Adam Ford

@algekalipso Thanks Andres, always enjoy your talks and our conversations. I agree - its like deferential technological development.. though the word technology didn't capture the heart of this - i was considering the term differential intellectual development for something similar

Thank you Adam! I had fun giving this presentation. I stand by the core idea: the order by which we uncover the mechanisms of intelligence and consciousness has dramatic downstream effects on what systems are likely to take control of the future. We need to re-orient.

..While some futurism scenarios assume a bootstrapping of knowledge independently of the path taken, there are strong theoretical reasons to believe this will not be the case for consciousness and how it interacts with AI, valence, and binding... Post: scifuture.org/andres-gomez-e…

Video: youtu.be/Mi3FbhnNtAc via @youtube @algekalipso Whether structural theories of valence or purely functional accounts turn out to be correct changes everything about what "optimizing for wellbeing" even means

Andrés Gómez-Emilsson's talk on 'Path Dependence in Consciousness Science' - explores how our understanding of consciousness and the direction in which the science of consciousness is pointed create path-dependence for the future... video 🔗in reply @algekalipso

Video link: youtu.be/bo-d9ZrEomo

Aubrey de Grey - How close are we to robust mouse rejuvenation, and why does that matter? Full talk at Future Day 2026 - link in reply 🔗 @aubreydegrey

Video of talk: youtu.be/SuLmzDUPhVo

Dr. Eyal Aharoni discusses one of the most provocative frontiers in technology: the automation of moral judgement - in his talk focusses on outcomes of a comparative moral Turing test, as well as AI assisted medical triage! Link in reply🔗 @AharoniEyal

Aubrey de Grey - Aging Metabolism & Damage - sneak preview of Aubrey's talk at Future Day 2026 #medicine #aging #science youtu.be/X7csgdVkvWY?si… via @YouTube @aubreydegrey

As AI gets more powerful, do you want AI that is genuinely better* at moral judgement than humans typically are? * What does genuinely better mean?

@MatthewJBar It would be interesting and lilely useful if pause/stop/acc/mod advocates would clarify and share their value theories (even where ruff, incomplete or uncertain), what fundamentally constitutes value and how it is generated. This might help deal with alot of diagreement.

AI pause advocates often say they are pro-technology and pro-economic growth, and that they simply make one exception for AI because of its unique risks. But this reasoning will grow less credible over time as AI comes to account for a larger and larger share of economic growth. Simple growth models predict that AI capable of substituting for human labor will raise economic growth rates by an order of magnitude or more. If that's right, then AI will eventually be driving the vast majority of technological innovation and improvements in the standard of living. Stopping AI really would be like halting technology itself, because you would be shutting off the source of nearly all growth. This suggests that proposing to pause AI today is like proposing to pause electricity in 1880: yes, electricity is technically just one technology among many, but pausing it would threaten to shut down progress on most of the others. I also question the premise that AI is unique in its risks. Pause advocates argue that, apart from perhaps nuclear weapons, AI is the first technology to threaten the survival of the human species. But the boundary around "human species" is arbitrary. It only fails to feel that way because, for us today, the human species seems synonymous with the whole world. Replacing us feels like ending the world. Yet a hunter-gatherer tribe might just as easily feel the same way about themselves and their way of life. To them, the development of agriculture would feel like an existential risk. It would, from their point of view, be a threat to everything that matters. In reality, the world is much larger than either hunter-gatherer tribes or even the human species. By developing AI, we are bringing into existence a new class of sapient beings, ones who will inhabit the world alongside us. I predict that we will coexist with them peacefully, and I welcome efforts to make that outcome more likely. But peaceful or not, the outcome matters for them too. We are not the only people in the story. In the future, the vast majority of interesting and valuable events will likely occur between digital people, not between the more limited biological ones. The vast majority of relationships, discoveries, adventures, acts of kindness, and feelings of joy will take place within an artificial world, one to which the label "human" may no longer cleanly apply. In such a world, insisting that the human species represents everything that matters will be like insisting that hunter-gatherers represent the whole world. That may have felt like a reasonable claim 12,000 years ago, but today it would sound silly. Whether we like it or not, technology has always posed massive risks to "the world". AI is not the first technology to do this, and it will likely not be the last. The only difference is that this time, technology threatens the world that people alive today grew up in. Just as our ancestors experienced before us, we face the prospect of losing the world we know in exchange for material progress and prosperity. I am happy to take that trade, just as I am glad my ancestors took it in theirs.

@TrevorVossberg @MatthewJBar Humans have caused a lot of extinction, and it like like it will cause alot more - in what ways are you concerned about the kind of tradeoffs humans have made to cause extinction? How does this compare to kind of extinction you reference?

@MatthewJBar I guess at a thin level of engagement, yes? But at an actual hypothesis level, not really. Tradeoffs exist, not supporting something you think will lead to extinction isn't a particularly hard one. "I generally think technology is good but this one is an exception" is coherent.

AI responses to moral questions are impressive, but are they doing actual moral reasoning?

Vid: youtu.be/VQWRhxDIoL4?si…

AI: The Ethicist In Your Pocket - Dianca Dillion on the comparative moral Turing test Link in reply

@PhiloCasey Why? I hope it's not the more you don't like AIs, the more you interact with them.

The more I interact with AIs, the more I really don't like them.

@StefanFSchubert There is the concern about moral enfeeblement - Eyal's recent research AI assisted medical triage explores how to mitigate this

These three criteria for AI disempowerment seem importantly different to me. A distorted reality is obviously bad, but outsourcing moral judgements and decisions to AI need not be.

@StefanFSchubert youtube.com/watch?v=BfBPRB…

@StefanFSchubert I recently interviewed Eyal Aharoni and Danical Dillion lead researchers on two comparative moral turing tests that you might find interesting. youtube.com/watch?v=quNwpv…

@BubbasRide @jesus_osorior @grok @gork I checked it out - up close it just looks like a net

@jesus_osorior @grok @gork what is this place? Facts please?

ESTO DEBE INVESTIGARSE INMEDIATAMENTE ‼️