UNIVERSITY of CREATIVITY

AI is dramatically changing society and industrial structures. How will our individual values change, and how will the meaning of "work," the "skills" required, and the "learning opportunities and workplaces" necessary for that change?

"New Creativities, New Professionals," a discussion about new forms of occupations and learning that will emerge in the future, will feature Mariko Nishimura (CEO of HEART CATCH Co., Ltd.), who acts as a "pollinator," connecting diverse people and creating seeds that will shape the future, as the main catalyst.

For our fourth episode, we welcomed Yoji Sakuma, a researcher and creator who advocates for a future society shaped by "another me" created by artificial intelligence.

Today, we welcome Mr. Yoji Sakuma, a specially appointed researcher at the Osaka University Social Solutions Initiative, who has dedicated his life to the theme of "Is a future in which I and the world live in harmony feasible?" We would like to discuss what kind of society we should create and what new professions will emerge in that future.

Sakuma: First, let me introduce some of my activities. At Osaka University, I'm working on the theme of "virtual beings," or in other words, "something that is my own existence, but is not myself." I'm creating things that represent and express my own opinions and personality, and I'm conducting engineering research on how much consistency they can have with myself, and when they cannot. At the same time, I'm also researching what kind of things we should design for future society. Also, for the past three or four years, I've been collaborating with musicians on media art exhibitions based on the theme of "harmony between myself and the world," which was mentioned earlier.

I had the honor of serving as a director for the 2025 Osaka-Kansai World Expo, and I was particularly in charge of directing the exhibition content for future virtual beings. I presented my proposed scenario for a future society through a media mix including a novel titled "Eudaimonia," manga, illustrations, and music videos, which has been viewed by over 10 million people. It depicts an experience of moving between two futures: one that is an extension of the present, where making decisions for ourselves leads to difficulties and conflicts, and another where everyone lives in harmony and happiness, but AI excessively curates everything, raising the question of whether there is truly free will.

The future society we will create together with a virtual "other me"

Sakuma: Predicting the future is easy if it's 10 years ahead, but it becomes difficult if it's 30 years ahead or so. That's because we ourselves, as players, can choose the future depending on how we act. We may think that the power of each of us is small, but in reality, if we have a strong will to "create the future ourselves" and the ability to increase the number of allies, we can actually change the future. That's why the field of research I'm involved in, future society design, has value.

So, what is the "future" that I am proposing? It is the "dream" of thought and philosophy.

In Western philosophy, there is a "One," a "great one" that cannot be given a name, from which our souls flow, and we cultivate wisdom in order to return to it. Similarly, in India, the individual "Atman" is born from the great "Brahman," and humans practice asceticism in order to attain liberation and return to Brahman. I think this idea of "being born from a great ocean and returning to it" has once arisen in the philosophy and religion of each region.

Alternatively, even in the modern era, which has lost the grand narrative of religion, various people, such as Niklas Luhmann in the fields of sociology and economics, have depicted a system in which a group, which represents a value system composed of individuals, is extended to a higher level, eventually encompassing all of humanity.

In essence, that "dream" was the idea that it would be possible to reconcile "us" and "myself."

In an era dominated by such values, how can we reclaim the sense of being "I" and "we" at the same time? That perspective might be ourselves, our families, our classmates, us gathered here right now, or perhaps Japan as a nation. Or, instead of focusing on the nation as a whole, there's the idea of groups sharing the same problems rising up for each specific issue.

The concept of a group is being redefined, and the question is how we can return to the perspective of "we" living in harmony with nature within these limited resources. The person who presents the best model for this will be considered a great philosopher or thinker by future generations.

The reason I research virtual beings is that humans do not have infinite time, and therefore cannot engage in infinite dialogue or infinite consensus-building.

The philosopher and psychologist Erich Fromm suggested something along the lines of, "Let's create a new system to replace democracy by randomly forming groups of 500 people and building upon their dialogues," but even that method has institutional limitations because it relies on selection and accumulation.

Therefore, I believe that we can break through limitations by having virtual "other selves," who possess virtually infinite time, engage in dialogue with each other over an infinite period of time.

With the emergence of technologies like generative AI, and the appearance of "another being like me," such dialogue will no longer be impossible. Each group will rise up to address any problem, and their respective "other beings" will participate, enabling infinite dialogue. With the existence of this "other me," who possesses infinite time for dialogue, we should be able to become the "we" we have always longed for.

Everyone's "virtual selves" gather together for endless dialogues, and then they bring back the results and report them. If another version of myself speaks on behalf of me, expressing "I hold this opinion with this much weight," and brings it into the dialogue, and then when they bring back the results, I can say it's a success if I can think, "Yes, that's exactly what I would have done."

At that moment, the "(virtual) self" and its collective "(virtual) us" are completed, as beings that reconcile "I" and "we" in all matters.

For example, when we look at the Earth's resources, we need to change the very structure of our society and the way decisions are made. To that end, the new model I propose, looking 30 years into the future, is a model for a society where "I" and "us" can coexist, as I've been discussing. To achieve this, I want to bring out the existence of "I" and create a virtual being that returns to "I".

This concludes my self-introduction and conclusion, so I would be happy to discuss some questions with you all from here on out.

A dialogue between the values of modern society and the future that Yoji is creating.

--Thank you. I think we've heard Yoji's thoughts on how "it will become an interaction between you and the cloud" and "your way of life will change." From here, I'd like to move on to how individual lives, values, and ways of working will change in the future, beyond the social and industrial structures.

Sakuma: I believe the system I'm proposing will have a positive impact on various consensus-building systems in today's democratic society. However, in the process of the system becoming functional, research and development will be necessary, various technologies and implementations will need to be tested in business, and their value will need to be realized by many people, so naturally, I think an industry will emerge there.

On the other hand, because this is a completely unprecedented system, the system itself should become an industry. Currently, there are services where AI agents autonomously schedule appointments or come up with suggested replies for emails and chats, but I believe the first step will be to create a system that incorporates a stronger "this is what I would do" characteristic.

However, while it's said that things like "personal agents" will become popular, I want to resist a future where the stance is "the agent will help me." I want to adopt a model where "I" is expanded and multiplied, and that "I" is always "me." Technically, it may be the same, but I think the future that lies beyond will be different.

Nishimura: Listening to Yoji's story, I wondered how the "real" "me," to whom the "other me" returns from the dialogue, can take responsibility for each decision. What is necessary for "me" to take responsibility for judging and acting upon the results of the dialogue that were brought back?

Sakuma: "Responsibility" is a very important perspective. I think it's crucial to consider how much consistency I feel between myself and my "being" (my other self), and whether I can accept what my being brings back. In short, as long as I feel like "I wouldn't say that" or "I wouldn't reach this kind of consensus," then my research and technological development are not keeping up. That's one answer.

Another approach is to let the Beings handle topics that are less important to you, and to balance things out by directly addressing issues that involve greater responsibility. For example, should the destination for a trip that you and your partner are going on be decided through a dialogue between the Beings? Perhaps not; you yourself should be directly involved. Since humans don't have unlimited time, the Beings engage in dialogue, so naturally, there will also be dialogues in which humans directly participate. The idea is that you should naturally take on the heavy responsibilities, and delegate the lighter ones to the Beings.

Nishimura: Another thing I wondered about was, "Will we really come to judge others solely on text?" What are your thoughts on things that go beyond digitizable information such as text, visuals, and audio, things that are experienced with all five senses, or what Kitaro Nishida called "pure experience" (before the differentiation of subjectivity and objectivity)?

Sakuma: That's where my argument falls short. I'm speaking from the premise that "audiovisual and textual representations can adequately replace what's relevant to our consensus building and opinions," but does that mean we can't express our existence without sensing other senses? Personally, I'd like to say "there's definitely a connection," and that itself is a topic that should be researched.

At the same time, when faced with a problem, some people show outwardly visible reactions such as words and facial expressions, while others show nothing outwardly. They might put on a normal face and say, "I don't like it," but inwardly they are experiencing terrible palpitations, chills, and are in a state where they can no longer think. Therefore, simply covering external sensing may not adequately represent our existence.

Current AI research and development can incorporate the language and facial expressions of people experiencing such emotions as part of its learning process, leading some to believe that audiovisual and text-based learning is sufficient. Personally, however, I believe that "another self" should be calculated by sensing and analyzing various situations and aspects of "me" that aren't outwardly apparent.

We "work" in order to "avoid destruction and create a new society."

—In a society where decisions are made together with "Being," who is "another version of myself," what abilities do you think are unique to "this human being," and what abilities should be cultivated?

Sakuma: In that society, we shouldn't have to work as much as we do now. Most of the coordination work that we currently consider desk work will disappear, and in fact, it won't even need to be done by humans anymore.

Therefore, rather than focusing on "skills," I believe what's needed is the effort to continuously discover "how I want to be" within a situation where I can do what I want to do and obtain what I desire.

In my work for the World Expo, I raise the question of whether situations where we completely rely on beings mean that "our 'self' and free will are being lost." Precisely because beings are so active, we must not forget to cultivate "the ability to imagine you as you are right in front of us," and beyond that, "the ability to love others, or even everything." I believe that this is not something that can be taught by anyone, but a skill that we must acquire ourselves.

Skills are necessary to create such an era, so if you ask "What skills are needed to survive the next 30 years?", I could give many specific examples, but I believe that the skills needed in 30 years are the skills to be truly human, as I just mentioned.

—Finally, based on what we've discussed so far, what new professions do you think will emerge in 2050?

Nishimura: While I find Yoji's points very insightful, from my perspective as someone close to the industrial world, even if one country envisions an ideal world, it seems difficult to achieve if other countries and organizations continue to operate as they have in the past.

However, I also feel a sense of crisis that the current expansionist and results-oriented trend cannot sustain the world. In that case, there will be a need for someone to bridge the gap between the future world that Yoji-san talks about and the current state of capitalism and other systems. With so many people around the world exhausted, I felt that there may be a need for an evangelist-like profession that conveys what it means to be human—saying things like, "It's not about conflict or competition in the first place," "It would be more meaningful to leave that to AI agents rather than humans," and "We should really think about what it means to be ourselves."

--Thank you. How about you, Yoji?

Sakuma: If we're talking about the period after 2040, I don't think the concept of "occupation" will exist then.

"Job skills" themselves exist dispersed within us, and the special skills and things we want to do are harmonized well, and the abilities we can demonstrate and what society needs are meticulously combined in the necessary situations, resulting in a state where they reach the people who need them.

Therefore, after 2040, continuing to develop one's passions and strengths will itself be a way of honing one's professional skills, and the concept of "occupation" will disappear. However, "work" will not disappear, so it is possible that teams wanting to do a particular job will be formed and collaborate as needed.

As Mariko-san said, I agree that making that shift in society is extremely difficult. That's why we need evangelists, and I myself want to help spread that idea or get people to believe in it. I believe that the power of entertainment and art is necessary for that, so I'm working on creating works with various people.

It's not that my model is the only one that exists; we all need to propose and change things little by little, taking steps toward the future we each believe in. When the world faces an unprecedented crisis, the "next model" will be adopted. However, I believe it is our great responsibility, as those living in this era, to transition to the next society in a way that is different from that.