com

Happy viewing!

My dream has been for Faces of X to be used in the classroom. Specifically, I envision students watching the series, and then writing their own scripts.

And……..(drumroll please)……..my dream has come true!

I’ve heard from teachers around the world who’ve used Faces of X in this way — and even invited students to create their own videos. So, I finally asked a high school teacher if I could share one of her students’ videos with all of you. Her student said yes 🤩

And thus, presenting Faces of Prisons — starring Barbie & Ken! The synthesis offers a “blended solution” to prisons and penal reform:

If you’re an educator, please consider using Faces of X in the classroom. Here are some materials to help you:

• My TED talk about the power of integrating different perspectives

• Tools for learning how to integrate different perspectives

• Discussion questions for watching Faces of X videos

• A guide to writing your own Faces of X script

And if there are other resources that might be helpful, feel free to be in touch: stephanie@infinitelunchbox.com

This past April, Faces of X was performed at TED!

I staged a live performance of Faces of Capitalism, and then gave a talk about the power of integrating different perspectives. My TED talk comes out *today* Friday, August 1st — please enjoy and share!

Now that the talk is live, here's a taste of my TED experience:

First and foremost, it was a wild to adapt Faces of Capitalism for the stage. I got to work with Faces of Capitalism star and TED curator , seasoned theater producers Jo Bonney and Mark Subias, illustrious actor Bill Heck, and TED’s brilliant editorial, lighting, and sound team — including Chee Pearlman and Chris Anderson himself! As an independent producer, it was beyond luxurious to sit on a Zoom call and watch these stunning minds explore out how to translate my video into a live performance.

And I must confess: giving a TED talk is terrifying! But it’s a sweet source of camaraderie because everyone is terrified — from the big whigs to the noobs. Now you know when you watch a TED talk: that person was freaking out backstage just minutes before. But the best advice I got was: enjoy it. So I freaked out backstage…and then got on stage and enjoyed the shit out of it 🤘🤘

And my talk was super well-received! I got a standing ovation, people congratulated me throughout the conference, invitations have come in to give similar talks at other venues. I may have a slot at TEDAI this Fall.

With the TED wind in my sails, I'm now fundraising to produce the next 3 Faces of X videos! On artificial intelligence, free speech, and feminism. FUN. Sharing my TED talk helps with fundraising :) So again, please share far and wide.

Echoing my talk, given the complexity of the challenges we face, may we endeavor not just to change hearts and minds, but to EXPAND hearts and minds 💫💫💫💫

My TED talk comes out tomorrow!

It begins with the illustrious Bill Heck giving a live performance of Faces of Capitalism, and then I give a talk about the power of integrating different perspectives into a bigger picture of reality.

The talk goes live on Friday, August 1st at 8am PT / 11am ET: go.ted.com/hecklepp

Stay tuned! 🍿🍿🍿🍿

When I created Faces of X, I figured I’d release four videos, and take it from there. I wanted to get a sense of the public response in order to gauge whether to continue the series. And the verdict is in:

Faces of X should absolutely continue.

In fact, Faces of X went viral! Upworthy defines "viral" as 6th-generation sharing, i.e. one person sharing to the next at least 6 times. Indeed, Faces of X achieved 6+ generations of sharing across the wilds of the internet.

In quantitative terms, the series achieved over 1.3 million impressions and 100K verified views. In qualitative terms, the comments have been overwhelmingly positive. Here are two examples:

"Faces of X is exactly what this country and the entire western world need right now!" — Noah Otte

"As someone who constantly tries to see all sides...this is so amazing and liberating!!" — LJuneek

As another indicator of success, I was invited to stage a live performance of Faces of Capitalism at TED! That happened last week on the main stage in Vancouver. I also gave a short talk about the philosophy behind the project. The performance and my talk were amazingly well-received. I'll write more about TED when the adrenaline wears off 🙃

Finally and perhaps most heart-warmingly, Faces of X has been used in the classroom. In one instances, a high school teacher assigned her students to watch the series and write their own scripts. She showed me one of the student-made videos — Faces of Prison played by Barbie dolls! BRILLIANT. I asked if her students would be open to me sharing their videos on Substack, so you can watch too 🤩

The original question was whether to continue Faces of X, the answer is a resounding YES. Next up will likely be: artificial intelligence, free speech, and feminism. What do you think of these issues? Who should be the stars? Be in touch 🤙