On September 10, Free Pressers gathered in Pittsburgh for our latest live debate, the third installment of the Freedom Debate series we are presenting with support from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The night carried a gravity no one could have anticipated. Just hours before we began, Charlie Kirk was gunned down while spea…

Read more

But in the age of AI, our sages are machines we program ourselves, models that spit out the information we already have, reflecting our biases and our blind spots. What happens to the truth when we no longer wrestle with it, and only receive it passively through ultra-intelligent machines?

Last Thursday, 900 people convened in San Francisco for a debate that asked: Will the truth survive artificial intelligence? Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas and AI “godmother” Fei-Fei Li argued that this technology will improve our understanding of the world. They faced off against computer scientist Jaron Lanier and author Nicholas Carr, who argued that it would do just the opposite. The Free Press’s founder, Bari Weiss, moderated. We’re proud to have partnered with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the nation’s leading free speech defender, for this latest live debate.

Legendary comedian Colin Quinn kicked off the evening, shrugging off concerns about AI and noting that the internet has already long disrupted our relationship with the truth. “Google stole all the people in your life. Like that one friend you went to for legal advice. They weren’t a lawyer, they didn’t have any legal knowledge, but they’d give you a confident answer,” he quipped. “Before Waze and Google Maps, when you were lost, you’d sit in the back of the car and watch the disintegration of your parents’ marriage in real time.”

At the beginning of the debate, 68 percent of the live audience voted for AI optimism, affirming that the truth will survive artificial intelligence.

In her opening statement, Li emphasized that all life-changing technological innovations bear some risks, but that these risks are manageable: “Yes, [technology] has negative consequences, no matter how well-intended. Fires burn, cars have fatal crashes, printed books can spread lies, and medicine can have fatal side effects,” she said. “What AI does to the truth is up to us, not AI.”

Lanier agreed that it’s up to humans to protect the truth in the age of AI, but was less optimistic that we will do so: “The issue with AI is not the AI. It’s not the large language model. It’s the concentration of power and wealth around who owns it,” he said. “You have to look at the big system, including the people, the money, the business, the society, the psychology, the mythmaking, the politics.”

Throughout the night, the debaters dove into the weeds on Silicon Valley business models, AI’s effect on education and its potential to discourage deep learning, open-source as a way to ensure transparency, and much more. By the end of the night, Lanier and Carr were able to convince 23 percent of the audience to switch to their side, changing more minds than their opponents, and winning the night for the pessimists.

Josh Vann, 27, traveled up from Los Angeles with his fiancée for the debate. “I expected a battle of utopianism versus doomsaying,” he said. “But despite the debaters’ disagreements, it was a really nuanced conversation about AI and all of its complexities.”

For those of you who weren’t able to join us, you can listen to the debate here, or wherever you get your podcasts:

FIRE knows free speech makes free people. You make it possible. Join the movement today at thefire.org.

Read more

This technology can radically democratize access to knowledge, making expert-level information available to anyone with an internet connection. It can bridge language barriers with instantaneous perfect translation. And it can process enormous troves of data, leading to breakthroughs that may cure cancer or solve climate change.

All of this is profoundly exciting—but there is also reason for serious concern.

The ideological bias and censorship baked into the most widely used AI systems are well-documented. Chatbots are getting better at mimicking how humans talk and write, while frequently communicating false information with confidence. Already, AI is capable of generating fake images and sounds that are indistinguishable from real photographs and recordings. It seems clear that this technology might be harnessed to generate and spread lies, to sink us deeper into echo chambers, and to manipulate our public discourse.

So, will AI bring us closer to understanding the world as it is? Or will it cause us to lose our grip on reality?

That’s the subject of The Free Press’s next live debate on May 15 at the Palace of Fine Arts Theatre in San Francisco. We’re proud to partner with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) to bring together four leading experts who will tackle the question: Will the truth survive artificial intelligence?

Paid subscribers now have exclusive access to purchase presale tickets before they are available to the general public in 24 hours. The access code is below.

It’s truly an all-star lineup.

Aravind Srinivas, founder and CEO of Perplexity AI, and Fei-Fei Li, the esteemed computer scientist known as the “godmother of AI,” will argue that this technology will enhance our understanding of the world. They’ll face computer scientist Jaron Lanier and Superbloom author Nicholas Carr, who will make the case that AI will do just the opposite. Bari Weiss will moderate.

VIP tickets include access to our exclusive debate after-party, where you can chat with Bari and members of The Free Press and FIRE teams, mingle with the debaters, and connect with fellow attendees IRL. Plus: strong drinks and great food. You won’t want to miss it. Note: The location will be communicated to VIPs closer to the event, and it will be within a 10-minute drive from the Palace, with ample parking available and shuttles from the venue.

Read more

These four ideals formed the bedrock of the liberal world order. But in 2025, they are under threat from a radically new set of technolo…

Read more