Lifeboat Foundation

Those who know Oxford University for its literary luminaries might be surprised to learn that some of the most important reflections on emerging technologies come from its hallowed halls. While the leading tech innovators in Silicon Valley capture imaginations with their bold visions of future singularities, mind-machine melding, and digital immortality by 2045, they rarely engage as deeply with the philosophical issues surrounding such developments as their like-minded scholars over the pond. This essay will briefly highlight some of the key contributions of Oxford University’s professors Nick Bostrom, Anders Sandberg, and Julian Savulescu to the transhumanist movement. It will also show how this movement’s focus on radical autonomy in biotechnical enhancements shapes the wider global bioethical conversation.

As the lead author of the Transhumanist FAQ, Bostrom provides the closest the movement has to an institutional catechism. He is, in a sense, the Ratzinger of Transhumanism. The first paragraph of the seminal text emphasizes the evolutionary vision of his school. Transhumanism’s incessant pursuit of radical technological transformation is “based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase.” Current humans are but one intriguing yet greatly improvable iteration of human existence. Think of the first iPhone and how unattractive 2007’s most cutting-edge technology is in 2024.

Continue reading “Training Transhumanists at Oxford University” »

Autonomous and AI-enabled systems increasingly rely on optical and radio frequency sensors and significant computer power. They face growing vulnerabilities from directed-energy laser and microwave weapons.

By David C. Stoudt

In May the U.S. secretary of the Air Force flew in an F-16 that engaged in a mock dogfight over the California desert while controlled by artificial intelligence. Carmakers from San Francisco to Boston are jousting to deliver driverless cars. In Norway a crewless cargo ship carries fertilizer from port to port. On the land, sea and in the air, we face the coming of such autonomous platforms—some envisioned to benefit humanity, and others meant for destruction—available to everyone, to governments, businesses and criminals.

The transcript features an interview with renowned science fiction author Isaac Asimov, discussing his predictions and visions for the future of space exploration, computers, robotics, and humanity’s role in shaping that future. It touches on concepts like permanent space settlements, harnessing solar power, the increasing importance of computers and AI, the impacts of robotics on jobs, and taking an optimistic yet cautionary view of technological progress. It also covers some earlier inaccurate and exaggerated predictions about robots replacing humans, as well as actual technological developments in 1982 like artificial hearts and fusion reactors. The overall theme is Asimov’s hopeful but measured outlook on future scientific and technological advancements.

Since the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, artificial intelligence (AI) has both entered the common lexicon and sparked substantial public intertest. A blunt yet clear example of this transition is the drastic increase in worldwide Google searches for ‘AI’ from late 2022, which reached a record high in February 2024.

You would therefore be forgiven for thinking that AI is suddenly and only recently a ‘big thing.’ Yet, the current hype was preceded by a decades-long history of AI research, a field of academic study which is widely considered to have been founded at the 1956 Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence.¹ Since its beginning, a meandering trajectory of technical successes and ‘AI winters’ subsequently unfolded, which eventually led to the large language models (LLMs) that have nudged AI into today’s public conscience.

Alongside those who aim to develop transformational AI as quickly as possible – the so-called ‘Effective Accelerationism’ movement, or ‘e/acc’ – exist a smaller and often ridiculed group of scientists and philosophers who call attention to the inherent profound dangers of advanced AI – the ‘decels’ and ‘doomers.’² One of the most prominent concerned figures is Nick Bostrom, the Oxford philosopher whose wide-ranging works include studies of the ethics of human enhancement,³ anthropic reasoning,⁴ the simulation argument,⁵ and existential risk.⁶ I first read his 2014 book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies⁷ five years ago, which convinced me that the risks which would be posed to humanity by a highly capable AI system (a ‘superintelligence’) ought to be taken very seriously before such a system is brought into existence. These threats are of a different kind and scale to those posed by the AIs in existence today, including those developed for use in medicine and healthcare (such as the consequences of training set bias,⁸ uncertainties over clinical accountability, and problems regarding data privacy, transparency and explainability),⁹ and are of a truly existential nature. In light of the recent advancements in AI, I recently revisited the book to reconsider its arguments in the context of today’s digital technology landscape.

To be clear, humans are not the pinnacle of evolution. We are confronted with difficult choices and cannot sustain our current trajectory. No rational person can expect the human population to continue its parabolic growth of the last 200 years, along with an ever-increasing rate of natural resource extraction. This is socio-economically unsustainable. While space colonization might offer temporary relief, it won’t resolve the underlying issues. If we are to preserve our blue planet and ensure the survival and flourishing of our human-machine civilization, humans must merge with synthetic intelligence, transcend our biological limitations, and eventually evolve into superintelligent beings, independent of material substrates—advanced informational beings, or ‘infomorphs.’ In time, we will shed the human condition and upload humanity into a meticulously engineered inner cosmos of our own creation.

Much like the origin of the Universe, the nature of consciousness may appear to be a philosophical enigma that remains perpetually elusive within the current scientific paradigm. However, I emphasize the term “current.” These issues are not beyond the reach of alternative investigative methods, ones that the next scientific paradigm will inevitably incorporate with the arrival of Artificial Superintelligence.

The era of traditional, human-centric theoretical modeling and problem-solving—developing hypotheses, uncovering principles, and validating them through deduction, logic, and repeatable experimentation—may be nearing the end. A confluence of factors—Big Data, algorithms, and computational resources—are steering us towards a new type of discovery, one that transcends the limitations of human-like logic and decision-making— the one driven solely by AI superintelligence, nestled in quantum neo-empiricism and a fluidity of solutions. These novel scientific methodologies may encompass, but are not limited to, computing supercomplex abstractions, creating simulated realities, and manipulating matter-energy and the space-time continuum itself.

For decades, philosopher Nick Bostrom (director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford) has led the conversation around technology and human experience (and grabbed the attention of the tech titans who are developing AI – Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Sam Altman).

Now, a decade after his NY Times bestseller S uperintelligence warned us of what could go wrong with AI development, he flips the script in his new book Deep Utopia: Life and Meaning in a Solved World (March 27), asking us to instead consider “What could go well?”

Ronan recently spoke to Professor Nick Bostrom.

NASA ’s upcoming Gateway space station, set to orbit the Moon, will rely heavily on its Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) for energy and maintaining its orbit. Currently under development with Maxar Technologies, the PPE uses solar electric propulsion to efficiently power the station. This system, designed to significantly reduce the need for propellant, will be integrated with Gateway’s habitation module and launched to support deep space exploration and future Artemis missions to Mars.

As astronauts live and work on Gateway to enable sustained exploration and research in deep space, their efforts will be made possible by Gateway’s Power and Propulsion Element (PPE). A foundational component of the lunar outpost and the most powerful solar electric spacecraft ever flown, PPE will provide Gateway with power and allow it to maintain its unique orbit around the Moon.

Gateway will be humanity’s first space station in lunar orbit and serve as an essential element of NASA’s Artemis missions. As astronauts live and work on Gateway to enable sustained exploration and research in deep space, their efforts will be made possible by the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE). A foundational component of the lunar outpost and the most powerful solar electric spacecraft ever flown, PPE will provide Gateway with power and allow it to maintain its unique orbit around the Moon.

In the brand-new world of AI, we’re slowly learning that there’s a big difference between a small routine transaction like buying a hamburger, and something much more complex and high-stakes.

Human AI Robot With Flowing Binary High-Res Stock Photo — Getty Images

For reference, here’s more on the company’s mission statement:

Continue reading “MultiOn Innovates With Virtual Agents” »

There used to be the concept of a “singularity”. The idea was that computers would become smarter than humans and start to replace them. Even the idea that humanity would be substituted by silicon-based computing machines (robots) was suggested. Against that two years ago we set the concept of “The convergence”. This assumes that biological and silicon-based computation would merge in the sense of better control over biological processes like diseases and longevity. It is essentially a deeply humanistic perspective, in spite of being futuristic, and not taking misuses actively into account.