Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right
109 subscribers
Checked 1M ago
הוסף לפני eight שנים
תוכן מסופק על ידי Singularity.FM and Nikola Danaylov. כל תוכן הפודקאסטים כולל פרקים, גרפיקה ותיאורי פודקאסטים מועלים ומסופקים ישירות על ידי Singularity.FM and Nikola Danaylov או שותף פלטפורמת הפודקאסט שלהם. אם אתה מאמין שמישהו משתמש ביצירה שלך המוגנת בזכויות יוצרים ללא רשותך, אתה יכול לעקוב אחר התהליך המתואר כאן https://he.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - אפליקציית פודקאסט
התחל במצב לא מקוון עם האפליקציה Player FM !
התחל במצב לא מקוון עם האפליקציה Player FM !
Nikola Danaylov: It’s Ethics. Not Tech Ethics
Manage episode 405336583 series 1529385
תוכן מסופק על ידי Singularity.FM and Nikola Danaylov. כל תוכן הפודקאסטים כולל פרקים, גרפיקה ותיאורי פודקאסטים מועלים ומסופקים ישירות על ידי Singularity.FM and Nikola Danaylov או שותף פלטפורמת הפודקאסט שלהם. אם אתה מאמין שמישהו משתמש ביצירה שלך המוגנת בזכויות יוצרים ללא רשותך, אתה יכול לעקוב אחר התהליך המתואר כאן https://he.player.fm/legal.
I have noticed that almost every startup in almost every industry is claiming “a revolutionary AI or blockchain breakthrough.” [Often both.] More recently I’m flabbergasted to see a similar fad in the growing number of self-proclaimed Tech and AI ethicists. We apparently have an exponential proliferation of what someone called “ethics natives” such as angel investor ethicists, venture capital ethicists, startup ethicists, bitcoin ethicists, blockchain ethicists, unicorn ethicists, AI ethicists, design ethicists, IPO ethicists, etc. Here is the thing: At the end of the day, there is really no such thing as tech ethics. Just like there is no angel investor, venture capital, startup, blockchain, or IPO ethics. There is, really, only ethics. And bullshit ethics. Yes, you can name legitimate examples of branching off such as bioethics. But the reason why they are subdisciplines of ethics is the recognition that there are some overarching principles or an overriding framework that comes first and is primary. It is only then that we have the specific context of medicine, technology, or anything else you’d like to consider. Yes, context is important but it is always secondary because ethics is the context-independent universal foundation or framework which allows you to evaluate any particular and unique problem in ethical terms. So, if you don’t have the foundation that gives meaning, contextual considerations are useless, perhaps damaging. And to the degree that we have made progress in fields such as bioethics, it is because we started with a very strong foundation in ethics. But most AI or Tech “ethicists” can’t even define what ethics is. Even worse – many of them “teach” ethics by starting with the trolley dilemma, euthanasia, abortion, human enhancement, genetic manipulation, etc. But without the foundational framework, the result is only ignorance masquerading as knowledge. So we end up being oblivious to how much we don’t know. And we don’t know that we don’t know because we are obsessed with the specifics of the context while the actual foundation is, at best, an afterthought and, at worse, completely ignored. We arrive at the modern misperception that there is ethics and that there is “applied ethics.” There is not. Because if you can’t apply it, if you can’t use it, it is not ethics. Ethics is practical. It is not a theory. It means “a way of life” [so if it is not lived, it is dead – i.e., not ethics]. It means a group of principles or a “moral code of behavior” concerned with one’s personal character. That is what êthos (ἦθος) means – “character” or [moral] “nature.” That is the original meaning of ethics – ēthikós (ἠθικός) – “relating to one’s character.” So every time you wonder if something is ethics ask yourself: Is this practical advice on how to live my life? Does it relate to the moral nature of my personal or our collective character? Does it provide a code of behavior or a set of principles that can inform and guide me [or us] through hard decisions and situations? If the answer is “No” then chances are it is not ethics. Certainly not in the original meaning of the word as coined by the ancient Greeks. A meaning which we have apparently forgotten but, I believe, we must revive. Read the rest here:https://www.singularityweblog.com/ethics/
…
continue reading
322 פרקים
Manage episode 405336583 series 1529385
תוכן מסופק על ידי Singularity.FM and Nikola Danaylov. כל תוכן הפודקאסטים כולל פרקים, גרפיקה ותיאורי פודקאסטים מועלים ומסופקים ישירות על ידי Singularity.FM and Nikola Danaylov או שותף פלטפורמת הפודקאסט שלהם. אם אתה מאמין שמישהו משתמש ביצירה שלך המוגנת בזכויות יוצרים ללא רשותך, אתה יכול לעקוב אחר התהליך המתואר כאן https://he.player.fm/legal.
I have noticed that almost every startup in almost every industry is claiming “a revolutionary AI or blockchain breakthrough.” [Often both.] More recently I’m flabbergasted to see a similar fad in the growing number of self-proclaimed Tech and AI ethicists. We apparently have an exponential proliferation of what someone called “ethics natives” such as angel investor ethicists, venture capital ethicists, startup ethicists, bitcoin ethicists, blockchain ethicists, unicorn ethicists, AI ethicists, design ethicists, IPO ethicists, etc. Here is the thing: At the end of the day, there is really no such thing as tech ethics. Just like there is no angel investor, venture capital, startup, blockchain, or IPO ethics. There is, really, only ethics. And bullshit ethics. Yes, you can name legitimate examples of branching off such as bioethics. But the reason why they are subdisciplines of ethics is the recognition that there are some overarching principles or an overriding framework that comes first and is primary. It is only then that we have the specific context of medicine, technology, or anything else you’d like to consider. Yes, context is important but it is always secondary because ethics is the context-independent universal foundation or framework which allows you to evaluate any particular and unique problem in ethical terms. So, if you don’t have the foundation that gives meaning, contextual considerations are useless, perhaps damaging. And to the degree that we have made progress in fields such as bioethics, it is because we started with a very strong foundation in ethics. But most AI or Tech “ethicists” can’t even define what ethics is. Even worse – many of them “teach” ethics by starting with the trolley dilemma, euthanasia, abortion, human enhancement, genetic manipulation, etc. But without the foundational framework, the result is only ignorance masquerading as knowledge. So we end up being oblivious to how much we don’t know. And we don’t know that we don’t know because we are obsessed with the specifics of the context while the actual foundation is, at best, an afterthought and, at worse, completely ignored. We arrive at the modern misperception that there is ethics and that there is “applied ethics.” There is not. Because if you can’t apply it, if you can’t use it, it is not ethics. Ethics is practical. It is not a theory. It means “a way of life” [so if it is not lived, it is dead – i.e., not ethics]. It means a group of principles or a “moral code of behavior” concerned with one’s personal character. That is what êthos (ἦθος) means – “character” or [moral] “nature.” That is the original meaning of ethics – ēthikós (ἠθικός) – “relating to one’s character.” So every time you wonder if something is ethics ask yourself: Is this practical advice on how to live my life? Does it relate to the moral nature of my personal or our collective character? Does it provide a code of behavior or a set of principles that can inform and guide me [or us] through hard decisions and situations? If the answer is “No” then chances are it is not ethics. Certainly not in the original meaning of the word as coined by the ancient Greeks. A meaning which we have apparently forgotten but, I believe, we must revive. Read the rest here:https://www.singularityweblog.com/ethics/
…
continue reading
322 פרקים
All episodes
×data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd13b/fd13bacd15a9260cb2a9e6291daa439d0732759e" alt="Artwork"
1 Donald J. Robertson on How to Think Like Socrates in the Age of AI 3:00:48
3:00:48
הפעל מאוחר יותר
הפעל מאוחר יותר
רשימות
לייק
אהבתי3:00:48data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2ee8/e2ee8cc9432b46cd4630facd70372204c0b5535d" alt="icon"
In this episode of Singularity.FM, I sit down with renowned author and philosopher Donald J. Robertson to explore his latest book, How to Think Like Socrates. As we navigate the crossroads of ancient wisdom and modern challenges, Donald shares timeless insights from Socrates that remain profoundly relevant in today’s age of rapid technological transformation and AI. We dive into the art of critical thinking, the value of questioning assumptions, and the ethical considerations of integrating philosophy with cutting-edge innovation. About halfway through our conversation, Donald turns the tables and starts asking me some Socratic questions, sparking a dynamic and thought-provoking exchange that takes the discussion to new depths. Together, we tackle big questions: What can Socrates teach us about living wisely in a world dominated by AI? How do we balance our pursuit of knowledge with the necessity of wisdom? And how do ancient philosophical techniques help us confront the uncertainties of our time? Whether you’re a fan of philosophy, curious about the future, or looking to deepen your understanding of critical thinking in the digital age, this episode offers a rich dialogue packed with insights and practical takeaways. Join us as we explore the enduring legacy of Socrates and its implications for humanity’s evolving relationship with technology. You can watch the full video interview here: https://www.singularityweblog.com/donald-j-robertson/…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd13b/fd13bacd15a9260cb2a9e6291daa439d0732759e" alt="Artwork"
1 Near Futurist Neil Redding on Co-Creating Reality 1:36:49
1:36:49
הפעל מאוחר יותר
הפעל מאוחר יותר
רשימות
לייק
אהבתי1:36:49data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2ee8/e2ee8cc9432b46cd4630facd70372204c0b5535d" alt="icon"
In this episode of Singularity.FM, Neil Redding, a near futurist and innovation architect, joins Nikola Danaylov for an insightful exploration into the intersections of technology, ecosystems, and human agency. With over 30 years of experience unlocking the transformative power of emerging technologies, Neil offers a fresh perspective on what it means to co-create reality in an increasingly interconnected world. Throughout the conversation, Neil discusses his journey from studying computer science and philosophy to becoming a thought leader in near futurism. He explains how his work bridges the possible and the practical, helping brands and individuals adapt to the rapid pace of technological change. Topics covered include the implications of spatial computing, the convergence of digital and physical ecosystems, and the role of AI in shaping our collective future. Neil also delves into the ethical dimensions of innovation, emphasizing the need for ecosystem-centered thinking and responsible co-creation. Together, Nikola and Neil examine humanity’s greatest challenges, from polarization to sustainability, offering actionable insights on how to navigate the accelerating future. Don’t miss this compelling dialogue that challenges conventional thinking and invites us all to participate in shaping the future. Tune in for an engaging and thought-provoking episode. If you want to see the full video interview, click here: https://www.singularityweblog.com/neil-redding…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd13b/fd13bacd15a9260cb2a9e6291daa439d0732759e" alt="Artwork"
1 Dr. Jad Tarifi of Integral AI: “We Now Have All the Ingredients for AGI” 2:03:16
2:03:16
הפעל מאוחר יותר
הפעל מאוחר יותר
רשימות
לייק
אהבתי2:03:16data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2ee8/e2ee8cc9432b46cd4630facd70372204c0b5535d" alt="icon"
In this thought-provoking episode of Singularity.FM, I sit down with Dr. Jad Tarifi, CEO and co-founder of Integral AI, to explore the cutting-edge developments at the intersection of artificial intelligence and human potential. Dr. Tarifi shares insights into Integral AI’s mission to create foundation world models for real-world applications and the profound implications of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI). Our conversation delves into a wide array of topics, including: The essence of intelligence and its evolution into artificial and general forms. The challenges of AGI alignment and the importance of fostering collective human wisdom. Dr. Tarifi’s personal journey from growing up in war-torn Lebanon to becoming a pioneer in AI. The philosophical and practical dimensions of art, science, and technology as co-authors of our shared reality. Why Integral AI believes we now have all the components necessary to achieve AGI—and what that means for humanity’s future. Dr. Tarifi’s perspective is not only informed by his extensive academic and professional background but also deeply rooted in his lifelong curiosity about the nature of reality. He emphasizes that AGI is not the endpoint but a new beginning for humanity, offering unprecedented opportunities and risks. Join us for a compelling discussion that challenges conventional thinking and illuminates the path toward a future shaped by the convergence of intelligence, creativity, and freedom. You can see the full video interview here: https://www.singularityweblog.com/jad-tarifi/…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd13b/fd13bacd15a9260cb2a9e6291daa439d0732759e" alt="Artwork"
1 Jamelle Lindo on Emotional Intelligence in the Age of AI: Harness the Power of Emotion 1:46:57
1:46:57
הפעל מאוחר יותר
הפעל מאוחר יותר
רשימות
לייק
אהבתי1:46:57data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2ee8/e2ee8cc9432b46cd4630facd70372204c0b5535d" alt="icon"
In this episode of Singularity FM, I speak with emotional intelligence (EQ) expert, executive coach, and keynote speaker Jamelle Lindo about the evolving role of EQ in our age of rapidly advancing artificial intelligence. While much of today’s discourse around AI focuses on technical prowess, data-driven decision-making, and automation, Jamelle highlights why understanding our inner emotional landscapes—and those of others—may be more critical now than ever. We begin by tracing Jamelle’s personal journey, from his early struggles with social anxiety and insecurity to discovering the power of emotional literacy. Rather than seeing emotions as messy obstacles, he learned to view them as valuable sources of data about our values, needs, and mental states. That realization informed his personal development and later became the cornerstone of his approach to leadership coaching. Throughout our conversation, Jamelle demystifies emotional intelligence, why it’s trainable, and how it can provide a critical edge for those navigating the complexity and uncertainty of the 21st century workplace. As technological tools—from AI-assisted apps to predictive analytics—reshape every industry, leaders who cultivate empathy, self-awareness, and emotional resilience will stand apart. Jamelle explains that EQ isn’t a “soft” or “nice-to-have” skill; it’s a strategic capability that underpins effective communication, talent development, organizational culture, and business outcomes. We also discuss how AI might both challenge and enhance our EQ. On the one hand, automated systems can handle routine tasks and provide objective data, freeing up humans to focus on what we do uniquely well: build trust, inspire teams, and tackle nuanced ethical dilemmas. Conversely, the potential rise of “emotionally intelligent” AI agents forces us to ask: what does it mean to be human in an era where technology can mimic and sometimes surpass our cognitive and emotional capabilities? Join us as we explore how to cultivate deeper emotional intelligence amid exponential change, what it takes to show up authentically as a leader, and how EQ might help us maintain a truly human edge in a future where humans and AI increasingly work side by side. You can see the full video interview here: https://www.singularityweblog.com/jamelle-lindo/…
Fifteen years ago, I penned the first versions of Hamlet’s Transhumanist Dilemma and A Transhumanist Manifesto. Much has changed since then, including my perspective. I began with a question inspired by Hamlet: Will technology replace biology? At the time, I believed this to be the modern iteration of Shakespeare’s existential query: to be or not to be. Since death is a tragedy, I believed technology was our only escape. Yet, I feared choosing technology over biology might exact a heavy toll—a Faustian bargain. I worried that transitioning from human to transhuman—or cyborg—might cost us something precious and unique, something not worth trading even for immortality. Hence, I titled the piece Hamlet’s Transhumanist Dilemma, believing there was no definitive answer and that each person must determine their own path. A few months later, convinced I had found the answer, I dove headfirst into transhumanism. Everything seemed straightforward—black and white. As Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II succinctly put it: “Death is wrong, and life is right.” Right. The issue with dilemmas is their lack of clear answers. They are uncomfortable and excellent at posing questions but poor at providing solutions. In contrast, manifestos leave no room for doubt. They are straightforward calls to action, confident in their solutions. Immersed in the transhumanist narrative, I wrote my manifesto, urging my fellow transhumanists to unite and break the ‘chains of biology and death.’ Fifteen years later, I find myself almost back where I began. [I guess, at least in some ways, life is a circle.] Yes, it is still true that dilemmas may not offer clear guidance, but they are authentic, raw, and honest. They reflect the complexity of our world—a world without a GPS to guide us into the future, where answers are often free, but good questions are priceless. Dilemmas call for introspection, while manifestos call for action. Manifestos are idealistic, romantic and convenient. Worse, they are often naïve, simplistic, and utopian—dangerously so. They inspire focus and action but frequently lack introspection and justification. Perhaps I’m getting old, but lately, I see much action taken without much introspection. The kind of action that is ready to use violence to build a new world on the ruins of the current one. Yet, the world is never as simple as manifestos suggest, especially after the revolutionary (i.e., destructive) phase is over, and we must eventually build something. And so I’ve returned to dilemmas as a better way to face the future. Because the world is transformed by asking questions. And because, as Richard Feynman noticed, it is better to have questions we have no answers for than answers we can’t question. So, I’m back to Hamlet. Back to doubt, uncertainty, paradox, and the possibility of being wrong. What about you? Are you up for revolution or introspection? Do you embrace the paradox or prefer clear answers? See the original video here: https://www.singularityweblog.com/on-manifestos-and-dilemmas/ Hamlet’s Transhumanist Dilemma: Will Technology Replace Biology? [Redux] https://www.singularityweblog.com/hamlet-transhumanist-dilemma-will-technology-replace-biology/ A Transhumanist Manifesto [Redux] https://www.singularityweblog.com/a-transhumanist-manifesto/…
Technology is the new religion, Silicon Valley – the new Promised Land, and entrepreneurs – the new prophets. They promise a future of abundance and immortality—a techno-heaven beyond our wildest dreams. And we are all believers. We often forget technology is the how, not the why or what. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. ‘Technology’ comes from two Greek words: ‘techne,’ meaning art, skill, or craft, and ‘logos,’ meaning word, discourse, or expression. Literally, technology means ‘discourse about the way things are achieved.’ Today, we have strayed from this original meaning, leading to a fundamental shift in perception. Technology is no longer a means to an end; it has become an end in itself. People often say, “I am a big believer in technology,” as if it were a deity. This mindset blurs the line between using technology and worshipping it. I am a huge fan and user of technology, but I do not worship it. Worship leads to mindless slavery, and I want to master technology, not be enslaved by it. However, our civilization may already be on a different path. In the past, actions were often justified as ‘God’s will.’ Today, we act because ‘technology wants it.’ The inevitability once attributed to divine will is now ascribed to technological progress. [Philip K. Dick wisely noted, “Just because something bears the aspect of the inevitable, one should not go along willingly with it.”] Just as fulfillment in Christianity comes from following God, today we ‘follow’ technology. But in both cases, this can lead to enslavement. Are we masters, or merely tools of our tools? Are we fetishizing technological objects, creating personality cults around techno-prophets, and falling for new techno-religions? As Nassim Taleb remarked, “The difference between technology and slavery is that slaves are fully aware that they are not free.” These are the questions I hope to raise, and I encourage you to ask them, too. Because the world is transformed by asking questions, and technology is not enough. The moment we stop questioning, we risk becoming slaves. As Arthur C. Clarke warned: Before you become entranced with gorgeous gadgets and mesmerizing video displays, let me remind you that information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not foresight. Each grows out of the other, and we need them all. Technology excels at providing what we want but often falls short in giving us what we need. It can supply information and knowledge, but it struggles to provide wisdom. Technology helps us live easier, more comfortable, and longer lives, but it doesn’t tell us why we should live or what to do with our lives. Most importantly, technology does not make us happy—there is no app for happiness. If such an app ever existed, Nassim Taleb’s warning about the path to slavery would be even more relevant. Intelligence can help us achieve our desires, but it is wisdom that guides us in determining what we should desire. Intelligence is valuable only when coupled with wisdom. Without the wisdom to discern what we should and should not want, possessing the intelligence to obtain it can lead to self-destruction. The day humanity becomes the how and technology becomes the why or what is the day our freedom ends. The tool will have become the purpose, and the purpose will have become the tool. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain a clear perspective on our priorities and fight for them. See the original video here: https://www.singularityweblog.com/technology-is-the-how/…
Throughout history, capital and labor have been interdependent forces driving economic growth. Capital relies on labor to generate returns on investment, while labor depends on capital for wages. Despite historical fluctuations in their balance of power, classical economics suggests a theoretical long-term equilibrium where both parties benefit—capital sees growing returns, and labor enjoys rising wages. But is this equilibrium sustainable in the face of rapid technological advancements? The post-World War II era, particularly from the late 1940s to the early 1970s, exemplifies the mutual benefit of capital and labor. This period saw unprecedented economic growth and a significant rise in the standard of living for the baby boomer generation in North America. However, starting in the 1970s, the balance of power shifted towards capital. This shift was marked by productivity gains increasingly benefiting returns on investment while wages stagnated. As a result, the once-synchronized growth of productivity and wages decoupled, favoring capital over labor and increasing income inequality and social stratification. This was a substantial quantitative change with proportionally substantial quantitative social implications. Today, we are approaching a qualitatively different watershed moment that will fundamentally shift the balance of power and have profound social and political implications. For the first time in history, technological advancements like AI and robotics enable capital to create labor rather than hire it. This shift disrupts the traditional labor-capital relationship, leading to ‘technological unemployment,’ where machines and AI replace human labor across various industries. The longstanding relationship of mutual co-dependence between capital and labor will be profoundly altered, and the equilibrium taught by classical economics will no longer hold, even in theory. The incentive for paying wages diminishes as technologies like AI and robotics increase productivity while reducing costs. It’s like having workers who produce more and more while getting paid less and less. The best part for capital is the ability to create and multiply its own ‘labor’ force or cut it when needed, increasingly faster and cheaper. Humans are not required. Some argue we have heard similar Luddite concerns before, and historically, technological advances have worked out for the better. However, today’s technological unemployment fundamentally differs from past labor disruptions, such as those during the Industrial Revolution. In the past, displaced workers transitioned from one type of manual job to another, as capital still needed human labor to operate machines, oversee production, and manage resources. Today, machines can autonomously perform these tasks. Production is monitored by sensors, and resource allocation and management are handled by AI, reducing the need for human labor to the point of potential obsolescence. The speed and depth of change we are experiencing today, combined with an accelerating pace, means we will witness much more happen in a much shorter timeframe than during the Industrial Revolution. This is not simply about replacing some manual jobs with others; it’s about making most human jobs obsolete across all industrial levels—from cashiers and production-line workers to accountants, brokers, lawyers, insurance and real estate agents, consultants, doctors, and even CEOs. Such a fundamental change, occurring over a few decades, will have revolutionary political and social implications, similar to how the Industrial Revolution spawned various social movements, uprisings, and political revolutions... Read the rest of the article and watch the original video here: https://www.singularityweblog.com/tech-unemployment/…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd13b/fd13bacd15a9260cb2a9e6291daa439d0732759e" alt="Artwork"
1 Our Future, AI and Veganism: 6 Reasons Why I Went Vegan 11:01
11:01
הפעל מאוחר יותר
הפעל מאוחר יותר
רשימות
לייק
אהבתי11:01data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2ee8/e2ee8cc9432b46cd4630facd70372204c0b5535d" alt="icon"
I have now been vegan for 8 or 9 years and people keep asking me how I feel and why I did it. So let me share a quick health update as well as the original 6 reasons why I went vegan. Well, since going vegan I have lost and kept off 25 pounds or about 12 kgs. My body fat has gone down from about 22% to about 14%. My blood pressure went down from about 130 over 90 to about 115 over 75. My resting heart rate has dropped 5 beats to about 52. My BMI dropped almost 2 points to 22. My iron went up. My calcium went up. My triglycerides went down. My overall cholesterol went down. My sugar is stable at 5.1. Even my urologist said that my PSA is like that of a teenager. Now, to be fair, not everything in my bloodwork is perfect and I am still very much struggling with and testing different nutritional protocols to get my LDL marker into the optimal range. However, at 48, I feel subjectively better, people often tell me that I look better, and my bloodwork is objectively better today than when I was 35 years old. So those are the effects of veganism on my health after almost 9 years. Now, let me share my original 6 reasons why I went vegan, and feel free to let me know if you agree or disagree as well as your experience and your reasons as to why you would or you wouldn’t go vegan yourself 😉 Read the rest here: https://www.singularityweblog.com/6-reasons-why-i-went-vegan/…
I have noticed that almost every startup in almost every industry is claiming “a revolutionary AI or blockchain breakthrough.” [Often both.] More recently I’m flabbergasted to see a similar fad in the growing number of self-proclaimed Tech and AI ethicists. We apparently have an exponential proliferation of what someone called “ethics natives” such as angel investor ethicists, venture capital ethicists, startup ethicists, bitcoin ethicists, blockchain ethicists, unicorn ethicists, AI ethicists, design ethicists, IPO ethicists, etc. Here is the thing: At the end of the day, there is really no such thing as tech ethics. Just like there is no angel investor, venture capital, startup, blockchain, or IPO ethics. There is, really, only ethics. And bullshit ethics. Yes, you can name legitimate examples of branching off such as bioethics. But the reason why they are subdisciplines of ethics is the recognition that there are some overarching principles or an overriding framework that comes first and is primary. It is only then that we have the specific context of medicine, technology, or anything else you’d like to consider. Yes, context is important but it is always secondary because ethics is the context-independent universal foundation or framework which allows you to evaluate any particular and unique problem in ethical terms. So, if you don’t have the foundation that gives meaning, contextual considerations are useless, perhaps damaging. And to the degree that we have made progress in fields such as bioethics, it is because we started with a very strong foundation in ethics. But most AI or Tech “ethicists” can’t even define what ethics is. Even worse – many of them “teach” ethics by starting with the trolley dilemma, euthanasia, abortion, human enhancement, genetic manipulation, etc. But without the foundational framework, the result is only ignorance masquerading as knowledge. So we end up being oblivious to how much we don’t know. And we don’t know that we don’t know because we are obsessed with the specifics of the context while the actual foundation is, at best, an afterthought and, at worse, completely ignored. We arrive at the modern misperception that there is ethics and that there is “applied ethics.” There is not. Because if you can’t apply it, if you can’t use it, it is not ethics. Ethics is practical. It is not a theory. It means “a way of life” [so if it is not lived, it is dead – i.e., not ethics]. It means a group of principles or a “moral code of behavior” concerned with one’s personal character. That is what êthos (ἦθος) means – “character” or [moral] “nature.” That is the original meaning of ethics – ēthikós (ἠθικός) – “relating to one’s character.” So every time you wonder if something is ethics ask yourself: Is this practical advice on how to live my life? Does it relate to the moral nature of my personal or our collective character? Does it provide a code of behavior or a set of principles that can inform and guide me [or us] through hard decisions and situations? If the answer is “No” then chances are it is not ethics. Certainly not in the original meaning of the word as coined by the ancient Greeks. A meaning which we have apparently forgotten but, I believe, we must revive. Read the rest here:https://www.singularityweblog.com/ethics/…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd13b/fd13bacd15a9260cb2a9e6291daa439d0732759e" alt="Artwork"
1 Modern Bard Dr. Martin Shaw: Be a Story-maker for Your Times 57:47
57:47
הפעל מאוחר יותר
הפעל מאוחר יותר
רשימות
לייק
אהבתי57:47data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2ee8/e2ee8cc9432b46cd4630facd70372204c0b5535d" alt="icon"
Dr. Martin Shaw is the best oral storyteller that I know of. He is also the only person who can impromptu tell the entire Odyssey by his imagination alone. Martin is well versed in a variety of stories from classic Greek to pagan, indigenous, and religious ones. He is the author of 18 books and one of the very few people who make a living as a modern raconteur for audiences across the world. During this 1 hour conversation with Dr. Martin Shaw, we cover a variety of exciting topics such as: how he became a storyteller and started making a living as a bard; why stories matter; myth as a beautiful lie that tells a deeper truth, a truth that works without the use facts; living in a tent close to the Earth as a formative experience; why the world needs healing and how story can do that; the distinctions between growth and depth, story and myth; worshiping technology and tools becoming deities; the problems of Humanism and AI-ism; story as a sacred event with “a service code.” My favorite quotes that I will take away from this conversation with Dr. Martin Shaw are: "Stories deepen with you if they are of great quality." "Every culture before they were literate collected the things that really mattered and codified them in stories to pass them down." "Revery leads to participation." To show your support, you can subscribe, write a review on iTunes or make a donation: https://www.singularityweblog.com/donate-and-support-singularity-weblog/…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd13b/fd13bacd15a9260cb2a9e6291daa439d0732759e" alt="Artwork"
1 Kevin Kelly on Wisdom and Excellent Advice for Living 1:26:32
1:26:32
הפעל מאוחר יותר
הפעל מאוחר יותר
רשימות
לייק
אהבתי1:26:32data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2ee8/e2ee8cc9432b46cd4630facd70372204c0b5535d" alt="icon"
When I started blogging and podcasting back in 2009 topics like wisdom were near-invisible, if not considered irrelevant to the conversations of AI, transhumanism, genetic engineering, human enhancement, and so on. So bringing ethics to the technology conversation became my longstanding goal and unique selling proposition for both Singularity Weblog and Singularity.FM. At the time, most conversations were about the how and when – i.e. the technicalities and timeline, not the why – i.e. the wisdom and ethics related to the technological singularity. The prevailing romanticism was the belief that utopia is within our reach and the main obstacles were of scientific, technological, or legislative nature. So if we were to let inventors, entrepreneurs, markets, and Moore’s Law do their thing without any government or other interference we would reach THE Future – a place that is “better than we think” – with abundance, freedom, flying cars, robots, space exploration, and immortality for all. Fifteen years later, the Singularitarian romanticism has been replaced by popular skepticism, if not outright cynicism. Given that the gap between our collective power and our ability to use it in a non-destructive, net-positive manner is growing, we need wisdom and ethics more than ever. I believe that this is not a mere philosophical exercise but one of life and death for many species, possibly all life on our planet. That is why I want to discuss wisdom and ethics more than ever. And there are few better people for this kind of conversation than Kevin Kelly. Kevin is a radical optimist who has been twice before on my podcast when we discussed his books on technology. This time around his most recent book aims to provide Excellent Advice for Living: Wisdom I Wish I’d Known Earlier. During this 90 min conversation with Kevin Kelly, we cover a variety of exciting topics such as: wisdom as the long-term view of the true, good, and beautiful for the maximum people and time; consistency, ideology, and thinking; learning from those you disagree with; Christianity, evolution and creationism; intelligence, wisdom and AI; our individual and collective power to affect change; whether AI, Nuclear Weapons or Climate Change are existential risks; the Cult of Personality in the East and the West; mirrors, selfies, Zoom and Narcism; AI and the Singularity; the gap between our wisdom and technological power. My favorite quote that I will take away from this conversation with Kevin Kelly is: Work on something (or head in a direction) that has no name. As always, you can listen to or download the audio file above or scroll down and watch the video interview in full. To show your support, you can write a review on iTunes or become a patron: https://www.singularityweblog.com/donate-and-support-singularity-weblog/…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd13b/fd13bacd15a9260cb2a9e6291daa439d0732759e" alt="Artwork"
1 Émile Torres on Transhumanism, Longtermism and Existential Risks 2:04:16
2:04:16
הפעל מאוחר יותר
הפעל מאוחר יותר
רשימות
לייק
אהבתי2:04:16data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2ee8/e2ee8cc9432b46cd4630facd70372204c0b5535d" alt="icon"
My goal with this podcast has always been to be a bit of a gadfly to your as well as my intellectual growth and, hopefully, a midwife to your best ideas rather than a disseminator of a specific movement or ideology. Thus, while I’ve never hidden my personal views, I don’t try to make you a believer and follower but simply to provide important and helpful people and ideas for your consideration. What you do then is, of course, entirely up to you. Émile Torres is a philosopher and historian whose work focuses on existential threats to humanity. During this 2-hour conversation with Émile, we cover a variety of exciting topics such as escatology and teleology; determinism and inevitability; Kurzweil’s timeline and the ultimate end of the Universe; ChatGPT and AGI; the Rapture and Émile’s Baptist upbringing; watching out for our own biases and blindspots; Transhumanism, Religion, and Eugenics; the problems with defining, measuring, and boasting about (your) intelligence; Nick Bostom’s racism, narcissism, integrity, and dubious math in papers such as Astronomical Waste; the nature and danger of existential risks; the dangers of (Radical) Longtermism. As always, you can listen to or download the audio file above or scroll down and watch the video interview in full. To show your support, you can write a review on iTunes or become a patron: https://www.singularityweblog.com/donate-and-support-singularity-weblog/…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd13b/fd13bacd15a9260cb2a9e6291daa439d0732759e" alt="Artwork"
1 Nikolas Badminton on Facing Our Futures: Futurism is Activism 1:32:02
1:32:02
הפעל מאוחר יותר
הפעל מאוחר יותר
רשימות
לייק
אהבתי1:32:02data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2ee8/e2ee8cc9432b46cd4630facd70372204c0b5535d" alt="icon"
My podcast guest today is Nikolas Badminton. Nik is the Chief Futurist at futurist.com. He has worked with over 300 organizations in foresight, strategy, and disruption – including NASA, the United Nations, Google, Microsoft, Intel, Rolls Royce, and many others. Nik is a friend of mine, and in addition to our common interest in the future, we share a few other passions, such as cycling and certain types of music and books. Speaking of books, Badminton’s new book, Facing Our Futures, is a hot new release on Amazon, and during our conversation today, we will discuss some of the great tools and lessons Nik has for us there. During this 90-min conversation with Nikolas Badminton, we cover a variety of exciting topics such as being a futurist and a hope engineer; the benefits of riding a bicycle; the poverty of our imagination; his 50 Life Lessons from a 50-Year-Old Futurist; futurism vs. foresight; Karl Schroeder, the California Ideology and the ‘singular’ future; the greatest challenges humanity is facing today; his book Facing our Futures; the positive-dystopian framework and stretching our horizons; backcasting, futures consciousness and why imagination is a superpower. My favorite quotes that I will take away from this conversation with Nikolas Badminton are: "Futurism is activism." "Hope is nothing without imagination." "Nostalgia is the greatest threat to futurist thinking." To show your support, you can subscribe to my channel, write a review on iTunes or become a patron: https://www.singularityweblog.com/donate-and-support-singularity-weblog/…
This is my 4 min video pitch for the 2023 Nordic Business Forum Speaker Contest. Hope you enjoy it 😉 The Greatest Leadership Opportunity in the 21st Century A story I stumbled on in 2006 changed my life. “The Singularity is Near” by Ray Kurzweil totally blew my mind. It gave me insight into cool new tech like AI. It gave me meaning, purpose and community. It explained the world and who I was. It also told me I could live forever. Eventually, I noticed the religious elements of the singularity and its theology of techno-messiahs, Gods, resurrection, and, ultimately, salvation. It provides the same utility, uses the same mechanisms, serves the same function, and has the same power as religion. This new awareness made me seek the underlying process, and I discovered story. I felt like fish suddenly becoming aware of water. I started noticing how story permeates everything. That is why two people can share the same experience but construct different meanings. This insight led me to my most profound realization: that our current planetary crisis is a story crisis. A story crisis because we can see our current story ends in our demise, yet we can’t agree on a better one. So, we find ourselves between stories, or what Jonah Sachs calls “the myth gap.” On such occasions, the human story gets rewritten, and we end up with a revolution. For example, the last major iteration of our story dates to the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Because as Kenneth Burke noted: “Stories are equipment for living. Human beings need storytelling […] to make […] sense out of life.” But our equipment for living has gone obsolete. And unless we upgrade it, we are going to go obsolete too. Take Climate Change. We have the science. We know what we must do. We know the consequences. We have most tools to make a difference now. Yet we bicker and take insufficient action. That’s because our fragmented stories fail to create shared meaning. No shared meaning, no shared action, and no resolution to our shared problem. But most of our existential issues – like nuclear weapons, pandemics, species extinction or Climate Change, are shared and global. That is why many find Climate Change depressing. Because we cannot imagine a common story where our global predicament comes to a happy end. That is also why we must ReWrite the Human Story – a new, shared, global story to unite, inform and guide us. This is the greatest leadership opportunity of the 21st century. Because just like sunflowers are heliotropic and orient themselves towards the sun, we humans are storytropic and orient ourselves towards story. Now, our story can have many names: the Singularity, God, Democracy, Human Rights, the Blockchain or Let’s Make America Great Again. But we all turn to story as our compass. Today our old myths are falling apart. When the stories that are our social glue fall apart, we fall apart. Because there were civilizations without the wheel, guns, steel, or the internet, but there were no civilizations without story. So, the story I propose is the Multiplicity. But what is the story you propose? For more like this go here: https://www.singularityweblog.com/rewriting-the-human-story-how-our-story-determines-our-future/…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd13b/fd13bacd15a9260cb2a9e6291daa439d0732759e" alt="Artwork"
1 Massimo Pigliucci on Story, Virtue, Character and AI 1:05:37
1:05:37
הפעל מאוחר יותר
הפעל מאוחר יותר
רשימות
לייק
אהבתי1:05:37data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2ee8/e2ee8cc9432b46cd4630facd70372204c0b5535d" alt="icon"
Prof. Massimo Pigliucci is one of those very rare people who manage to combine the pursuit of deep science and the living ethos of practical philosophy. Massimo has Ph.D. degrees in Genetics, Evolutionary Biology, and Philosophy. He is also the author of hundreds of technical papers in both science and philosophy as well as a number of books including most recently, The Quest for Character: What the Story of Socrates and Alcibiades Teaches Us About Our Search for Good Leaders. During this 1-hour conversation with Massimo Pigliucci, we cover a variety of interesting topics such as Mas Maiorum – i.e. “the way of the ancestors” and whether it is a kind of an organizing story; the need for a new global story and whether virtue and character can help solve problems such as Climate Change; the impact of role-models such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.; whether we can teach virtue [or anything] by demonstrating the “how” or the “what” [or both]; transhumanism and AI as technocrat solutions to engineering out humanity’s flaws. As always you can listen to or download the audio file above or scroll down and watch the video interview in full. To show your support you can write a review on iTunes or become a patron: https://www.singularityweblog.com/donate-and-support-singularity-weblog/…
ברוכים הבאים אל Player FM!
Player FM סורק את האינטרנט עבור פודקאסטים באיכות גבוהה בשבילכם כדי שתהנו מהם כרגע. זה יישום הפודקאסט הטוב ביותר והוא עובד על אנדרואיד, iPhone ואינטרנט. הירשמו לסנכרון מנויים במכשירים שונים.