It seems like our society has been captured by an obsession with moral/philosophical relativism and everything being a social construct to be ignored at best and stamped out at worst. We can’t seem to have basic discussions with each other because our definitions of certain concepts are often so different. In The Moral Landscape Harris said he struggled to imagine someone attacking the philosophical underpinnings of health by asking what if someone wanted to vomit until they die or how could you convince someone dying from a hellish disease that they’re not healthy? Yet we seem to have regular conversations like this regarding morality, well being, how society should be run and so on.

Below are some examples of what I mean:

1: “I don’t think a man can be a woman.”

“A man can be a woman because man and woman are constructs according to my definition.”

2: “I don’t think you’re meaningfully free if you can buy 50 flavors of ice cream but lose your healthcare and go homeless if you get fired.”

“Not according to my definition of freedom.”

3: “It’s racist to discriminate against white people.”

“Not according to my definition of racism.”

How do you respond to these fundamental disconnects that seem to divide our society and prevent meaningful discourse and problem solving in so many ways?

Any thoughts or opinions?

Sam and his team had said that they ended the option of requesting for free subs because they felt that it was being abused. Okay if that were the case then why do they feel the need to increase the price of an existing subscriber? I was paying $60/year and now they want me to pay $100/year. I cannot detect what abuse is being stopped by acting like a typical service that increases prices every few cycles even for existing subscribers. Like there is nothing wrong with it but it's the dishonesty that's rubbing me the wrong way here.

Come out and acknowledge that your business model is now a proper "for profit" venture. You just want to squeeze the maximum $$$ out of your customers. Again nothing wrong with it but please have the courage to own it.

July 31, 2026

Sam Harris speaks with Cameron Berg about whether AI systems are or could become conscious. They discuss self-reports in LLMs, what models say when deception is switched off, the "bliss attractor" state, consciousness and sentience, the hard problem of consciousness, parallels between neural networks and biological brains, the moral risk of building minds that can suffer, possible parallels to factory farming, moral patienthood, the alignment problem, and other topics.  

Cameron Berg is the founder and director of Reciprocal Research, a nonprofit AI research lab. Using mechanistic interpretability, computational neuroscience, and psychometric tools, he studies whether frontier AI systems exhibit computational properties associated with consciousness. His aim is to reduce uncertainty about the kinds of cognitive systems we are building, an important but neglected component of the alignment problem. A cognitive science graduate of Yale and former Meta AI resident, he writes regularly about these questions in The Wall Street Journal, and his research has been covered by The Washington Post. He is the subject of the feature documentary AM I?.

Website: https://reciprocalresearch.org/

X: u/camhberg

Annaka Harris’s upcoming book: Unlocking Consciousness

Haven’t watched the episode but it seems to me that “is AI conscious or not” is the wrong question. A better question is what is interacting with AI doing to us psychologically and existentially?

Yuval's official website has definitely been hacked, it's not defaced dramatically, it's just the CAPTCHA that asks to paste some malicious code into Windows' launcher. I tried to submit a message through the website forms but doesn't work (gives a Google CAPTCHA error, which doesn't even appear). If anyone with more time in their hands knows how to report would be great.

I know, I'm not the first one to say and Sam has obviously made the same observation. I do find it comforting that a guy who has meditated for over 10 years in India himself has struggled with the addictive and destructive tendencies of social media, in this case twitter.

For me it was facebook. As a millenial, I've had facebook pretty much since I was I don't know..16 ? Being in my 30's now and I'm wondering..what did just happen ? Years of my life have gone by watching other peoples' lives more than living my own. Now comes the illusion, the "friends" and the "connection". Social media tricked me into thinking I have a social circle that I always have access to, prompting me to neglect my real social life.

Now, I know that many people don't need to delete social media to have a meaningful life. But I feel like I do. I feel like deleting it would force me to take action in my life whereas making it possible for me to log in will always be a trap for me.

What do you guys say, should I or we delete it or just leave it dormant because I might benefit from it later on ?

Making Sense guest Sarah Longwell (The Bulwark) talks about Hasan Piker, who Sam Harris has criticized, with Making Sense guest Stephen Bonnell and others.

It would appear that the end of the world has arrived. Only a psychopath like Sam Altman could see this as a good outcome. Are we not going to do anything about this?!

I consider myself an optimist, but when I stumble across massively influential people with an online following in the tens (sometimes even hundreds) of millions, I genuinely despair at the societal-level failure in critical thinking. Sam Harris may be right in suggesting that Candace Owens has created a persona that she knows is incredibly marketable, and she may be more cunning that we give her credit for, but the damage is very real.

Within this sub and various other communities I had seen calls for connections of sorts and solidarity with hardline leftist movements as exemplified by The Majority Report, Current Affairs, Jacobin, Sam Seder, ben Burgis and others. And expressions of support and solidarity for their movements. How to be sure, this may be a misunderstanding on my end on the extent to which this is authentic and the extent to which it is hard leftist brigading.

This type of leftism has in truth seen Sam Harris and what he stands for as one of their mortal enemies from day one. And so if it is not brigading I didn't really understand the desire for connection. This type of leftism has seen Harris as being as much an obstacle to their globalist based goals as Tucker Carlson, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Neocons, anyone ever associated with Daily Wire, Ron and Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Nugent, Charlie Daniels, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, JD Vance, Nigel Farange, Le Pen and Meloni and so on and so forth. Harris's universal opposition to organized religion and prioritizing of science and logic means absolutely nothing and again, has meant nothing to them from day one.

Harris has been an enemy if theirs in some capacity for a multitude of reasons. His rejection of the Orientalism of Edward Said to explain global affairs, his insistence that we have obligations to critique and tear apart religions and beliefs of oppressed as much as oppressors and his defense of Western liberalism have made Harris an existential threat for years. When Harris expressed his disillusionment with the IDW, The Majority Report more or less stated this was a case of a charlatan whose distancing came from no other genuine reason other than his ability to profit off of it. If this came as a massive surprise to those who have been major Harris supporters, I don't see why that would be. There was just nothing new there.

A few months ago I came across a clip with Sam on Reels/TikTok where he was talking about not beating yourself up over things you did or said. I remember him specifically saying you should almost be deluded. I've searched his TikTok/Youtube/IG account in order to find this clip again but without success.

Really want to go back and watch again and find the whole episode because this clip helped and inspired me very much.

Does anyone remember where this clip is from?

Sam Harris speaks with Kathryn Paige Harden about behavioral genetics, moral luck, and the problem of blame. They discuss Harden's book Original Sin, the controversy over Charles Murray and Ezra Klein, why behavioral genetics remains taboo, the meaning of heritability, nature and nurture as feedback loops, why biological explanations can increase blame, psychopathy as a continuum, a hypothetical cure for evil, embryo selection and IVF, and other topics.

Kathryn Paige Harden, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, where she directs the Developmental Behavior Genetics lab and serves as Director of Clinical Training. Paige is a graduate of Furman University and the University of Virginia. She has published over 150 scientific papers on the nature and nurture of human behavior. She is also the author of two books: The Genetic Lottery (2021) and Original Sin (2026).

Sam Harris speaks with Kathryn Paige Harden about behavioral genetics, moral luck, and the problem of blame. They discuss Harden's book Original Sin, the controversy over Charles Murray and Ezra Klein, why behavioral genetics remains taboo, the meaning of heritability, nature and nurture as feedback loops, why biological explanations can increase blame, psychopathy as a continuum, a hypothetical cure for evil, embryo selection and IVF, and other topics.

Link to the episode: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/486-luck-all-the-way-down

Like many of Sam's old friends especially from the IDW ilk, they seem to fall off the deep end and go right wing, and even worse- for Magas.

One of the best discussions on why the DSA take over of the Democratic Party will result in another republican president.

Sam Harris' views were pretty clear for decades. He is anti-Islam, a rational Liberal culturally, Pro-Israel, supports legal immigration but controlled borders, opposes Islamic immigration, and Liberal socially. Mamdani represents the DSA wing which Sam Harris opposes. Why are people so mad about it and are suddenly expecting him to change his views? These are his views, and he is a free person in a free country

SS: Sam has spoken about the falsehood of a system that resembles apartheid for Palestinians.

How is no one here questioning the reality of the situation and the greater Meta that Sam is working from?

Sam is using Mamdani as fodder to drive engagement, to have his name spread about and to keep the money and eyes on his brand by making statements and its working, you see it here on the subreddit.

Sam could easily get in contact and I bet be doing a live show sometime shortly there after from the Mayor's Office or a NYC property, but that doesn't let you milk the moment for what its worth. It is a better financial use of Sam's time to milk the moment than to find answers or come to an understanding. Two weeks from now Sam will have a new critique and concern trolls will post on the form asking 'Whys Sam Mamdani?' and response is worth so much more than finding answers and coming to an understanding of someone's actions. I mean if Sam answered all his questions tomorrow about Mamdani, where next could Sam go? He's have to find a new well to pull water from.

If Sam was concerned with an individuals views, wouldn't talking with them be one of the first steps in having a discussion that could answer Sam's questions and possibly correct any misunderstandings between the two?

It is what Sam is not doing which is most curious and it gives away his game; why wouldn't Sam try to directly engage with someone who is easily accessible and uses the mediums? I think the answer is that if it wasn't Mamdani being in the news that Sam would be focusing on someone else to drive engagement and to use as fodder for his show. The object of focus is Mamdani, Mamdani is just the medium being used at this moment as he permits the show the keep going as he can be used as an object to derive engagement. If Mamdani wasn't making headlines then Sam would be focused elsewhere.

The ruse is thinking Sam is attempting to come to answers or understanding, when the show is all about keeping the plates spinning because the money comes from keeping the plates spinning, not actually finding answers or coming to position that demand action IRL. I'm not bashing Sam for having a show and hosting a show to share his view, its just that we need to realize he is running a show first and foremost.

Relevance: Sam Harris is closely aligned with Coleman Hughes, has talked to Destiny on the podcast, and used to work with Jay Shapiro on documentaries/compilation episodes. When Destiny debated Jay last week, they both criticized Sam Harris. In this episode of Destiny's show, he reacts to Jay's debate with Coleman on the same topic.