Podcast appearances and mentions of David Haig

The Thin Blue Line is a British sitcom that aired on BBC1 from 1995 to 1996. The show is about a police station in the fictional English town of Gasforth. The series stars Rowan Atkinson as Inspector Raymond Fowler, a by-the-book officer who often clashes with Detective Inspector Derek Grim (played by David Haig). The two represent opposing views on policing, traditional vs modern. Despite The Thin Blue Line's short run of two series, the show remains a memorable part of British television, blending sharp wit with classic sitcom tropes. Will this one land with the S1E1 boys? Listen as they deep dive the show's pilot episode, "The Queen's Birthday Present". Starring: Rowan Atkinson, James Dreyfus, Mina Anwar, Rudolph Walker, Serena Evans, David Haig, Kevin Allen, & Stephen Moore www.S1E1POD.com Instagram & X (Twitter): @S1E1POD

Bunny is in the garden with David Haig MBE an extremely keen gardener though his famous face is familiar to many as Bernard in ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral', Jim Hacker in the film of ‘Yes Minister' and has appeared in ‘Killing Eve', and the Downton Abbey film too.   He is also a celebrated playwright, he wrote  ‘My Boy Jack'  where he not only penned  the play but also played Rudyard Kipling with Daniel Radcliffe as his son.  David loves the rain and understands a fair bit about our climate having written the drama ‘The Challenge' about the meteorologist James Stagg, who helped changed the outcome of the war by predicting the weather for the proposed date of D Day.  See David in his garden in Bunny's YouTube video ‘David Haig in  his Generous Garden talking about gardening, Acting and Playwriting' #davidhaig #actor

Todd McFarlane's long-awaited Spawn reboot, now titled King Spawn, promises a thrilling hard-R horror experience. The film, featuring Jamie Foxx in the lead, aims to take a darker turn compared to the 1997 original, which grossed $88 million at the box office. The script, co-written by Oscar-nominated Scott Silver, Malcolm Spellman, and Matthew Mixon, hints at intense story arcs and the protagonist's struggle to ascend Hell's throne. The movie is set for a potential release next year under Jason Blum's Blumhouse Productions.

RNIB Connect Radio's Toby Davey is joined again by Vidar Hjardeng MBE, Inclusion and Diversity Consultant for ITV News across England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands for the next in his regular Connect Radio theatre reviews. This week Vidar was reviewing an action packed theatrical experience with David Haig's stage adaptation of that iconic sci-fi thriller, Minority Report at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre. About Minority Report: In 2050, neuroscientist Dame Julia Anderton is about to launch the next phase of her pioneering Pre-Crime programme, monitoring people's thoughts and detaining them before crimes are committed. But when Julia is accused of pre-murder, she's in a race against time to save herself from her own system. David Haig's electrifying adaptation of Phillip K. Dick's iconic sci-fi thriller challenges our beliefs about justice and freewill in a real-time chase through London of the future. Minority Report sees award-winning director Max Webster re-united with the producers of the globally successful stage version of Life of Pi. This action packed theatrical experience will take you on an electrifying ride into the future, as it creates a world bordering science fiction and reality. For more about access at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre including details of audio described performances of their productions do visit the access pages of the REP website - https://www.birmingham-rep.co.uk/your-visit/accessibility/ (Image shows RNIB logo. 'RNIB' written in black capital letters over a white background and underlined with a bold pink line, with the words 'See differently' underneath)

Philip K. Dick's novella The Minority Report was famously adapted into a science fiction blockbuster by director Steven Spielberg in 2002. More than 20 years later, it is now being adapted for the stage by writer David Haig and director Max Webster. Mark Burman goes behind the scenes of this bold adaptation, as the clock ticks down to opening night.

* Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts* Be sure to check out and follow Holly's Substack and org Pause AI. Blurb and summary from ClongBlurbHolly and Aaron had a wide-ranging discussion touching on effective altruism, AI alignment, genetic conflict, wild animal welfare, and the importance of public advocacy in the AI safety space. Holly spoke about her background in evolutionary biology and how she became involved in effective altruism. She discussed her reservations around wild animal welfare and her perspective on the challenges of AI alignment. They talked about the value of public opinion polls, the psychology of AI researchers, and whether certain AI labs like OpenAI might be net positive actors. Holly argued for the strategic importance of public advocacy and pushing the Overton window within EA on AI safety issues.Detailed summary* Holly's background - PhD in evolutionary biology, got into EA through New Atheism and looking for community with positive values, did EA organizing at Harvard* Worked at Rethink Priorities on wild animal welfare but had reservations about imposing values on animals and whether we're at the right margin yet* Got inspired by FLI letter to focus more on AI safety advocacy and importance of public opinion* Discussed genetic conflict and challenges of alignment even with "closest" agents* Talked about the value of public opinion polls and influencing politicians* Discussed the psychology and motives of AI researchers* Disagreed a bit on whether certain labs like OpenAI might be net positive actors* Holly argued for importance of public advocacy in AI safety, thinks we have power to shift Overton window* Talked about the dynamics between different AI researchers and competition for status* Discussed how rationalists often dismiss advocacy and politics* Holly thinks advocacy is neglected and can push the Overton window even within EA* Also discussed Holly's evolutionary biology takes, memetic drive, gradient descent vs. natural selectionFull transcript (very imperfect)AARONYou're an AI pause, Advocate. Can you remind me of your shtick before that? Did you have an EA career or something?HOLLYYeah, before that I was an academic. I got into EA when I was doing my PhD in evolutionary biology, and I had been into New Atheism before that. I had done a lot of organizing for that in college. And while the enlightenment stuff and what I think is the truth about there not being a God was very important to me, but I didn't like the lack of positive values. Half the people there were sort of people like me who are looking for community after leaving their religion that they grew up in. And sometimes as many as half of the people there were just looking for a way for it to be okay for them to upset people and take away stuff that was important to them. And I didn't love that. I didn't love organizing a space for that. And when I got to my first year at Harvard, harvard Effective Altruism was advertising for its fellowship, which became the Elite Fellowship eventually. And I was like, wow, this is like, everything I want. And it has this positive organizing value around doing good. And so I was totally made for it. And pretty much immediately I did that fellowship, even though it was for undergrad. I did that fellowship, and I was immediately doing a lot of grad school organizing, and I did that for, like, six more years. And yeah, by the time I got to the end of grad school, I realized I was very sick in my fifth year, and I realized the stuff I kept doing was EA organizing, and I did not want to keep doing work. And that was pretty clear. I thought, oh, because I'm really into my academic area, I'll do that, but I'll also have a component of doing good. I took giving what we can in the middle of grad school, and I thought, I actually just enjoy doing this more, so why would I do anything else? Then after grad school, I started applying for EA jobs, and pretty soon I got a job at Rethink Priorities, and they suggested that I work on wild animal welfare. And I have to say, from the beginning, it was a little bit like I don't know, I'd always had very mixed feelings about wild animal welfare as a cause area. How much do they assume the audience knows about EA?AARONA lot, I guess. I think as of right now, it's a pretty hardcore dozen people. Also. Wait, what year is any of this approximately?HOLLYSo I graduated in 2020.AARONOkay.HOLLYYeah. And then I was like, really?AARONOkay, this is not extremely distant history. Sometimes people are like, oh, yeah, like the OG days, like four or something. I'm like, oh, my God.HOLLYOh, yeah, no, I wish I had been in these circles then, but no, it wasn't until like, 2014 that I really got inducted. Yeah, which now feels old because everybody's so young. But yeah, in 2020, I finished my PhD, and I got this awesome remote job at Rethink Priorities during the Pandemic, which was great, but I was working on wild animal welfare, which I'd always had some. So wild animal welfare, just for anyone who's not familiar, is like looking at the state of the natural world and seeing if there's a way that usually the hedonic so, like, feeling pleasure, not pain sort of welfare of animals can be maximized. So that's in contrast to a lot of other ways of looking at the natural world, like conservation, which are more about preserving a state of the world the way preserving, maybe ecosystem balance, something like that. Preserving species diversity. The priority with wild animal welfare is the effect of welfare, like how it feels to be the animals. So it is very understudied, but I had a lot of reservations about it because I'm nervous about maximizing our values too hard onto animals or imposing them on other species.AARONOkay, that's interesting, just because we're so far away from the margin of I'm like a very pro wild animal animal welfare pilled person.HOLLYI'm definitely pro in theory.AARONHow many other people it's like you and formerly you and six other people or whatever seems like we're quite far away from the margin at which we're over optimizing in terms of giving heroin to all the sheep or I don't know, the bugs and stuff.HOLLYBut it's true the field is moving in more my direction and I think it's just because they're hiring more biologists and we tend to think this way or have more of this perspective. But I'm a big fan of Brian domestics work. But stuff like finding out which species have the most capacity for welfare I think is already sort of the wrong scale. I think a lot will just depend on how much. What are the conditions for that species?AARONYeah, no, there's like seven from the.HOLLYCoarseness and the abstraction, but also there's a lot of you don't want anybody to actually do stuff like that and it would be more possible to do the more simple sounding stuff. My work there just was consisted of being a huge downer. I respect that. I did do some work that I'm proud of. I have a whole sequence on EA forum about how we could reduce the use of rodenticide, which I think was the single most promising intervention that we came up with in the time that I was there. I mean, I didn't come up with it, but that we narrowed down. And even that just doesn't affect that many animals directly. It's really more about the impact is from what you think you'll get with moral circle expansion or setting precedents for the treatment of non human animals or wild animals, or semi wild animals, maybe like being able to be expanded into wild animals. And so it all felt not quite up to EA standards of impact. And I felt kind of uncomfortable trying to make this thing happen in EA when I wasn't sure that my tentative conclusion on wild animal welfare, after working on it and thinking about it a lot for three years, was that we're sort of waiting for transformative technology that's not here yet in order to be able to do the kinds of interventions that we want. And there are going to be other issues with the transformative technology that we have to deal with first.AARONYeah, no, I've been thinking not that seriously or in any formal way, just like once in a while I just have a thought like oh, I wonder how the field of, like, I guess wild animal sorry, not wild animal. Just like animal welfare in general and including wild animal welfare might make use of AI above and beyond. I feel like there's like a simple take which is probably mostly true, which is like, oh, I mean the phrase that everybody loves to say is make AI go well or whatever that but that's basically true. Probably you make aligned AI. I know that's like a very oversimplification and then you can have a bunch of wealth or whatever to do whatever you want. I feel like that's kind of like the standard line, but do you have any takes on, I don't know, maybe in the next couple of years or anything more specifically beyond just general purpose AI alignment, for lack of a better term, how animal welfare might put to use transformative AI.HOLLYMy last work at Rethink Priorities was like looking a sort of zoomed out look at the field and where it should go. And so we're apparently going to do a public version, but I don't know if that's going to happen. It's been a while now since I was expecting to get a call about it. But yeah, I'm trying to think of what can I scrape from that?AARONAs much as you can, don't reveal any classified information. But what was the general thing that this was about?HOLLYThere are things that I think so I sort of broke it down into a couple of categories. There's like things that we could do in a world where we don't get AGI for a long time, but we get just transformative AI. Short of that, it's just able to do a lot of parallel tasks. And I think we could do a lot we could get a lot of what we want for wild animals by doing a ton of surveillance and having the ability to make incredibly precise changes to the ecosystem. Having surveillance so we know when something is like, and the capacity to do really intense simulation of the ecosystem and know what's going to happen as a result of little things. We could do that all without AGI. You could just do that with just a lot of computational power. I think our ability to simulate the environment right now is not the best, but it's not because it's impossible. It's just like we just need a lot more observations and a lot more ability to simulate a comparison is meteorology. Meteorology used to be much more of an art, but it became more of a science once they started just literally taking for every block of air and they're getting smaller and smaller, the blocks. They just do Bernoulli's Law on it and figure out what's going to happen in that block. And then you just sort of add it all together and you get actually pretty good.AARONDo you know how big the blocks are?HOLLYThey get smaller all the time. That's the resolution increase, but I don't know how big the blocks are okay right now. And shockingly, that just works. That gives you a lot of the picture of what's going to happen with weather. And I think that modeling ecosystem dynamics is very similar to weather. You could say more players than ecosystems, and I think we could, with enough surveillance, get a lot better at monitoring the ecosystem and then actually have more of a chance of implementing the kinds of sweeping interventions we want. But the price would be just like never ending surveillance and having to be the stewards of the environment if we weren't automating. Depending on how much you want to automate and depending on how much you can automate without AGI or without handing it over to another intelligence.AARONYeah, I've heard this. Maybe I haven't thought enough. And for some reason, I'm just, like, intuitively. I feel like I'm more skeptical of this kind of thing relative to the actual. There's a lot of things that I feel like a person might be skeptical about superhuman AI. And I'm less skeptical of that or less skeptical of things that sound as weird as this. Maybe because it's not. One thing I'm just concerned about is I feel like there's a larger scale I can imagine, just like the choice of how much, like, ecosystem is like yeah, how much ecosystem is available for wild animals is like a pretty macro level choice that might be not at all deterministic. So you could imagine spreading or terraforming other planets and things like that, or basically continuing to remove the amount of available ecosystem and also at a much more practical level, clean meat development. I have no idea what the technical bottlenecks on that are right now, but seems kind of possible that I don't know, AI can help it in some capacity.HOLLYOh, I thought you're going to say that it would increase the amount of space available for wild animals. Is this like a big controversy within, I don't know, this part of the EA animal movement? If you advocate diet change and if you get people to be vegetarians, does that just free up more land for wild animals to suffer on? I thought this was like, guys, we just will never do anything if we don't choose sort of like a zone of influence and accomplish something there. It seemed like this could go on forever. It was like, literally, I rethink actually. A lot of discussions would end in like, okay, so this seems like really good for all of our target populations, but what about wild animals? I could just reverse everything. I don't know. The thoughts I came to on that were that it is worthwhile to try to figure out what are all of the actual direct effects, but I don't think we should let that guide our decision making. Only you have to have some kind of theory of change, of what is the direct effect going to lead to? And I just think that it's so illegible what you're trying to do. If you're, like, you should eat this kind of fish to save animals. It doesn't lead society to adopt, to understand and adopt your values. It's so predicated on a moment in time that might be convenient. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough at that problem, but the conclusion I ended up coming to was just like, look, I just think we have to have some idea of not just the direct impacts, but something about the indirect impacts and what's likely to facilitate other direct impacts that we want in the future.AARONYeah. I also share your I don't know. I'm not sure if we share the same or I also feel conflicted about this kind of thing. Yeah. And I don't know, at the very least, I have a very high bar for saying, actually the worst of factory farming is like, we should just like, yeah, we should be okay with that, because some particular model says that at this moment in time, it has some net positive effect on animal welfare.HOLLYWhat morality is that really compatible with? I mean, I understand our morality, but maybe but pretty much anyone else who hears that conclusion is going to think that that means that the suffering doesn't matter or something.AARONYeah, I don't know. I think maybe more than you, I'm willing to bite the bullet if somebody really could convince me that, yeah, chicken farming is actually just, in fact, good, even though it's counterintuitive, I'll be like, all right, fine.HOLLYSurely there are other ways of occupying.AARONYeah.HOLLYSame with sometimes I would get from very classical wild animal suffering people, like, comments on my rodenticide work saying, like, well, what if it's good to have more rats? I don't know. There are surely other vehicles for utility other than ones that humans are bent on destroying.AARONYeah, it's kind of neither here nor there, but I don't actually know if this is causally important, but at least psychologically. I remember seeing a mouse in a glue trap was very had an impact on me from maybe turning me, like, animal welfare pills or something. That's like, neither here nor there. It's like a random anecdote, but yeah, seems bad. All right, what came after rethink for you?HOLLYYeah. Well, after the publication of the FLI Letter and Eliezer's article in Time, I was super inspired by pause. A number of emotional changes happened to me about AI safety. Nothing intellectual changed, but just I'd always been confused at and kind of taken it as a sign that people weren't really serious about AI risk when they would say things like, I don't know, the only option is alignment. The only option is for us to do cool, nerd stuff that we love doing nothing else would. I bought the arguments, but I just wasn't there emotionally. And seeing Eliezer advocate political change because he wants to save everyone's lives and he thinks that's something that we can do. Just kind of I'm sure I didn't want to face it before because it was upsetting. Not that I haven't faced a lot of upsetting and depressing things like I worked in wild animal welfare, for God's sake, but there was something that didn't quite add up for me, or I hadn't quite grocked about AI safety until seeing Eliezer really show that his concern is about everyone dying. And he's consistent with that. He's not caught on only one way of doing it, and it just kind of got in my head and I kept wanting to talk about it at work and it sort of became clear like they weren't going to pursue that sort of intervention. But I kept thinking of all these parallels between animal advocacy stuff that I knew and what could be done in AI safety. And these polls kept coming out showing that there was really high support for Paws and I just thought, this is such a huge opportunity, I really would love to help out. Originally I was looking around for who was going to be leading campaigns that I could volunteer in, and then eventually I thought, it just doesn't seem like somebody else is going to do this in the Bay Area. So I just ended up quitting rethink and being an independent organizer. And that has been really I mean, honestly, it's like a tough subject. It's like a lot to deal with, but honestly, compared to wild animal welfare, it's not that bad. And I think I'm pretty used to dealing with tough and depressing low tractability causes, but I actually think this is really tractable. I've been shocked how quickly things have moved and I sort of had this sense that, okay, people are reluctant in EA and AI safety in particular, they're not used to advocacy. They kind of vaguely think that that's bad politics is a mind killer and it's a little bit of a threat to the stuff they really love doing. Maybe that's not going to be so ascendant anymore and it's just stuff they're not familiar with. But I have the feeling that if somebody just keeps making this case that people will take to it, that I could push the Oberson window with NEA and that's gone really well.AARONYeah.HOLLYAnd then of course, the public is just like pretty down. It's great.AARONYeah. I feel like it's kind of weird because being in DC and I've always been, I feel like I actually used to be more into politics, to be clear. I understand or correct me if I'm wrong, but advocacy doesn't just mean in the political system or two politicians or whatever, but I assume that's like a part of what you're thinking about or not really.HOLLYYeah. Early on was considering working on more political process type advocacy and I think that's really important. I totally would have done it. I just thought that it was more neglected in our community to do advocacy to the public and a lot of people had entanglements that prevented them from doing so. They work sort of with AI labs or it's important to their work that they not declare against AI labs or something like that or be perceived that way. And so they didn't want to do public advocacy that could threaten what else they're doing. But I didn't have anything like that. I've been around for a long time in EA and I've been keeping up on AI safety, but I've never really worked. That's not true. I did a PiBBs fellowship, but.AARONI've.HOLLYNever worked for anybody in like I was just more free than a lot of other people to do the public messaging and so I kind of felt that I should. Yeah, I'm also more willing to get into conflict than other EA's and so that seems valuable, no?AARONYeah, I respect that. Respect that a lot. Yeah. So like one thing I feel like I've seen a lot of people on Twitter, for example. Well, not for example. That's really just it, I guess, talking about polls that come out saying like, oh yeah, the public is super enthusiastic about X, Y or Z, I feel like these are almost meaningless and maybe you can convince me otherwise. It's not exactly to be clear, I'm not saying that. I guess it could always be worse, right? All things considered, like a poll showing X thing is being supported is better than the opposite result, but you can really get people to say anything. Maybe I'm just wondering about the degree to which the public how do you imagine the public and I'm doing air quotes to playing into policies either of, I guess, industry actors or government actors?HOLLYWell, this is something actually that I also felt that a lot of EA's were unfamiliar with. But it does matter to our representatives, like what the constituents think it matters a mean if you talk to somebody who's ever interned in a congressperson's office, one person calling and writing letters for something can have actually depending on how contested a policy is, can have a largeish impact. My ex husband was an intern for Jim Cooper and they had this whole system for scoring when calls came in versus letters. Was it a handwritten letter, a typed letter? All of those things went into how many points it got and that was something they really cared about. Politicians do pay attention to opinion polls and they pay attention to what their vocal constituents want and they pay attention to not going against what is the norm opinion. Even if nobody in particular is pushing them on it or seems to feel strongly about it. They really are trying to calibrate themselves to what is the norm. So those are always also sometimes politicians just get directly convinced by arguments of what a policy should be. So yeah, public opinion is, I think, underappreciated by ya's because it doesn't feel like mechanistic. They're looking more for what's this weird policy hack that's going to solve what's? This super clever policy that's going to solve things rather than just like what's acceptable discourse, like how far out of his comfort zone does this politician have to go to advocate for this thing? How unpopular is it going to be to say stuff that's against this thing that now has a lot of public support?AARONYeah, I guess mainly I'm like I guess I'm also I definitely could be wrong with this, but I would expect that a lot of the yeah, like for like when politicians like, get or congresspeople like, get letters and emails or whatever on a particular especially when it's relevant to a particular bill. And it's like, okay, this bill has already been filtered for the fact that it's going to get some yes votes and some no votes and it's close to or something like that. Hearing from an interested constituency is really, I don't know, I guess interesting evidence. On the other hand, I don't know, you can kind of just get Americans to say a lot of different things that I think are basically not extremely unlikely to be enacted into laws. You know what I mean? I don't know. You can just look at opinion. Sorry. No great example comes to mind right now. But I don't know, if you ask the public, should we do more safety research into, I don't know, anything. If it sounds good, then people will say yes, or am I mistaken about this?HOLLYI mean, on these polls, usually they ask the other way around as well. Do you think AI is really promising for its benefits and should be accelerated? They answer consistently. It's not just like, well now that sounds positive. Okay. I mean, a well done poll will correct for these things. Yeah. I've encountered a lot of skepticism about the polls. Most of the polls on this have been done by YouGov, which is pretty reputable. And then the ones that were replicated by rethink priorities, they found very consistent results and I very much trust Rethink priorities on polls. Yeah. I've had people say, well, these framings are I don't know, they object and wonder if it's like getting at the person's true beliefs. And I kind of think like, I don't know, basically this is like the kind of advocacy message that I would give and people are really receptive to it. So to me that's really promising. Whether or not if you educated them a lot more about the topic, they would think the same is I don't think the question but that's sometimes an objection that I get. Yeah, I think they're indicative. And then I also think politicians just care directly about these things. If they're able to cite that most of the public agrees with this policy, that sort of gives them a lot of what they want, regardless of whether there's some qualification to does the public really think this or are they thinking hard enough about it? And then polls are always newsworthy. Weirdly. Just any poll can be a news story and journalists love them and so it's a great chance to get exposure for the whatever thing. And politicians do care what's in the news. Actually, I think we just have more influence over the political process than EA's and less wrongers tend to believe it's true. I think a lot of people got burned in AI safety, like in the previous 20 years because it would be dismissed. It just wasn't in the overton window. But I think we have a lot of power now. Weirdly. People care what effective altruists think. People see us as having real expertise. The AI safety community does know the most about this. It's pretty wild now that's being recognized publicly and journalists and the people who influence politicians, not directly the people, but the Fourth Estate type, people pay attention to this and they influence policy. And there's many levels of I wrote if people want a more detailed explanation of this, but still high level and accessible, I hope I wrote a thing on EA forum called The Case for AI Safety Advocacy. And that kind of goes over this concept of outside versus inside game. So inside game is like working within a system to change it. Outside game is like working outside the system to put pressure on that system to change it. And I think there's many small versions of this. I think that it's helpful within EA and AI safety to be pushing the overton window of what I think that people have a wrong understanding of how hard it is to communicate this topic and how hard it is to influence governments. I want it to be more acceptable. I want it to feel more possible in EA and AI safety to go this route. And then there's the public public level of trying to make them more familiar with the issue, frame it in the way that I want, which is know, with Sam Altman's tour, the issue kind of got framed as like, well, AI is going to get built, but how are we going to do it safely? And then I would like to take that a step back and be like, should AI be built or should AGI be just if we tried, we could just not do that, or we could at least reduce the speed. And so, yeah, I want people to be exposed to that frame. I want people to not be taken in by other frames that don't include the full gamut of options. I think that's very possible. And then there's a lot of this is more of the classic thing that's been going on in AI safety for the last ten years is trying to influence AI development to be more safety conscious. And that's like another kind of dynamic. There, like trying to change sort of the general flavor, like, what's acceptable? Do we have to care about safety? What is safety? That's also kind of a window pushing exercise.AARONYeah. Cool. Luckily, okay, this is not actually directly responding to anything you just said, which is luck. So I pulled up this post. So I should have read that. Luckily, I did read the case for slowing down. It was like some other popular post as part of the, like, governance fundamentals series. I think this is by somebody, Zach wait, what was it called? Wait.HOLLYIs it by Zach or.AARONKatya, I think yeah, let's think about slowing down AI. That one. So that is fresh in my mind, but yours is not yet. So what's the plan? Do you have a plan? You don't have to have a plan. I don't have plans very much.HOLLYWell, right now I'm hopeful about the UK AI summit. Pause AI and I have planned a multi city protest on the 21 October to encourage the UK AI Safety Summit to focus on safety first and to have as a topic arranging a pause or that of negotiation. There's a lot of a little bit upsetting advertising for that thing that's like, we need to keep up capabilities too. And I just think that's really a secondary objective. And that's how I wanted to be focused on safety. So I'm hopeful about the level of global coordination that we're already seeing. It's going so much faster than we thought. Already the UN Secretary General has been talking about this and there have been meetings about this. It's happened so much faster at the beginning of this year. Nobody thought we could talk about nobody was thinking we'd be talking about this as a mainstream topic. And then actually governments have been very receptive anyway. So right now I'm focused on other than just influencing opinion, the targets I'm focused on, or things like encouraging these international like, I have a protest on Friday, my first protest that I'm leading and kind of nervous that's against Meta. It's at the Meta building in San Francisco about their sharing of model weights. They call it open source. It's like not exactly open source, but I'm probably not going to repeat that message because it's pretty complicated to explain. I really love the pause message because it's just so hard to misinterpret and it conveys pretty clearly what we want very quickly. And you don't have a lot of bandwidth and advocacy. You write a lot of materials for a protest, but mostly what people see is the title.AARONThat's interesting because I sort of have the opposite sense. I agree that in terms of how many informational bits you're conveying in a particular phrase, pause AI is simpler, but in some sense it's not nearly as obvious. At least maybe I'm more of a tech brain person or whatever. But why that is good, as opposed to don't give extremely powerful thing to the worst people in the world. That's like a longer everyone.HOLLYMaybe I'm just weird. I've gotten the feedback from open source ML people is the number one thing is like, it's too late, there's already super powerful models. There's nothing you can do to stop us, which sounds so villainous, I don't know if that's what they mean. Well, actually the number one message is you're stupid, you're not an ML engineer. Which like, okay, number two is like, it's too late, there's nothing you can do. There's all of these other and Meta is not even the most powerful generator of models that it share of open source models. I was like, okay, fine. And I don't know, I don't think that protesting too much is really the best in these situations. I just mostly kind of let that lie. I could give my theory of change on this and why I'm focusing on Meta. Meta is a large company I'm hoping to have influence on. There is a Meta building in San Francisco near where yeah, Meta is the biggest company that is doing this and I think there should be a norm against model weight sharing. I was hoping it would be something that other employees of other labs would be comfortable attending and that is a policy that is not shared across the labs. Obviously the biggest labs don't do it. So OpenAI is called OpenAI but very quickly decided not to do that. Yeah, I kind of wanted to start in a way that made it more clear than pause AI. Does that anybody's welcome something? I thought a one off issue like this that a lot of people could agree and form a coalition around would be good. A lot of people think that this is like a lot of the open source ML people think know this is like a secret. What I'm saying is secretly an argument for tyranny. I just want centralization of power. I just think that there are elites that are better qualified to run everything. It was even suggested I didn't mention China. It even suggested that I was racist because I didn't think that foreign people could make better AIS than Meta.AARONI'm grimacing here. The intellectual disagreeableness, if that's an appropriate term or something like that. Good on you for standing up to some pretty bad arguments.HOLLYYeah, it's not like that worth it. I'm lucky that I truly am curious about what people think about stuff like that. I just find it really interesting. I spent way too much time understanding the alt. Right. For instance, I'm kind of like sure I'm on list somewhere because of the forums I was on just because I was interested and it is something that serves me well with my adversaries. I've enjoyed some conversations with people where I kind of like because my position on all this is that look, I need to be convinced and the public needs to be convinced that this is safe before we go ahead. So I kind of like not having to be the smart person making the arguments. I kind of like being like, can you explain like I'm five. I still don't get it. How does this work?AARONYeah, no, I was thinking actually not long ago about open source. Like the phrase has such a positive connotation and in a lot of contexts it really is good. I don't know. I'm glad that random tech I don't know, things from 2004 or whatever, like the reddit source code is like all right, seems cool that it's open source. I don't actually know if that was how that right. But yeah, I feel like maybe even just breaking down what the positive connotation comes from and why it's in people's self. This is really what I was thinking about, is like, why is it in people's self interest to open source things that they made and that might break apart the allure or sort of ethical halo that it has around it? And I was thinking it probably has something to do with, oh, this is like how if you're a tech person who makes some cool product, you could try to put a gate around it by keeping it closed source and maybe trying to get intellectual property or something. But probably you're extremely talented already, or pretty wealthy. Definitely can be hired in the future. And if you're not wealthy yet I don't mean to put things in just materialist terms, but basically it could easily be just like in a yeah, I think I'll probably take that bit out because I didn't mean to put it in strictly like monetary terms, but basically it just seems like pretty plausibly in an arbitrary tech person's self interest, broadly construed to, in fact, open source their thing, which is totally fine and normal.HOLLYI think that's like 99 it's like a way of showing magnanimity showing, but.AARONI don't make this sound so like, I think 99.9% of human behavior is like this. I'm not saying it's like, oh, it's some secret, terrible self interested thing, but just making it more mechanistic. Okay, it's like it's like a status thing. It's like an advertising thing. It's like, okay, you're not really in need of direct economic rewards, or sort of makes sense to play the long game in some sense, and this is totally normal and fine, but at the end of the day, there's reasons why it makes sense, why it's in people's self interest to open source.HOLLYLiterally, the culture of open source has been able to bully people into, like, oh, it's immoral to keep it for yourself. You have to release those. So it's just, like, set the norms in a lot of ways, I'm not the bully. Sounds bad, but I mean, it's just like there is a lot of pressure. It looks bad if something is closed source.AARONYeah, it's kind of weird that Meta I don't know, does Meta really think it's in their I don't know. Most economic take on this would be like, oh, they somehow think it's in their shareholders interest to open source.HOLLYThere are a lot of speculations on why they're doing this. One is that? Yeah, their models aren't as good as the top labs, but if it's open source, then open source quote, unquote then people will integrate it llama Two into their apps. Or People Will Use It And Become I don't know, it's a little weird because I don't know why using llama Two commits you to using llama Three or something, but it just ways for their models to get in in places where if you just had to pay for their models too, people would go for better ones. That's one thing. Another is, yeah, I guess these are too speculative. I don't want to be seen repeating them since I'm about to do this purchase. But there's speculation that it's in best interests in various ways to do this. I think it's possible also that just like so what happened with the release of Llama One is they were going to allow approved people to download the weights, but then within four days somebody had leaked Llama One on four chan and then they just were like, well, whatever, we'll just release the weights. And then they released Llama Two with the weights from the beginning. And it's not like 100% clear that they intended to do full open source or what they call Open source. And I keep saying it's not open source because this is like a little bit of a tricky point to make. So I'm not emphasizing it too much. So they say that they're open source, but they're not. The algorithms are not open source. There are open source ML models that have everything open sourced and I don't think that that's good. I think that's worse. So I don't want to criticize them for that. But they're saying it's open source because there's all this goodwill associated with open source. But actually what they're doing is releasing the product for free or like trade secrets even you could say like things that should be trade secrets. And yeah, they're telling people how to make it themselves. So it's like a little bit of a they're intentionally using this label that has a lot of positive connotations but probably according to Open Source Initiative, which makes the open Source license, it should be called something else or there should just be like a new category for LLMs being but I don't want things to be more open. It could easily sound like a rebuke that it should be more open to make that point. But I also don't want to call it Open source because I think Open source software should probably does deserve a lot of its positive connotation, but they're not releasing the part, that the software part because that would cut into their business. I think it would be much worse. I think they shouldn't do it. But I also am not clear on this because the Open Source ML critics say that everyone does have access to the same data set as Llama Two. But I don't know. Llama Two had 7 billion tokens and that's more than GPT Four. And I don't understand all of the details here. It's possible that the tokenization process was different or something and that's why there were more. But Meta didn't say what was in the longitude data set and usually there's some description given of what's in the data set that led some people to speculate that maybe they're using private data. They do have access to a lot of private data that shouldn't be. It's not just like the common crawl backup of the Internet. Everybody's basing their training on that and then maybe some works of literature they're not supposed to. There's like a data set there that is in question, but metas is bigger than bigger than I think well, sorry, I don't have a list in front of me. I'm not going to get stuff wrong, but it's bigger than kind of similar models and I thought that they have access to extra stuff that's not public. And it seems like people are asking if maybe that's part of the training set. But yeah, the ML people would have or the open source ML people that I've been talking to would have believed that anybody who's decent can just access all of the training sets that they've all used.AARONAside, I tried to download in case I'm guessing, I don't know, it depends how many people listen to this. But in one sense, for a competent ML engineer, I'm sure open source really does mean that. But then there's people like me. I don't know. I knew a little bit of R, I think. I feel like I caught on the very last boat where I could know just barely enough programming to try to learn more, I guess. Coming out of college, I don't know, a couple of months ago, I tried to do the thing where you download Llama too, but I tried it all and now I just have like it didn't work. I have like a bunch of empty folders and I forget got some error message or whatever. Then I tried to train my own tried to train my own model on my MacBook. It just printed. That's like the only thing that a language model would do because that was like the most common token in the training set. So anyway, I'm just like, sorry, this is not important whatsoever.HOLLYYeah, I feel like torn about this because I used to be a genomicist and I used to do computational biology and it was not machine learning, but I used a highly parallel GPU cluster. And so I know some stuff about it and part of me wants to mess around with it, but part of me feels like I shouldn't get seduced by this. I am kind of worried that this has happened in the AI safety community. It's always been people who are interested in from the beginning, it was people who are interested in singularity and then realized there was this problem. And so it's always been like people really interested in tech and wanting to be close to it. And I think we've been really influenced by our direction, has been really influenced by wanting to be where the action is with AI development. And I don't know that that was right.AARONNot personal, but I guess individual level I'm not super worried about people like you and me losing the plot by learning more about ML on their personal.HOLLYYou know what I mean? But it does just feel sort of like I guess, yeah, this is maybe more of like a confession than, like a point. But it does feel a little bit like it's hard for me to enjoy in good conscience, like, the cool stuff.AARONOkay. Yeah.HOLLYI just see people be so attached to this as their identity. They really don't want to go in a direction of not pursuing tech because this is kind of their whole thing. And what would they do if we weren't working toward AI? This is a big fear that people express to me with they don't say it in so many words usually, but they say things like, well, I don't want AI to never get built about a pause. Which, by the way, just to clear up, my assumption is that a pause would be unless society ends for some other reason, that a pause would eventually be lifted. It couldn't be forever. But some people are worried that if you stop the momentum now, people are just so luddite in their insides that we would just never pick it up again. Or something like that. And, yeah, there's some identity stuff that's been expressed. Again, not in so many words to me about who will we be if we're just sort of like activists instead of working on.AARONMaybe one thing that we might actually disagree on. It's kind of important is whether so I think we both agree that Aipause is better than the status quo, at least broadly, whatever. I know that can mean different things, but yeah, maybe I'm not super convinced, actually, that if I could just, like what am I trying to say? Maybe at least right now, if I could just imagine the world where open eye and Anthropic had a couple more years to do stuff and nobody else did, that would be better. I kind of think that they are reasonably responsible actors. And so I don't know. I don't think that actually that's not an actual possibility. But, like, maybe, like, we have a different idea about, like, the degree to which, like, a problem is just, like, a million different not even a million, but, say, like, a thousand different actors, like, having increasingly powerful models versus, like, the actual, like like the actual, like, state of the art right now, being plausibly near a dangerous threshold or something. Does this make any sense to you?HOLLYBoth those things are yeah, and this is one thing I really like about the pause position is that unlike a lot of proposals that try to allow for alignment, it's not really close to a bad choice. It's just more safe. I mean, it might be foregoing some value if there is a way to get an aligned AI faster. But, yeah, I like the pause position because it's kind of robust to this. I can't claim to know more about alignment than OpenAI or anthropic staff. I think they know much more about it. But I have fundamental doubts about the concept of alignment that make me think I'm concerned about even if things go right, like, what perverse consequences go nominally right, like, what perverse consequences could follow from that. I have, I don't know, like a theory of psychology that's, like, not super compatible with alignment. Like, I think, like yeah, like humans in living in society together are aligned with each other, but the society is a big part of that. The people you're closest to are also my background in evolutionary biology has a lot to do with genetic conflict.AARONWhat is that?HOLLYGenetic conflict is so interesting. Okay, this is like the most fascinating topic in biology, but it's like, essentially that in a sexual species, you're related to your close family, you're related to your ken, but you're not the same as them. You have different interests. And mothers and fathers of the same children have largely overlapping interests, but they have slightly different interests in what happens with those children. The payoff to mom is different than the payoff to dad per child. One of the classic genetic conflict arenas and one that my advisor worked on was my advisor was David Haig, was pregnancy. So mom and dad both want an offspring that's healthy. But mom is thinking about all of her offspring into the future. When she thinks about how much.AARONWhen.HOLLYMom is giving resources to one baby, that is in some sense depleting her ability to have future children. But for dad, unless the species is.AARONPerfect, might be another father in the future.HOLLYYeah, it's in his interest to take a little more. And it's really interesting. Like the tissues that the placenta is an androgenetic tissue. This is all kind of complicated. I'm trying to gloss over some details, but it's like guided more by genes that are active in when they come from the father, which there's this thing called genomic imprinting that first, and then there's this back and forth. There's like this evolution between it's going to serve alleles that came from dad imprinted, from dad to ask for more nutrients, even if that's not good for the mother and not what the mother wants. So the mother's going to respond. And you can see sometimes alleles are pretty mismatched and you get like, mom's alleles want a pretty big baby and a small placenta. So sometimes you'll see that and then dad's alleles want a big placenta and like, a smaller baby. These are so cool, but they're so hellishly complicated to talk about because it involves a bunch of genetic concepts that nobody talks about for any other reason.AARONI'm happy to talk about that. Maybe part of that dips below or into the weeds threshold, which I've kind of lost it, but I'm super interested in this stuff.HOLLYYeah, anyway, so the basic idea is just that even the people that you're closest with and cooperate with the most, they tend to be clearly this is predicated on our genetic system. There's other and even though ML sort of evolves similarly to natural selection through gradient descent, it doesn't have the same there's no recombination, there's not genes, so there's a lot of dis analogies there. But the idea that being aligned to our psychology would just be like one thing. Our psychology is pretty conditional. I would agree that it could be one thing if we had a VNM utility function and you could give it to AGI, I would think, yes, that captures it. But even then, that utility function, it covers when you're in conflict with someone, it covers different scenarios. And so I just am like not when people say alignment. I think what they're imagining is like an omniscient. God, who knows what would be best? And that is different than what I think could be meant by just aligning values.AARONNo, I broadly very much agree, although I do think at least this is my perception, is that based on the right 95 to 2010 Miri corpus or whatever, alignment was like alignment meant something that was kind of not actually possible in the way that you're saying. But now that we have it seems like actually humans have been able to get ML models to understand basically human language pretty shockingly. Well, and so actually, just the concern about maybe I'm sort of losing my train of thought a little bit, but I guess maybe alignment and misalignment aren't as binary as they were initially foreseen to be or something. You can still get a language model, for example, that tries to well, I guess there's different types of misleading but be deceptive or tamper with its reward function or whatever. Or you can get one that's sort of like earnestly trying to do the thing that its user wants. And that's not an incoherent concept anymore.HOLLYNo, it's not. Yeah, so yes, there is like, I guess the point of bringing up the VNM utility function was that there was sort of in the past a way that you could mathematically I don't know, of course utility functions are still real, but that's not what we're thinking anymore. We're thinking more like training and getting the gist of what and then getting corrections when you're not doing the right thing according to our values. But yeah, sorry. So the last piece I should have said originally was that I think with humans we're already substantially unaligned, but a lot of how we work together is that we have roughly similar capabilities. And if the idea of making AGI is to have much greater capabilities than we have, that's the whole point. I just think when you scale up like that, the divisions in your psyche or are just going to be magnified as well. And this is like an informal view that I've been developing for a long time, but just that it's actually the low capabilities that allows alignment or similar capabilities that makes alignment possible. And then there are, of course, mathematical structures that could be aligned at different capabilities. So I guess I have more hope if you could find the utility function that would describe this. But if it's just a matter of acting in distribution, when you increase your capabilities, you're going to go out of distribution or you're going to go in different contexts, and then the magnitude of mismatch is going to be huge. I wish I had a more formal way of describing this, but that's like my fundamental skepticism right now that makes me just not want anyone to build it. I think that you could have very sophisticated ideas about alignment, but then still just with not when you increase capabilities enough, any little chink is going to be magnified and it could be yeah.AARONSeems largely right, I guess. You clearly have a better mechanistic understanding of ML.HOLLYI don't know. My PiBBs project was to compare natural selection and gradient descent and then compare gradient hacking to miotic drive, which is the most analogous biological this is a very cool thing, too. Meatic drive. So Meiosis, I'll start with that for everyone.AARONThat's one of the cell things.HOLLYYes. Right. So Mitosis is the one where cells just divide in your body to make more skin. But Meiosis is the special one where you go through two divisions to make gametes. So you go from like we normally have two sets of chromosomes in each cell, but the gametes, they recombine between the chromosomes. You get different combinations with new chromosomes and then they divide again to bring them down to one copy each. And then like that, those are your gametes. And the gametes eggs come together with sperm to make a zygote and the cycle goes on. But during Meiosis, the point of it is to I mean, I'm going to just assert some things that are not universally accepted, but I think this is by far the best explanation. But the point of it is to take this like, you have this huge collection of genes that might have individually different interests, and you recombine them so that they don't know which genes they're going to be with in the next generation. They know which genes they're going to be with, but which allele of those genes. So I'm going to maybe simplify some terminology because otherwise, what's to stop a bunch of genes from getting together and saying, like, hey, if we just hack the Meiosis system or like the division system to get into the gametes, we can get into the gametes at a higher rate than 50%. And it doesn't matter. We don't have to contribute to making this body. We can just work on that.AARONWhat is to stop that?HOLLYYeah, well, Meiosis is to stop that. Meiosis is like a government system for the genes. It makes it so that they can't plan to be with a little cabal in the next generation because they have some chance of getting separated. And so their best chance is to just focus on making a good organism. But you do see lots of examples in nature of where that cooperation is breaking down. So some group of genes has found an exploit and it is fucking up the species. Species do go extinct because of this. It's hard to witness this happening. But there are several species. There's this species of cedar that has a form of this which is, I think, maternal genome. It's maternal genome elimination. So when the zygote comes together, the maternal chromosomes are just thrown away and it's like terrible because that affects the way that the thing works and grows, that it's put them in a death spiral and they're probably going to be extinct. And they're trees, so they live a long time, but they're probably going to be extinct in the next century. There's lots of ways to hack meiosis to get temporary benefit for genes. This, by the way, I just think is like nail in the coffin. Obviously, gene centered view is the best evolutionarily. What is the best the gene centered view of evolution.AARONAs opposed to sort of standard, I guess, high school college thing would just be like organisms.HOLLYYeah, would be individuals. Not that there's not an accurate way to talk in terms of individuals or even in terms of groups, but to me, conceptually.AARONThey'Re all legit in some sense. Yeah, you could talk about any of them. Did anybody take like a quirk level? Probably not. That whatever comes below the level of a gene, like an individual.HOLLYWell, there is argument about what is a gene because there's multiple concepts of genes. You could look at what's the part that makes a protein or you can look at what is the unit that tends to stay together in recombination or something like over time.AARONI'm sorry, I feel like I cut you off. It's something interesting. There was meiosis.HOLLYMeiotic drive is like the process of hacking meiosis so that a handful of genes can be more represented in the next generation. So otherwise the only way to get more represented in the next generation is to just make a better organism, like to be naturally selected. But you can just cheat and be like, well, if I'm in 90% of the sperm, I will be next in the next generation. And essentially meiosis has to work for natural selection to work in large organisms with a large genome and then yeah, ingredient descent. We thought the analogy was going to be with gradient hacking, that there would possibly be some analogy. But I think that the recombination thing is really the key in Meadic Drive. And then there's really nothing like that in.AARONThere'S. No selection per se. I don't know, maybe that doesn't. Make a whole lot of sense.HOLLYWell, I mean, in gradient, there's no.AARONG in analog, right?HOLLYThere's no gene analog. Yeah, but there is, like I mean, it's a hill climbing algorithm, like natural selection. So this is especially, I think, easy to see if you're familiar with adaptive landscapes, which looks very similar to I mean, if you look at a schematic or like a model of an illustration of gradient descent, it looks very similar to adaptive landscapes. They're both, like, in dimensional spaces, and you're looking at vectors at any given point. So the adaptive landscape concept that's usually taught for evolution is, like, on one axis you have fitness, and on the other axis you have well, you can have a lot of things, but you have and you have fitness of a population, and then you have fitness on the other axis. And what it tells you is the shape of the curve there tells you which direction evolution is going to push or natural selection is going to push each generation. And so with gradient descent, there's, like, finding the gradient to get to the lowest value of the cost function, to get to a local minimum at every step. And you follow that. And so that part is very similar to natural selection, but the Miosis hacking just has a different mechanism than gradient hacking would. Gradient hacking probably has to be more about I kind of thought that there was a way for this to work. If fine tuning creates a different compartment that doesn't there's not full backpropagation, so there's like kind of two different compartments in the layers or something. But I don't know if that's right. My collaborator doesn't seem to think that that's very interesting. I don't know if they don't even.AARONKnow what backup that's like a term I've heard like a billion times.HOLLYIt's updating all the weights and all the layers based on that iteration.AARONAll right. I mean, I can hear those words. I'll have to look it up later.HOLLYYou don't have to full I think there are probably things I'm not understanding about the ML process very well, but I had thought that it was something like yeah, like in yeah, sorry, it's probably too tenuous. But anyway, yeah, I've been working on this a little bit for the last year, but I'm not super sharp on my arguments about that.AARONWell, I wouldn't notice. You can kind of say whatever, and I'll nod along.HOLLYI got to guard my reputation off the cuff anymore.AARONWe'll edit it so you're correct no matter what.HOLLYHave you ever edited the Oohs and UMS out of a podcast and just been like, wow, I sound so smart? Like, even after you heard yourself the first time, you do the editing yourself, but then you listen to it and you're like, who is this person? Looks so smart.AARONI haven't, but actually, the 80,000 Hours After hours podcast, the first episode of theirs, I interviewed Rob and his producer Kieran Harris, and that they have actual professional sound editing. And so, yeah, I went from totally incoherent, not totally incoherent, but sarcastically totally incoherent to sounding like a normal person. Because of that.HOLLYI used to use it to take my laughter out of I did a podcast when I was an organizer at Harvard. Like, I did the Harvard Effective Alchruism podcast, and I laughed a lot more than I did now than I do now, which is kind of like and we even got comments about it. We got very few comments, but they were like, girl hosts laughs too much. But when I take my laughter out, I would do it myself. I was like, wow, this does sound suddenly, like, so much more serious.AARONYeah, I don't know. Yeah, I definitely say like and too much. So maybe I will try to actually.HOLLYRealistically, that sounds like so much effort, it's not really worth it. And nobody else really notices. But I go through periods where I say like, a lot, and when I hear myself back in interviews, that really bugs me.AARONYeah.HOLLYGod, it sounds so stupid.AARONNo. Well, I'm definitely worse. Yeah. I'm sure there'll be a way to automate this. Well, not sure, but probably not too distant.HOLLYFuture people were sending around, like, transcripts of Trump to underscore how incoherent he is. I'm like, I sound like that sometimes.AARONOh, yeah, same. I didn't actually realize that this is especially bad. When I get this transcribed, I don't know how people this is a good example. Like the last 10 seconds, if I get it transcribed, it'll make no sense whatsoever. But there's like a free service called AssemblyAI Playground where it does free drAARONased transcription and that makes sense. But if we just get this transcribed without identifying who's speaking, it'll be even worse than that. Yeah, actually this is like a totally random thought, but I actually spent not zero amount of effort trying to figure out how to combine the highest quality transcription, like whisper, with the slightly less goodAARONased transcriptions. You could get the speaker you could infer who's speaking based on the lower quality one, but then replace incorrect words with correct words. And I never I don't know, I'm.HOLLYSure somebody that'd be nice. I would do transcripts if it were that easy, but I just never have but it is annoying because I do like to give people the chance to veto certain segments and that can get tough because even if I talk you.AARONHave podcasts that I don't know about.HOLLYWell, I used to have the Harvard one, which is called the turning test. And then yeah, I do have I.AARONProbably listened to that and didn't know it was you.HOLLYOkay, maybe Alish was the other host.AARONI mean, it's been a little while since yeah.HOLLYAnd then on my I like, publish audio stuff sometimes, but it's called low effort. To underscore.AARONOh, yeah, I didn't actually. Okay. Great minds think alike. Low effort podcasts are the future. In fact, this is super intelligent.HOLLYI just have them as a way to catch up with friends and stuff and talk about their lives in a way that might recorded conversations are just better. You're more on and you get to talk about stuff that's interesting but feels too like, well, you already know this if you're not recording it.AARONOkay, well, I feel like there's a lot of people that I interact with casually that I don't actually they have these rich online profiles and somehow I don't know about it or something. I mean, I could know about it, but I just never clicked their substack link for some reason. So I will be listening to your casual.HOLLYActually, in the 15 minutes you gave us when we pushed back the podcast, I found something like a practice talk I had given and put it on it. So that's audio that I just cool. But that's for paid subscribers. I like to give them a little something.AARONNo, I saw that. I did two minutes of research or whatever. Cool.HOLLYYeah. It's a little weird. I've always had that blog as very low effort, just whenever I feel like it. And that's why it's lasted so long. But I did start doing paid and I do feel like more responsibility to the paid subscribers now.AARONYeah. Kind of the reason that I started this is because whenever I feel so much I don't know, it's very hard for me to write a low effort blog post. Even the lowest effort one still takes at the end of the day, it's like several hours. Oh, I'm going to bang it out in half an hour and no matter what, my brain doesn't let me do that.HOLLYThat usually takes 4 hours. Yeah, I have like a four hour and an eight hour.AARONWow. I feel like some people apparently Scott Alexander said that. Oh, yeah. He just writes as fast as he talks and he just clicks send or whatever. It's like, oh, if I could do.HOLLYThat, I would have written in those paragraphs. It's crazy. Yeah, you see that when you see him in person. I've never met him, I've never talked to him, but I've been to meetups where he was and I'm at this conference or not there right now this week that he's supposed to be at.AARONOh, manifest.HOLLYYeah.AARONNice. Okay.HOLLYCool Lighthaven. They're now calling. It looks amazing. Rose Garden. And no.AARONI like, vaguely noticed. Think I've been to Berkeley, I think twice. Right? Definitely. This is weird. Definitely once.HOLLYBerkeley is awesome. Yeah.AARONI feel like sort of decided consciously not to try to, or maybe not decided forever, but had a period of time where I was like, oh, I should move there, or we'll move there. But then I was like I think being around other EA's in high and rational high concentration activates my status brain or something. It is very less personally bad. And DC is kind of sus that I was born here and also went to college here and maybe is also a good place to live. But I feel like maybe it's actually just true.HOLLYI think it's true. I mean, I always like the DCAS. I think they're very sane.AARONI think both clusters should be more like the other one a little bit.HOLLYI think so. I love Berkeley and I think I'm really enjoying it because I'm older than you. I think if you have your own personality before coming to Berkeley, that's great, but you can easily get swept. It's like Disneyland for all the people I knew on the internet, there's a physical version of them here and you can just walk it's all in walking distance. That's all pretty cool. Especially during the pandemic. I was not around almost any friends and now I see friends every day and I get to do cool stuff. And the culture is som

KERRY'S BACK! The mighty Joy Brook shares her memories of The Bill. Recorded just after restrictions eased, Joy talks about how lockdown, streaming services, her recent work on the theatre and teaching drama. Joy then recalls her early acting career and working on "The Thin Blue Line" with Rowan Atkinson and David Haig and "Dalziel and Pascoe" with Warren Clarke, before joining "The Bill" in 1998. More gold-dust from Joy to come in Part 2!

In this episode, Xavier Bonilla has a dialogue with David Haig about evolution, causes, and the meaning of life. They discuss how bits of matter can help us understand purpose and value. They talk about the four causes of Aristotle, adaptation, group selection vs. cooperation, and the three types of genes. They discuss replicators and vehicles, types and tokens, memes, and the extended phenotype. They mention the gene selection network, instinct, using biology for understanding meaning, various interpretations, and many other topics.  David Haig is the George Putnam Professor of biology at Harvard University. He has multiple degrees in biology including his PhD in biology from MacQuarie University. He was a Royal Society fellow at St. John's College at Oxford University. He is an independent researcher, professor, and author of numerous books. His most recent, From Darwin to Derrida: Selfish genes, Social Selves, and the Meanings of Life, can be found here. You can also find much of his research at his website. 

In this episode, Xavier Bonilla has a dialogue with Arvid Ågren about the genetic implications of evolution. The discuss his background and reasons for writing his book. They explain the gene's-eye view of natural selection and how one can still understand evolution without genetics. They also discuss how genes are "immortal"  and "selfish" and still cooperate together. They talk about adaptation and this concept's history along with the challenges of creationism and intelligent design. They also provide some ideas about group selection and its merits.  Genes, chromosomes, DNA, and proteins are introduced and discussed. They engage about "types" and "tokens" along with "replicators" and "vehicles." They talk about "memes" and how they impact cultural evolution. They spend time discussing the five difficulties of the selfish gene, Hamilton's rule, and inclusive fitness. They also mention the interaction of Hamilton's rule with cooperation, kin selection, and interdependence and many other topics. Arvid Ågren is an Evolutionary Biologist who studies the causes and consequences of genomic conflicts. He has a Bachelors in Biology from the University of Edinburgh and his PhD in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Toronto. He completed his Postdoc in Andy Clark's lab for Molecular Biology and Genetics at Cornell University. He also did a fellowship at the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University hosted by David Haig. Currently, he conducts research at the Evolutionary Biology Centre at Uppsala University in Sweden. His new book, The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution can be purchased here. You can find his research at his website. Twitter: @arvidagren

Energy crisis: Number 10 backs Kwasi Kwarteng in Treasury row | Stagflation worries: Early interest rate rise risks derailing recovery, investors warn | Dublin claim: 'Unionists don't care about European Court involvement in Northern Ireland' | James Crisp analysis: UK and EU will clinch Protocol deal if both can claim victory | Lego: Gender bias to be removed from toys to be 'more inclusive' | Tennis: Andy Murray in a career-first underarm serve on way to victory | David Haig interview: Expressing your view is a perilous thing these days | Read all these articles and stay expertly informed anywhere, anytime with a digital subscription. Start your free one-month trial today to gain unlimited website and app access. Cancel anytime. Sign up here.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

EPISODE 16 – TWO WEEKS NOTICE We kick off Rom Com Month with the movie of a thousand plots: Two Weeks Notice! This week, Brian emerges from his film crypt with his ink and quill; Chris gives his Yelp review of Coney Island; Ashley recommends Christian romance novels; and Brandon determines whether or not the word “dab” is hot. BTW: The Fart-Asses/Amber Seals/Trash Watch Gang are officially Team Monke! Starring: Sandra Bullock, Hugh Grant, Alicia Witt, David Haig, Dana Ivey, Robert Klein, and two disgraced former presidents Directed by Marc Lawrence FOLLOW US:Instagram (@trashwatchpodcast)Twitter (@trashwatchcast)Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/trashwatchpodcast/)Email (trashwatchpodcast@gmail.com)Listen to Brian’s music at (https://soundcloud.com/brianbhorne)

Podcast: Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas (LS 69 · TOP 0.05% what is this?)Episode: 125 | David Haig on the Evolution of Meaning from Darwin to DerridaPub date: 2020-11-30Aristotle conceived of the world in terms of teleological “final causes”; Darwin, or so the story goes, erased purpose and meaning from the world, replacing them with a bloodless scientific algorithm. But should we abandon all talk of meanings and purposes, or instead conceptualize them as emergent rather than fundamental? Philosophers (and former Mindscape guests) Alex Rosenberg and Daniel Dennett recently had an exchange on just this subject, and today we're going to hear from a working scientist. David Haig is a geneticist and evolutionary biologist who argues that it's perfectly sensible to perceive meaning as arising through the course of evolution, even if evolution itself is purposeless.Support Mindscape on Patreon.David Haig received his Ph.D. in biology from Macquarie University. He is currently the George Putnam Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. His research focuses on evolutionary aspects of cooperation, competition, and kinship, including the kinship theory of genomic imprinting. His new book is From Darwin to Derrida: Selfish Genes, Social Selves, and the Meanings of Life.Web siteGoogle Scholar publicationsWikipediaAmazon author pageTalk on cooperative behaviorSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Sean Carroll | Wondery, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Aristotle conceived of the world in terms of teleological “final causes”; Darwin, or so the story goes, erased purpose and meaning from the world, replacing them with a bloodless scientific algorithm. But should we abandon all talk of meanings and purposes, or instead conceptualize them as emergent rather than fundamental? Philosophers (and former Mindscape guests) Alex Rosenberg and Daniel Dennett recently had an exchange on just this subject, and today we’re going to hear from a working scientist. David Haig is a geneticist and evolutionary biologist who argues that it’s perfectly sensible to perceive meaning as arising through the course of evolution, even if evolution itself is purposeless.Support Mindscape on Patreon.David Haig received his Ph.D. in biology from Macquarie University. He is currently the George Putnam Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. His research focuses on evolutionary aspects of cooperation, competition, and kinship, including the kinship theory of genomic imprinting. His new book is From Darwin to Derrida: Selfish Genes, Social Selves, and the Meanings of Life.Web siteGoogle Scholar publicationsWikipediaAmazon author pageTalk on cooperative behavior

In his book, From Darwin to Derrida: Selfish Genes, Social Selves, and the Meanings of Life (MIT Press), evolutionary biologist David Haig explains how a physical world of matter in motion gave rise to a living world of purpose and meaning. Natural selection is a process without purpose, yet gives rise to purposeful beings who find meaning in the world. Haig proposes that the key to this is the origin of mutable “texts” that preserve a record of what has worked in the world, in other words: genes. These texts become the specifications for the intricate mechanisms of living beings. Haig draws on a wide range of sources to make his argument, from Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy to Immanuel Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment to the work of Jacques Derrida to the latest findings on gene transmission, duplication, and expression. Genes and their effects, he explains, are like eggs and chickens. Eggs exist for the sake of becoming chickens and chickens for the sake of laying eggs. A gene's effects have a causal role in determining which genes are copied. The gene persists if its lineage has been consistently associated with survival and reproduction. Organisms can be understood as interpreters that link information from the environment to meaningful action in the environment. Meaning, Haig argues, is the output of a process of interpretation; there is a continuum from the very simplest forms of interpretation, found in single RNA molecules near the origins of life, to the most sophisticated, like those found in human beings. Life is interpretation—the use of information in choice. David Haig is George Putnam Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. Because he is a theorist, his research is wide and varied, working on everything from maternal-fetal conflict in human pregnancy to the evolution of plant life cycles. He has a particular interest in genetic conflicts within individual organisms, as exemplified by genomic imprinting. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In his book, From Darwin to Derrida: Selfish Genes, Social Selves, and the Meanings of Life (MIT Press), evolutionary biologist David Haig explains how a physical world of matter in motion gave rise to a living world of purpose and meaning. Natural selection is a process without purpose, yet gives rise to purposeful beings who find meaning in the world. Haig proposes that the key to this is the origin of mutable “texts” that preserve a record of what has worked in the world, in other words: genes. These texts become the specifications for the intricate mechanisms of living beings. Haig draws on a wide range of sources to make his argument, from Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy to Immanuel Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment to the work of Jacques Derrida to the latest findings on gene transmission, duplication, and expression. Genes and their effects, he explains, are like eggs and chickens. Eggs exist for the sake of becoming chickens and chickens for the sake of laying eggs. A gene's effects have a causal role in determining which genes are copied. The gene persists if its lineage has been consistently associated with survival and reproduction. Organisms can be understood as interpreters that link information from the environment to meaningful action in the environment. Meaning, Haig argues, is the output of a process of interpretation; there is a continuum from the very simplest forms of interpretation, found in single RNA molecules near the origins of life, to the most sophisticated, like those found in human beings. Life is interpretation—the use of information in choice. David Haig is George Putnam Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. Because he is a theorist, his research is wide and varied, working on everything from maternal-fetal conflict in human pregnancy to the evolution of plant life cycles. He has a particular interest in genetic conflicts within individual organisms, as exemplified by genomic imprinting. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In his book, From Darwin to Derrida: Selfish Genes, Social Selves, and the Meanings of Life (MIT Press), evolutionary biologist David Haig explains how a physical world of matter in motion gave rise to a living world of purpose and meaning. Natural selection is a process without purpose, yet gives rise to purposeful beings who find meaning in the world. Haig proposes that the key to this is the origin of mutable “texts” that preserve a record of what has worked in the world, in other words: genes. These texts become the specifications for the intricate mechanisms of living beings. Haig draws on a wide range of sources to make his argument, from Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy to Immanuel Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment to the work of Jacques Derrida to the latest findings on gene transmission, duplication, and expression. Genes and their effects, he explains, are like eggs and chickens. Eggs exist for the sake of becoming chickens and chickens for the sake of laying eggs. A gene's effects have a causal role in determining which genes are copied. The gene persists if its lineage has been consistently associated with survival and reproduction. Organisms can be understood as interpreters that link information from the environment to meaningful action in the environment. Meaning, Haig argues, is the output of a process of interpretation; there is a continuum from the very simplest forms of interpretation, found in single RNA molecules near the origins of life, to the most sophisticated, like those found in human beings. Life is interpretation—the use of information in choice. David Haig is George Putnam Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. Because he is a theorist, his research is wide and varied, working on everything from maternal-fetal conflict in human pregnancy to the evolution of plant life cycles. He has a particular interest in genetic conflicts within individual organisms, as exemplified by genomic imprinting. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In his book, From Darwin to Derrida: Selfish Genes, Social Selves, and the Meanings of Life (MIT Press), evolutionary biologist David Haig explains how a physical world of matter in motion gave rise to a living world of purpose and meaning. Natural selection is a process without purpose, yet gives rise to purposeful beings who find meaning in the world. Haig proposes that the key to this is the origin of mutable “texts” that preserve a record of what has worked in the world, in other words: genes. These texts become the specifications for the intricate mechanisms of living beings. Haig draws on a wide range of sources to make his argument, from Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy to Immanuel Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment to the work of Jacques Derrida to the latest findings on gene transmission, duplication, and expression. Genes and their effects, he explains, are like eggs and chickens. Eggs exist for the sake of becoming chickens and chickens for the sake of laying eggs. A gene's effects have a causal role in determining which genes are copied. The gene persists if its lineage has been consistently associated with survival and reproduction. Organisms can be understood as interpreters that link information from the environment to meaningful action in the environment. Meaning, Haig argues, is the output of a process of interpretation; there is a continuum from the very simplest forms of interpretation, found in single RNA molecules near the origins of life, to the most sophisticated, like those found in human beings. Life is interpretation—the use of information in choice. David Haig is George Putnam Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. Because he is a theorist, his research is wide and varied, working on everything from maternal-fetal conflict in human pregnancy to the evolution of plant life cycles. He has a particular interest in genetic conflicts within individual organisms, as exemplified by genomic imprinting. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In his book, From Darwin to Derrida: Selfish Genes, Social Selves, and the Meanings of Life (MIT Press), evolutionary biologist David Haig explains how a physical world of matter in motion gave rise to a living world of purpose and meaning. Natural selection is a process without purpose, yet gives rise to purposeful beings who find meaning in the world. Haig proposes that the key to this is the origin of mutable “texts” that preserve a record of what has worked in the world, in other words: genes. These texts become the specifications for the intricate mechanisms of living beings. Haig draws on a wide range of sources to make his argument, from Laurence Sterne's Tristram Shandy to Immanuel Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment to the work of Jacques Derrida to the latest findings on gene transmission, duplication, and expression. Genes and their effects, he explains, are like eggs and chickens. Eggs exist for the sake of becoming chickens and chickens for the sake of laying eggs. A gene's effects have a causal role in determining which genes are copied. The gene persists if its lineage has been consistently associated with survival and reproduction. Organisms can be understood as interpreters that link information from the environment to meaningful action in the environment. Meaning, Haig argues, is the output of a process of interpretation; there is a continuum from the very simplest forms of interpretation, found in single RNA molecules near the origins of life, to the most sophisticated, like those found in human beings. Life is interpretation—the use of information in choice. David Haig is George Putnam Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. Because he is a theorist, his research is wide and varied, working on everything from maternal-fetal conflict in human pregnancy to the evolution of plant life cycles. He has a particular interest in genetic conflicts within individual organisms, as exemplified by genomic imprinting. Carrie Lynn Evans is a PhD student at Université Laval in Quebec City. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/the-dissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT Anchor (podcast): https://anchor.fm/thedissenter Dr. David Haig is an evolutionary biologist, geneticist, and professor in Harvard University's Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology. He is interested in intragenomic conflict, genomic imprinting and parent–offspring conflict, and wrote the book Genomic Imprinting and Kinship. His major contribution to the field of evolutionary theory is the kinship theory of genomic imprinting. He's the author of several books, including the most recent one, From Darwin to Derrida: Selfish Genes, Social Selves, and the Meanings of Life. In this episode, we start off by talking about some basic concepts in evolutionary biology, like what is a gene, units of selection, multi-level selection theory and group selection. We then get into intragenomic conflict, parental antagonism, and parent-offspring conflict. We talk about epigenetics, and development in the context of natural selection from a gene-centered perspective. Finally, we get into some of the topics from Dr. Haig's latest book, and discuss purpose and meaning. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, BO WINEGARD, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, DAVID DIAS, ANJAN KATTA, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, MAX BEILBY, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, OMARI HICKSON, PHYLICIA STEVENS, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JOÃO ALVES DA SILVA, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, AND IDAN SOLON! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, SERGIU CODREANU, LUIS CAYETANO, MATTHEW LAVENDER, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, AND VEGA GIDEY! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, AND JAMES PRATT!

David Haig becomes the third actor to be chosen for tribute in Sitcom Showdown's Hall of Fame. He is lauded for his all-time hilarious performance as Detective Inspector Grimm in The Thin Blue Line (1995) but in this podcast episode we look into 'Keeping Mum' where David co-starred with Stephanie Cole. Twitter: @SitcomShowdown Theme tune 'Billy Blues' by texasradiofish (c) copyright 2015. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial (3.0) license.

History and theater create a suspenseful mix in David Haig’s dramatic tale based on the true lead-up to D-Day. AudioFile contributor Brian Price tells host Jo Reed about a favorite way to experience the drama of a theatrical production at home — with audiobook listening. A Scottish meteorologist is summoned to the headquarters of the Allied forces on the eve of the D-Day invasion of Normandy. He must convince Eisenhower that they face two enemies—the Nazis and the fickle English weather, which could doom their expedition to failure. The dialogue is tense and convincing as British actor Jonathan Cake leads a stellar cast. Riveting. Published by L.A. Theatre Works Find more audiobook recommendations at audiofilemagazine.com Support for Behind the Mic comes from Blackstone Publishing, publisher of the audiobook of Richard Adams’ classic tale WATERSHIP DOWN. This May Blackstone is celebrating the centenary of the author's birth. This is a great moment to reflect on the novel and experience it all over again, as well as introduce it to a new generation of listeners. Read by the actor Peter Capaldi, WATERSHIP DOWN is an exciting adventure story and an engaging allegory about freedom, ethics, and human nature. A stirring epic of courage and survival against the odds, the beloved classic continues to be discovered by readers of all ages. WATERSHIP DOWN from Blackstone Publishing is available wherever you get your audiobooks, including Downpour.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

País Reino Unido Dirección Michael Engler Guion Julian Fellowes (Personaje: Julian Fellowes) Música John Lunn Fotografía Ben Smithard Reparto Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Maggie Smith, Joanne Froggatt, Kate Phillips, Imelda Staunton, Simon Jones, David Haig, Tuppence Middleton, Stephen Campbell Moore, Allen Leech, Elizabeth McGovern, Sophie McShera, Laura Carmichael, Phyllis Logan, Rob James-Collier, Jim Carter, Brendan Coyle, Penelope Wilton, Max Brown, Kevin Doyle, Lesley Nicol, Douglas Reith, James Cartwright, Philippe Spall, Darren Strange, Mark Addy Sinopsis 1927. La familia Crawley y su carismática servidumbre se preparan para el momento más crucial de sus vidas. Una visita del rey y la reina de Inglaterra desatará una situación de escándalo, romance e intriga que pondrá en peligro el futuro de Downton. Continuación de la aclamada serie televisiva, 'Downton Abbey'.

The Amplify Podcast is a new strand in our Playcast series. Our Amplify Producer, Craig Gilbert, has been holed up in his makeshift bedroom studio talking to a host of exciting artists of national and international renown. These conversations cover career and process as well as offering a few exciting ideas to explore from home during this time of Social Distancing. In the first episode of the Amplify Podcast Craig talks with writer and actor David Haig.David’s stage plays include My Boy Jack and The Good Samaritan (both for Hampstead Theatre, London) and Pressure (Royal Lyceum, Edinburgh, and Minerva Theatre, Chichester). My Boy Jack was filmed for ITV, starring David, Daniel Radcliffe and Kim Cattrall, and broadcast in November 2007.His distinguished acting career includes West End appearances in Yes, Prime Minister (a transfer from Chichester); Art, Dead Funny (a transfer from Hampstead), Journey’s End, The Country Wife and The Sea. At the National Theatre he appeared in Alan Ayckbourn’s House/Garden, and at the Royal Court in Hitchcock Blonde and The Recruiting Officer. He has worked extensively for the Royal Shakespeare Company, playing, amongst others, Angelo in Trevor Nunn’s production of Measure for Measure. He won the Olivier Award for Best Actor for Our Country’s Good at the Royal Court, and received nominations for Mary Poppins and Donkeys’ Years, both in the West End.His television and film appearances include Yes, Prime Minister, Mo, The Wright Way, Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Thin Blue Line, Talking Heads and Crime and Punishment.

Our third episode finds us in the world of Margery Allingham's famous detective Albert Campion starring Peter Davison and Brian Glover. Specifically we explore the first story of Campion's second run, a two-part mystery entitled Sweet Danger also featuring Lysette Anthony, Iain Cuthbertson and David Haig, which was adapted for television by Jill Hyem. There are various TV crime drama themes along the way and even a startling TV-AM interview with Peter Davison about a possible pop career. Next time: Doomwatch

Did you know that genes from your mom and genes from your dad battled it out inside you (and in your placenta) while you were in the womb? In this episode, Harvard evolutionary biologist, David Haig, explains where babies come from and how they hijack their parents to take care of them. From the intricate details of shark pregnancy to the parenting strategies of plants, David shares both curious sex facts and disturbing strategies of reproduction across the tree of life. And you'll learn more than you wanted to know about the most wonderful and creepy organ of all, the placenta.

This week on the show we welcomed friends from the world of film, television, comedy and food.This hilarious Rob Delaney chats his brand new stand-up special 'Jackie' on Amazon Prime.Heston Blumenthal and Niklas Ekstedt tells all about their brand new Channel 4 cooking show 'Crazy Delicious'.And David Haig discusses the new Sky Original 'COBRA'.Plus Fay Ripley, Timmy Mallett, Chloe Madeley, Bertie Carvel, and Izzy Judd.You can catch Chris and the team live weekdays 6:30am-10am on Virgin Radio UK and on Sundays from 10 am.Be sure to subscribe to the podcast every week to hear the highlights! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this SPOILER FREE mini movie review episode, Xan and Gretta review an upcoming film adaptation/sequel to the highly acclaimed and beloved British Historical Period Drama Television series. So, remember to wear the appropriate clothing for the occassion, remember your manners and  and enjoy as our hosts reviews "Downton Abbey", directed by Gene Stupnitsky and starring Hugh Bonneville, Elizabeth McGovern,Michelle Dockery ,Laura Carmichael, Penelope Wilton, Allen Leech, Jim Carter, Robert James-Collier, Phyllis Logan, Brendan Coyle, Joanne Froggatt, Lesley Nicol, Kevin Doyle, Sophie McShera, Raquel Cassidy, Michael C. Fox, Matthew Goode, Harry Hadden-Paton, Douglas Reith, Geraldine James, Simon Jones, Max Brown, David Haig, Richenda Carey, Tuppence Middleton and Maggie Smith as Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham     ----more---- As with our other mini reviews, this is not an official review, but our hosts give their initial impressions of the movie, Gretta expresses her love of the television series and we learn a little more about the origins of the series as well. (Note, We highly recommend watching the television series before watching this film, otherwise certain things will not make sense.)   Please send us any comments concerns and ideas on how to make this podcast better. Let us know so we can do something about it. Rate us on iTunes, check out the facebook fan group Spiraken Movie Review, purchase some stuff from our amazon store in order to fund this podcast and finally, listen to the primary podcast, The Spiraken Manga Review. Hope you enjoy the episode.   #spirakenmotionpicturereview #spiraken #downtonabbeyfilm #downtonabbey #dodecahydronofmovies Music Used in the Episode: Opening Theme- Did I Make The Most of Loving You/ Downton Abbey Suite by John Lunn & Chamber Orchestra of London (Downton Abbey OST) Our Website http://www.spiraken.com Our tumblr http://spiraken.tumblr.com/ Our Instagram  https://www.instagram.com/spiraken/Our Email Spiraken@gmail.com Xan's Email xan@spiraken.com Our Twitter Spiraken Xboxlive Gamertag Xan Spiraken Our Amazon Store http://www.amazon.com/shops/spiraken Random Question of the Day: Have you watched all of Downton Abbey?

Emma Thompson discusses her role as a TV chat show host in her new film Late Night and, as she embarks on her first stand-up show, talks about politics, performing , and how much things have changed for women in comedy. As the winner of the Women’s Prize for Fiction 2019 is announced, we talk to her live from the ceremony. The books are: It’s The Silence of the Girls by Pat Barker; My Sister, the Serial Killer by Oyinkan Braithwaite; Milkman by Anna Burns; Ordinary People by Diana Evans; An American Marriage by Tayari Jones; Circe by Madeline Miller. Anthony McCarten's screenplay credits include Bohemian Rhapsody, The Theory of Everything and Darkest Hour. He is also a prolific novelist and playwright. McCarten discusses his new play, The Pope, about Pope Benedict XVI who in 2013 became the first pontiff in seven centuries to resign. The title role of The Pope has tempted Anton Lesser (Thomas More in Wolf Hall) back to the UK stage for the first time in a decade. This morning in Portsmouth, as part of the D-Day commemoration, David Haig recreated a scene from his 2014 play, Pressure. In this true story, James Stagg, the meteorologist, persuades General Eisenhower to delay the invasion by a day because he forecasts that the storm raging in the Channel will, briefly, abate. We hear from the actor as he prepared to stage his play for the first time. Presenter: John Wilson Producer: Julian May

Kate Rusk and Joe Alcock discuss the evolutionary reasons why pregnancy is so dangerous, both for fetus and for mother. Genetic conflicts of interest between paternal and maternal genes may give rise to gestational diabetes and preeclampsia. Evolutioanry theorist David Haig came up with these ideas, inspired by Robert Trivers "parent offspring conflict." This hypothesis of genetic conflicts in pregnancy has held up over the years, yet these concepts still are not taught in medical school, remarkably. This episode was originally livestreamed on Inertia TV with Kate Rusk. Javier is a prop skeleton, by the way.

News of theatre shows opening this week in the UK including David Haig in Pressure; reviews of Penelope Keith in The Chalk Garden at Chichester and Orlando Bloom in Killer Joe at Trafalgar Studios; and the latest news from the world of UK theatre including a new tour of Buddy, a new Alan Bennett play and a hiphop musical about the suffragettes. Presented by Paul Seven Lewis and brought to you by One Minute Theatre Reviews.

País Reino Unido Dirección Julian Jarrold Guion Sarah Phelps (Teatro: Agatha Christie) Música Paul Englishby Fotografía Felix Wiedemann Reparto Toby Jones, Kim Cattrall, Andrea Riseborough, Billy Howle, David Haig, Monica Dolan, Hayley Carmichael, Miranda Nolan, Charles De'Ath, Dorian Lough, Paul Ready, Tim McMullan Sinopsis Londres, 1920. Un brutal y sangriento asesinato tiene lugar en una casa de Londres. La víctima es la glamurosa y rica Emily French. Todas las pruebas parecen acusar a Leonard Vole, un joven oportunista al que French ha dejado toda su fortuna. Al menos esta es la versión de Janet McIntyre, la devota asistenta de la Sra. French, cuando es interrogada en el juicio. Leonard, sin embargo, confía en que su novia, la enigmática Romaine, puede probar su inocencia. A cargo de la defensa de Vole estarán el procurador John Mayhew y el abogado Sir Charles Carter.

Clive Anderson and Sara Cox are joined by David Haig, Nicky Campbell, Lashana Lynch and Geoff Norcott for an eclectic mix of conversation, music and comedy. With music from George McCrae. Producer: Sukey Firth.

"My mother's kin are not my father's kin."  David Haig (Harvard Univ) explains in this talk that this asymmetry results in conflicting selective forces acting on genes of maternal and paternal origin revealed in the phenomenon of genomic imprinting.  He provides several examples of disorders of imprinted gene expression. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 31602]

"My mother's kin are not my father's kin."  David Haig (Harvard Univ) explains in this talk that this asymmetry results in conflicting selective forces acting on genes of maternal and paternal origin revealed in the phenomenon of genomic imprinting.  He provides several examples of disorders of imprinted gene expression. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 31602]

We're joined by Blue/Orange director and Associate Artistic Director of the Royal Exchange Manchester, Matthew Xia in Episode 3 of Off Book. Matthew discusses his eclectic beginnings of his career in the arts which spans DJing, broadcasting, directing and being on the board of directors at Theatre Royal Stratford East aged 18. We also break down Matthew's production of Joe Penhall's state of the nation classic, Blue/Orange starring Daniel Kaluuya, Luke Norris and David Haig as well as discuss the biggest influences.

Colonel Tim Collins reviews the new Danish feature film A War which offers a foot soldiers' view of life on the frontline. Set in the recent military conflict in Afghanistan, the company commander makes a decision that has grave consequences for him and his family back home. Tobias Lindholm's film is Denmark's entry to the Best Foreign Language Film category at this year's Oscars.2016 sees the return of Inspector Maigret, both on screen and in print. John Simenon, son of Maigret's creator Georges Simenon, and crime writer Natasha Cooper discuss the French detective's enduring appeal.It's the musical that brought us Luck Be A Lady and Sit Down You're Rocking the Boat. David Benedict reviews Guys and Dolls, starring Sophie Thompson and David Haig, as the acclaimed Chichester Festival production opens in the West End before embarking on a UK tour.In Hong Kong the whereabouts of five missing booksellers remains a mystery, although they are widely suspected to have been detained by the Chinese authorities. As one major bookshop chain stops selling politically sensitive books in Chinese, Professor Gregory Lee, a specialist in Chinese cultural and literary studies, assesses the implications.Frances Hardinge, winner of the Costa Children's Book Award with The Lie Tree, discusses her tale of murder and deception set in Victorian England.

Join actor, comedian, TV expert and man about town Toby Hadoke for a free podcast interview as he tracks down another person associated with the first 50 televisual years of Doctor Who...

David Nicholl’s new novel, US, received rave reviews in People, O Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Good Housekeeping, Time, and more and is now available in paperback. Hear Nicholls tell us how he wanted to write a male character that was distinct from his leading character in his previous, very popular novel, ONE DAY, his idea of a perfect vacation, and the books he would take to a desert island. Also in this episode: an audiobook excerpt, performed by Olivier Award winning actor David Haig.

Título original Two Weeks Notice Año 2002 Duración 100 min. País Estados Unidos Estados Unidos Director Marc Lawrence Guión Marc Lawrence Música John Powell Fotografía Laszlo Kovacs Reparto Sandra Bullock, Hugh Grant, Alicia Witt, Dana Ivy, Robert Klein, Heather Burns, David Haig, Dorian Missick Productora Warner Bros. Pictures Género Romance. Comedia | Comedia romántica Web oficial http://twoweeksnoticemovie.warnerbros.com/ Sinopsis El millonario George Wade (Grant) no es capaz de hacer nada sin su asesora legal Lucy Kelson (Bullock). Las tareas de esta inteligente abogada son tantas que le han costado una úlcera y, además, no tiene tiempo ni para dormir. Lo que más la desespera es que el encantador George la trata casi como a una niñera. Tras cinco años a su servicio, Lucy ha decidido abandonar el trabajo. Aunque George trata de impedírselo, finalmente la deja ir con una condición: que encuentre una sustituta. La nueva asesora es una joven y ambiciosa abogada (Alicia Witt), pero George echa de menos a Lucy.

Evolutionary biologist and author of Sex, Genes & Rock 'n' Roll Professor Rob Brooks joins us to talk beards, monogamy and evolution. Beards seem to be popular now, but we may be approaching 'peak beard', where beards are so common they lose their novelty appeal. Do babies cry at night to stop their parents having more babies? Evolutionary biologist David Haig thinks they may be unintentionally sabotaging their parents' sex lives. A ten year, worldwide project has finally sequenced the Tsetse fly genome. The findings from this massive effort could help in the fight against sleeping sickness, which kills nearly 10,000 people a year. Some dolphins use sea spongers as tools to help forage for food, and it appears to be affecting their diet. The US Food and Drug Administration has approved a new test for human papillomavirus, but while it could one day replace a pap smear, it still requires a cervical sample.

In tonight's Front Row: David Haig talks to John Wilson about his play, Pressure - which he also stars in - about the weatherman who persuaded Eisenhower to postponed the D-Day landings because of an incoming storm; Ziggy Marley explains the importance of reggae in his music, and Sky's Special Correspondent Alex Crawford reviews A Thousand Times Good Night - starring Juliette Binoche as a photojournalist. Also in the programme: a review of ITV's new series Prey, with John Simm as a detective trying to clear his name. Image Credit: Drew Farrell.

With John Wilson, A job centre and a local government Health and Safety department are the settings for two new sitcoms. ITVs The Job Lot stars Russell Tovey (Him & Her) and Sarah Hadland (Miranda). Ben Elton has written the BBC's The Wright Way, which stars David Haig. Viv Groskop reviews. Ian Gillan and Ian Paice, long-standing members of the band Deep Purple, discuss their forthcoming album Now What?! The heavy metal pioneers also talk about their Smoke on the Water 70s heyday, multiple lineups, and how the band has evolved over the decades. Krister Henriksson, best-known in Britain as the star of the Swedish TV series Wallander, is making his debut on stage in the UK, in a one-man play, Doktor Glas. Adapted from a classic Swedish novel by Hjalmar Söderberg, it's the tale of a 19th century physician who falls madly in love with the wife of a corrupt clergyman. Will it attract the same enthusiastic audiences who adore Swedish dramas on British television? Author and Wallander fan Kate Saunders gives the critical verdict. The designer Storm Thorgerson, best known for creating the cover of Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, has died. Peter Saville, who designed many memorable record sleeves from the Factory Records era, discusses his influence and music journalist Laura Lee Davies discusses whether there have been any classic albums with disappointing sleeve artwork or music that didn't live up to the promise of its cover. Producer Claire Bartleet.

With Mark Lawson. In Quentin Tarantino's latest film Django Unchained, starring Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio, a slave-turned-bounty hunter sets out to rescue his wife from a brutal Mississippi plantation owner. Jacqueline Springer reviews. Jonathan Lynn was the co-writer behind the British satirical sitcoms Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister in the 1980s. As a new series of Yes, Prime Minister returns to our screens with a new cast including David Haig as Jim Hacker and Henry Goodman as Sir Humphrey, Jonathan Lynn looks back over more than 30 years of the political satire. And as he celebrates his 60th birthday, the actor and comedian John Sessions discusses his wide-ranging film, TV and stage career. Sessions, also an impressionist, recalls reactions from his subjects and what he's learnt from over 30 years in show business. Producer Jerome Weatherald.