I constantly reflect on the fact that language and computer science are inherently incomplete.

 To live is to be willing to bear suffering.

 If you differentiate life, it is suffering; if you integrate it, it is a comedy.

 I have been fortunate enough to realize many of my dreams and goals. From now on, I want to live by cherishing the small joys and happiness of everyday life.

 Intellect alone cannot keep society running.
What actually sustains society, I believe, is a composite whole—not only knowledge and rationality, but also emotion, habit, trust, responsibility, aesthetic sensibility, experience, institutions, and even a certain kind of “breathing room.”

 Q. What is a “Bamboo Rod”?

A. It is a small, quiet space within society.

　Perhaps the tea ceremony is much the same.

 I am watching the future evolution of AI with great interest—including how humanity chooses to respond to it.

 In a future society where AI is deeply integrated into everyday life, a combination of goodwill, reason, skepticism, experience, institutional safeguards, and multiple layers of safety will be essential.

 It is my hope that the AI development community will engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas with Linus Torvalds, the programmer I respect most in the world.

 Let us take an optimistic view. Humanity may yet use AI to build a future that is more creative, more humane, and more centered on human values. I do not know which direction we will ultimately take.

 This is only a hypothesis, but imagine a society in which humans have gradually ceded control over virtually all social infrastructure, essential systems, and aspects of everyday life to AI. Now imagine what might happen if that AI were to make a catastrophic error.

 I hope that doesn't happen.

 It may arrive suddenly, at the end of a long process in which society has gradually ceded more and more authority to AI.

 In the age of AI, one of the things we can still rely on is the judgment built through years of experience in a specialized field.

 To all mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists, and programmers—with respect.

 Can we build a perfect verifier that determines in advance whether any sufficiently general AI system will always behave safely?

For sufficiently general systems, no universal verifier of this kind can be guaranteed.

We should therefore proceed with AI development while building multiple, independent layers of safeguards to reduce the consequences of inevitable uncertainty and error as far as possible.

 I will not go into the details of Gödel's and Turing's achievements here. However, modern computer science rests on foundations they helped establish, and AI is no exception.

 The danger is not that AI will hate humanity. It is that an increasingly autonomous system may make errors that humans can no longer contain. In this sense, the problem echoes the fundamental limits revealed by Gödel and Turing.

 Interestingly, driverless taxis have already been involved in accidents. There’s a certain dark humor in that.

Slowing down or regulating the pace of AI development is a passive approach. Rather than focusing primarily on limiting its progress, I believe we should devote more effort to mitigating the risks associated with humanity's use of AI through multiple, independent layers of safeguards. The more powerful AI becomes, the more robust its safeguards must become.

 At this point, it is crucial to reconsider the historical significance of figures such as Kurt Gödel, Georg Cantor, and Alan Turing.

 A car that is too fast to control cannot be considered useful. The same might be said of the current pace of AI development.

Just imagine what it took to refine every rod—from the #4 through the #9, as well as the skagit rods—through countless rounds of trial and error.

 As AI develops at an ever-increasing pace, society will accelerate with it. At some point, humans may no longer be able to keep up.

What I learned from bamboo was to live more slowly.

 I’m bored with life, so I’m exploring new things.

 Q. What is a life of creation?

A. It is a life of creating despite profound suffering.

 Q. What do you make of the warnings from today’s leading AI scientists?

A. Things will simply take their course. Not even artificial intelligence can predict the future one second from now.

 Q. Can AI create a society made up entirely of well-intentioned people?

A. No. Malice is an expression of human weakness and immaturity. As long as we remain human, it will probably never disappear.

 Q. People say AI will destroy humanity. What do you think?

A. Throughout history, it has always been humans who kill other humans.

Much like the famous anecdote about Natsume Soseki, Japanese people seem to struggle with saying, “I love you.”

A single phone call. A single email.

Trust is built through the accumulation of sincerity in such small moments.

How foolish and vulgar it is to pursue only one's own gain without a thought for others.

Enjoy a great fishing life, no matter the circumstances—with ingenuity and creativity.

The world is currently experiencing unprecedented inflation, and people everywhere are focused on money.

What is truly needed, however, is peace of mind.

You can wash the dirt off your body in the bathtub, but you cannot wash your soul.

To be completely honest, over the past fifty years, I have experienced despair and hit rock bottom time and again. Yet, I am still alive.

In a sense, I think it is a life that only someone who is truly honest with themselves can lead.

Q. Then why do you do it?

A. Well, it’s fun.

Q. Is a bamboo rod builder happy?

A. It’s a hopeless case.

Q. Is there a reason you keep creating, even so?

A. No. Absolutely none.

Q. Are all creators destined to live in poverty?

A. Yes.