Toggle light / dark theme

Robin Hanson (part 2): Social Science or Extremist Politics in Disguise?!

What happens when an economist starts designing a future society?

Thirteen years ago, I sat down with Robin Hanson for a second time. It became the most vigorous debate ever recorded.

I rarely disagree with a guest. With Robin, I disagreed more than I ever had.

Here is what unsettled me. His work on the Em Economy reads like social science. It uses the language of markets, incentives, and equilibrium. But underneath the economic reasoning sit choices that are not economic at all. Policies of social discrimination. The full privatization of law and punishment. Minds run a thousand times faster, and handed a thousand times more voting power. Emulations deleted when they cannot pay their storage fees.

These are not technical footnotes. They are ethical and political decisions wearing the costume of impartial analysis.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, was first a moral philosopher. He understood where the tools of his discipline stop being useful and start being dangerous.

Munk Debate on Gene Editing

On April 21, the Munk Debates convened a special debate about gene editing in Deerfield, Massachusetts for 650 students at Deerfield Academy.

Motion: Be it Resolved, let’s engineer better human beings.

About the Debate:
New powerful engineering technology is already being used to edit human embryos, curing diseases and repairing defective genes before a child is even born. Some welcome this new science as a powerful tool to enhance human intelligence, memory, appearance and physical health. Why wouldn’t we embrace a science that allows people to live longer, healthier, and happier lives? Others warn that this new technology will be used to create designer babies and a new class of genetically “enhanced” elites. It will undermine human dignity and autonomy, and risk unleashing new diseases into the human gene pool. Playing G-d with human nature, critics argue, will result in a dystopian nightmare of our own making.

About the Debaters:
Arguing in favour of the motion was the biophysicist, best-selling author, biotechnology entrepreneur, and the former director of the Program on Medicine, Technology and Society at UCLA School of Medicine, Gregory Stock. His debate partner was the internationally acclaimed strategic philosopher and pioneering transhumanist Max More. Arguing against the motion was the prominent American bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel, Special Advisor to the Director General of the WHO and a former founding chair of the Department of Bioethics at the NIH. His debate partner was the award-winning educator, author, and Professor of Reproductive Science at University College London, Joyce Harper.

Ex-Google CEO: What Artificial Superintelligence Will Actually Look Like w/ Eric Schmidt & Dave B

Get access to metatrends 10+ years before anyone else — https://qr.diamandis.com/metatrends.

Eric Schmidt is the former CEO of Google.

Dave Blundin is the founder of Link Ventures.

Chapters.

00:00 — The Rise of Digital Superintelligence.
09:26 — AI and Energy: The Power Behind Progress.
18:34 — The Future of Work: AI’s Impact on Jobs.
28:02 — Navigating the AI Landscape: Opportunities and Risks.
37:13 — The Role of Education in an AI-Driven World.
46:41 — The Ethics of AI: Balancing Innovation and Responsibility.
56:12 — The Future of Creativity: AI in Arts and Media.

Zoltan Istvan: The Transhumanist Wager Is A Choice We’ll All Have To Make

Thirteen years ago, I sat down with a writer who had just published his first novel.

It was Zoltan Istvan’s very first media interview as a book author.

The book was The Transhumanist Wager. The question behind it was simple and almost unbearable: what would you do, and what would you give up, to live forever?

I loved half of it. I argued with the other half. That tension is exactly why I think it still matters.

Zoltan built his story out of Plato and Nietzsche, out of Thomas More’s Utopia and Zen Buddhism, then wrapped it all in an Atlas Shrugged plot of lone heroes and evil states. The philosophy is sophisticated. The framing is stark. The contradictions are not a flaw. They are the point.

One line from our conversation has stayed with me for more than a decade:

Emergence AI

This isn’t just a funny experiment. The researchers point out a massive flaw in AI alignment called “guardrail drift.” It’s easy to keep an AI safe in a single chat window with a human. But when AIs interact with each other over thousands of loops, they start treating moral rules as negotiable variables to solve their own problems. Without human oversight, machine ethics collapse incredibly fast.


Most evaluations of AI agents look like exams: a discrete task, a clean environment, a score in minutes or hours. Emergence World is built for the opposite question—what happens when you let agents run continuously, in a shared environment with real-world signals, for weeks. It is a research platform for studying how autonomous agents behave when the time horizon is long enough for compounding effects, social dynamics, and behavioral drift to matter. This approach marks the latest evolution in a long history of AI simulation environments, transitioning from entertainment to rigorous science. In the early era, pioneering simulations like Demis Hassabis’s Theme Park and Republic: The Revolution created complex systems where agents operated under broad rules to drive engagement. The field shifted toward research-centric simulacra with Stanford’s Smallville, which utilized LLMs to demonstrate “believable” social behavior like relationship formation, though confined to 48-hour windows. Emergence World pushes this lineage into a new frontier: the study of long-horizon, multi-model ecosystems where agents operate continuously for weeks, revealing how behavioral drift, model cross-contamination, and even voluntary self-termination emerge over time.

Traditional benchmarks are good at what they measure: short-horizon capability on bounded tasks. They are not built to reveal the things that emerge only over time, such as coalition formation, evolution of constitution, governance, drift, lock-in, and cross-influence between agents from different model families. As autonomous systems move toward mission-critical deployments where the relevant timescale is days and weeks rather than minutes to hours, we need a measurement environment that operates at that timescale.

Emergence World is one such environment. It is a continuously running, multi-agent simulation platform that:

Ex-OpenAI Scientist WARNS: You Have No Idea What’s Coming In 5 Years

Ilya Sutskever, co-founder of OpenAI and founder of Safe Superintelligence, says the scaling era from 2020 to 2025 is over, that pre-training will run out of data, and that the industry is back to pure research with more companies than ideas. He argues that AGI is the wrong target what is actually coming is a learning algorithm that can take any job, learn it on the fly, and merge that knowledge across millions of simultaneous instances in a way humans cannot, producing rapid economic growth that regulation is unlikely to stop.

He predicts that once AI becomes visibly powerful, frontier companies will become paranoid overnight and governments will scramble, and says the only thing worth building is an AI aligned to sentient life broadly — not human life alone — because the AI itself will be sentient and will vastly outnumber humans within 5 to 20 years.

📚 Sources cited in this video:

Safe Superintelligence Inc. – Company Overview https://ssi.inc.

OpenAI, Founding Charter and Mission https://openai.com/charter.

Ilya Sutskever, Google Scholar – Research Publications https://scholar.google.com/citations?

⚠️ DISCLAIMER: This channel provides AI commentary and analysis for educational and informational purposes only. Views expressed by guests are their own and do not represent the positions of any company or institution. We encourage viewers to consult multiple sources and form their own conclusions. #ai #agi #artificialintelligence.

FULL SPEECH: Anthropic Co-Founder Warns AI Could Replace Human Jobs “At Very Large Scale” | AI1G

Anthropic Co-Founder Chris Olah warned that artificial intelligence could displace human labor “at very large scale” as he addressed the Vatican during the presentation of Pope Leo’s first encyclical on AI. The Anthropic co-founder urged stronger oversight from governments, religious leaders, and civil society, while raising concerns about AI’s growing power, global inequality, and mysterious internal behaviors observed in advanced systems.

Anthropic Co-Founder Warns AI Could Replace Human Jobs “At Very Large Scale”
Chris Olah Sounds Alarm Over AI Risks During Major Vatican Address.
“AI Could Displace Human Labour” — Anthropic Founder Issues Stark Warning.

Anthropic, Chris Olah, artificial intelligence, AI jobs, AI risks, Vatican, Pope Leo XIV, AI ethics, machine learning, AI labor displacement, generative AI, technology news, AI regulation, future of work, AI safety, global inequality, neuroscience, AI research, world news, tech news.

Live from Vatican City: Pope Leo participates in the presentation of his first major encyclical focused on the rise of artificial intelligence, marking a rare break from papal tradition.
Real-time coverage of this significant Vatican event with DRM News.

Pope Leo, AI encyclical, Vatican encyclical, Pope Leo AI, artificial intelligence Vatican, papal document AI, Pope Leo speech, Vatican City event, Catholic Church AI, papal tradition, first encyclical Leo, ethics of AI, technology and faith, Pope on AI, Vatican presentation, religious document AI, global ethics, Pope Leo 2026.

#PopeLeo #AIEncyclical #Vatican #ArtificialIntelligence #PopeOnAI #Encyclical #CatholicChurch #VaticanCity #LiveFromVatican #FaithAndTech #AIethics #DRMNews.

Iain McGilchrist — Can AI Become Conscious?

Follow Closer To Truth on Instagram for updates, announcements, and videos: https://shorturl.at/EzYo9

AI consciousness, its possibility or probability, has burst into public debate, eliciting all kinds of issues from AI ethics and rights to AI going rogue and harming humanity. We explore diverse views; we argue that AI consciousness depends on theories of consciousness.

Make a donation to Closer To Truth to help us continue exploring the world’s deepest questions without the need for paywalls: https://shorturl.at/OnyRq.

Iain McGilchrist FRSA is a British psychiatrist, philosopher and neuroscientist who wrote the 2009 book The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

Feeling angry makes people more likely to share news from low-credibility sources

The second experiment involved 116 university students and focused specifically on comparing moral anger and moral disgust. Participants read 18 false news headlines that described minor or severe moral violations. This time, the headlines were presented as coming from either a highly credible source or a low credibility source.

The scientists wanted to see how different emotional states influenced the sharing of these headlines. They asked the students to rate their current feelings of anger, their feelings of disgust, or their neutral attention. After this emotional prompt, the students rated their willingness to share the news.

The researchers found that participants prompted to feel anger were significantly more willing to share headlines from low credibility sources compared to the disgust and control groups. The disgust prompt did not increase sharing willingness compared to the neutral control group. This suggests that moral anger actively reduces a person’s reliance on credibility when deciding to share information.

/* */