Singularity.FM

Adam Becker is a science journalist with a PhD in astrophysics and the author of the provocative new book More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity. I reached out to Adam because I found his book sharp, timely, and necessary — a long-overdue reality check to the fantasies of techno-utopianism flooding our culture. In More Everything Forever, Becker dissects the dominant visions of the future being sold by Silicon Valley’s billionaire elite: godlike AI, digital immortality, interstellar empires, and a future populated by trillions of posthuman minds. His thesis? These aren’t scientific forecasts. They’re billionaire fever dreams—ideological weapons dressed up as inevitabilities. Drawing on over fifteen years as a science communicator and journalist, Becker traces how a fringe worldview — steeped in misunderstood sci-fi, hubris, and colonialist logic — has moved from the internet’s margins into university labs, government hearings, and mainstream media. We discuss why these ideas aren’t just wrong; they’re dangerous distractions from the real crises we face: war, climate change, inequality, and a fraying shared reality. So, if you’ve ever questioned the hype around AI overlords, Mars colonies, or techno-salvation, this conversation is for you. I hope you enjoy my interview with Adam Becker as much as I did. My favorite quotes from this conversation with Adam Becker are: Silicon Valley has confused science fiction with science — and science with branding. We are solving imaginary future problems while the world burns right in front of us. AI overlords, Mars colonies, and posthuman utopias aren’t visions of the future. They’re distractions from the present. See the video here: https://www.singularityweblog.com/adam-becker/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/