Podcast appearances and mentions of Jaron Lanier

The late biologist E.O. Wilson said that “the real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology. And it is terrifically dangerous.” Wilson said that back in 2011, long before any of us were talking about large language models or GPTs. A little more than a decade later, artificial intelligence is already completely transforming our world. Practitioners and experts have compared A.I. to the advent of electricity and fire itself. “God-like” doesn't seem that far off. Even sober experts predict disease cures and radically expanded lifespans, real-time disaster prediction and response, the elimination of language barriers, and other earthly miracles. A.I. is amazing, in the truest sense of that word. It is also leading some to predict nothing less than a crisis in what it means to be human in an age of brilliant machines. Others—including some of the people creating this technology—predict our possible extinction as a species. But you don't have to go quite that far to imagine the way it will transform our relationship toward information and our ability to pursue the truth. For tens of thousands of years, since humans started to stand upright and talk to each other, we've found our way to wisdom through disagreement and debate. But in the age of A.I., our sources of truth are machines that spit out the information we already have, reflecting our biases and our blind spots. What happens to truth when we no longer wrestle with it—and only receive it passively? When disagreeable, complicated human beings are replaced with A.I. chatbots that just tell us what we want to hear? It makes today's concerns about misinformation and disinformation seem quaint. Our ability to detect whether something is real or an A.I.-generated fabrication is approaching zero. And unlike social media—a network of people that we instinctively know can be wrong—A.I. systems have a veneer of omniscience, despite being riddled with the biases of the humans who trained them. Meanwhile, a global arms race is underway, with the U.S. and China competing to decide who gets to control the authoritative information source of the future. So last week Bari traveled to San Francisco to host a debate on whether this remarkable, revolutionary technology will enhance our understanding of the world and bring us closer to the truth . . .or do just the opposite. The resolution: The Truth Will Survive Artificial Intelligence! Aravind Srinivas argued yes—the truth will survive A.I. Aravind is the CEO of one of the most exciting companies in this field, Perplexity, which he co-founded in 2022 after working at OpenAI, Google, and DeepMind.  Aravind was joined by Dr. Fei-Fei Li. Fei-Fei is a professor of computer science at Stanford, the founding co-director of the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered A.I., and the CEO and co-founder of World Labs, an A.I. company focusing on spatial intelligence and generative A.I.  Jaron Lanier argued that no, the truth will not survive A.I. Jaron is a computer scientist, best-selling author, and the founder of VPL Research, the first company to sell virtual reality products. Jaron was joined by Nicholas Carr, the author of countless best-selling books on the human consequences of technology, including Pulitzer Prize finalist The Shallows, The Glass Cage, and, most recently, Superbloom. He also writes the wonderful Substack New Cartographies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Plus Will AI Pen Your Next Novel?Like this? Get AIDAILY, delivered to your inbox, 3x a week. Subscribe to our newsletter at https://aidaily.usAI as a Tool, Not a Deity: Jaron Lanier's PerspectiveTech philosopher Jaron Lanier challenges the notion of AI as a god-like entity, arguing it's merely a collaborative tool shaped by human input. He warns that mystical narratives around AI distract from practical issues like data transparency and ethical use. Lanier advocates for a new internet business model that compensates individuals for their data contributions, emphasizing the need for ethical oversight in AI development. AI's Penning Your Next Romance NovelInkitt, a genre fiction publisher, is leveraging AI to produce customizable romance stories. With backing from influential investors, the company aims to revolutionize content creation by tailoring narratives to individual reader preferences. This approach raises questions about the future role of human authors in the industry. AI Therapists: The Future of Mental Health Care?A Dartmouth College study found that AI bots can deliver mental health therapy as effectively as human clinicians. In a trial with around 200 participants, those interacting with AI showed significant improvement in conditions like depression and anxiety. Notably, users formed strong, trust-based relationships with the bots, highlighting AI's potential in addressing the shortage of mental health providers. AI Challenges Fingerprint Uniqueness, Shaking Up ForensicsResearchers at Columbia Engineering have developed an AI system that can identify similarities between fingerprints from different fingers of the same person, challenging the long-held belief that all fingerprints are unique. This discovery could revolutionize forensic science by improving the accuracy of fingerprint analysis and potentially reopening cold cases. However, it also raises legal and ethical questions about the reliability of fingerprint evidence in court. How the 'AI Triad' and No-Code Are Shaping the Future of WorkThe fusion of the 'AI triad'—predictive, generative, and agentic AI—with no-code platforms is revolutionizing the workplace. No-code tools empower non-technical employees to build AI-driven applications, enhancing productivity and innovation. This synergy allows businesses to automate tasks, personalize customer interactions, and streamline operations without extensive coding knowledge. AI Steps Up in Skin Cancer DetectionAI is making waves in dermatology by assisting in early skin cancer detection. While AI tools show promise in identifying potential skin cancers, experts emphasize they should complement, not replace, professional medical evaluations. Ensuring these AI systems are trained on diverse data is crucial to avoid biases and maintain accuracy across different skin types.

“What I meant when I said there is no AI is that I don't think we serve ourselves well when we put our own technology up as if it were a new God that we created. I think we confuse ourselves too easily. This goes back to Alan Turing, the main founder of computer science, who had this idea of the Turing test. In the test, you can't tell whether the computer has gotten more human-like or the human has gotten more computer-like. People are very prone to becoming more computer-like. When we're on social media, we let ourselves be guided by the algorithms, so we start to become dumb in the way the algorithms want us to. You see that all the time. It's really degraded our psychologies and our society.”Jaron Lanier is a pioneering technologist, writer, and musician, best known for coining the term “Virtual Reality” and founding VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products. He led early breakthroughs in virtual worlds, avatars, and VR applications in fields like surgery and media. Lanier writes on the philosophy and economics of technology in his bestselling book Who Owns the Future? and You Are Not a Gadget. His book Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality is an inventive blend of autobiography, science writing, and philosophy. Lanier has been named one of TIME's 100 most influential people and serves as Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft's Office of the CTO—aka “Octopus.” As a musician, he's performed with Sara Bareilles, Philip Glass, T Bone Burnett, Laurie Anderson, Jon Batiste, and others.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcastEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“What I meant when I said there is no AI is that I don't think we serve ourselves well when we put our own technology up as if it were a new God that we created. I think we confuse ourselves too easily. This goes back to Alan Turing, the main founder of computer science, who had this idea of the Turing test. In the test, you can't tell whether the computer has gotten more human-like or the human has gotten more computer-like. People are very prone to becoming more computer-like. When we're on social media, we let ourselves be guided by the algorithms, so we start to become dumb in the way the algorithms want us to. You see that all the time. It's really degraded our psychologies and our society.”Jaron Lanier is a pioneering technologist, writer, and musician, best known for coining the term “Virtual Reality” and founding VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products. He led early breakthroughs in virtual worlds, avatars, and VR applications in fields like surgery and media. Lanier writes on the philosophy and economics of technology in his bestselling book Who Owns the Future? and You Are Not a Gadget. His book Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality is an inventive blend of autobiography, science writing, and philosophy. Lanier has been named one of TIME's 100 most influential people and serves as Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft's Office of the CTO—aka “Octopus.” As a musician, he's performed with Sara Bareilles, Philip Glass, T Bone Burnett, Laurie Anderson, Jon Batiste, and others.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcastEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“What I meant when I said there is no AI is that I don't think we serve ourselves well when we put our own technology up as if it were a new God that we created. I think we confuse ourselves too easily. This goes back to Alan Turing, the main founder of computer science, who had this idea of the Turing test. In the test, you can't tell whether the computer has gotten more human-like or the human has gotten more computer-like. People are very prone to becoming more computer-like. When we're on social media, we let ourselves be guided by the algorithms, so we start to become dumb in the way the algorithms want us to. You see that all the time. It's really degraded our psychologies and our society.”Jaron Lanier is a pioneering technologist, writer, and musician, best known for coining the term “Virtual Reality” and founding VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products. He led early breakthroughs in virtual worlds, avatars, and VR applications in fields like surgery and media. Lanier writes on the philosophy and economics of technology in his bestselling book Who Owns the Future? and You Are Not a Gadget. His book Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality is an inventive blend of autobiography, science writing, and philosophy. Lanier has been named one of TIME's 100 most influential people and serves as Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft's Office of the CTO—aka “Octopus.” As a musician, he's performed with Sara Bareilles, Philip Glass, T Bone Burnett, Laurie Anderson, Jon Batiste, and others.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcastEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“What I meant when I said there is no AI is that I don't think we serve ourselves well when we put our own technology up as if it were a new God that we created. I think we confuse ourselves too easily. This goes back to Alan Turing, the main founder of computer science, who had this idea of the Turing test. In the test, you can't tell whether the computer has gotten more human-like or the human has gotten more computer-like. People are very prone to becoming more computer-like. When we're on social media, we let ourselves be guided by the algorithms, so we start to become dumb in the way the algorithms want us to. You see that all the time. It's really degraded our psychologies and our society.”Jaron Lanier is a pioneering technologist, writer, and musician, best known for coining the term “Virtual Reality” and founding VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products. He led early breakthroughs in virtual worlds, avatars, and VR applications in fields like surgery and media. Lanier writes on the philosophy and economics of technology in his bestselling book Who Owns the Future? and You Are Not a Gadget. His book Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality is an inventive blend of autobiography, science writing, and philosophy. Lanier has been named one of TIME's 100 most influential people and serves as Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft's Office of the CTO—aka “Octopus.” As a musician, he's performed with Sara Bareilles, Philip Glass, T Bone Burnett, Laurie Anderson, Jon Batiste, and others.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcastEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“What I meant when I said there is no AI is that I don't think we serve ourselves well when we put our own technology up as if it were a new God that we created. I think we confuse ourselves too easily. This goes back to Alan Turing, the main founder of computer science, who had this idea of the Turing test. In the test, you can't tell whether the computer has gotten more human-like or the human has gotten more computer-like. People are very prone to becoming more computer-like. When we're on social media, we let ourselves be guided by the algorithms, so we start to become dumb in the way the algorithms want us to. You see that all the time. It's really degraded our psychologies and our society.”Jaron Lanier is a pioneering technologist, writer, and musician, best known for coining the term “Virtual Reality” and founding VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products. He led early breakthroughs in virtual worlds, avatars, and VR applications in fields like surgery and media. Lanier writes on the philosophy and economics of technology in his bestselling book Who Owns the Future? and You Are Not a Gadget. His book Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality is an inventive blend of autobiography, science writing, and philosophy. Lanier has been named one of TIME's 100 most influential people and serves as Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft's Office of the CTO—aka “Octopus.” As a musician, he's performed with Sara Bareilles, Philip Glass, T Bone Burnett, Laurie Anderson, Jon Batiste, and others.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcastEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“What I meant when I said there is no AI is that I don't think we serve ourselves well when we put our own technology up as if it were a new God that we created. I think we confuse ourselves too easily. This goes back to Alan Turing, the main founder of computer science, who had this idea of the Turing test. In the test, you can't tell whether the computer has gotten more human-like or the human has gotten more computer-like. People are very prone to becoming more computer-like. When we're on social media, we let ourselves be guided by the algorithms, so we start to become dumb in the way the algorithms want us to. You see that all the time. It's really degraded our psychologies and our society.”Jaron Lanier is a pioneering technologist, writer, and musician, best known for coining the term “Virtual Reality” and founding VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products. He led early breakthroughs in virtual worlds, avatars, and VR applications in fields like surgery and media. Lanier writes on the philosophy and economics of technology in his bestselling book Who Owns the Future? and You Are Not a Gadget. His book Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality is an inventive blend of autobiography, science writing, and philosophy. Lanier has been named one of TIME's 100 most influential people and serves as Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft's Office of the CTO—aka “Octopus.” As a musician, he's performed with Sara Bareilles, Philip Glass, T Bone Burnett, Laurie Anderson, Jon Batiste, and others.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcastEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“AI is obviously the dominant topic in tech lately, and I think occasionally there's AI that's nonsense, and occasionally there's AI that's great. I love finding new proteins for medicine and so on. I don't think we serve ourselves well when we put our own technology up as if it were a new God that we created. I think we're really getting a little too full of ourselves to think that. This goes back to Alan Turing, the main founder of computer science, who had this idea of the Turing test. In the test, you can't tell whether the computer has gotten more human-like or the human has gotten more computer-like. People are very prone to becoming more computer-like. When we're on social media, we let ourselves be guided by the algorithms, so we start to become dumb in the way the algorithms want us to. You see that all the time. It's really degraded our psychologies and our society.”Jaron Lanier is a pioneering technologist, writer, and musician, best known for coining the term “Virtual Reality” and founding VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products. He led early breakthroughs in virtual worlds, avatars, and VR applications in fields like surgery and media. Lanier writes on the philosophy and economics of technology in his bestselling book Who Owns the Future? and You Are Not a Gadget. His book Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality is an inventive blend of autobiography, science writing, and philosophy. Lanier has been named one of TIME's 100 most influential people and serves as Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft's Office of the CTO—aka “Octopus.” As a musician, he's performed with Sara Bareilles, Philip Glass, T Bone Burnett, Laurie Anderson, Jon Batiste, and others.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcastPhoto credit: Michael Springer

“AI is obviously the dominant topic in tech lately, and I think occasionally there's AI that's nonsense, and occasionally there's AI that's great. I love finding new proteins for medicine and so on. I don't think we serve ourselves well when we put our own technology up as if it were a new God that we created. I think we're really getting a little too full of ourselves to think that. This goes back to Alan Turing, the main founder of computer science, who had this idea of the Turing test. In the test, you can't tell whether the computer has gotten more human-like or the human has gotten more computer-like. People are very prone to becoming more computer-like. When we're on social media, we let ourselves be guided by the algorithms, so we start to become dumb in the way the algorithms want us to. You see that all the time. It's really degraded our psychologies and our society.”Jaron Lanier is a pioneering technologist, writer, and musician, best known for coining the term “Virtual Reality” and founding VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products. He led early breakthroughs in virtual worlds, avatars, and VR applications in fields like surgery and media. Lanier writes on the philosophy and economics of technology in his bestselling book Who Owns the Future? and You Are Not a Gadget. His book Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality is an inventive blend of autobiography, science writing, and philosophy. Lanier has been named one of TIME's 100 most influential people and serves as Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft's Office of the CTO—aka “Octopus.” As a musician, he's performed with Sara Bareilles, Philip Glass, T Bone Burnett, Laurie Anderson, Jon Batiste, and others.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcastPhoto credit: Michael Springer

“AI is obviously the dominant topic in tech lately, and I think occasionally there's AI that's nonsense, and occasionally there's AI that's great. I love finding new proteins for medicine and so on. I don't think we serve ourselves well when we put our own technology up as if it were a new God that we created. I think we're really getting a little too full of ourselves to think that. This goes back to Alan Turing, the main founder of computer science, who had this idea of the Turing test. In the test, you can't tell whether the computer has gotten more human-like or the human has gotten more computer-like. People are very prone to becoming more computer-like. When we're on social media, we let ourselves be guided by the algorithms, so we start to become dumb in the way the algorithms want us to. You see that all the time. It's really degraded our psychologies and our society.”Jaron Lanier is a pioneering technologist, writer, and musician, best known for coining the term “Virtual Reality” and founding VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products. He led early breakthroughs in virtual worlds, avatars, and VR applications in fields like surgery and media. Lanier writes on the philosophy and economics of technology in his bestselling book Who Owns the Future? and You Are Not a Gadget. His book Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality is an inventive blend of autobiography, science writing, and philosophy. Lanier has been named one of TIME's 100 most influential people and serves as Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft's Office of the CTO—aka “Octopus.” As a musician, he's performed with Sara Bareilles, Philip Glass, T Bone Burnett, Laurie Anderson, Jon Batiste, and others.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcastPhoto credit: Michael Springer

“AI is obviously the dominant topic in tech lately, and I think occasionally there's AI that's nonsense, and occasionally there's AI that's great. I love finding new proteins for medicine and so on. I don't think we serve ourselves well when we put our own technology up as if it were a new God that we created. I think we're really getting a little too full of ourselves to think that. This goes back to Alan Turing, the main founder of computer science, who had this idea of the Turing test. In the test, you can't tell whether the computer has gotten more human-like or the human has gotten more computer-like. People are very prone to becoming more computer-like. When we're on social media, we let ourselves be guided by the algorithms, so we start to become dumb in the way the algorithms want us to. You see that all the time. It's really degraded our psychologies and our society.”Jaron Lanier is a pioneering technologist, writer, and musician, best known for coining the term “Virtual Reality” and founding VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products. He led early breakthroughs in virtual worlds, avatars, and VR applications in fields like surgery and media. Lanier writes on the philosophy and economics of technology in his bestselling book Who Owns the Future? and You Are Not a Gadget. His book Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality is an inventive blend of autobiography, science writing, and philosophy. Lanier has been named one of TIME's 100 most influential people and serves as Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft's Office of the CTO—aka “Octopus.” As a musician, he's performed with Sara Bareilles, Philip Glass, T Bone Burnett, Laurie Anderson, Jon Batiste, and others.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcastPhoto credit: Michael Springer

“AI is obviously the dominant topic in tech lately, and I think occasionally there's AI that's nonsense, and occasionally there's AI that's great. I love finding new proteins for medicine and so on. I don't think we serve ourselves well when we put our own technology up as if it were a new God that we created. I think we're really getting a little too full of ourselves to think that. This goes back to Alan Turing, the main founder of computer science, who had this idea of the Turing test. In the test, you can't tell whether the computer has gotten more human-like or the human has gotten more computer-like. People are very prone to becoming more computer-like. When we're on social media, we let ourselves be guided by the algorithms, so we start to become dumb in the way the algorithms want us to. You see that all the time. It's really degraded our psychologies and our society.”Jaron Lanier is a pioneering technologist, writer, and musician, best known for coining the term “Virtual Reality” and founding VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products. He led early breakthroughs in virtual worlds, avatars, and VR applications in fields like surgery and media. Lanier writes on the philosophy and economics of technology in his bestselling book Who Owns the Future? and You Are Not a Gadget. His book Dawn of the New Everything: Encounters with Reality and Virtual Reality is an inventive blend of autobiography, science writing, and philosophy. Lanier has been named one of TIME's 100 most influential people and serves as Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft's Office of the CTO—aka “Octopus.” As a musician, he's performed with Sara Bareilles, Philip Glass, T Bone Burnett, Laurie Anderson, Jon Batiste, and others.Episode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcastPhoto credit: Michael Springer

Why do we keep comparing AI to humans? Jaron Lanier — virtual reality pioneer, digital philosopher, and the author of several best-selling books on technology — thinks that we should stop. In his view, technology is only valuable if it has beneficiaries. So instead of asking "What can AI do?," we should be asking, "What can AI do for us?" In today's episode, Jaron and Sean discuss a humanist approach to AI and how changing our understanding of AI tools could change how we use, develop, and improve them. Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling) Guest: Jaron Lanier, computer scientist, artist, and writer. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is There a Slippery Slope of AI Idiocracy at Our Bureaucracies? What We Could Learn From Mike Judge's Silicon Valley and Erlich Bachman?  We are going to use black humor, irony from Mike Judge's series Silicon Valley to illustrate how we are yielding our agency so easily. No worries if you haven't seen it, I'll introduce you quickly. And to illustrate the hype of the rockstar status of AI, you are going to be a member of my project team that takes on this assignment but with a few twists. It's going to be a fun thought experiment, and you're going to learn how to put the AI hype into perspective. And hopefully understand some of the dangers of overinvesting trust in pure technical solutions.We will also discuss what Jaron Lanier, pioneer of Virtual Reality, has to say about our rush to blindly embrace AI as a superior intelligence.The original article for this podcast can be found at https://culturalcourage.substack.com/p/viva-aviatoWe have been manipulated. Severed Conscience is a prison of the mind.To access our documentary, join our community on https://severedconscience.com. We have released our first book titled Severed Conscience as a companion to our documentary.  You can find our book on Amazon.  Severed Conscience on Amazon.comWant solutions for Severed Conscience and return to life where you derive values from living offline while giving tech and social media a rest?  We invite you to sign up at https://culturalcourage.substack.com

How will creative people make a living in a world with AI? Is there a different way to think about the economy of the future -- and how might it involve mystifying and elevating humans? What does the term “data dignity" mean? Join Eagleman with guest Jaron Lanier -- computer scientist, artist, futurist -- as they discuss AI's boundless creative output and how we might thoughtfully navigate into the future.

Robert Leyland: AtariArtist, KoalaPainter, MicroIllustrator   Robert Leyland programmed AtariArtist, KoalaPainter, and MicroIllustrator (along with Steve Dompier) - the graphics applications that worked with KoalaPad, Atari Touch Tablet, and Chalk Board PowerPad drawing tablets. Prior to that, he programmed The Dragon's Eye (published by Automated Simulations/EPYX), Murder on the Zinderneuf (published by Electronic Arts) and, with Jaron Lanier, the Atari version of Alien Garden for Automated Simulations.   This interview took place on January 21, 2023.   Video version of this interview   Robert's utilities at AtariMania   Robert's games at AtariMania   ANTIC Interview 104 - Aric Wilmunder, Star Raiders II, Temple of Apshai   ANTIC Interview 70 - Jon Freeman, Freefall Associates   De Re Atari   Support Kay's interview on Patreon

adrienne and AUTUMN reunite to kick off Season 8 and it feels so good. They discuss caterpillar to butterfly transformation, AUTUMN's performance residency, dojo shit, opportunities to opt-out of making a choice or having an opinion, feeling sad, Palestine, weighing which loss gives you the most territory to continue fighting, social media as a tool of Empire, Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Account Right Now by Jaron Lanier, and listening to people as a way of building power. --- ⁠⁠⁠⁠TRANSCRIPT⁠⁠⁠⁠ --- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT OUR SHOW! - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/Endoftheworldshow --- HTS ESSENTIALS ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT Our Show on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/Endoftheworldshow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PEEP us on IG⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/endoftheworldpc/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠

Mark Deutsch is a brilliant and unique musician who has devoted the last 3 decades of his life to his instrument the Bazantar, which is unique to him. There is only one Bazantar, which is a double bass hybrid with elements of the sitar:  it has 6 main strings, 4 drone strings, and 29 sympathetic strings. Mark grew up as a multi-instrumentalist, but primarily a classical, jazz and rock bass player, and gave up a successful career as a performer to devote himself to the Bazantar. While studying sitar with Ustad Imrat Khan, Mark begin delving into the universal fundamentals of music and its underlying frequency structures. The nonlinear mathematical patterns that exist in sound are found universally in the natural world, includeng seashells, and Mark goes into some of the math of the overtone series in some detail, as well as fascinating specifics of how the Bazantar and his playing of it have evolved.  You'll hear Mark talk about how he developed his patented engineering solution to construct a separate housing for the sympathetic strings. In this episode, Mark demonstrated live, and also is sharing not only excerpts from previously released recordings, but a preview from an upcoming album.  Mark Deutsch website https://bazantar.com/ Podcast website with Transcript and Video link: https://www.leahroseman.com/episodes/mark-deutsch-and-his-bazantar Buy me a coffee? https://ko-fi.com/leahroseman Merchandise store to support the podcast: https://www.leahroseman.com/beautiful-shirts-and-more Newsletter sign-up: https://mailchi.mp/ebed4a237788/podcast-newsletter Timestamps: (00:00) Intro (03:16) Mark's background, sitar, and inspiration for creating the Bazantar (10:52) Bazantar music: excerpt from Lahja from the Picasso Tunings (12:13) studying sitar with Imrat Khan (14:10) Alain Danielou's book Music and the Power of Sound, the math of frequencies and music (18:14) building the Bazantar (22:17) excerpt from Avodah from the album Fool (23:32) Prehistoric Planet (25:09) 8Dio samples, different tunings and playing techniques (34:19) Bazantar demo (39:37) Other episodes you'll like and different ways to support this series! (40:54) sympathetic strings with demo (44:09) excerpt from The Crooked Road from The Picasso Tunings (45:04) prototypes and the patented engineering solution to the Bazantar (55:55) different bridge designs  (58:46) improvisation plucked Bazantar (01:04:13) cross-country tour stories with the Bazantar, Mark's musical interests (01:08:38) different approaches to improvisation, learning to play what you're hearing (01:14:05) Mark's approach to teaching and playing (01:21:50) first album “Fool” with both sitar and Bazantar (01:25:40) excerpt from Painted Bird on Fool (01:26:58) fasting (01:29:00) Picasso Tunings albums (01:31:45) Antique Slippers, 8th movement from the Picasso Tunings (01:35:25) decision to move to San Franciso, different tunings (01:39:18) special effect with just the sympathetic strings with demo from unreleased recording Bardo (01:42:29) Jaron Lanier, Quincy Jones disbelief (01:44:13) more Bazantar demos, ideas about improvisation, background to Kundalini Rising (01:51:54) excerpt from Kundalini Rising from Fool (01:52:55) more demos and the math of the harmonics and frequencies, developing the Bazantar (02:08:25) Mark's approach to improvisation

In a world where every conversation or statement can spark intense debates, how do you maintain your composure and stay true to your values? Join Trisha, Nate, and Mac as they dive into a conversation about managing both online and in person engagement with empathy, leading through political tensions, and making a meaningful impact on a local level. Mac McCarthy has been in Christian ministry for over 15 years.  As a pastor, practitioner, and coach, he is passionate about equipping leaders by integrating missional theology, spiritual formation, family systems, and adaptive leadership to navigate congregational change.  Nate Pyle is a pastor, author, and coach. He has over 25 years in Christian ministry, and during that time Nate began learning and practicing skills related to adaptive leadership, congregational revitalization, family systems, emotional maturity, and spiritual formation.  Key Points Engaging on Social Media Dialogue over Provocation Outrage vs. Conviction Maintaining Perspective and Empathy Recognizing Limitations Managing Anxiety and Maintaining Emotional Maturity References The Colossian Forum Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now by Jaron Lanier

Today on the flagship podcast of refillable scent cartridges:  Producer Andru Marino tries out a gadget called the Gamescent, an AI-powered scent machine that syncs with your gaming and movie watching experience. He walks David Pierce through the experience and whether integrating olfaction could be the future of gaming.  We also hear from Nimesha Ranasinghe, an assistant professor at the University of Maine working on taste sensations and taste simulation in virtual reality experiences, which can lead to adding another sense into the world of gaming.  Further reading: A Brief History of Smell-O-Vision “Scent of Mystery”, the First and Only Use of Smell-O-Vision The sights, smells, and sprays of ‘Iron Man 3' in 4DX The iSmell story Smell-O-Vision is REAL: Linus Tech Tips VR pioneer Jaron Lanier on dystopia, empathy, and the future of the internet The sense of taste in virtual reality Virtual lemonade sends colour and taste to a glass of water Email us at vergecast@theverge.com or call us at 866-VERGE11, we love hearing from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jeg har snakket med journalist i Fædrelandsvennen Babak Siami om bruken av Sosiale medier. Hva gjør det med vår mentale helse? Hva gjør det rent fysisk med hjernen? Påvirker det vår fysiske helse på noen måter? Generelt sett kan man si at svaret er et entydig «JA» på disse spørsmålene, og i dagens episode skal vi se på hvordan disse sosiale appene innvirker på livet vårt.Mye av den "krisemaksimeringen" jeg selv har bedrevet i denne sammenheng, er ofte understøttet av boken til Jaron Lanier som gir deg ti gode grunner for å slette dine kontoer på sosiale medier. Mye av bekymringen min er også knyttet til klinisk praksis hvor jeg mener å se en tendens til at mennesker sliter i stadig større grad med konsentrasjon og dyp tenkning. Det er ikke sikkert det er direkte knyttet til sosiale medier, men jeg har en magefølelse på at det foreligger en link her som er viktig å ta på alvor. Få tilgang til ALT ekstramateriale som medlem på SinnSyns Mentale Helsestudio via SinnSyn-appen her: https://www.webpsykologen.no/et-mentalt-helsestudio-i-lomma/ eller som Patreon-Medlem her: https://www.patreon.com/sinnsyn. For reklamefri pod og bonus-episoder kan du bli SinnSyn Pluss abonnent her https://plus.acast.com/s/sinnsyn. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Surveillance capitalism is ubiquitous. If we're not being watched by Google or Facebook, then we are watching movies warning about how these digital platforms are watching us. David Donnelly's new documentary, COST OF CONVENIENCE, trots all the familiar charges that we've heard over the years from KEEN ON guests like Shoshana Zuboff , Jaron Lanier, Nick Carr and Roger McNamee. It's good stuff, I guess, even if we've heard these existential warnings many times before. The problem is what to do about it. Like most Silicon Valley critics, Donnelly's fixes - from more education and regulation to greater self control - aren't very realistic. Ultimately, I guess, we'll find something else to worry about. The real question, however, is if we forget about the screen, will the screen forget about us? DAVID DONNELLY is an American filmmaker renowned for his impactful documentaries in the classical music realm, notably his award-winning debut, Maestro, featuring stars like Paavo Järvi, Joshua Bell, Hilary Hahn, and Lang Lang. This film, translated into multiple languages and has been broadcast worldwide, is highly regarded as an educational tool in music education. Following Maestro, Donnelly directed Nordic Pulseand Forte, completing a trilogy offering an unparalleled glimpse into classical music. His work, relevant amid the Ukraine invasion, includes narratives on Estonia's Singing Revolution, showcasing his storytelling's depth. Donnelly's films have been showcased at prestigious venues like the Whitney Museum and the Kennedy Center, underlining his status in both the art and film communities. In 2021, he co-founded CultureNet and announced The Cost of Convenience, the first in a new trilogy exploring technology's cultural implications. Donnelly's career extends beyond filmmaking; he's a sought-after speaker, sharing insights from interviews with global thought leaders across over 30 countries.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

This episode of the Moral Imagination Podcast is a talk I gave at AmPhil's Center for Civil Society conference in November, 2023 on the “Rise of the Nones.”   According to Pew Research, those who declare no religious affiliation - None -  are now the largest religious category in the United States. In this talk I address several overarching reasons for the decline of Christianity and address how five dominant visions of the human person including person as a cog or scourge, transhumanism & transgenderism, plastic anthropology, and the person as a commodity — also play a key role not only in despair and anxiety, but contribute both to the decline of Christian belief and the rise of secularism and pantheism/new paganism. This talk is a thematic overview and distillation of two longer lectures I give on five false anthropologies and 10 reasons for unbelief and the decline of Christianity. Some of the topics I address include Breakdown of the Family - specifically decrease in fatherhood participation, and its impact on religious practice Sexual Revolution  - disorients the person and relationships between men and women Feminism & Smashing the Patriarchy — “Flight from Woman” Egalitarianism and Pantheism - Tocqueville's prediction of the rise of pantheism in democratic societies Technology + Technological Society: Practical: use of technology and propaganda Theoretical: Empiricist rationality is incoherent and severs relationship between affectivity and reason Scientism: vision of a technical solution to evil, sin, suffering Humanitarianism and what I call “Almost Christianity” Failures of the Church: scandal, corruption, assimilation, and failure to teach and catechize Loss of non-linguistic catechesis When people are leaving Christianity today, do they know what they are leaving?  Confusion about the nature and destiny of the human person and what it means to be an embodied person   Plastic Anthropology —malleable based on feelings Transhumanism / Transgenderism - combination of biology and technology Person as Cog Person as Scourge Person as Commodity — Everything becomes an object of trade. Del Noce's concept of Pure Bourgeois Conclude with several suggestions to address the loss of faith and confusions over anthropology Re-affirm that Being is good and intelligible - Our bodies are good Each person is a subject and not simply an object Defend Reason and Freedom We are embodied and Embedded Persons— our bodies are not accidental Thinkers I address include Augusto Del Noce, Joseph Ratzinger, C.S. Lewis, Henri DeLubac, Carrie Gress, Karl Stern, Christopher Palmer, Jaron Lanier, Max Scheler, Joseph Pieper, John Paul II See www.themoralimagination.com for book links and related podcasts.   AmPhil Center For Civil Society - Nonprofit Educational Leader Leading educational provider for nonprofit fundraising learning the Center for Civil Society is the go to for major gifts, campaigns, strategy, and... Time to read 8 minutes Dec 22nd, 2022   AmPhil Rise Of The Nones Nonprofit Conference Nov 7-8 Scottsdale. AZ Leading scholars, philanthropists, and nonprofit leaders will discuss the rise in secularism, decline in church attendance, and other related trends, and... (352 kB) https://amphil.com/event/c4cs-riseofnones/     Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project Religious ‘Nones' in America: Who They Are and What They Believe 28% of U.S. adults are religiously unaffiliated, describing themselves as atheists, agnostics or “nothing in particular” when asked about their religion. Written by Gregory A. Smith, Patricia Tevington, Justin Nortey, Michael Rotolo, Asta Kallo and Becka A. Alper

Co-founder of VR technology as we know it Jaron Lanier is also an accomplished musician and artist. As the Prime Unifying Scientist at Microsoft, Jaron rejects the deceptive nature of terms like "AGI" and "decentralization" in favor of a vision of technology that's all about people collaborating with other people. Join Robb and Josh for an episode of Invisible Machines that questions everything.

Hello!Today, we talk about the Apple Vision Pro and its grim vision for how you should be spending your time. Also, we talk a lot about Jaron Lanier's most recent essay about the Virtual Reality in the New Yorker, specifically the question he poses about how technology should fit into our lives and whether tech can just create things because they're cool without affixing their products to some greater mission for humanity. The Apple Vision Pro doesn't come with any story about how its going to change everything or even a particularly great series of launch apps that feel revolutionary. It just kinda is a VR headset that asks you to wear it around all the time. Lanier's essay, as we discuss, asks whether “all the time” technology actually makes sense. ENJOY! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit goodbye.substack.com/subscribe

ÚNETE AL GRUPO DE TELEGRAM DE "EN ESTO MEDITEN": https://t.me/+Z9XNbCF0H1FhOTZh En esto meditamos… - En la Palabra: Filipenses 1:9-11 - Reflexión: Está bien luchar con lo que no entiendes acerca de Dios, pero sé paciente… ¡Él es digno de tu confianza! - Las redes sociales… ¿son como el cigarrillo? - Empresas de redes sociales frente al Senado de EEUU: https://cincodias.elpais.com/companias/2024-01-31/zuckerberg-pide-perdon-ante-el-senado-de-ee-uu-por-el-dano-de-las-redes-sociales-a-los-menores.html - Jaron Lanier “10 argumentos para borrar tus redes sociales de inmediato”. - Estudios sobre los efectos de las redes sociales sobre las mentes de los jóvenes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-olnkPyWcgF5BiAtBEy0/edit - Cuánto nos tomó admitir que los cigarrillos eran un problema: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222369/ - 1 Corintios 6:12 - FEBRERO SIN REDES: anaavila.org/sinredes - PRONTO HAY TALLER: “Orden en el caos”, taller de productividad para mamás. Inscríbete aquí: https://anaavila.org/tienda/orden-en-el-caos - Recuerda que no tienes que estar en redes. Sigue mi trabajo en: - Telegram: https://t.me/anaavilaosuna - Patreon: www.patreon.com/anaavila blog

Happy New Year, friends! Amelia here, dropping into your pod feed with three exciting announcements:#1 — Season 3 of Off the Grid is launching next week!

In this program, Jaron Lanier, Microsoft's prime unifying scientist, discusses a piece he published in The New Yorker (“There Is No AI”) about applying data dignity ideas to artificial intelligence. Lanier argues that large-model AI can be reconceived as a social collaboration by the people who provide data to the model in the form of text, images and other modalities. This is a figure/ground inversion of the usual conception of AI as being a participant or collaborator in its own right. Explanations of model results and behaviors would then center around the relative influence of specific inputs through a provenance calculation mechanism. This formulation suggests new and different strategies for long-term economics in the context of high-performance AI, as well as more concrete approaches to many safety, fairness and alignment questions. This program is co-hosted with the UC Berkeley College of Computing, Data Science, and Society and the UC Berkeley Artificial Intelligence Research (BAIR) Lab. The CITRIS Research Exchange delivers fresh perspectives on information technology and society from distinguished academic, industry and civic leaders. Series: "Data Science Channel" [Science] [Show ID: 39326]

In this program, Jaron Lanier, Microsoft's prime unifying scientist, discusses a piece he published in The New Yorker (“There Is No AI”) about applying data dignity ideas to artificial intelligence. Lanier argues that large-model AI can be reconceived as a social collaboration by the people who provide data to the model in the form of text, images and other modalities. This is a figure/ground inversion of the usual conception of AI as being a participant or collaborator in its own right. Explanations of model results and behaviors would then center around the relative influence of specific inputs through a provenance calculation mechanism. This formulation suggests new and different strategies for long-term economics in the context of high-performance AI, as well as more concrete approaches to many safety, fairness and alignment questions. This program is co-hosted with the UC Berkeley College of Computing, Data Science, and Society and the UC Berkeley Artificial Intelligence Research (BAIR) Lab. The CITRIS Research Exchange delivers fresh perspectives on information technology and society from distinguished academic, industry and civic leaders. Series: "Data Science Channel" [Science] [Show ID: 39326]

In this program, Jaron Lanier, Microsoft's prime unifying scientist, discusses a piece he published in The New Yorker (“There Is No AI”) about applying data dignity ideas to artificial intelligence. Lanier argues that large-model AI can be reconceived as a social collaboration by the people who provide data to the model in the form of text, images and other modalities. This is a figure/ground inversion of the usual conception of AI as being a participant or collaborator in its own right. Explanations of model results and behaviors would then center around the relative influence of specific inputs through a provenance calculation mechanism. This formulation suggests new and different strategies for long-term economics in the context of high-performance AI, as well as more concrete approaches to many safety, fairness and alignment questions. This program is co-hosted with the UC Berkeley College of Computing, Data Science, and Society and the UC Berkeley Artificial Intelligence Research (BAIR) Lab. The CITRIS Research Exchange delivers fresh perspectives on information technology and society from distinguished academic, industry and civic leaders. Series: "Data Science Channel" [Science] [Show ID: 39326]

How do we continue fueling creativity while holding ourselves accountable for how the future unfolds? In this episode, Michel Laprise interviews Microsoft's ‘Prime Unifying Scientist', futurist, musician, and VR pioneer, Jaron Lanier. Inspired by the music and core concepts of ECHO, the two discuss our changing perception of reality, why we must not lose touch with nature, and the future of technology. Listen in as the two delve into the future, the power of invention, and the importance of empathy.

Could the negative effects of social media be more damaging than we ever imagined, and what if we told you that our attitudes towards social media could be compared to past perceptions of smoking? This episode, we dive into the surprisingly prescient world of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, drawing parallels between the addiction and entertainment themes in the book and today's social media trends. We also reflect on the postmodern, media-saturated society we live in, and how disinformation and false narratives are shaping our realities.Social media has created a pressure to upgrade phones and an addictive environment that makes people willing to pay to stop using it. We'll provide you with an in-depth analysis of these negative impacts. It's not just about social media, though. We also talk about fitness and insecurities, examining the dangers of external validation and misleading fitness advertising. But don't worry, it's not all doom and gloom. We'll offer potential solutions, discussing dopamine fasting and how to change unhealthy behaviors.Finally, we delve into the impact of social media on mental health and public discourse, utilizing Jaron Lanier's book "Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now". We'll discuss the manipulative behavior and mental health deterioration that can come with social media use. And there's more - we also examine the rise of unstable surface training in workouts. Throughout the episode, we provide practical tips on how to navigate the digital world, ensuring you're informed and equipped to handle these realities. This is a critical conversation that intersects media, fitness, and mental health, and we hope you'll join us.Producer: Thor BenanderEditor: Luke MoreyIntro Theme: Ajax BenanderIntro: Timothy DurantFor more, visit Simon at The Antagonist

What if the fears of artificial intelligence are unfounded? Is AI nothing more than a “mashup” of everything available online? And is there zero possibility that machines could one day build other machines, making humans irrelevant?Earlier this month, host Steve Clemons spoke with computer scientist Jaan Tallinn, who argues that AI poses an existential risk to humans.This week, Steve talks with computer scientist Jaron Lanier for a totally different take: Humanity has nothing to fear. Lanier argues that we've been conditioned to fear that technology will reach the point of sentient being – fears perpetuated by science fiction.

Hollywood is currently at a standstill due to the joint writer's & actor's strike, in part because of the growing threat from generative AI. In this episode, I talk to one of the industry's greatest talents and thinkers -- Joseph Gordon-Levitt -- about how he believes the industry needs to adapt in the age of synthetic media. We also hear his thoughts on how technology is reinventing our relationship with creativity, human connection, even p*rnography.    Joe's Biography  Joe Gordon-Levitt is an American actor, writer, and director. He has received various accolades, including nominations for the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy for his leading performances in 500 Days of Summer and 50/50. He is also the Founder of Emmy Award winning collaborative production company HitRECORD.   Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:01:46 - AI paying residuals 00:14:35 - The right amount of competition in society 00:23:43 - Intersection of technology and creativity 00:30:27 - DonJon 00:32:53 - Addictive technology 00:44:50 - Competition in acting 00:00:49 - Competitive nature vs nurture 00:54:22 - HITRECORD & paying contributors 01:02:36 - Aliens 01:04:37 - Staying optimistic   Links ♾️  Joe's Washington Post OpEd - “If artificial intelligence uses your work, it should pay you” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/26/joseph-gordon-levitt-artificial-intelligence-residuals/ ♾️  Jaron Lanier's TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ-PUXPVlos ♾️  The Invisible Hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand ♾️  Center for Human Technology https://www.humanetech.com/ ♾️  Don Jon ♾️  Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow ♾️  Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/66354.Flow ♾️  HITRECORD https://hitrecord.org/ ♾️  The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson https://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Age-Illustrated-Primer-Spectra/dp/0553380966 ♾️  Culture Series by Ian Banks https://www.amazon.com/The-Culture-9-book-series/dp/B07WLZZ9WV   Credits ♾️ Hosted by: Liv Boeree ♾️ Produced & Edited by: Raymond Wei ♾️ Audio Mix by: Keir Schmidt

Superar el FOMO es algo complicado, yo aún sigo trabajando en ello, hoy os traigo algunas de las cosas que yo hago para conseguirlo. Os hablo del documental «el dilema de las redes», del libro de Jaron Lanier y de la aplicación Moment

It's Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink and Twitter owner Elon Musk vs Mark Zuckerberg and his Meta fediverse of Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and its new Threads app. But, there's so much more at stake than determining who is the wealthiest billionaire with the social network. Facebook ads don't power themselves – they need your data – and you generate a lot of data. But what if you could get paid for your data via passive income? It's not a far-out concept according to Jaron Lanier. In fact, “data dignity” might just be the blueprint to economically coexisting with artificial intelligence that will go way beyond the capabilities of ChatGPT. You generate and relinquish more data than you might realize. It's not just through social media engagement on Tiktok. Your Tesla Model 3 and your Apple iPhone 11 are all collecting vast amounts of data. How is big data dangerous? It's used to influence your decision making, and it's used to make decisions by those in power that impact your life. More than that, it's being used in perpetuity to make people rich, but it belongs to you. Being able to see a tweet from Jack Dorsey or chat with your friends for free is not an even trade. Elon Musk vs Mark Zuckerberg (00:05), Is Threads a Clone of Twitter? (04:27), Threads Outpaces TikTok (08:52), You Are Far from a Billionaire (16:05), Jaron Lanier Data Dignity (18:32), How Do You Measure Value? (37:13), Will Meta's Fediverse Ransom Your Data? (44:20)

Vic joins John to look at the history of Virtual Reality, Mixed Reality and Augmented Reality as we pre-assess the pros and cons of AR and VR and the upcoming Apple Vision Pro.With Vic Hudson and John Chidgey.This show is Podcasting 2.0 Enhanced Links of Potential Interest: 3D Display Autostereoscopy Vergence Accommodation (vertebrate eye) Vergence-Accommodation Conflict Virtual Reality Reality Labs List of Virtual Reality Headsets What is the Difference Between AR, MR, VR, XR? Headsets Pre-2000: Jaron Lanier’s EyePhone VPL EyePhone VR Compare Virtual Reality Demo From 1990 Virtual Boy Headsets 2015 to Present: Oculus Rift Microsoft HoloLens HoloLens 2 HoloLens 2 — Pricing and Options HoloLens 2 Showcase Oculus Quest Quest Hand Tracking v2.1 Quest 2 Oculus Quest Meta Quest Pro Apple Vision Pro: Apple Vision Pro Display Specs Apple Vision Pro Apple Vision Pro’s EyeSight Feature Support Pragmatic on PatreonEpisode Gold Producers: 'r' and Steven Bridle.Episode Silver Producers: Mitch Biegler, Shane O'Neill, Lesley, Jared Roman, Joel Maher, Katharina Will, Dave Jones, Kellen Frodelius-Fujimoto and Chad Juehring.

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/jaron_lanier_how_we_need_to_remake_the_internet ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/151-academic-words-reference-from-jaron-lanier-how-we-need-to-remake-the-internet-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/0dxmI8eBW58 (All Words) https://youtu.be/p7_XSL9Yzso (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/f7cgLUJX_kY (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

Sad news for all of us: producer Rachael Cusick— who brought us soul-stirring stories rethinking grief (https://zpr.io/GZ6xEvpzsbHU) and solitude (https://zpr.io/eT5tAX6JtYra), as well as colorful musings on airplane farts (https://zpr.io/CNpgUijZiuZ4) and belly flops (https://zpr.io/uZrEz27z63CB) and Blueberry Earths (https://zpr.io/EzxgtdTRGVzz)— is leaving the show. So we thought it perfect timing to sit down with her and revisit another brainchild of hers, The Cataclysm Sentence, a collection of advice for The End. To explain: one day in 1961, the famous physicist Richard Feynman stepped in front of a Caltech lecture hall and posed this question to a group of undergraduate students: “If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence was passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words?” Now, Feynman had an answer to his own question—a good one. But his question got the entire team at Radiolab wondering, what did his sentence leave out? So we posed Feynman's cataclysm question to some of our favorite writers, artists, historians, futurists—all kinds of great thinkers. We asked them “What's the one sentence you would want to pass on to the next generation that would contain the most information in the fewest words?” What came back was an explosive collage of what it means to be alive right here and now, and what we want to say before we go. Featuring: Richard Feynman, physicist - The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (https://zpr.io/5KngTGibPVDw) Caitlin Doughty, mortician - Will My Cat Eat My Eyeballs (https://zpr.io/Wn4bQgHzDRDB) Esperanza Spalding, musician - 12 Little Spells (https://zpr.io/KMjYrkwrz9dy)  Cord Jefferson, writer - Watchmen (https://zpr.io/ruqKDQGy5Rv8)  Merrill Garbus, musician - I Can Feel You Creep Into My Private Life (https://zpr.io/HmrqFX8RKuFq) Jenny Odell, writer - How to do Nothing (https://zpr.io/JrUHu8dviFqc) Maria Popova, writer - Brainpickings (https://zpr.io/vsHXphrqbHiN) Alison Gopnik, developmental psychologist - The Gardener and the Carpenter (https://zpr.io/ewtJpUYxpYqh) Rebecca Sugar, animator - Steven Universe (https://zpr.io/KTtSrdsBtXB7) Nicholson Baker, writer - Substitute (https://zpr.io/QAh2d7J9QJf2) James Gleick, writer - Time Travel (https://zpr.io/9CWX9q3KmZj8) Lady Pink, artist - too many amazing works to pick just one (https://zpr.io/FkJh6edDBgRL) Jenny Hollwell, writer - Everything Lovely, Effortless, Safe (https://zpr.io/MjP5UJb3mMYP) Jaron Lanier, futurist - Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now (https://zpr.io/bxWiHLhPyuEK) Missy Mazzoli, composer - Proving Up (https://zpr.io/hTwGcHGk93Ty)   Special Thanks to: Ella Frances Sanders, and her book, "Eating the Sun" (https://zpr.io/KSX6DruwRaYL), for inspiring this whole episode. Caltech for letting us use original audio of The Feynman Lectures on Physics. The entirety of the lectures are available to read for free online at www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu.All the musicians who helped make the Primordial Chord, including: Siavash Kamkar (https://zpr.io/2ZT46XsMRdhg), from Iran  Koosha Pashangpour (https://zpr.io/etWDXuCctrzE), from Iran Curtis MacDonald (https://zpr.io/HQ8uskA44BUh), from Canada Meade Bernard (https://zpr.io/gbxDPPzHFvme), from US Barnaby Rea (https://zpr.io/9ULsQh5iGUPa), from UK Liav Kerbel (https://zpr.io/BA4DBwMhwZDU), from Belgium Sam Crittenden (https://zpr.io/EtQZmAk2XrCQ), from US Saskia Lankhoorn (https://zpr.io/YiH6QWJreR7p), from Netherlands Bryan Harris (https://zpr.io/HMiyy2TGcuwE), from US Amelia Watkins (https://zpr.io/6pWEw3y754me), from Canada Claire James (https://zpr.io/HFpHTUwkQ2ss), from US Ilario Morciano (https://zpr.io/zXvM7cvnLHW6), from Italy Matthias Kowalczyk, from Germany (https://zpr.io/ANkRQMp6NtHR) Solmaz Badri (https://zpr.io/MQ5VAaKieuyN), from IranAll the wonderful people we interviewed for sentences but weren't able to fit in this episode, including: Daniel Abrahm, Julia Alvarez, Aimee Bender, Sandra Cisneros, Stanley Chen, Lewis Dartnell, Ann Druyan, Rose Eveleth, Ty Frank, Julia Galef, Ross Gay, Gary Green, Cesar Harada, Dolores Huerta, Robin Hunicke, Brittany Kamai, Priya Krishna, Ken Liu, Carmen Maria Machado, James Martin, Judith Matloff, Ryan McMahon, Hasan Minhaj, Lorrie Moore, Priya Natarajan, Larry Owens, Sunni Patterson, Amy Pearl, Alison Roman, Domee Shi, Will Shortz, Sam Stein, Sohaib Sultan, Kara Swisher, Jill Tarter, Olive Watkins, Reggie Watts, Deborah Waxman, Alex Wellerstein, Caveh Zahedi.EPISODE CREDITS Reported by - Rachael Cusick (https://www.rachaelcusick.com/)Our newsletter comes out every Wednesday. It includes short essays, recommendations, and details about other ways to interact with the show. Sign up (https://radiolab.org/newsletter)! Radiolab is supported by listeners like you. Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab (https://members.radiolab.org/) today. Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @radiolab, and share your thoughts with us by emailing radiolab@wnyc.org Leadership support for Radiolab's science programming is provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Science Sandbox, a Simons Foundation Initiative, and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Biologist and author Merlin Sheldrake (of 'Entangled Life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds and Shape Our Futures') is joined by the science journalist Jo Marchant (of 'Human Cosmos' and 'Cure') and presenter Harriett Gilbert. Merlin picks 'The Age of Wonder' by Richard Holmes, a biographical portrait of scientific innovators in the late 18th century. In this historical book. Holmes explores the scientific ferment that swept across Britain, and how it became an age of great discovery. Jo's choice, 'You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto', is by computer scientist and virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier. In this prescient book from 2010, Jaron delves into the digital world, examining what went wrong in its development, and how we might fix these problems. And Harriett recommends the classic, magical children's novel, 'The Sword In The Stone' by T. H. White, which she argues merits re-reading as an adult. Produced by Eliza Lomas for BBC Audio, Bristol. Comment on Instagram @agoodreadbbc

Does technological progress automatically translate into higher wages, better standards of living, and widely shared prosperity? Or is it necessary to steer the development of technological improvement to ensure the benefits don't accrue only to the few? In a new book, two well-known economists argue the latter. I'm joined in this episode by one of the authors, Simon Johnson.Simon is the Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at MIT. He and Daron Acemoglu are authors of the new book Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity. Simon is also co-author with Jonathan Gruber of 2019's Jump-Starting America, now out in a new paperback.In This Episode* Is America too optimistic about technology? (1:24)* Ensuring progress is widely shared (11:10)* What about Big Tech? (15:22)* Can we really nudge transformational technology? (19:54)* Evaluating the Biden administration's science policy (24:14)Below is an edited transcript of our conversationIs America too optimistic about technology? James Pethokoukis: Let me start with a sentence or two from the prologue: “People understand that not everything promised by Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or even Steve Jobs will likely come to pass. But, as a world, we have become infused by their techno-optimism. Everyone everywhere should innovate as much as they can, figure out what works, and iron out the rough edges later.” Later, you write that that we are living in a “blindly optimistic” age.But rather, I see a lot of pessimism about AI. A very high percentage of people want an AI pause. People are very down on the concept of autonomous driving. They're very worried that these new technologies will only make climate change worse. We don't seem techno-optimistic to me. we certainly don't see it in our media. First of all, let me start out with, why do you think we're techno-optimistic right now, outside of Silicon Valley?Simon Johnson: Well, Silicon Valley is a very influential culture, as you know, nationally and internationally. So I think there's a deep-running techno-optimistic trend, Jim. But I also think you put your finger on something very important, which is since we finished the book and turned in the final version in November, I think the advance of ChatGPT and some of our increased awareness that this is not science fiction — this is actual, this is real, and the people who are developing this stuff have no idea how it works, for example—I wouldn't call it pessimism, but I think there's a moment of hesitation and concern. So good, let's have the discussion now about what we're inventing, and why, and could we put it on a better path?When I think about the past periods where it seemed like there was a lot of tech progress that was reflected in our economic statistics, whether it's productivity growth or economic growth more broadly, those were also periods where we saw very rapid wage growth people think very fondly about. I would love to have a repeat of 1995-2000. If we had technologies that could manage that kind of impact on the economy, what would be the downside? It seems like that would be great.I would love a repeat of the Henry Ford experience, actually, Jim. Henry Ford, as you know, automated the manufacturing of cars. We went from producing tens of thousands of cars in the US to, 30 years later, producing millions of cars because of Ford's automation. But at the same time Ford and all the people around him — a lot of entrepreneurs, of course, working with Ford and rivals to Ford — they created a lot of new jobs, new tasks. And that's the key balance. When you automate, when you have a big phase of automation, and we did have another one during World War II and after World War II. We also created a lot of new tasks, new jobs. Demand for labor was very strong. And I think that it's that balance we need. A lot of the concerns, the justified concerns about AI you were mentioning a moment ago, are about losing jobs very quickly and faster than we can create other tasks, jobs, demand for labor in other, non-automating parts of the economy.Your book is a book of deep economic history. It's the kind of book I absolutely love. I wonder if you could just give us a bit of a flavor of the history of what's interesting in this book about those two subjects and how they interact.We tried to go back as far as possible in economic and human history, recorded history, to understand technological transformations. Big ones. And it turns out you can go back about 1000 years with quite reliable information. There are some things you can say about earlier periods, a little bit more speculative to be honest. But 1000 years is a very interesting time period, Jim, because as you know, that's pretty much the rise of Europe timeframe. A thousand years ago, Europe was a nothing place on the edge of a not very important part of one continent. And through a series of technological transformations, which took a long time to get going — and that's part of the medieval story that we explore — [there was] a huge amount of innovativeness in those societies. But it did not translate into shared prosperity, and it was a very stop-start. I'm talking about over the period of centuries.Then, eventually, we get this Industrial Revolution, which is initially in Britain, in England, but it's also shared fairly quickly around northwest Europe: individual entrepreneurship, private capital, private ownership, markets as a dominating part of how you organize that economy. And eventually, not immediately, but eventually that becomes the basis for shared prosperity. And of course, that becomes the basis for American society. And the Americans by the 1850s to 1880s, depending how you want to cut it, have actually figured out industrial technology and boosted the demand for labor more than the Europeans ever imagined. Then the Americans are in the lead, and we had a very good 20th century combining private capital, private innovation with some (I would say) selective public interventions where a private initiative didn't work. And this actually carried a lot of countries, including countries in that European tradition, through to around 1980. Since 1980, it's become much more bumpy. We've had a widening of income inequality and much more questioning of the economic and political model.Going back into the history: Oftentimes people treat the period before the steam engine and the loom as periods of no innovation. But there was. It just didn't have the impact, and it wasn't sustained. But we were doing things as a society before the Industrial Revolution. There was progress.There was technological progress, technological change. Absolutely.The compass, the printing press, gunpowder — these are advances.Right. The Europeans, of course, were sort of the magpies of the world at that point. A lot of those innovations began in China. Some of them began in the Arab world. But the Europeans got their hands on them and used them, sometimes for military purposes. They figured out civilian uses as well. But they were very innovative. Some people got rich in those societies, but only a very few people, mostly the kings and their hangers-on and the church. Broad-shared prosperity did not come through because it was mostly forced labor. People did not own their labor. There was some private property, but there wasn't individual rights of the kind that we regard as absolutely central to prosperity in the United States, because they are central to prosperity and because they're in the Constitution for a reason, because it was coming out of feudalism and the remains of that feudal system that our ancestors in the United States were escaping from. So they said, “Let's enumerate those rights and make sure we don't lose them.” That's coming out of 800 years of hard-learned history, I would say, at that point. And that's one reason why, not at the moment of independence but within 50 to 70 years, the American economy was really clicking and innovating and breaking through on multiple technologies and sharing prosperity in a way that nobody had ever seen before in the world.Before that period in the 1800s, the problem was not the occasional good idea that changed something or made somebody rich; it was having sustained progress, sustained prosperity that eventually spread out wide among the people.Absolutely. And I think it was a question of who benefited and who was empowered and who could go on and invent the next things. Joel Mokyr, who's an economic historian at Northwestern, one of our favorite authors, has written about the sort of revolution of tinkerers. And that's actually my family history. My family, as far back as we can go, was carpenters out of Chesterfield in the north of England. They made screws for a hundred years starting in the mid-19th century in Sheffield. They would employ a couple of people at any one time. Maybe no more than eight, maybe as few as two. They probably initially polished blades of knives and eventually ended up making specialized screws. But very, very small scale. There was not a lot of formal education in the family or among the workforce, but it was all kind of relationships with other manufacturers. It was being plugged into that community. Alfred Marshall talked about these clusters and cities of regional entrepreneurship. That's exactly where I'm from. So, yes, I think that was a really key breakthrough: having the institutions, the politics, and the social pressure that could sustain that kind of economic initiative.In the middle of the Industrial Revolution, late 1800s, what were the changes that we saw that made sure the gains from this economic progress were widely shared?If we're talking about the United States, of course, the key moment is the mechanization of agriculture, particularly across the West. So people left their farms in Nebraska or somewhere and moved to Chicago to work for McCormick, making the reapers that allowed more people to leave their farms. So you needed a couple of things in that. One was, of course, better sanitation and basic infrastructure in the big cities. Chicago grew from nothing to be one of the largest cities in the world in period of about a decade and a half. That requires infrastructure that comes from local government. And then there's the key piece, Jim, which is education. There was what's known as a “high school movement.” Again, very local. I don't think the national government knew much about it until it was upon them. [It was] pushing to educate more people in basic literacy and numeracy and to be better workers. At the same time, we did have from the national government, of course particularly in the context of the Civil War, the land grant universities, of which MIT is very proudly one of by the way — one of the only two that became private for various reasons. But we were initially founded to support the manufacturing arts in Massachusetts. That was a state initiative, but it was made possible by a funding arrangement, a land swap, actually, with the federal government.Ensuring progress is widely sharedThe kind of interventions which you've already mentioned — education and infrastructure — these seem like very non-controversial, public-good kinds of things. How do those kinds of interventions translate into the 2020s and 2030s in advanced countries, including the United States? Do we have need to do something different than those?Well, I think we should do those, particularly education, better and more and update it really quickly. I think people are going to agree on that in principle; there may be argument about how exactly you do that. I do think there are three things that should be on the table for potential serious discussion and even potential bipartisan agreement. The first is what Jaron Lanier calls “data dignity,” which is basically [that] you and I should own the data that we produce. This is an extension of private property rights from the right of the political spectrum. The left would probably have other terminology for it. But what's basically happening, and the value that's being created in these large language models, is those models are taking data that they find for free — actually, it's not really free, but it's not well protected on the internet, digital data — and they're using that to train these very large models. And it's that training process that's generating, already and will train even more, huge value and potential monopoly power for incumbents there. So Jaron's point is, that's not right. Let's have a proper organization and recognition of proper rights, and you can pay for it. And then it also gives consumers the ability to bargain potentially with these large monopolies to get developers some technologies rather than other technologies.The second thing is surveillance. I think everyone on the right and the left should be very uncomfortable with where we are on surveillance, Jim, where we've slipped into already on surveillance, and also where AI is going to take us. Shoshana Zuboff has a great book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism on exactly this, going through where we are in the workplace and where we are in in our society. And then of course there's China and what they're doing in terms of surveillance, which I'm sure we're not going to do. In fact, I think the next division of the world may be between the low-surveillance or safeguarded-surveillance places, which I hope will include the US, and the high-surveillance places, which will be pretty much authoritarian places, I would suggest. That's a really different approach to the technology of how you interact with workers, citizens, everybody in all their various roles in life.The third one we're probably not going to agree on right away, but I do want us to have some serious discussion about it, is corporate taxation. Kim Clausing from UCLA, a former senior Treasury person, points out that we do have a graduated corporate tax system in the US but bigger companies pay less. Smaller companies' effective tax rate is higher than bigger companies because they move their profits around the globe. That's not fair and that's not right. And she proposes that we tax mega profits above $10 billion, for example, at a higher rate than we tax smaller profits to give the big companies that are very successful, very profitable an incentive to make themselves smaller. The reason I like Kim's proposal is I want competition, not just between companies directly in terms of what they're offering, but also between business models and mental models. And I think what we're getting too much from Microsoft and Google and the others who are likely to become the big players is machine intelligence, as they call it, which basically means replacing people as much as possible. We argue for machine usefulness, which is also, by the way, a strong tradition in computer science — it's not the ascendant tradition or ascendant idea right now — that is, focusing technology on making humans more effective. Like this Zoom call is making us more effective. We didn't have to get ourselves in the same room. We are able to leverage our time. We're able to organize our lives differently.Find those kinds of opportunities, particularly for lower-income workers. We are not getting that right now because we lack competition, I think, in the development of these models. Jim, too much. You joked at the beginning that the Silicon Valley is the only optimist. Maybe that's true, but they're the optimists that matter because they're the ones who control the development of the technology. Almost all those strings are in their hands right now, and you need to give them an incentive to give up some of that. I'm sure we can agree on the fact that having the government break things up, or the courts, is going to be a big mess and not where we want to go.What about Big Tech?Does it suggest caution, as far as worrying about corporate size or breaking up these companies, that these big advances, which could revolutionize the economy, are coming from the very companies you're worried about and are interested in breaking up? Doesn't it argue that they're kind of doing something right, if that's the source of this great innovation, which may be one of the biggest innovations of our life?Yes, potentially. We're trying to be modest and we're trying to be careful here, Jim. We're saying if you make these really big profits, you pay the higher tax rate. And then you have a conversation with your shareholders about, do we really need to be so big? When Standard Oil was broken up before World War I, it was broken into 25 or 26 pieces, Rockefeller became richer. That created value for shareholders. More competition was also good, I think we can say safely at this distance, it was good for consumers. Competition for consumers is something I think we should always attempt to pursue, but competition in mental models, competition for ideas, getting more plurality of ideas out there in the tech sphere. I think that's really important, Jim. While I believe this can be — and we wrote the book in part because we believe it is — a very big moment in sort of technological choices that we humans have made and will continue to make. This is a big one. But if it's all in the hands of a few people, we're less likely to get better outcomes than if it's in the hands of hundreds of people or thousands of people. More competition for ideas, more competition to develop ways to make machines and algorithms useful to people. That's our focus.You have OpenAI, a company which was invested in by Microsoft, and Google/Alphabet is working on their version. And I think now you have Facebook and Amazon devoting more resources. Elon Musk is talking about creating his own version. Plus you have a lot of companies taking those models and doing things with them. It seems like there's a lot of things going on a lot of ferment. It doesn't to me seem like this kind of staid business environment where you have one or two companies doing something. It seems like a fairly vibrant innovation ecology right now.Of course, if you're right, Jim, then nobody is going to make mega excess profits, and then we don't have to worry about the tax rate proposal that I made. My proposal, or Kim's proposal, would have bite only if there are a couple of very big winners that make hundreds of billions of dollars. I'm not a computer scientist, I'm an economist, but it seems…Right, but it seems like those mega profits might be competed away, so I'd be careful about right now breaking up Google into eight Googlettes.Fine. I'm not trying to break them up. I'm saying give them a tax system so they confront that incentive and they can discuss it with their shareholders. The people who follow this closely, my computer science colleagues at MIT, for example, feel that Microsoft and OpenAI are in the lead by some distance. Google, which is working very closely with Anthropic, which broke away from OpenAI, is probably a either a close second or a slightly distant second. It's sort of like Manchester City versus the rest of the Premier League right now. But the others you mentioned, Facebook, Amazon, are some years behind. And years are a big deal here. Elon Musk, of course, proposed a pause in AI development and then suggested he get to launch his own AI business — I suppose to take advantage of the pause.That's a little suspicious.There's not going to be a pause. And there's not going to be a pause in part because we know that China is developing AI capabilities. While I am not arguing for confrontation with China over this or other things necessarily, we do have to be cognizant that there's a major national security dimension to this technology. And it is not in the interest of the United States to fall behind anyone. And I'm sure the Chinese are having the same discussion. That's going to keep us going pretty much full speed. And I think is also the case that many corporate executives can see this is a potential winner-take-all. And on the applications, the thinking there is that we're going to be talking very soon about a sort of supply chain where you have these fundamental large language model, the [General-Purpose Technology] type at the bottom, and then people can build applications on top of them. Which would make a lot of sense, right? You can focus on healthcare, you can focus on finance, but you'll be choosing between, right now it looks like, one or two of the large language models. Which does suggest really big upstream profits for those fundamental suppliers, just like how Microsoft has been making money since the mid-1980s, really.Can we really nudge transformational technology?With an important technology which will evolve in directions we can't predict, can we really nudge it with a little bit of tax policy, equalizing capital labor rates? Can we really nudge it in the kind of direction that we might want? If generative AI or machine learning more broadly is as significant as some people say, including folks at MIT and Stanford, I just wonder if we're really operating at the margins here. That the technology is going to be what the technology is. And maybe you make sure we can retrain people, and we can change education, and maybe we need to worry a bit about taxing this profit away if you're worried about corporate power. But as far as how the technology interacts with the workplace and the tasks people do, can we really influence it that much?I think that's the big question of the day, Jim. Absolutely. This is a book, not a policy memo, because we feel that the bigger issue is to have the discussion. To confront the question, as you pose it, and to discuss, what do we as a society want? How do we develop the technology that we need? Are we solving the problems that we really want to solve? Historically, of course, we didn't have many of those conversations. But we weren't as rich then as we are now. Hopefully we're more aware of our history now and more aware of the impact of these choice points. And so it's exactly to have that discussion and to say, if this is as big as people say, how are we going to move it in various directions?I like, as you know, to propose specific policy. I do think, particularly in Washington, it's the specifics that people want to seize. “What do we mean by surveillance? What do we mean by s safeguards over surveillance? How could you operationalize protections against excessive surveillance? By whom? By employers, by the police, by companies from whom you buy stuff? From your local government?” That conversation still needs to be had. And it's a very big, broad conversation. So let's have it quickly, because the technology is moving very quickly.What does the more recent history of concerns about technology, what lessons should we draw? I think of, I think of nuclear technology, which there are lots of concerns and we pass lots of rules. We basically paused that technology. And now we're sitting here in the, you know, in the 2020s worried about climate change. That, to me, is a recent powerful example of the dangers of trying to slow a technology, delay a technology that may evolve in ways you don't understand, but also can solve problems that we don't understand. It's, to me, are the history of least in the United States of technology over the past half century has been one of being overly cautious, not pedal to the metal gungho, you know, you know, let's, let's just keep going as fast as possible.As I think you may remember, Jim, I'm a big advocate for more science spending and more innovation in some fundamental sense across the whole economy because I think that generates prosperity and jobs. In my previous book, Jump-Starting America, we went through the nuclear history, as you flag. And I think the key thing there is at the beginning of that industry, right after World War II, there was over-optimism on the part of the engineers. The Atomic Energy Commission chair famously promised free electricity, and there was very little discussion about safety. And people who raised the issues of safety were kind of shunted to one side with the result that Three Mile Island a little bit and Chernobyl a lot was a big shock to public consciousness about the technology. I'm in favor of more innovation…I wonder if we've overlearned that lesson, you know? I think we may have overlearned it.Yes. I think that's quite possibly right. And we are not calling for an end to innovation on AI just because somebody made a movie in which AI takes over the world. Not at all. What we're saying is there are choices and you can either go more towards replacing people, that's automation, and more towards new task creation, that's machine usefulness. And that's not a new thing. That's a very old, thousand-year or maybe longer tension we've had in the history of innovations and how we manage them. And we have an opportunity now, because we're a more conscious, aware, and richer society, to try and pull ourselves through various means — and it might not be tax policy, I'll grant you that, but through various means — towards what we want. And I think what we want is more good jobs. We always want more good jobs, Jim. And we always want to produce useful things. We don't want just to replace people for the sake of replacement.Evaluating the Biden administration's science policySince you brought it up, I'm going to take the opportunity to ask you a final question about some of your other work about trying to create technology hubs across America. It seems like those ideas have to some degree made their way into policy during the Biden administration. What do you think of its efforts on trying to spend more on R&D and trying to spread that spending across America and trying to make sure it's not just Austin and Boston and New York and San Francisco and LA as areas of great innovation?In the Chips and Science Act, there's two parts: chips and science. The part that we are really advocating for is the science part. And it's exactly what you said, Jim, which is you spend more on science, spread it around the country. There are a lot of people in this country who are innovative, want to be innovative. There are some really good resources, private sector, but also public sector, public-sector universities, for example, in almost every state where you could have more innovation in some basic knowledge-creation sense. And that can become commercialized, that can become private initiative, that can generate jobs. That's what we are supporting. And I think the Science Act absolutely did internalize that. In part, because people learned some hard lessons during COVID, for example.The CHIPS Act is not what we were advocating for. And that's going to be really interesting to see how that plays out. That's more, I would say, conventional, somewhat old-fashioned industrial policy: Pick a sector, back a sector, invest in the sector from the public sector perspective. Chips are of course a really important sector, and the discussion of AI is absolutely part about that. And of course we're also worried, in part because of COVID but also because of the rise of China, about the security of supply chains, including chips that are produced in, let's say, parts of Asia. I think there are some grounds for that. There's also some issues, how much does it cost to build a state-of-the-art fab and operate it in the US versus Taiwan or South Korea, or even China for that matter? Those issues need to be confronted and measured. I think it's good that we're having a go. I'm a big believer in more science, more science spending, more responsible deployment of it and more discussion of how to do that. The chips industrial policy, we'll see. I hope something like this works. It would be quite interesting to pursue further, but we have had some bumps in those roads before. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

The man considered “The Godfather of A.I.” Geoffrey Hinton abruptly resigned from Google saying… a worst-case A.I. scenario could be on the horizon. With Big Tech companies going all-in on potentially apocalyptic technology while seemingly ignoring the “pause letter” concerned tech leaders created - we were left saying… Really, no,really? Feeling that an informed discussion of A.I. and the potential destruction of humanity felt above their “pay grade”, Jason and Peter turned to Silicon Valley visionary Jaron Lanier.  Computer scientist, composer, artist, and author, Jaron Lanier stands alone as the father of virtual reality, having coined the term and also mixed reality. He was chief scientist for Internet2, led startups that were acquired by Google, Adobe, Oracle, and Pfizer and Lanier's books include: You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto, Who Owns the Future? and Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now. He is also known as a constructive critic of technology.   Issues Jason, Peter and Jaron discuss: What ever happened to The Pause”? Are A.I. hysterics worsening the underlying problem? Ethically endowed A.I. The reality of sentient and self-directed AI. The dangers of “Ad sponsored A.I. manipulation”. The design choice that gave us internet anonymity -and put us all in peril! Society may be rooting for an A.I. apocalypse. A TikTok be ban? Jaron's opinion may surprise you. Will the government turn off the Internet? Find out more about Jaron: JaronLanier.com Guess who doesn't Tweet or Tik or Tok… Jaron! You can follow us:Website: www.ReallyNoReally.coInstagram @reallynoreallypodcastYouTube: @reallynoreallypodcastTikTok @reallynoreallypodcastFacebook @reallynoreallypodcastTwitter @reallynoreally_ Watch full episodes on YouTube www.youtube.com/@reallynoreallypodcastSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, we examine a series of Sam's conversations centered around social media's impact on the information landscape. We begin with Sam's second conversation with Tristan Harris, which was conducted shortly after the release of Tristan's documentary, The Social Dilemma. The documentary lays out Tristan's thesis on how social media is causing the deterioration of both individual and societal welfare. Author and technologist Jaron Lanier follows, echoing Tristan's concerns and shifting the conversation to social media's unique business model, addressing how perverse incentives reliably produce such detrimental outcomes. We then hear from Jack Dorsey, the former CEO of Twitter. Sam and Dorsey's conversation took place when Dorsey was still working at Twitter, and Sam still had an account. However, the questions they pose—relating to issues of content moderation and corporate transparency—are even more relevant today. Next, psychologist Jonathan Haidt presents the alarming findings from his research on the psychological effects of social media, detailing how teenage girls are bearing the brunt of a mental health crisis.  Shifting to a more political lens, Sam and Cass Sunstein discuss Sunstein's book, #Republic, and Sunstein addresses one of Sam's most pressing fears of the last seven years: how social media is warping our opinions on politics. We then narrow down on this issue, with Zeynep Tufekci explaining the real-life consequences of social media's influence on protest movements. Finally, Sam and technology analyst Nina Schick dive into one of the most urgent concerns of the AI boom: deepfakes and how they might be weaponized to further pollute and degrade our information landscape.   About the Series Filmmaker Jay Shapiro has produced The Essential Sam Harris, a new series of audio documentaries exploring the major topics that Sam has focused on over the course of his career. Each episode weaves together original analysis, critical perspective, and novel thought experiments with some of the most compelling exchanges from the Making Sense archive. Whether you are new to a particular topic, or think you have your mind made up about it, we think you'll find this series fascinating.  

Florence Read meets Jaron Lanier.Read the full article here Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we examine a series of Sam’s conversations centered around social media’s impact on the information landscape. We begin with Sam’s second conversation with Tristan Harris, which was conducted shortly after the release of Tristan’s documentary, The Social Dilemma. The documentary lays out Tristan’s thesis on how social media is causing the deterioration of both individual and societal welfare. Author and technologist Jaron Lanier follows, echoing Tristan’s concerns and shifting the conversation to social media’s unique business model, addressing how perverse incentives reliably produce such detrimental outcomes. We then hear from Jack Dorsey, the former CEO of Twitter. Sam and Dorsey’s conversation took place when Dorsey was still working at Twitter, and Sam still had an account. However, the questions they pose—relating to issues of content moderation and corporate transparency—are even more relevant today. Next, psychologist Jonathan Haidt presents the alarming findings from his research on the psychological effects of social media, detailing how teenage girls are bearing the brunt of a mental health crisis. Shifting to a more political lens, Sam and Cass Sunstein discuss Sunstein’s book, #Republic, and Sunstein addresses one of Sam’s most pressing fears of the last seven years: how social media is warping our opinions on politics. We then narrow down on this issue, with Zeynep Tufekci explaining the real-life consequences of social media’s influence on protest movements. Finally, Sam and technology analyst Nina Schick dive into one of the most urgent concerns of the AI boom: deepfakes and how they might be weaponized to further pollute and degrade our information landscape. About the Series Filmmaker Jay Shapiro has produced The Essential Sam Harris, a new series of audio documentaries exploring the major topics that Sam has focused on over the course of his career. Each episode weaves together original analysis, critical perspective, and novel thought experiments with some of the most compelling exchanges from the Making Sense archive. Whether you are new to a particular topic, or think you have your mind made up about it, we think you’ll find this series fascinating.

New monologues from Richard Eskow, with an encore presentation of Richard Eskow's 2018 conversation with Jaron Lanier

Shrey Jain, an applied scientist at Microsoft Research Special Projects, speaks with Matt Prewitt on a very timely and topical subject: AI and – more specifically – the dangers it poses to the nature of natural human communication (“context collapse”). They take a deep dive into the current threats to privacy by expanding beyond the often discussed cryptographic sense into “privacy as contextual integrity”, and the immediate opportunity to embed ethical guardrails into this ever-changing realm of generative AI through possible solutions of designated verified signatures in “plural publics”.Shrey's recently published paper co-authored with Divya Siddarth and E. Glen Weyl “Plural Publics” is linked in the episode notes.Links & References: Georg Simmel and The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret SocietiesJohn Dewey on The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry on JSTORScamming in AI via The Washington Post - They thought loved ones were calling for help. It was an AI scam."Privacy as Contextual Integrity" by Helen NissenbaumAlso see: Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of... (book)Jaron Lanier on How to Fix Twitter—And All of Social Media - The AtlanticAI Education - Will ChatGPT Kill the Student Essay? - The AtlanticShrey Jain, Divya Siddarth, and E. Glen Weyl. “Plural Publics.” Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, March 20, 2023.Bios:Shrey Jain (he/him) is an Applied Scientist at Microsoft Research Special Projects. His research area is AI Security and Cryptography with a specific focus on information integrity in an era of generative AI. Shrey's work has been featured in CBC News, The Globe and Mail, Financial Times, National Post, CTV News, and the Toronto Star.Shrey's Social Links:Twitter: @shreyjainethConnect with Shrey on LinkedInShrey's Substack: GlasswingMatt Prewitt (he/him) is a lawyer, technologist, and writer. He is President of the RadicalxChange Foundation.Matt's Social LInks:Twitter: @m_t_prewittMatt's Substack: Matt's WritingsConnect with RadicalxChange:Follow us on Twitter.Visit our website.Join the conversation on Discord.Credits:Produced by G. Angela Corpus.Edited and Audio Engineered by Aaron Benavides.Executive Produced by G. Angela Corpus and Matt Prewitt.Intro/Outro music by MagnusMoone, “Wind in the Willows,” is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)This is a RadicalxChange Production.

Karla Welch, celeb stylist and co-founder of The Period Company, is here to talk Thingies, from life-changing books to an L.A. bagel worth a one-hour wait. Also, we dig into distraction…and deleting social-media accounts.    Re: the impact of social media on our societies, ourselves: Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now by Jaron Lanier (and Zach Baron's GQ profile of Jaron), Digital Minimalism by Cal Newport (and David Marchese's NYT Mag interview with Cal, and (what's new?) Four Thousand Weeks by Oliver Burkeman.    Get your Karla Welch fix via her MasterClass on personal style and by shopping The Period Company, which now available at Walmart.   Karla's Thingies include Emergent Strategy by Adrienne Marie Brown (which made us think about Saving Time by Jenny Odell), Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin, her client Sarah Polley (see also: Sarah's film Women Talking and her New Yorker profile), Rhode peptide lip treatment, the NYT Cooking app (follow this IG account for the full commenter experience), Erewhon's strawberry glaze smoothie, and Courage Bagels in L.A.    Share your Thingies (and dream Thingies guests) with us at 833-632-5463, podcast@athingortwohq.com, or @athingortwohq—or join our Geneva! And for more recommendations, try out a Secret Menu membership. This episode may contain paid endorsements and advertisements for products and services. Individuals on the show may have a direct, or indirect financial interest in products, or services referred to in this episode.   Get that protein and fiber with Hero Bread—10% off your first order with the code ATHINGORTWO. Go plant-crazy with Fast Growing Trees and get 15% off your entire order with the code ATHINGORTWO. Listen to Bad on Paper—if you like this podcast, you'll like that one. YAY. Produced by Dear Media  

Unidentified aerial phenomena is a topic that has long perplexed scientists around the world, as well as militaries of various countries, and hosts of others who have had personal experiences with strange things in our skies. But what if the phenomenon in question were actually far more complex and strange than even the most well-informed experts who have studied it could imagine? What, precisely, is the anatomy of the phenomenon that we call UAP?  Jacques Vallee is a scientist, author, and high-tech investor located in Silicon Valley. He has published several books and textbooks on computer networking and other topics, but is perhaps best known for his long-term interest in the curious “Wonders in the Sky” known as unidentified flying objects, or more recently, unidentified aerial phenomena. We dive into a wide-ranging discussion with Dr. Vallee this week about UAP, the Internet, history of the Atomic Age, and much more on this episode of The Micah Hanks Program. The story doesn't end here... become an X Subscriber and get access to even more weekly content and monthly specials. Enjoy The Micah Hanks Program? Check out Micah's other podcasts here.  Want to advertise/sponsor The Micah Hanks Program? We have partnered with the fine folks at Gumball to handle our advertising/sponsorship requests. If you would like to advertise with The Micah Hanks Program, all you have to do is click the link below to get started: Gumball: Advertise with The Micah Hanks Program Show Notes Below are links to stories and other content featured in this episode: NEWS: As Hydrogen Leak Sets Back Artemis I Launch, Here's What's Next for NASA's Moon Mission SETI Pioneer Frank Drake, Of 'Drake Equation' Fame, Dies At 92 Jaron Lanier's Crazy Idea For Signaling/Searching For ETs NASA Astronaut Reveals How We'd Know If Aliens Visited Earth And It Involves A Lot Of Death Jacques Vallée Still Doesn't Know What UFOs Are JACQUES VALLEE: Jacques Vallee Official Website  Trinity: The Best-Kept Secret (Second Edition) BECOME AN X SUBSCRIBER AND GET EVEN MORE GREAT PODCASTS AND MONTHLY SPECIALS FROM MICAH HANKS. Sign up today and get access to the entire back catalog of The Micah Hanks Program, as well as “classic” episodes of The Gralien Report Podcast, weekly “additional editions” of the subscriber-only X Podcast, the monthly Enigmas specials, and much more. Like us on Facebook Follow @MicahHanks on Twitter Keep up with Micah and his work at micahhanks.com.