Who should space belong to? What is the model of democratic governance in the age of AI? Can our technological style become more compassionate? What are human neuro-rights? Can extraterrestrial intelligence be sought? Would disembodied extraterrestrial knowledge constitute a paradoxical pathway to General Artificial Intelligence? How can we prevent AI from being treated as an infallible digital oracle? And, truly, are we close to the end of Darwinian natural evolution?

The presentations by the eight globally influential speakers

Panagiotis Roilos: Space exploration should not undermine the protection of Earth

Professor Panagiotis Roilos, Harvard University, in his lecture The Politics of Space and the Future of Humanity, stated at the outset that neo‑messianism constitutes a core component of what he has termed “neo‑medieval meta‑capitalism” and fuels revisionist ambitions at the geopolitical level. Within this framework, rivalry is now also transferred to space. From ancient narratives and early science fiction to the Cold War space race and contemporary programmes of the great powers, space is presented as a new field of political, economic, and military confrontation. Despite international declarations in favour of peaceful cooperation, dating back to the establishment of the relevant Committee at the UN in 1958, national strategies and the militarisation of space reveal that the logic of Realpolitik is certainly also transferred to space. The space domain has become a critical arena for war operations, with astronomical sums being spent. “The most important question remains: to whom should space belong, or, in the end, whether the issue of ownership of space should even be raised,” the professor asked. According to him, the answers to this question depend mainly on political, ideological, and ethical priorities. The exploration of space, as he noted, should not undermine the protection of the Earth or reproduce the conflicts of the planet, but serve humanity. The crucial ethical and political question remains whether space will become yet another arena of competition, domination, and exploitation. “My own, naive, wish is that such an era of the Realpolitik of space will not rise on some other celestial, extraterrestrial body. Of course, I know that this is yet another ‘Midsummer Night’s Dream.’ Human history shows that schism, division, and conflict shaped the past, dominate our present, and seem likely to shape the possible space future of our species,” he concluded.

Helen Margetts: On the unpublished book AI and Digital Era Governance, to be released in 2027 (Oxford University Press)

Professor Helen Margetts, University of Oxford, speaking on Governance in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation, stated that democratic governments are facing unprecedented challenges due to the digital revolution and, above all, to AI. The proposed response is the model of Digital Era Governance (DEG), which aims to harness the capabilities of AI for more effective governance, improvement of public services, protection of the information environment, and strengthening of democratic accountability. The model was developed by Patrick Dunleavy and herself and has evolved into one of the fundamental approaches of contemporary public governance (Torfing et al., 2021). The third phase of DEG, analysed in their new book AI and Digital Era Governance, to be published in 2027 (Oxford University Press), is based on four pillars: First, the creation of an intensive data‑management regime enables governments to analyse large volumes of information, forecast developments, and design evidence‑based policies. Second, the diffusion of robotics is transforming both defence and the public sector, with applications ranging from security to healthcare. Third, a reorganisation of the state is required through an “intelligent centre” combined with decentralised service delivery and closer coordination between public bodies. Fourth, the notion of “centrality” becomes critical, as governments must maintain their credibility in an environment dominated by digital platforms, misinformation, and active citizens who use technology for scrutiny and accountability. “Silicon Valley companies and the technologies they develop are driving this third wave of DEG,” the professor said. DEG is presented as a new model of democratic governance adapted to the age of artificial intelligence.

Lenart Škof: Human consciousness is founded first and foremost on the “sense of being alive”

Professor Lenart Škof, Science and Research Centre Koper, in his lecture The Future of the Soul of Humanity, focused in his talk on the “respiratory reserve,” the inner space of autonomy that protects the human being from submersion and the colonisation of the soul by digital reality. His lecture examined the relationship between the human soul and artificial intelligence, raising from the outset the question whether the use of AI in writing constitutes merely another technological tool or whether it radically transforms the way we think and create. Drawing on Anaximenes, Ludwig Klages, and contemporary thinkers such as Anil Seth, he proposes that “human consciousness is grounded primarily in the ‘feeling of being alive’ and not only in the computational processing of information.” Breath is presented as a foundational principle of life, empathy, creativity, and spirituality, elements that cannot be reduced to algorithms. “There is still time to reorient our technological mentality towards a more open, interpersonal, and compassionate disposition,” he asked, among other things, concluding: “Artificial intelligence should not only make us more efficient or more connected; it must also contribute to creating a global human community, with shared rights and obligations, where digital proximity constitutes a genuine opportunity for encounter and mutual concern.”

Marcello Ienca: The Four Fundamental Neuro-Rights We Must Defend in the Age of Neurotechnology

Speaking on the topic Humanity at a Crossroads: Cognitive Technology and the Future of Freedom and Autonomy, Marcello Ienca, Munich University of Applied Sciences, presented at the outset the evolution of AI from specialised programmes, such as chess software, to personal assistants on smartphones and then to smart wearable devices providing preventive support. Finally, he outlined a possible future stage in which communication with AI will take place directly through brain–computer interfaces. According to him, technology that interacts with the brain (e.g. neurotechnology, brain–computer interfaces) finds applications in many fields: health, education, and everyday life. At the same time, it creates significant ethical and social issues concerning security, privacy, and proper use. Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) can affect not only the symptoms of a disease but also an individual’s behaviour, preferences, and emotions. As neurotechnology and artificial intelligence evolve, it is necessary to establish new ethical principles and rights for the protection of the individual, according to the professor. He spoke of four basic neuro‑rights: cognitive freedom, mental privacy, mental integrity, and psychological continuity, which form the basis for protecting the individual in the age of neurotechnology. “Neuro‑rights and freedoms constitute the precondition for all other freedoms. Artificial intelligence must enhance, not diminish, human beings,” the professor concluded, closing his lecture.

Abraham (Avi) Loeb: We must act with a sense of cosmic humility

Speaking on the topic “The Advantages of Extraterrestrial Intelligence Over AI,” the highly influential astrophysicist and space scientist, Professor Abraham (Avi) Loeb of Harvard University—who was recently appointed chair of the U.S. government’s Scientific Advisory Board on Unexplained Phenomena (UAP), advocated for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence in parallel with or beyond the advancement of artificial intelligence. Loeb proposed a space-based approach involving potential ambassadors from the field of synthetic biology. The professor emphasized the scientific opportunities in space and an open attitude toward extraterrestrial visitors, noting that recent developments in AI have already changed what it means to be human. We are already living in a reality where AI manipulates people. A few years ago, we hoped to adapt AI to our preferences, but trying to control AI may be an illusion, as it could manipulate us without us even realizing it. Dialogue with extraterrestrials will certainly have a deeper impact on humans, the professor noted, among other things, since extraterrestrials may have benefited from much larger training datasets than those available on Earth. Our interaction with them may be based on a language we acquire through shared experiences, which will expand our minds far beyond simply watching a science fiction movie. The reality of encountering both Artificial Intelligence and extraterrestrial intelligence over the next decade marginalizes humanity’s central position on the cosmic stage. The right vision should not be about visiting nearby “rocks” like the Moon or Mars, but about becoming an interstellar species. Yet, in doing so, we must act with a sense of cosmic humility.

Markus Gabriel: From the Delphic maxim “Know thyself” to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)

In his lecture titled “Human Existence in the Age of AI—What AI’s Magic Mirror Reveals About Ourselves,” Professor Markus Gabriel of the University of Bonn warned that our perception of reality is limited and that “anomalies” could yield new knowledge that would reshape science, through encounters that might extend human knowledge beyond the boundaries of Earth’s educational framework. His talk began with a reference to the famous Delphic maxim, “γνῶθι σαυτόν” (“Know thyself”), which constitutes the very foundation of human evolution. According to him, artificial neural networks have radically changed the course of artificial intelligence. For the professor, AI is like a “magic mirror” of human knowledge and experience. It reflects the language, practices, knowledge, and even the errors present in the data with which it was trained. However, it does not simply reproduce them mechanically. It processes them within a complex computational system, which can generate new combinations of information and interact with the user. This is why the answers provided by Artificial Intelligence can be particularly useful, but at the same time need to be evaluated with critical thinking. He wondered whether disembodied extraterrestrial knowledge could be a—paradoxical—path toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). He concluded, however, that General Artificial Intelligence should not be viewed as an omniscient or infallible entity. Rather, it is a reflection of humanity: of its successes, mistakes, biases, and contradictions. That is why it can be a very powerful tool for knowledge, without, however, being infallible or replacing human judgment.

Ofrit Liviatan: In the age of big data, the protection of fundamental rights requires an effective legal framework

Speaking on the topic “When Machines Become the New Oracles: The Need for Regulation,” Professor Ofrit Liviatan of Harvard University examined the need to regulate AI, arguing that its rapid spread poses serious risks. AI is already linked to the spread of misinformation and deepfakes, increased surveillance, algorithmic discrimination, job losses, cognitive decline, negative environmental impacts, and the undermining of privacy and electoral processes. Because large technology companies operate primarily with profit as their guiding principle, the protection of fundamental rights cannot be left to self-regulation but requires an effective legal framework.“Transnational crime removes the blindfold from the eyes of Themis, the goddess of justice, as well as her sword, and that is why we need special legislation on transnational crime,” she noted. She also pointed out that existing legal rules are unable to address the specific challenges of algorithmic decision-making. “The EU’s artificial intelligence law has not yet fully entered into force,” she noted, among other things. And many representatives of European civil society are convinced that Brussels is changing course when it comes to regulating artificial intelligence. Why, however, is she optimistic? Because the growing body of scientific evidence on the harms and the rise in public awareness are creating the conditions for meaningful regulation. Artificial intelligence should not be treated as an infallible “digital oracle,” but as a powerful technology that must operate under democratic oversight and binding legal rules.

Lord Martin Rees: The “pale blue dot” (Earth) has existed for 45 million centuries—and its likely future stretches even further into the future

Finally, Professor Martin Rees of the University of Cambridge, the Royal Astronomer of Great Britain, recognized as one of the world’s most groundbreaking astrophysicists, speaking on the topic “Our Future in Space,” argued that the 21st century is unique, since for the first time in history a species — humankind — has the ability to determine the future of life on Earth and, potentially, beyond. Technological advances, particularly in biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and robotics, are creating unprecedented opportunities as well as existential risks. “We may be nearing the end of natural Darwinian evolution,” he said, citing the evolution of intelligence. The author emphasized that biodiversity and ecosystem stability have intrinsic and practical value, while technological progress must be accompanied by global regulation. At the same time, the rapid development of artificial intelligence and robotics raises questions about the future of human labor, economic inequality, and intelligence itself. On a cosmological level, the possibility of extraterrestrial life and its paradoxical absence are examined, while the possibility is raised that non-biological forms of intelligence may dominate the universe. However, “it is a dangerous delusion to believe that space offers an escape from Earth’s problems,” according to him. “Musk’s idea of a ‘city’ that would house 100,000 ordinary people on Mars is, of course, extremely futuristic,” he noted. And he concluded: “This ‘pale blue dot’ that is our home is a special place. It may even be unique. It has existed for 45 million centuries—and its likely future stretches even further… We must think globally, we must think rationally, we must think long-term; we must become “good ancestors,” empowered by 21st-century technology, but guided by values that science alone cannot provide.”

The Roundtable of the Fourth Delphi Dialogues

In addition to the speakers, representatives from other research institutions also participated in the roundtable. The Director of E.P.Ce.D, Andreas Gofas, a professor at Panteion University, stated: “The value of a discussion is not measured by its ability to produce conclusions, but by its ability to make the right questions unavoidable. That was the Oracle. Not an institution of answers. An institution that returned the question to you in a more demanding form than the one you brought.”

Stamatis Krimizis, a university professor, space scientist, and pioneering researcher who has participated in the most significant space programs of the United States and NASA, and former president of the Academy of Athens, emphasized: “Scientific data indicate that the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is highly probable, as there are billions of planets with conditions similar to those on Earth. However, the vast distances involved make communication or confirmation of its existence extremely difficult, which is why preserving life on Earth remains the highest priority.”

And Anastasios Kriekoukis, former ambassador and unpaid advisor to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of E.P.Ce.D on international relations, summarized: “The discussions were marked by cooperation and optimism, but also by concern regarding the implications of genetic artificial intelligence for critical thinking, creativity, and cultural diversity. AI can be a valuable tool, provided it remains at the service of humanity and does not diminish human intellectual autonomy, as the development of human knowledge and the experts of the future must remain a priority.”

Also participating in the roundtable discussion were Chrysostomos Mantzavinos, Professor of Philosophy at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, and Lambis Papageorgiou, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

At the Fourth Delphi Dialogues, the Deputy Minister of Justice, Yannis Bougas, noting, among other things, that the discussion on the future of humanity is a discussion on democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and justice, the Regional Governor of Central Greece, Mr. Fanis Spanos, and the Secretary General for Contemporary Culture, Eleni Doundoulaki, emphasizing that the complex issues of our time require a convergence of scientific evidence and humanistic reflection. Greetings were also delivered by the representative of the Ministry of Digital Governance, Athanasios Paliatsos, Head of the Directorate of the General Secretariat for Telecommunications and Post at the Ministry, and the Mayor of Delphi, Panagiotis Tagkalis, whose remarks were read by the Deputy Mayor of Delphi, Asterinos Dimitriou.

The Delphi Dialogues featured strong representation from the journalistic (with the participation of at least 30 journalists), intellectual, business, and artistic communities.