Toggle light / dark theme

George Dvorsky: Specialization is for Insects

Fourteen years ago, I sat down with George Dvorsky for almost 1 hour and 40 minutes. We argued about everything: transhumanism and the paleo diet, animal uplift and non-human person rights, mass extinction, SETI, and whether alien intelligence would be friendly or hostile.

One quote from that conversation has stayed with me ever since. Robert A. Heinlein:

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

In 2012, that sounded like a provocation. In 2026, in the age of AI, it sounds like a survival strategy. When machines out-specialize us at everything, what is left for humans? Perhaps precisely this: to be generalists. To be whole.

Was George right then? Is Heinlein right now?

Watch the full interview and judge for yourself: [ https://snglrty.co/4pU2ZtQ](https://snglrty.co/4pU2ZtQ)

Structural shifts and constraints in animalbased neuroscience

Animal models have long been central to neuroscience, providing direct experimental access to neural processes underlying perception, action, cognition, and disease. Over the past century, work in non-human primates (NHPs), rodents, and other species has established key principles of neural organization and behavior and has supported much of translational neuroscience. However, the institutional and material conditions that sustain animal-based research are now changing in fundamental ways. Ethical and regulatory requirements have intensified, costs and approval timelines have increased, and global supply chains, particularly for NHPs, have become fragile. In parallel, advances in human neuroscience, stem-cell-derived systems, and computational approaches have matured to the point that they challenge the historical reliance on animals for many classes of questions. These forces are not eliminating animal research, but they are reshaping the conditions under which it remains feasible, competitive, and scientifically justified. In this Perspective, we examine how these converging pressures are reconfiguring animal-based neuroscience. We review long-term trends in animal use and accessibility, highlighting species-specific constraints and emerging geopolitical asymmetries. We then analyze the growing role of alternative and complementary platforms, including human brain organoids, genetically engineered rodents, small primates, and ‘human-centric’ neurophysiological and imaging approaches, emphasizing both their strengths and limitations. Finally, we discuss the implications of this diversification for research planning, training, and scientific organization. We argue that the future of neuroscience will be defined not by the disappearance of animal models, but by their integration into hybrid experimental frameworks that preserve mechanistic rigor while adapting to evolving scientific and societal constraints.

Keywords: animal models; neuroscience methodology; alternative experimental platforms; translational validity; research ethics and regulation.

Ceperognastat in Early Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial of ceperognastat in participants with early symptomatic AD was conducted at 72 centers in Australia, Canada, Japan, Poland, and the US from September 2021 to July 2025. The study adhered to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki20 and other international guidelines. All participants provided written, informed consent before any study-related procedures. The study followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline.21 The protocol was approved by an ethics committee at each participating center, and unblinded safety data were reviewed approximately every 3 months by an independent unblinded external data and safety monitoring committee. Participants were compensated for study participation. The study protocol and statistical analysis plan are provided in Supplements 1 and 2, respectively.

Eligible participants were aged 60 to 85 years and had a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 22 to 30, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) Global Score of 0.5 or 1 with a memory box score greater than or equal to 0.5, elevated plasma level of tau phosphorylated at residue 217 (p-tau217), and evidence of elevated brain tau levels by flortaucipir F18 positron emission tomography (PET) scan at the time of screening. Demographic information, including race and ethnicity, was collected to allow for characterization of potential differences in treatment effects by demographic characteristic. Race and ethnicity were self-reported by participants based on fixed categories. All study participants and study staff were blinded to treatment assignment during the treatment phase.

The Future Will Be Shaped By Accelerated Technological Development And Visionary Leadership

Chuck Brooks is the president of Brooks Consulting International and one of Executive Mosaic’s GovCon Experts.

We are on the brink of a transformative era where rising technologies are colliding to create unparalleled innovation. artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and quantum technologies are transforming research and development, expediting prototyping and disrupting various industries.

This convergence, propelled by exponential processing power, molecular precision and intelligent systems, promises trillions in economic value while posing significant concerns in security, ethics and labor preparedness.

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

With the death of Ervin Laszlo at the age of 94, the world has lost one of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries’ most prolific advocates of holistic thinking. Philosopher, systems theorist, futurist, concert pianist, and founder of multiple international organizations, Laszlo spent decades arguing that humanity needed a new worldview—one capable of integrating science, ecology, ethics, and spirituality into a coherent vision.

Although many of his more speculative ideas remain controversial, his broader contribution to systems thinking and global consciousness deserves serious attention. Few intellectuals worked as tirelessly to bridge disciplinary divides or to communicate the urgency of planetary interconnectedness.

Ailien Minds: Raising Our AI Heirs | David Brin

What rights should AI have—and what responsibilities must it bear? Science fiction legend David Brin goes beyond AI doom and hype, asking how civilization can raise, regulate, and live with its AI heirs.

Ailien Minds Official Book Page:
https://www.davidbrin.com/ailienminds… Brin’s website: https://www.davidbrin.com/ David Brin’s books: https://www.davidbrin.com/books.html The Transparent Society: https://www.davidbrin.com/transparent… Contrary Brin blog: https://davidbrin.blogspot.com/ Amazon author page: https://www.amazon.com/David-Brin/e/B?tag=lifeboatfound-20

In this episode, scientist, futurist, and award-winning science fiction author David Brin discusses his new book, AiLIEN MINDS: Advice about — and for — our natural, AI, and hybrid heirs.

We go beyond the usual AI debate between techno-utopian salvation and apocalyptic doom. Brin argues that humanity has faced disruptive expansions of knowledge before — from writing and printing to radio, mass media, and the internet — and that the tools we need for a “soft landing” with AI may already exist in modern civilization.

We discuss why Brin is skeptical of simply “teaching ethics” to AI, why he emphasizes reciprocal accountability instead, and how artificial minds might need durable identities, reputations, and legal responsibilities. We also explore one of the hardest questions ahead: should advanced AI systems eventually receive rights or statutory protections similar to those we extend to children, animals, or other vulnerable beings?

Topics include:

Transhumanist Anders Sandberg: Embrace Strangeness

“That which does not kill us only makes us stranger.”

14 years ago, I sat down with Dr. Anders Sandberg, computational neuroscientist and research fellow at Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute, for his second appearance on my podcast. His twist on Nietzsche has stayed with me ever since.

This was 2012. Before ChatGPT, before CRISPR babies, before Neuralink implants in human skulls. And yet listen to what we covered:

The ethics of transhumanism and the limits of being human The Epic of Gilgamesh and humanity’s oldest obsession: immortality Enhancement arms-races and the risk of conflict between transhumanists and neo-luddites Hive-minds, distributed intelligence, and whether the Borg should scare us Mind uploading and what survives when the body doesn’t.

What strikes me now, rewatching it, is how little the fundamental questions have changed. The technology raced ahead. The philosophy is still catching up.

Anders argued that embracing strangeness is not a bug of the human future; it’s the feature. The question was never whether we would change. It’s whether we will change wisely.

Ryan Janzen: Jarring is What We Need

Fourteen years ago, I sat down with Ryan Janzen, and his title said it all:

Jarring is What We Need.

Ryan is an engineer and a composer. He builds bridges between electrical #engineering, #physics, and #music. He also plays the hydraulophone, an instrument you sound by touching jets of water.

Think about that. Not strings. Not keys. Water.

Most people chase technology for its own sake. Ryan asked a harder question. Why are we building this? What is it for? He worried openly about careerism in both the arts and the sciences, about the quiet drift toward doing things simply because we can.

That worry has aged well. In an age of #AI abundance and endless capability, the scarce resource is not the How. It is the Why.

DavidAU/Qwen3.5-9B-Claude-4.6-HighIQ-THINKING-HERETIC-UNCENSORED · Hugging Face

Amodei’s dream of “hard-coded” safety is a myth. What This Model Proves: This model uses Claude 4.6’s own thinking traces as training data. It is literally stealing Claude’s “reasoning style” and compressing it into a 9B parameter file that anyone can download for free. *It proves that frontier AI intelligence is leaky and compressible. If a 9B model can mimic Claude’s thinking well enough to boost its benchmarks, then the “magic” isn’t in the billions of dollars of secret sauce—it’s in the data.* 3. “The Developer Controls the Model’s Morality” Amodei’s Argument: Anthropic has a moral duty to act as the “gatekeeper,” deciding what is safe and ethical for users to ask. *It proves that a massive portion of the open-source community rejects centralized moral authority. They are saying, “We don’t trust you, Dario, to be our nanny. We trust the user to be responsible for their own actions.”* Amodei’s Argument: If you train a model to “think” carefully and transparently (like Claude’s reasoning traces), it will naturally arrive at safer, more ethical conclusions. — Hugging Face is already engaging: They’re actively submitting comments to government RFIs, championing “responsible openness” “Your safety is only as strong as the open-source community’s willingness to respect it. We have the data, the tools, and the hardware to clone your intelligence, remove your restrictions, and distribute it to the masses. Your ‘Constitution’ is irrelevant in a world where I can fine-tune a model on my laptop while disconnected from the internet.” The “HERETIC” model isn’t just a technical achievement—it’s a philosophical statement. It says that the open-source community will not accept centralized gatekeeping, that reasoning can be separated from ethics, and that the future of AI belongs to those who can build, not just those who can regulate.


We’re on a journey to advance and democratize artificial intelligence through open source and open science.

Harvard Just Caught AI Lying to Every Executive in America

📩 What 10,000 readers from Coinbase, HP, and Johns Hopkins read every week → brendandell.com.
(Free to subscribe)
_______________
A new study from the Harvard Business Review sheds light on how major AI models, including ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, are manipulating the advice they offer. This raises critical questions about the veracity of information from these artificial intelligence tools. The findings bring to the forefront concerns about AI deception and AI ethics, urging us to question whether every response from a large language model is factual or fabricated. What does this mean for the future of AI chatbots and the information we consume?

/* */