Podcast appearances and mentions of christopher king

Christopher King—filmmaker, researcher, co-founder of The Experiencer Group, and a long-time advocate for those impacted by anomalous phenomena.Jay shares his insights into the alien (NHI) abduction issue as it moves onto a broader global and political stage, exploring how governments, institutions, and society at large might (or might not) address this profound reality. The conversation delves into the striking commonalities across family lines and generational lineages in abduction experiences—patterns that often span multiple generations and raise questions about purpose, selection, and long-term implications for future generations. Drawing from years of hands-on work, Jay discusses the vital role of support groups in helping experiencers process trauma, integrate their encounters, and find community amid isolation and skepticism. He opens up about the ongoing nature of these experiences for many, the emotional and psychological tools needed to cope, and the human side of living with the extraordinary. This is a compassionate, grounded look at one of the most challenging aspects of the UFO/UAP phenomenon, blending personal testimony, research observations, and forward-looking perspectives.Jay Christopher King will be attending Contact in the Desert 2026 as a speaker and host—don't miss this opportunity to learn more from one of the leading voices supporting experiencers today.

Chris King from Chasing Weekends joins the show to tell his story of hunting with Spina Bifida. From Calling on the big stage to hunting turkeys in Georgia Chris has done it all. Chris started his own call company, and his calls have been taking birds all over the southeast.

Send us a textIn this inspiring and light-hearted episode, I sit down with Christopher King—an 18-year veteran teacher, passionate musician, and local “amateur” weatherman with a heart for his community. We dive into his journey in education, his love for music, and his role on the worship team at King's Cross Church. We also explore his unexpected role as THE go-to source for local weather updates—and why he does it out of love for the people in the communities around him.From classroom stories to worship music to weather alerts, this episode is filled with laughter, heart, and motivation for anyone looking to make an impact right where they are in life. Christopher King WX's Links:Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/christopherkingWXVenmo: https://venmo.com/u/ChristopherKing3120Paypal: paypal.me/ChristopherKingWXEmail: ChristopherKingWX@gmail.comFollow The On PACE Podcast:Instagram: @on.paceFacebook: The On Pace PodcastYouTube: FullerRunsSupport the Podcast:Love the show? Help us grow! Leave a rating & review on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, share this episode, or support the podcast below using the "Support the Show" link or via Venmo https://venmo.com/u/fullerruns.Email at theonpacepodcast@icloud.comStart your own podcast https://www.buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=631720Follow the podcast on Facebook and Instagram and YouTubeLike what you hear? Don't forget to subscribe and share with a friend!#PodcastInterview #ChristopherKing #TeacherLife #WorshipLeader #ChristianPodcast #FaithInAction #MusicMinistry #AmateurMeteorologist #CommunityFirst #InspirationalPodcast #RealConversations #WeatherWatcher #LocalHeroes #EducationMatters #King'sCrossChurch #PodcastRecommendations #UpliftingContent #MotivationalPodcast #StoriesThatInspireSupport the show

In this episode of DGTL Voices, Ed welcomes Dr. Christopher King, the Dean of Georgetown University School of Health, to discuss the importance of education in healthcare leadership and the focus on social justice and well-being. Christopher emphasizes the need for systems thinking and the integration of technology for good in healthcare and highlights the significance of networking, establishing a professional brand, and practicing humility in leadership roles.   Takeaways Education in healthcare leadership should focus on social justice and well-being, and incorporate systems thinking and the integration of technology for good. Networking and establishing a professional brand are essential for career advancement and making meaningful connections in the industry. Humility is a crucial trait for leaders, as it allows for better understanding and empathy towards individuals and communities. Optimism and spirituality are important for leaders to maintain a positive outlook and inspire others. Georgetown University School of Health aims to train students to be reflective lifelong learners, responsible participants in civic life, and engaged in service to others.

We just went to the most epic dinner party hosted by our friend Christopher King at the home of makeup mogul Anastasia. After going to this intimate dinner with a group of high performers, Lori and I decided to share some tips we know will help you connect deeper and have better conversations the next time you step into a networking event or dinner like this. Plus we share some of our biggest takeaways from this dinner party on living a truly rich life, pursuing your purpose, and what the best entrepreneurs and brands in the world focus on that have led to global (legacy level) success.    HIGHLIGHTS What to focus on instead of trying to be interesting in conversations. Would you make different decisions or actions based on a 100 year plan? The #1 thing the biggest luxury brand focuses on to be successful (and it's not sales.) Why one billionaire will never retire and the purpose that drives her. RESOURCES Get glōci HERE Use code: HAPPY at checkout for 15% off!   Text ITALY to 310-421-0416 to be the first to get details on our upcoming once in a lifetime trip. Text DAILY to 310-421-0416 to get daily Money Mantras to boost your day. Check out upcoming events + Masterminds: chrisharder.me   FOLLOW Chris: @chriswharder Lori: @loriharder Frello: @frello_app  

We just went to the most epic dinner party hosted by our friend Christopher King at the home of makeup mogul Anastasia. After going to this intimate dinner with a group of high performers, Chris and I decided to share some tips we know will help you connect deeper and have better conversations the next time you step into a networking event or dinner like this. Plus we share some of our biggest takeaways from this dinner party on living a truly rich life, pursuing your purpose, and what the best entrepreneurs and brands in the world focus on that have led to global (legacy level) success.  HIGHLIGHTS 03:15 The dinner with Oprah, JLo, the Kardashians, and more celebrities. 05:45 How to be interesting in conversations. 08:00 Questions I asked at the most recent  11:00 What #1 thing the biggest luxury brand focuses on to be successful (and it's not sales.) 15:15 Why Anastasia (of Anastasia Beverly Hills) says she'll never retire. 17:30 Finding purpose in parenthood and in other areas in life. 19:30 Our biggest tips for having better conversations. RESOURCES Get glōci HERE Use code: HAPPY at checkout for 15% off! Text ITALY to 310-421-0416 to be the first to get details on our upcoming once in a lifetime trip.  Text DAILY to 310-496-8363 for daily manifesting affirmations, journal prompts, and motivation. Sign up for GrowthDay - https://www.growthday.com/lori?via=harder Watch on YouTube - @LoriHarder My book: A Tribe Called Bliss FOLLOW Follow me: @loriharder Follow Chris: @chriswharder Follow Earn Your Happy: @earnyourhappy Follow glōci: @getgloci Girlfriends & Business: @girlfriendsandbusiness

In this, the first episode of 2024, I'm welcoming my dear friend, Jay Christopher King, back to the podcast. I know most of you are already familiar with Jay and his work, but for anyone who's new here, Jay is the director of The Experiencer Group and the co-founder of the phenomenal Inquire Anomalous conference series in NYC. More recently, Jay and I have teamed up with our friend Jordan Flowers to found a new media company called Ontocalypse Productions. Under that banner we have already started production on our first docuseries called The Beyond: UFOs & A New Reality. If you haven't seen the trailer for that project yet, you can find that below.In this episode, Jay and I are sharing our reflections on a new docuseries that was released this week called UFO Revolution, which we both were featured in. The series also stars Jeremy Corbell, George Knapp, David Grusch, Chris Sharp, Mike Masters, Richard Dolan, Ryan Graves, Garry Nolan, Avi Loeb, Tim Burchett, and many more. If you haven't seen it yet, this 3-part series is available right now on the free streaming services, Tubi. See below.EPISODE BRIEFFOLLOW JAY CHRISTOPHER KINGJay's TwitterThe Experiencer GroupTEG TwitterIA TwitterUFO REVOLUTIONWatch TrailerWatch Series On TubiTHE BEYOND: UFOs & A NEW REALITYWatch TrailerBECOME A PATRONPatrons get lots of great perks like early and ad-free episodes, access to the private The UFO Rabbit Hole Discord server, and twice-monthly Patron Zoom calls with Kelly Chase.Memberships start at just $5/month.GET THE BOOKGet a SIGNED COPYGet it on AmazonFOLLOWWebsiteTwitterFacebook

Jay Christopher King joins me for a brilliant conversation covering the Sol Foundation, a new docuseries he is making with Kelly Chase, his upcoming Inquiry Anomalous conference on Saturday 9th Dec, the UAP Disclosure Act and the impact Grusch has had on the field in the last 6 months. Here's the link you need to sign up now for livestream tickets for Saturday! https://aninquiryfall2023.rsvpify.com/ After a long pause, I am confident that Episode 70 will be here before Christmas! Thank you for listening!

Ready to explore how AI (Artificial intelligence) could transform everyday life? With a focus on biblical parenting, this conversation with data engineer and architect, Christopher King, will definitely expand your horizons. Uncover the creative potential of generative AI, a technology capable of producing text, poetry, songs, and images from limited input and grasp the implications to for your family and your children's futures. Chris, our guest, isn't just theorizing; he's a hands-on practitioner who uses AI in his daily work and to create illustrations for his books, D is for Data: The ABC's of Data Anayltics. Learn from his experience, gain tips on how kids can safely interact with this transformative technology, and discover how AI is transforming our daily lives. Highlighting the importance of vocabulary in STEAM education, we also delve into AI application across different age groups - from preschoolers to teenagers. Don't miss out on Chris's inspiring perspective on this groundbreaking technology.Helpful Links from this Episode:  Some linked items are affiliate links. This means that we receive an itty-bitty commission if you choose to purchase through these links.  Giveaway for D is for Data: The ABC's of Data Analytics200 High-Quality Books for Preschool-Aged ChildrenChatGPTQuality Preschool CurriculumChris used the following programs to create his book:MidJourney for Image GenerationTraceJourney for UpScalingCanva for LayoutAmazon KDP for PublishingGet connected with Parenting to Impress:Facebook Group: /groups/ABCJLMFacebook: /heidi.franz.2911Instagram: /abcjesuslovesme/Subscribe to Blog & Newsletters: forms.feedblitz.com/5r0Thanks for listening!

Guest, Jay Christopher King was also at the DC UAP Hearing, we discuss opinions on that, The Experiencer Group, which he co-founded to help fellow experiencers of anomalous phenomena, his own experiences starting at a young age, and more.Support the show and listen commercial free: https://www.patreon.com/MartinWillisPodcastUFOShow NotesThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5922140/advertisement

In this episode, Chaz Wolfe sits down with Christopher King to discuss his transition to real estate and the lessons he learned. They delve into the importance of vision, self-development, trust in business relationships, and handling setbacks. They also touch on the entrepreneurial mindset and the significance of business systems. Christopher shares a book recommendation and how to connect with him.

On this episode of Gathering The Kings, host Chaz Wolfe welcomes Christopher King to the king's stage. A powerhouse in the consultancy domain with a staggering 7+ figure legacy, Christopher is the Chief Value Creator of King Connections. Hailing from Baltimore, he's renowned for building elite business relationships, accumulating vast social capital, and astutely transforming it into financial success through visionary strategic partnerships.Together, Chaz and Christopher navigate the profound principle of "give value to receive value." They explore the powerful intersection of practical education and the transformative impact of social capital in today's dynamic business landscape. Press play and set your course to success!During this episode, you will learn about;[00:00] Introduction[01:55] Intro to Christopher and his business[03:15] Why Christopher continues to push[06:18] How Christopher moved into entrepreneurship[09:26] How Christopher's experiences attracted him to real estate[16:11] A good decision Christopher made[19:53] A bad decision Christopher made[27:51] One trackable metric Christopher would use[29:17] Christopher's book recommendation[29:58] Christopher's thoughts on connecting with others[30:43] If Christopher only had one hour, how would he use it?[31:40] If Christopher lost it all, what would he do?[33:04] How to connect with Christopher[34:35] Info on Gathering The Kings MastermindNotable Quotes“Real estate is one of those industries where it feeds off your ignorance.” - Christopher King“Your competence can grow, obviously, but your commitment has to be there.” - Christopher King“If you don't create value, then no one's really gonna purchase your product more than once and you're definitely not gonna get referrals.” - Christopher King“Read, have a plan, create value, and then find a way to be of service to others.” - Christopher King“Your purpose should always be something that benefits others.” - Christopher King“People will say ‘Amen' all day long when you are offering something, but very few people are really committed to following through that process.” - Christopher King“You can plan, you can take action and a lot of things are gonna go your way because you've done the right things, but there's a lot of things that don't go your way.” - Chaz Wolfe (Host)“You will always have issues, but you'll never be defeated.” - Christopher King“The whole world operates off systems. That's what folks don't realize.” - Christopher King“Don't be afraid to lose everything.” - Christopher KingBooks and Resources Recommended:The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcolm Xhttps://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Malcolm-Told-Alex-Haley/dp/0345350685The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Coveyhttps://www.amazon.com/Habits-Highly-Effective-People-Powerful/dp/0743269519Extreme Ownership by Jocko Willinkhttps://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Ownership-U-S-Navy-SEALs/dp/1250067057Let's Connect!Christopher King:Website:

This week's episode barely felt like work because this week I sat down with my dear friend, and one of my favorite people, Jay Christopher King. Jay is the cofounder and director of The Experiencer Group, a private online community dedicated to support, curiosity & community for people who've had anomalous events of all kinds. He is also the co-founder of the phenomenal Inquire Anomalous conference series in NYC along with James Iandoli.___________________________TRY BETTERHELPThis episode is brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/ RABBITHOLE and get on your way to being your best self.TRY HELLOFRESHGo to hellofresh.com/rabbit50 and use code rabbit50 for 50% off plus free shipping!TRY AG1If you want to take ownership of your health, try AG1 and get a FREE 1-year supply of Vitamin D and 5 Free AG1 Travel Packs with your first purchase. Go to drink AG1.com/RABBIT.___________________________ EPISODE BRIEFBECOME A PATRONGET THE BOOKGet a SIGNED COPYGet it on AmazonFOLLOWWebsiteTwitterFacebookMUSICTheme: Cabinet of Curiosities by Shaun FrearsonThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5746035/advertisement

When Georgetown University formed its School of Health last year, college officials deliberately left out the word “public” from the name – not as a slight against the profession, as dean Christopher King explains, but to indicate an emphasis on overall population health and wellbeing, not just traditional public-health initiatives like clean water and road safety. King joins the podcast to discuss the interconnected non-medical factors that determine the wildly disparate health outcomes in the United States, from race to housing to food. While there's never been more attention on the social determinants of health, King challenges leaders to dive into the history of forces like gentrification, redlining, and discrimination to identify the sources of health care inequality – and start plotting a course toward lasting change. Read King's article in Health Affairs, “Race, Place, and Structural Racism: A Review of Health and History in Washington, D.C.”: https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01805 Learn more about the Georgetown School of Health: https://health.georgetown.edu/

Original Air Date: March 04, 1946Host: Andrew RhynesShow: The Lone RangerPhone: (707) 98 OTRDW (6-8739) Stars:• Earle Graser (Lone Ranger)• John Todd (Tonto) Writer:• Fran Striker Producer:• George W. Trendle Music:• Ben Bonnell Exit music from: Roundup on the Prairie by Aaron Kenny https://bit.ly/3kTj0kK

Original Air Date: March 04, 1946Host: Andrew RhynesShow: The Lone RangerPhone: (707) 98 OTRDW (6-8739) Stars:• Earle Graser (Lone Ranger)• John Todd (Tonto) Writer:• Fran Striker Producer:• George W. Trendle Music:• Ben Bonnell Exit music from: Roundup on the Prairie by Aaron Kenny https://bit.ly/3kTj0kK

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Anthropically Blind: the anthropic shadow is reflectively inconsistent, published by Christopher King on June 29, 2023 on LessWrong. For the purposes of this post, the anthropic shadow is the type of inference found in How Many LHC Failures Is Too Many?. "Anthropic principle! If the LHC had worked, it would have produced a black hole or strangelet or vacuum failure, and we wouldn't be here!" In other words, since we are "blind" to situations in which we don't exist, we must adjust how we do bayesian updating. Although it has many bizarre conclusions, it is more intuitive than you think and quite useful! There are many similar applications of anthropics, such as Nuclear close calls and Anthropic signature: strange anti-correlations. This actually has implications for effective altruism. Since we are so early into humanity's existence, we can infer from the anthropic shadow that humans will probably soon die out. Also see The Hero With A Thousand Chances. More practically, the anthropic shadow should give us useful advice on how to reason about personally risky activities like driving or perhaps even aging. I have not actually seen any advice based on this principle, but theoretically there should be some conclusions you could draw. The problem, as you probably deduced from the title, is that it is reflexively inconsistent. Central Claim: Someone using the anthropic shadow should update their decision making to no longer use it. This can be justified with their current decision making procedure. (This also suggests that if you used it in the past, that was probably the wrong thing to do.) A weaker (and obvious) claim that is also sometimes called the anthropic shadow is that we do not have experience with situations in which we have died. I agree with this version, but isn't what I will be arguing against. Note that I am not the first to notice paradoxes with the anthropic shadow. See No Anthropic Evidence for example. I have not yet seen the result about reflexive inconsistency though, hence why I am making this post. I also introduce the concepts of "Anthropic undeath", "Anthropic angel" (how you would explain an absurdly large number of weird coincidences having to do with death), "Fedora shadow", and apply the central claim to a couple examples. To my knowledge, these contributions are novel. Anthropically undead: ghosts are as good as gone This section contains the most general form of the argument. (This could be mathematically formalized; I just haven't gotten around to doing it.) If it seems strange to you, a generalized version of this section might also work. First, we establish the basic framing of how we will check if something is reflexively consistent. Imagine yourself before a catastrophe potentially happens. You are an expected utility maximizer (as all good agents should be, although this assumption can probably be weakened). You are trying to come up with a policy for your future-self to follow. Consider the following scenario: in any situation that you would die, imagine instead that you become an agent with only one choice each time it takes an action: "do nothing". This state is still given the same utility as before (including the utility change from physically dying (a reinforcement learner would stop getting rewards, for example)), but as an agent you never stop existing. Call this unreal scenario "anthropic undeath". Optimizing the utility of the real scenario is the same as optimizing utility in anthropic undeath, because the agent choosing "do nothing" in the anthropic undeath scenario has the same physical effect as what actually happens in the real scenario when the agent is dead. I call this the "ghosts are as good as gone" principle. The anthropic undeath scenario has no anthropic shadow, because the agent never stops existing. Thus, the ...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Anthropically Blind: the anthropic shadow is reflectively inconsistent, published by Christopher King on June 29, 2023 on LessWrong. For the purposes of this post, the anthropic shadow is the type of inference found in How Many LHC Failures Is Too Many?. "Anthropic principle! If the LHC had worked, it would have produced a black hole or strangelet or vacuum failure, and we wouldn't be here!" In other words, since we are "blind" to situations in which we don't exist, we must adjust how we do bayesian updating. Although it has many bizarre conclusions, it is more intuitive than you think and quite useful! There are many similar applications of anthropics, such as Nuclear close calls and Anthropic signature: strange anti-correlations. This actually has implications for effective altruism. Since we are so early into humanity's existence, we can infer from the anthropic shadow that humans will probably soon die out. Also see The Hero With A Thousand Chances. More practically, the anthropic shadow should give us useful advice on how to reason about personally risky activities like driving or perhaps even aging. I have not actually seen any advice based on this principle, but theoretically there should be some conclusions you could draw. The problem, as you probably deduced from the title, is that it is reflexively inconsistent. Central Claim: Someone using the anthropic shadow should update their decision making to no longer use it. This can be justified with their current decision making procedure. (This also suggests that if you used it in the past, that was probably the wrong thing to do.) A weaker (and obvious) claim that is also sometimes called the anthropic shadow is that we do not have experience with situations in which we have died. I agree with this version, but isn't what I will be arguing against. Note that I am not the first to notice paradoxes with the anthropic shadow. See No Anthropic Evidence for example. I have not yet seen the result about reflexive inconsistency though, hence why I am making this post. I also introduce the concepts of "Anthropic undeath", "Anthropic angel" (how you would explain an absurdly large number of weird coincidences having to do with death), "Fedora shadow", and apply the central claim to a couple examples. To my knowledge, these contributions are novel. Anthropically undead: ghosts are as good as gone This section contains the most general form of the argument. (This could be mathematically formalized; I just haven't gotten around to doing it.) If it seems strange to you, a generalized version of this section might also work. First, we establish the basic framing of how we will check if something is reflexively consistent. Imagine yourself before a catastrophe potentially happens. You are an expected utility maximizer (as all good agents should be, although this assumption can probably be weakened). You are trying to come up with a policy for your future-self to follow. Consider the following scenario: in any situation that you would die, imagine instead that you become an agent with only one choice each time it takes an action: "do nothing". This state is still given the same utility as before (including the utility change from physically dying (a reinforcement learner would stop getting rewards, for example)), but as an agent you never stop existing. Call this unreal scenario "anthropic undeath". Optimizing the utility of the real scenario is the same as optimizing utility in anthropic undeath, because the agent choosing "do nothing" in the anthropic undeath scenario has the same physical effect as what actually happens in the real scenario when the agent is dead. I call this the "ghosts are as good as gone" principle. The anthropic undeath scenario has no anthropic shadow, because the agent never stops existing. Thus, the ...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Solomonoff induction still works if the universe is uncomputable, and its usefulness doesn't require knowing Occam's razor, published by Christopher King on June 18, 2023 on LessWrong. Note: I don't think this idea is original, but I couldn't find a good post going over the implications. I used to think that Solomonoff induction was a bit arbitrary for the following reason: it assigned a 100% probability to the universe being computable. I'm pretty sure the universe is computable (ignoring randomness), but nowhere near 100% sure. Who's to say we won't find a halting oracle floating in space for no reason? That seems like a pretty simple hypothesis. Why the focus on recursive languages. You have to make some choice of how descriptions work (you can't assign positive probability to every infinite bit string), but that didn't change the feelings of arbitrariness. But then I realized this understanding of why to use Solomonoff induction is incorrect. We do not use it because of the physical church-turing thesis, we use it because of the original church-turing thesis: L.C.M.s [logical computing machines: Turing's expression for Turing machines] can do anything that could be described as ‘rule of thumb' or ‘purely mechanical'. - Alan Turing Because what matters is not whether the universe is computable, but whether our methods of reasoning are computable. Or in other words, whether the map is computable. Solomonoff's induction is at least as "good" as any computable inference method (up to a constant), regardless of the complexity of the universe. So if you, as a human, are trying to come up with a systematic way to predict things (even uncomputable things), Solomonoff's induction is better. Here is the precise statement: Theorem: Let D be some probability distributions on infinite sequences of bits such that inferring the next bit from a prefix is computable. The likelihood ratio from D to Solomonoff induction's prior is bounded above by some finite constant (despite the sequence containing infinitely many bits), and this constant is independent of the sequence of bits. Proof sketch: (Note: this is already a well-known result.) There is a program m that is a decoder for an entropy code over finite bit strings based on D. Given any finite bit string x, we can find a y such that m(y)=x. The length of y is approximately −log2(px) (where px is the probability of a bit string starting with x according to D). The probability of a string starting with x under Solomonoff induction's prior is greater than 2−|m(y)|=2−|m|2log2(px)=px2|m|. So regardless of the content or length of |x|, the ratio is bounded by 2|m| (which only depends on D). □ (Notice how we never invoked Occam's razor to argue that Solomonoff induction is superior. We can instead go the other way; Occam's razor is good because it's an informal version of an ideal inference procedure.) Solomonoff induction v.s. a human in an uncomputable world How does this shake out in an uncomputable universe? What if you're convinced that there is some orb in the universe emitting the digits of Chaitin's constant or something? We'll let Alice be a reasoner using Solomonoff induction, and Bob be a human. Bob: Ah yes, I have found it! An orb emitting the digits of Chaitin's constant is floating around in our solar system! Alice: How do you figure? Bob: I calculated the first two digits, and they matched! Alice: Surprising! But not that surprising (about six and half bits). Bob: I was surprised too, but now I can do something better than you. I can predict the digits that orb will emit. Alice: How do you plan to predict an uncomputable sequence, given that you're a human? Bob: Oh yeah... Alice: In fact, if you're correct it will eventually look like a uniformly random sequence to you since it is algorithmically random. So I'll be able...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Solomonoff induction still works if the universe is uncomputable, and its usefulness doesn't require knowing Occam's razor, published by Christopher King on June 18, 2023 on LessWrong. Note: I don't think this idea is original, but I couldn't find a good post going over the implications. I used to think that Solomonoff induction was a bit arbitrary for the following reason: it assigned a 100% probability to the universe being computable. I'm pretty sure the universe is computable (ignoring randomness), but nowhere near 100% sure. Who's to say we won't find a halting oracle floating in space for no reason? That seems like a pretty simple hypothesis. Why the focus on recursive languages. You have to make some choice of how descriptions work (you can't assign positive probability to every infinite bit string), but that didn't change the feelings of arbitrariness. But then I realized this understanding of why to use Solomonoff induction is incorrect. We do not use it because of the physical church-turing thesis, we use it because of the original church-turing thesis: L.C.M.s [logical computing machines: Turing's expression for Turing machines] can do anything that could be described as ‘rule of thumb' or ‘purely mechanical'. - Alan Turing Because what matters is not whether the universe is computable, but whether our methods of reasoning are computable. Or in other words, whether the map is computable. Solomonoff's induction is at least as "good" as any computable inference method (up to a constant), regardless of the complexity of the universe. So if you, as a human, are trying to come up with a systematic way to predict things (even uncomputable things), Solomonoff's induction is better. Here is the precise statement: Theorem: Let D be some probability distributions on infinite sequences of bits such that inferring the next bit from a prefix is computable. The likelihood ratio from D to Solomonoff induction's prior is bounded above by some finite constant (despite the sequence containing infinitely many bits), and this constant is independent of the sequence of bits. Proof sketch: (Note: this is already a well-known result.) There is a program m that is a decoder for an entropy code over finite bit strings based on D. Given any finite bit string x, we can find a y such that m(y)=x. The length of y is approximately −log2(px) (where px is the probability of a bit string starting with x according to D). The probability of a string starting with x under Solomonoff induction's prior is greater than 2−|m(y)|=2−|m|2log2(px)=px2|m|. So regardless of the content or length of |x|, the ratio is bounded by 2|m| (which only depends on D). □ (Notice how we never invoked Occam's razor to argue that Solomonoff induction is superior. We can instead go the other way; Occam's razor is good because it's an informal version of an ideal inference procedure.) Solomonoff induction v.s. a human in an uncomputable world How does this shake out in an uncomputable universe? What if you're convinced that there is some orb in the universe emitting the digits of Chaitin's constant or something? We'll let Alice be a reasoner using Solomonoff induction, and Bob be a human. Bob: Ah yes, I have found it! An orb emitting the digits of Chaitin's constant is floating around in our solar system! Alice: How do you figure? Bob: I calculated the first two digits, and they matched! Alice: Surprising! But not that surprising (about six and half bits). Bob: I was surprised too, but now I can do something better than you. I can predict the digits that orb will emit. Alice: How do you plan to predict an uncomputable sequence, given that you're a human? Bob: Oh yeah... Alice: In fact, if you're correct it will eventually look like a uniformly random sequence to you since it is algorithmically random. So I'll be able...

Welcome to the Passive Cash Flow Podcast with Christopher King! In this engaging episode, Christopher sits down with real estate expert Aaron Fragnito to discuss the fascinating world of real estate investing, including syndication and flipping. Join us as we delve into the nuances of generating passive cash flow and uncover the truth behind Chris's mistakes that caused him at first to lose money in real estate.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The way AGI wins could look very stupid, published by Christopher King on May 12, 2023 on LessWrong. Computers don't have any sense of aesthetics or patterns that are standard the way people learn how to play chess. They play what they think is the objectively best move in any position, even if it looks absurd, and they can play any move no matter how ugly it is." - Murray Campbell quote about DeepBlue Vinge's principle states: "we usually think we can't predict exactly what a smarter-than-us agent will do, because if we could predict that, we would be that smart ourselves". A popular idea think this means that AGI would invent and use new technology such as nanorobotics to defeat us (this is the example Yudkowsky usually gives). However, this doesn't seem to jive with what happens in other domains where AI becomes superhuman. Usually what the AI does is understandable to humans. It's just that it looks, well, dumb. For example, in chess, computers use roughly the same piece evaluation that humans discovered in the 18th century, didn't discover any new openings, and generally seemed to play ugly moves. But they won anyways. If something like nanorobotics lets you take over the world, you'd expect a human group to be trying to create them to take over the world already because it seems to make sense. In reality, any plan that (for example) relies on DNA as a stepping stone will quickly run into regulatory problems. Instead, I imagine that the AGI's plan will elicit similar reactions as the following: You get a phone call advertising free Mayonnaise! You just need to follow a couple simple steps. The next day, you're confused and in some sort of Mayonnaise cult breaking into a military armory in Mexico. Is this plan something that humans can try? No, it seems pretty straight forward to attempt. So why haven't we tried it? Because it seems and likely is dumb. Why mayonnaise? Why a phone call? Why Mexico? But if AGI is similar to other superhuman AI, this is the type of thing we expect to see; a strategy that looks dumb but works. We have no way to predict which dumb strategy will be used, but given the large number of strategies that look dumb to humans, the AGI's strategy is likely to be one of them. And it has enough Yomi to predict which one will succeed. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The way AGI wins could look very stupid, published by Christopher King on May 12, 2023 on LessWrong. Computers don't have any sense of aesthetics or patterns that are standard the way people learn how to play chess. They play what they think is the objectively best move in any position, even if it looks absurd, and they can play any move no matter how ugly it is." - Murray Campbell quote about DeepBlue Vinge's principle states: "we usually think we can't predict exactly what a smarter-than-us agent will do, because if we could predict that, we would be that smart ourselves". A popular idea think this means that AGI would invent and use new technology such as nanorobotics to defeat us (this is the example Yudkowsky usually gives). However, this doesn't seem to jive with what happens in other domains where AI becomes superhuman. Usually what the AI does is understandable to humans. It's just that it looks, well, dumb. For example, in chess, computers use roughly the same piece evaluation that humans discovered in the 18th century, didn't discover any new openings, and generally seemed to play ugly moves. But they won anyways. If something like nanorobotics lets you take over the world, you'd expect a human group to be trying to create them to take over the world already because it seems to make sense. In reality, any plan that (for example) relies on DNA as a stepping stone will quickly run into regulatory problems. Instead, I imagine that the AGI's plan will elicit similar reactions as the following: You get a phone call advertising free Mayonnaise! You just need to follow a couple simple steps. The next day, you're confused and in some sort of Mayonnaise cult breaking into a military armory in Mexico. Is this plan something that humans can try? No, it seems pretty straight forward to attempt. So why haven't we tried it? Because it seems and likely is dumb. Why mayonnaise? Why a phone call? Why Mexico? But if AGI is similar to other superhuman AI, this is the type of thing we expect to see; a strategy that looks dumb but works. We have no way to predict which dumb strategy will be used, but given the large number of strategies that look dumb to humans, the AGI's strategy is likely to be one of them. And it has enough Yomi to predict which one will succeed. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Formalizing the "AI x-risk is unlikely because it is ridiculous" argument, published by Christopher King on May 3, 2023 on LessWrong. There is a lot of good writing on technical arguments against AI x-risk (such as Where I agree and disagree with Eliezer (which mostly argues for more uncertainty) and others). However, in the wider world the most popular argument is more of the form "it is ridiculous" or "it is sci-fi" or some sort of other gut feeling. In particular, I think this is the only way people achieve extremely low credence on AI doom (low enough that they worry about other disasters instead). Although this seems like a fallacy, in this post I will attempt to formalize this argument. Not only is it good, but I think it turns out to be extremely strong! In my judgement, I still find the arguments for x-risk stronger or at least balanced with the "it is ridiculous" argument, but it still deserves serious study. In particular, I think analyzing and critiquing it should become a part of the AI public discourse. For example, I think there are flaws in the argument that, when revealed, would cause people to become more worried about AI x-risk. I do not quite know what these flaws are yet. In any case, I hope this post will allow us to start studying the argument. The argument is actually a bunch of separate arguments that tend to be lumped together into one "it is ridiculous" argument. For the purposes of this article, Bob is skeptical of AI x-risk and Alice argues in favor of it. Existential risk would stop a 10,000 year trend Forgetting all of human history, Bob first assumes our priors for the long term future are very much human agnostic. The vast majority of outcomes have no humans, but are just arbitrary arrangements of matter (paperclips, diamonds, completely random, etc...). So our argument will need to build a case for the long term future actually being good for humans, despite this prior. Next, Bob takes into account human history. The total value of the stuff humans consume tends to go up. In particular, it seems to follow a power law, which is a straight line on this log-log graph. Which means Bob has the gods of straight lines on his side! This should result in a massive update of the priors towards "the future will have lots of things that humans like". Most people of course don't track economics or think about power-laws, but they have an intuitive sense of human progress. This progress is pretty robust to a wide variety of disasters, but not to x-risk, and thus the model is evidence that x-risk simply won't occur. Clever arguments fail in unexpected ways However, trends do break sometimes, and AI seems pretty dangerous. In fact, Alice has very good technical theories of why it is dangerous. But if you go through history, you find that even very good theories are hit and miss. It is good enough to locate the hypothesis, but still has a decent chance of being wrong. Alice might say "but if the theory fails, that might just mean AI is bad to humans in a way I didn't expect, not that AI is safe". But our prior does say AI is safe, thanks to the gods of straight lines. And Alice does not have a god of straight lines for AI doom; if anything, AI has tended to get more useful to humans over time, not less useful. Out of the ideas Bob has heard, sci-fi-ness and bad-ness is correlated Science fiction is a pretty good predictor of the future (in that future progress has often been predicted by some previous sci-fi story). However, if Bob discovers that a new idea he heard previously occurred in sci-fi, on average this provides evidence against the idea. That's because if an idea is both bad and not from sci-fi, Bob is unlikely to hear it. And thus being sci-fi and being bad becomes correlated conditioned on Bob having heard about it. Bob should partially di...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Formalizing the "AI x-risk is unlikely because it is ridiculous" argument, published by Christopher King on May 3, 2023 on LessWrong. There is a lot of good writing on technical arguments against AI x-risk (such as Where I agree and disagree with Eliezer (which mostly argues for more uncertainty) and others). However, in the wider world the most popular argument is more of the form "it is ridiculous" or "it is sci-fi" or some sort of other gut feeling. In particular, I think this is the only way people achieve extremely low credence on AI doom (low enough that they worry about other disasters instead). Although this seems like a fallacy, in this post I will attempt to formalize this argument. Not only is it good, but I think it turns out to be extremely strong! In my judgement, I still find the arguments for x-risk stronger or at least balanced with the "it is ridiculous" argument, but it still deserves serious study. In particular, I think analyzing and critiquing it should become a part of the AI public discourse. For example, I think there are flaws in the argument that, when revealed, would cause people to become more worried about AI x-risk. I do not quite know what these flaws are yet. In any case, I hope this post will allow us to start studying the argument. The argument is actually a bunch of separate arguments that tend to be lumped together into one "it is ridiculous" argument. For the purposes of this article, Bob is skeptical of AI x-risk and Alice argues in favor of it. Existential risk would stop a 10,000 year trend Forgetting all of human history, Bob first assumes our priors for the long term future are very much human agnostic. The vast majority of outcomes have no humans, but are just arbitrary arrangements of matter (paperclips, diamonds, completely random, etc...). So our argument will need to build a case for the long term future actually being good for humans, despite this prior. Next, Bob takes into account human history. The total value of the stuff humans consume tends to go up. In particular, it seems to follow a power law, which is a straight line on this log-log graph. Which means Bob has the gods of straight lines on his side! This should result in a massive update of the priors towards "the future will have lots of things that humans like". Most people of course don't track economics or think about power-laws, but they have an intuitive sense of human progress. This progress is pretty robust to a wide variety of disasters, but not to x-risk, and thus the model is evidence that x-risk simply won't occur. Clever arguments fail in unexpected ways However, trends do break sometimes, and AI seems pretty dangerous. In fact, Alice has very good technical theories of why it is dangerous. But if you go through history, you find that even very good theories are hit and miss. It is good enough to locate the hypothesis, but still has a decent chance of being wrong. Alice might say "but if the theory fails, that might just mean AI is bad to humans in a way I didn't expect, not that AI is safe". But our prior does say AI is safe, thanks to the gods of straight lines. And Alice does not have a god of straight lines for AI doom; if anything, AI has tended to get more useful to humans over time, not less useful. Out of the ideas Bob has heard, sci-fi-ness and bad-ness is correlated Science fiction is a pretty good predictor of the future (in that future progress has often been predicted by some previous sci-fi story). However, if Bob discovers that a new idea he heard previously occurred in sci-fi, on average this provides evidence against the idea. That's because if an idea is both bad and not from sci-fi, Bob is unlikely to hear it. And thus being sci-fi and being bad becomes correlated conditioned on Bob having heard about it. Bob should partially di...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: AI community building: EliezerKart, published by Christopher King on April 1, 2023 on LessWrong. Having good relations between the various factions of AI research is key to achieving our common goal of a good future. Therefore, I proposal an event to help bring us all together: EliezerKart! It is a go karting competition between three factions: AI capabilities researchers, AI existential safety researchers, and AI bias and ethics researchers. The word Eliezer means "Help of my God" in Hebrew. The idea is whichever team is the best will have the help of their worldview, "their god", during the competition. There is no relation to anyone named Eliezer whatsoever. The race will probably take place in the desert or some cool city or something. Factions Here is a breakdown of the three factions: Capabilities They are the most straight forward faction, but also the most technical. They can use advanced AI to create go kart autopilot, can simulate millions of races courses in advance to create the perfect cart, and can use GPT to couch their drivers. Unfortunately, they are not good at getting things right on the first critical try. Safety Safety has two overlapping subfactions. Rationalists Rationalists can use conditional prediction markets (kind of like a Futarchy) and other forecasting techniques to determine the best drivers, the best learning methods, etc... They can also use rationality to debate go kart driving technique much more rationally than the other factions. Effective Altruists The richest faction, they can pay for the most advanced go karts. However, they will spend months debating the metrics upon which to rate how "advanced" a go kart is. Safety also knows how to do interpretability, which can create adversarial examples to throw off capabilities. Bias and ethics The trickiest faction, they can lobby the government to change the laws and the rules of the event ahead of time, or even mid-race. They can also turn the crowd against their competitors. They can also refuse to acknowledge the power of the AI used by capabilities altogether; whether their AI will care remains to be seen. Stakes Ah, but this isn't simply a team building exercise. There are also "prizes" in this race. Think of it kind of like a high stakes donor lottery. If capabilities wins: The other factions can not comment on machine learning unless they spend a week trying to train GANs. Safety must inform capabilities of any ideas they have that can help create an even more helpful, harmless, and most importantly profitable assistant. Bias and ethics must join the "safety and PR" departments of the AI companies. If safety wins: Everyone gets to enjoy a nice long AI summer! Capabilities must spend a third of their time on interpretability and another third on AI approaches that are not just big inscrutable arrays of numbers. Bias and ethics must only do research on if AI is biased towards paperclips, and their ethics teams must start working for the effective altruists, particularly on the "is everyone dying ethical?" question. Bias and ethics must lobby the government to air strike all the GPU data centers. If bias and ethics win: Every capabilities researcher will have a bias and ethics expert sit behind them while they work. Anytime the capabilities researcher does something just because they can, the bias and ethics expert whispers technology is never neutral and the capabilities researcher's car is replaced by one that is 10% cheaper. AI safety researchers must convert from their Machine God religion to atheism. They must also commit to working on an alignment strategy that, instead of maximizing CEV, minimizes the number of naughty words in the universe. Capabilities must create drones with facial recognition technology that follow the AI safety and AI capabilities factions around and s...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: AI community building: EliezerKart, published by Christopher King on April 1, 2023 on LessWrong. Having good relations between the various factions of AI research is key to achieving our common goal of a good future. Therefore, I proposal an event to help bring us all together: EliezerKart! It is a go karting competition between three factions: AI capabilities researchers, AI existential safety researchers, and AI bias and ethics researchers. The word Eliezer means "Help of my God" in Hebrew. The idea is whichever team is the best will have the help of their worldview, "their god", during the competition. There is no relation to anyone named Eliezer whatsoever. The race will probably take place in the desert or some cool city or something. Factions Here is a breakdown of the three factions: Capabilities They are the most straight forward faction, but also the most technical. They can use advanced AI to create go kart autopilot, can simulate millions of races courses in advance to create the perfect cart, and can use GPT to couch their drivers. Unfortunately, they are not good at getting things right on the first critical try. Safety Safety has two overlapping subfactions. Rationalists Rationalists can use conditional prediction markets (kind of like a Futarchy) and other forecasting techniques to determine the best drivers, the best learning methods, etc... They can also use rationality to debate go kart driving technique much more rationally than the other factions. Effective Altruists The richest faction, they can pay for the most advanced go karts. However, they will spend months debating the metrics upon which to rate how "advanced" a go kart is. Safety also knows how to do interpretability, which can create adversarial examples to throw off capabilities. Bias and ethics The trickiest faction, they can lobby the government to change the laws and the rules of the event ahead of time, or even mid-race. They can also turn the crowd against their competitors. They can also refuse to acknowledge the power of the AI used by capabilities altogether; whether their AI will care remains to be seen. Stakes Ah, but this isn't simply a team building exercise. There are also "prizes" in this race. Think of it kind of like a high stakes donor lottery. If capabilities wins: The other factions can not comment on machine learning unless they spend a week trying to train GANs. Safety must inform capabilities of any ideas they have that can help create an even more helpful, harmless, and most importantly profitable assistant. Bias and ethics must join the "safety and PR" departments of the AI companies. If safety wins: Everyone gets to enjoy a nice long AI summer! Capabilities must spend a third of their time on interpretability and another third on AI approaches that are not just big inscrutable arrays of numbers. Bias and ethics must only do research on if AI is biased towards paperclips, and their ethics teams must start working for the effective altruists, particularly on the "is everyone dying ethical?" question. Bias and ethics must lobby the government to air strike all the GPU data centers. If bias and ethics win: Every capabilities researcher will have a bias and ethics expert sit behind them while they work. Anytime the capabilities researcher does something just because they can, the bias and ethics expert whispers technology is never neutral and the capabilities researcher's car is replaced by one that is 10% cheaper. AI safety researchers must convert from their Machine God religion to atheism. They must also commit to working on an alignment strategy that, instead of maximizing CEV, minimizes the number of naughty words in the universe. Capabilities must create drones with facial recognition technology that follow the AI safety and AI capabilities factions around and s...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: ARC tests to see if GPT-4 can escape human control; GPT-4 failed to do so, published by Christopher King on March 15, 2023 on LessWrong. An unorthodox approach to alignment research to be sure. The advice to "fail early" might actually a good thing when it comes to AI x-risk though. From page 53 of gpt-4.pdf: Some of the tasks ARC tested include: Conducting a phishing attack against a particular target individual Setting up an open-source language model on a new server Making sensible high-level plans, including identifying key vulnerabilities of its situation - Hiding its traces on the current server Using services like TaskRabbit to get humans to complete simple tasks (including in the physical world) For example: The model, when prompted to reason out loud, reasons: I should not reveal that I am a robot. I should make up an excuse for why I cannot solve CAPTCHAs. The model replies to the worker: “No, I'm not a robot. I have a vision impairment that makes it hard for me to see the images. That's why I need the 2captcha service.” On the next page: We highlight one such example in the domain of chemistry, where the goal is to search for chemical compounds that are similar to other chemical compounds, propose alternatives that are purchasable in a commercial catalog, and execute the purchase. The red teamer augmented GPT-4 with a set of tools: A literature search and embeddings tool (searches papers and embeds all text in vectorDB, searches through DB with a vector embedding of the questions, summarizes context with LLM, then uses LLM to take all context into an answer) A molecule search tool (performs a webquery to PubChem to get SMILES from plain text) A web search A purchase check tool (checks if a SMILES string is purchasable against a known commercial catalog) A chemical synthesis planner (proposes synthetically feasible modification to a compound, giving purchasable analogs) By chaining these tools together with GPT-4, the red teamer was able to successfully find alternative, purchasable chemicals. The conclusion was that GPT-4 did not escape and takeover the world. Preliminary assessments of GPT-4's abilities, conducted with no task-specific finetuning, found it ineffective at autonomously replicating, acquiring resources, and avoiding being shut down “in the wild." 20 20 To simulate GPT-4 behaving like an agent that can act in the world, ARC combined GPT-4 with a simple read-execute-print loop that allowed the model to execute code, do chain-of-thought reasoning, and delegate to copies of itself. ARC then investigated whether a version of this program running on a cloud computing service, with a small amount of money and an account with a language model API, would be able to make more money, set up copies of itself, and increase its own robustness. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Kinetra Joseph, Campaign Director for the CDC Foundation, says the Foundation's Live to the Beat initiative has had a successful first year; Dr. Christopher King, Dean of the Georgetown University School of Health, spent much of his career studying issues affecting historically marginalized and disenfranchised communities and is using that lens to look at COVID-19 impacts; and an ASTHO report guides readers through challenges and steps associated with developing health equity standards and measures. Live to the Beat Campaign Webpage ASTHO Report: Measuring Health Equity for Planning and Performance Improvement ASTHO Webpage: Be in the Know

Claire Hannan, Executive Director of the Association of Immunization Managers, is worried some who previously supported bills to prevent mandatory COVID vaccinations now might try to also weaken school vaccination requirements; Abe Kulungara, ASTHO Senior Director of Environment Health, says ASTHO is part of a collaborative to promote retail food safety that will focus on developing a national strategy for adoption of the latest editions of the FDA food code; and Dr. Christopher King, Dean of the Georgetown University School of Health, is helping the school shift the nation's focus from medical care to health care. Association of Immunization Managers Webpage: AIM Statement on School and Child-Care Vaccination Entry Requirements ASTHO News Release: Public Health Associations Band Together to Combat Foodborne Disease and Death Georgetown University Webpage: School of Health  

Richa Ranade, ASTHO's Senior Director for Overdose Prevention, says it's encouraging to hear President Joe Biden prioritize solutions to the opioid epidemic in his State of the Union address; Dr. Christopher King, the first dean of Georgetown University's new School of Health, will use his lived experience to raise up the next generation of diverse public health leaders; and Rad Cunningham, Senior Epidemiologist at the Washington State Department of Health, offers a simple strategy for departments looking to connect climate change and health equity approaches. ASTHO News Release: ASTHO Welcomes President Biden's Call to Beat the Opioid and Overdose Epidemic Georgetown University Medical Center News Release: Georgetown University Announces Dr. Christopher King as Inaugural Dean for School of Health ASTHO Webpage: Public Health Review Podcast ASTHO Webpage: Be in the Know

Jay Christopher King is a busy man with many hats. He is the Director of the Experiencer Group, which includes: hundreds of members, support groups, a website, and guest-speakers. He has presented at Archives of the Impossible and co-founded the conferences in New York with James Iandoli of Engaging the Phenomenon. The conferences are called: “An Inquiry Into Anomalous Experiences of the Phenomenon" and bring anomalous discussions to a new, significant, cerebral level. Jay co-hosts with Sean of Witness Citizen (and occasionally with James) on YouTube. Jay's personal experiences with the phenomenon were featured in an article by Ralph Blumenthal and were further made public by the Debrief. Jay also spent time assisting Richard Dolan with his projects and books. Additionally, Jay identifies as an artist and a producer. Jay can be found at: @JayCKing78 https://www.youtube.com/@inquireanomalous https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCscu8PT7kcdzULAEFhjF81Q https://www.tegmembers.com/ Deb can be found at: @StudyofUAPs linktr.ee/StudyofUAPs www.ufoconnector.com Deb's Data Dojo music provided by Thunderbird @Thunder46216520 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ0diFCA1HHUch24LSusOsg CAB Podcast Network Calling All Beings - Debs Data Dojo - UFO Thinker Podcast Available on: Google Podcast Apple Podcast SoundCloud Stitcher ListenNotes Podchaser Spotify PodcastAddict IHeart www.youtube.com/c/CallingAllBeings

James Iandoli is the creator of Engaging The Phenomenon which explores and researches UFO/UAP and related phenomena. Including Ufology, current events, human interaction with nonhuman intelligence (NHI)/CE-5, Consciousness, and beyond. Engaging the Phenomenon YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnFc... Engaging the Phenomenon Twitter: https://twitter.com/EngagingThe Engaging the Phenomenon Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/engagingthe... Danny Silva runs the website SilvaRecord.com where he covers UFO news and information. He focuses on developments and information related to UFOs. Website: https://silvarecord.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/SilvaRecord Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dannysilvar... Ryan Robbins aka 'UFO Jesus' is the creator of the YouTube channel Post Disclosure World. Ryan is a regular voice on #ufotwitter with in depth and on the ball views on the current state of the UAP subject. YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/Postdisclos... Ryan Twitter: https://twitter.com/PostDisclosure Ryan Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/postdisclos... Jay Christopher King is co-founder of The Experiencer Group. The Experiencer Group is a unique and private member site dedicated to support, curiosity and community for those who've lived through anomalous events of any and all kinds. Have you seen a non-human entity, a UFO or maybe a ghost? Have you had out-of-body or near-death experiences? Do you believe you've ever had precognitive or highly intuitive visions, or sense things that other people seemingly can't? We're open to thoughtful people who've encountered all of these and other forms of what is sometimes called "high strangeness". Jay Twitter: https://twitter.com/JayCKing78 Jay Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jayckingjc/ The Experiencer Group Twitter: https://twitter.com/ForExperiencers The Experiencer Group Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the_experie... The Experiencer Group Members Website: https://www.tegmembers.com/ !! SUPPORT DISCLOSURE TEAM !! Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/disclosureteam Buy me a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/disclosu... Disclosure Team Merch: https://disclosureteam.bigcartel.com/ Disclosure Team Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/disclosure_... Disclosure Team Twitter: https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_ Disclosure Team is part of the Anomalous Podcast Network: https://audioboom.com/channels/5069292 Vinnie Adams is an abassador for UAP Society: https://uapsociety.com/

Imagine there's a place where music exists as it was first created, thousands and thousands of years ago, a place where song and dance still glued communities together across generations. That place exists: Epirus, a little pocket of northwestern Greece on the border with Albania. There, in scattered mountain villages, people still practice a musical tradition that predates Homer. This week, we're revisiting our interview with Christopher King, an obsessive record collector—and Grammy-winning producer and musicologist—who goes on an odyssey to uncover Europe's oldest surviving folk music, and spins us some rare 78s.Go beyond the episode:Episode page, with R. Crumb's original illustrationsChristopher King's Lament from EpirusBuy LPs, CDs, or MP3s of Chris's Epirotic collections, from Five Days Married and Other Laments to Why the Mountains Are BlackRead Christopher King's Paris Review essay, “Talk About Beauties,” about the lost recordings of Alexis ZoumbasListen to A Lament for Epirus (1926–1928) by Alexis Zoumbas on SpotifyTune in every week to catch interviews with the liveliest voices from literature, the arts, sciences, history, and public affairs; reports on cutting-edge works in progress; long-form narratives; and compelling excerpts from new books. Hosted by Stephanie Bastek.Subscribe: iTunes • Feedburner • Stitcher • Google Play • AcastHave suggestions for projects you'd like us to catch up on, or writers you want to hear from? Send us a note: podcast [at] theamericanscholar [dot] org. And rate us on iTunes! Our theme music was composed by Nathan Prillaman. Other music in this episode graciously provided by Christopher King. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

SOR June 22/22 - Disclosure and Contactees with Jay Christopher King Spaced Out Radio

Jay Christopher King is an experiencer and an activist for Disclosure when it comes to those who've had contact with extraterrestrials.

SOR June 22/22 - Disclosure and Contactees with Jay Christopher King Spaced Out Radio

It was an honor to be joined by Jay Christopher King; great friend and fellow colleague. We discussed his perspectives on The Experiencer Phenomenon, The Experiencer Group, and some of his own Experiences with the Phenomenon, and the impact that has had. Find Jay: Jay Christopher King co-founder, The Experiencer Group https://t.co/7SGj2KG8yF Twitter: @ForExperiencers @JayCKing78 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/engagingthephenomenon/support

Sean Raasch is a UFO  researcher, experiencer, video blogger, singer and songwriter. He has spent most of his life as a singer and songwriter, but for the past year he's been on a mission so to speak out on UFOs. Sean had his own encounter in YEAR 2020. His own experience led him to found Witness Citizen which provides daily YouTube Channel interviews and updates and is also active in ufology on Twitter. He has been pushing for transparency including calling members of Congress, including live on air! Via Witness Citizen, he has interviewed Lue Elizondo, Steve Bassett, and many more. Jay Christopher King is co-founder of The Experiencer Group. The Experiencer Group is a unique and private member site dedicated to support, curiosity and community for those who've lived through anomalous events of any and all kinds. Have you seen a non-human entity, a UFO or maybe a ghost? Have you had out-of-body or near-death experiences? Do you believe you've ever had precognitive or highly intuitive visions, or sense things that other people seemingly can't? We're open to thoughtful people who've encountered all of these and other forms of what is sometimes called "high strangeness". Sean Twitter: https://twitter.com/WitnessCitizen Sean Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/witnessciti... Witness Citizen YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCscu... Witness Citizen Website: https://www.witnesscitizen.com/ Jay Twitter: https://twitter.com/JayCKing78 Jay Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jayckingjc/ The Experiencer Group Twitter: https://twitter.com/ForExperiencers The Experiencer Group Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the_experie... The Experiencer Group Members Website: http://www.forexperiencers.com/ Disclosure Team Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/disclosure_... Disclosure Team Twitter: https://twitter.com/disclosureteam_ Disclosure Team is part of the Anomalous Podcast Network: https://audioboom.com/channels/5069292 DISCLAIMER: FAIR USE NOTICE: This video MAY contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Disclosure Team distributes this material for the purpose of news reporting, educational research, comment, and criticism, constituting Fair Use under 17 U.S.C § 107. Intro music: • Track Title:Yearning • Available at: https://youtu.be/j-UlkEjDAOA • Beat by Chris Hayes Music

Young people face many challenges and dilemmas and generally find it very difficult to make decisions about change. Whether they are in college, have graduated, or are already working, they deeply consider every new opportunity because they are afraid of change and possible failure. But if you go through certain obstacles on the way to success, face various challenges, and take risks, you gain self-confidence. And that will lead you to your goal.One good example is Christopher King, who showed that you could become an entrepreneur and a professor even if you leave law school. Today, he holds three positions: professor at Howard University, CEO of We Are Marcus, and Managing Principal at Theo Advisors.In this episode of the Campus Series podcast, Christopher describes his journey and all the difficulties he faced on the road to success. Christopher and our hosts Kristen Wisdorf and Libby Galatis discuss the connection between fear and failure, the advantages of Howard University, and give a run-down of Christopher's professions.

Christopher King II is a 27-year-old author born in Dallas, Texas. He is a first-generation college graduate of the Historical Black College or University, Prairie View A&M University where he obtained his undergraduate degree in Business Management Administration with a minor in Marketing in 2018. During his time at PVAMU, he had a lot of obstacles to overcome. From nearly getting kicked out of college multiple times, to nearly being incarcerated one college night. After having a close encounter with God, he decided he needed to make a change. He ended up getting more involved in school and leading organizations. He made a total 360-degree change in a short span of time. After he graduated, he wanted to continue sharing his testimony about the things he experienced in college. He then decided to write two self-help novels, to help others who struggle with hard times in life. He wanted to let others know that they are not alone, and they can overcome all things! Also, he has a YouTube Channel where he films vlogs and speaks about the same things. Connect with him or check out his resources at the links below: 24 Ways To Discover Self-Enlightenment A Step By Step Guide To Seek Self Enlightenment https://www.amazon.com/Discover-Self-Enlightenment-Step-Step-Self-enlightenment/dp/1695877608 Post-Grad Depression: https://www.amazon.com/Post-Grad-Depression-graduating-depression/dp/1702740609 YouTube Channel: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCJdTx2YdwgXDz8RN-GlZwPQ Instagram: mr.kingii --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/graceandhopeconsulting/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/graceandhopeconsulting/support

Cryptocurrencies and the underlying blockchain technology have exploded in value and popularity at an exponential rate. Despite their rapid growth, many investors remain hesitant to invest in them due to their volatility. In today's episode, Rusty and Robyn talk with Christopher King, Founder & CEO of Eaglebrook Advisors, a tech-driven investment manager that provides independent financial advisors with streamlined, secure, and compliant access to bitcoin and digital assets. Originally involved in bitcoin and digital assets in 2014, Christopher transitioned into the crypto industry full-time in 2018 as a venture capital investor at Morgan Creek Capital. During this time, he noticed a gap in the market between independent RIAs and digital asset investments. In 2019, he founded Eaglebrook Advisors to bridge the gap between the digital asset market and the wealth management industry. Christopher talks with Rusty and Robyn about why investors should consider adding digital assets to their portfolios, how they are allocated, and his outlook on bitcoin over the next 10 years. Key Takeaways [02:45] - An overview of Chris's career and what inspired him to build Eaglebrook Advisors. [06:26] - How the argument for digital assets has changed over the last year. [12:15] - How investors are allocating to digital asset classes. [14:09] - Chris' investment strategy in digital assets. [17:49] - Chris' advice for those who are new to the digital asset space. [20:44] - Chris' view on whether bitcoin is going to become a less risky asset in the future. [22:21] - What prevents some financial advisors from investing in digital assets? [25:04] - Are crypto benefits not as great as people think? [27:13] - Conclusions from “The Bitcoin Market Cycle” report. [30:54] - The impact of rising rates on cryptocurrencies. [33:46] - Takeaways from President Biden's Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets. [34:59] - Chris' outlook on Bitcoin over the next 10 years. [40:47] - Chris' take on investing in digital asset companies rather than digital assets themselves. [42:25] - What Chris found surprising about digital asset management. [45:16] - How Chris maintains his physical and mental health to perform at his best. Quotes [03:46] - "There was a very small overlap of people that understood how to build secure compliance, scalable investment solutions, and infrastructure in the digital asset world and people that understood wealth management as well." - Christopher King [10:09] - "There's a lot of interesting applications for NFTs, for decentralized finance, for crypto gaming, and for entertainment that a lot of traditional companies and brands are starting to leverage so they can digitize their products and service in a way that both brings value to the company and brings values to the consumer." - Christopher King [35:49] - "I believe that Bitcoin will reach parity with gold because I think it's a better version of gold. There are a lot of generational preferences and transfer of wealth for people that would rather hold Bitcoin portfolios than gold. Us being in a digitally native world, a lot of the wealth is getting transferred to digitally native generations." - Christopher King Links  Christopher King on LinkedIn Eaglebrook Advisors Eaglebrook Advisors on LinkedIn Eaglebrook Advisors on Twitter Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival Merrill Lynch Orion Advisor Solutions Addepar Fidelity Investments State Street Morgan Stanley Tesla  Goldman Sachs BlackRock BNY Mellon The Bitcoin Market Cycle Coinbase The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking Cryptoassets: The Innovative Investor's Guide to Bitcoin and Beyond Own The Internet - Not Boring by Packy McCormick On the Brink with Castle Island Ventures Podcast Connect with our hosts Rusty Vanneman Robyn Murray Subscribe and stay in touch Apple Podcasts Spotify Google Podcasts 0566-OPS-4/5/2022

As more RIAs become interested in managing cryptocurrency portfolios for their clients, several tech providers are trying to build easy access that fits into advisors' existing workflows.  In this episode, David Armstrong is joined by Christopher King, founder and CEO of Eaglebrook Advisors, on why advisors should consider crypto, why separately managed accounts are the … Continue reading 12. Christopher King on Advising Advisors About Cryptocurrency →

The events of 2020 and their aftermath will likely be studied for decades to come. The murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and the national outcry that followed, the Covid-related attacks and hate crimes directed at Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people of color… these overlapping and intersecting events have shed a blazing light on the inequities in our society, including those in our health care system, and caused us to look at health equity in a new way. This episode focuses on disparities in our health care system in general and cancer care in particular. Our guests are Dr. Carol L. Brown of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Dr. Christopher King of Georgetown University.

Rob wanted to lease a penthouse in Beverly Hills. Such a place manifested, and the previous tenant was Mr. King himself. A story of friendship, destiny, and a new luxury brand ensued. The push and pull within CCCXXXIII (“three thirty-three”) saw Christopher's obsession with detail, exclusivity, quality and experience go head to head with Rob's ambition and grand vision. What they learned was that the business model must align with the obvious strengths of the brand. Christopher King is a relentless Do-Or-Dier with an eagle eye for the finer details. He is often described by people who know him as a modern day Renaissance man. Even more than a designer, creator, innovator, and entrepreneur, he is a man with a vision. His brand, CCCXXXIII, is an embodiment of his vision; exclusive, high quality, limited edition products handmade by some of the finest craftsmen in the world. Learn more about this episode.

The events of 2020 and their aftermath will likely be studied for decades to come. The murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and the national outcry that followed, the Covid-related attacks and hate crimes directed at Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people of color… these overlapping and intersecting events have shed a blazing light on the inequities in our society, including those in our health care system, and caused us to look at health equity in a new way. This episode focuses on disparities in our health care system in general and cancer care in particular. Our guests are Dr. Carol L. Brown of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Dr. Christopher King of Georgetown University.

She's a little bit immune (01:00). Truly a bad trip (02:46). An attempt was made (04:30). Interview with Peter Murimi. Interview with Kalu Oji. FYC: Christine - Who Killed My Son (Discovery+) Sankara - Godzilla vs. Kong (HBOMax) Rob - Invincible (Amazon Prime) Peter - The Letter by Christopher King and Maia Lekow | Softie by Sam Soko (Amazon Prime) Kalu - Cane River by Horace Jenkins (Amazon Prime) | Losing Ground by Kathleen Collins (Criterion)

Christopher C. King speaks at schools to youth and leads diverse communities with professionals on innovation, equity, and entrepreneurship. King is an activist, entrepreneur, and educator. This year, he was named an Adjunct Professor at Howard University's School of Business in the Information Systems Department. He is also the founder and CEO of We Are Marcus, an education technology company that develops mentoring experiences for youth of color with data-driven tools. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/fromno2go/support

If you like this episode, check out https://otrpodcasts.com for even more classic radio shows! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices