Making use of technology that humans create, can have intended and unintended consequences. The consequences are intended, when we really understand how a technology works. We can predict its behaviour and explain why a certain outcome will or won't happen. The consequences are unintended, when we don't understand how a technology works. We can't explain or predict its behaviour. When making use of powerful technologies like AI, it's the same thing. We understand it or we don't, and it will have its consequences.

Creating new technologies has always followed the same logic. We want to achieve a goal and we create a system to achieve that goal. Or, we create a system, and by making use of it, we discover what goals it can achieve. It's the same with AI.

What is different about AI, is that the system that is supposed to achieve goals, is not something we design, meaning, we don't encode the systems exact behaviours. Instead, it "evolves", through learning. We don't design it and we don't fully understand it. We therefore can't exactly predict how it will behave in unique circumstances.

Understanding this, allows us to relate to Geoffrey Hinton's two "bad outcome scenarios of AI". In the first scenario, AI is a powerful system which gives incredible power to people making use of it. The AI is understood well enough to be predictable, and people with bad intentions can use it to harm other people. In the second scenario, AI is an even more powerful system that we don't fully understand, which does something unpredictable, such as killing all humans, while pursuing a goal that we gave it.

Yesterday, the Nobel Prize published a conversation titled "Nobel Minds 2024" on YouTube. The participants were some of the 2024 Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, medicine, and economic sciences. The purpose was, I assume, to have a cross-disciplinary discussion about the laureates' work, placed into the context of today's problems and challenges. Throughout the conversation, it became instantly apparent what these are, in the participants' opinions.

First, there are the recent breakthroughs in AI, which have triggered a new wave of change around the world. But what will change, and how will things change? How will this change reshape power in the world? What will the impact be of ever more scientific discovery and technological innovation in general? Second, we live in a world where democracy and autocracy both exist, and we can't take democracy for granted. There are people in the world who consider themselves superior to others. They see the world as you vs. me and not as you and I. People continue to take advantage of one another. People kill other people. Third, the climate is changing. What can we do to face this challenge? How can we address all of the downstream consequences? Fourth, how do we get incentives right?

I liked seeing that these topics were addressed by such great minds.

People very often forget that their favourite coffee shop, hairdresser or social media platform is a for profit company. In fact, between 90-95+ % of organizations world wide are for profit companies, and money and wealth for a for profit company is as fundamental as the elements that make up approximately 99% the human body: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus.

Money and wealth, is what for profit companies are made of, without it they could not exist. Over the long term, more money and wealth needs to flow into the company than what flows out of it, or at least be equal. What people usually identify as "the company" is simply their strategy to do so.

I've been enthusiastic about intelligence research for a couple of years now. One of the people I came across early on while scrolling through Twitter was Michael Levin, a computer scientist/biologist from Tufts University. His work can't be placed into just one category. He studies biological systems, but the questions he asks and the tools he uses to answer these questions are wide-reaching. Here, you can explore his academic and personal work.

Additionally, he's the co-founder of three companies: Morphoceuticals, Fauna Systems, and Astonishing Labs.

Morphoceuticals aims to reprogram the software of life. This means they assume that cells communicate with each other using bioelectricity, and by intervening in that conversation, you can influence its outcome. Different outcomes mean different behaviors.

To illustrate why this is exciting, think about what cancer is. At its core, cancer represents a breakdown in the regulatory conversation between cells. Normally, cells coordinate with each other through biochemical signals and bioelectrical gradients, ensuring that they grow, divide, and differentiate into the correct tissues at the right times. When these communication channels fail, cells can start forming tumors. While traditional therapies focus on “killing” cancerous cells, Morphoceuticals doesn’t kill. Instead, it aims to engage in dialogue with the cancerous cells to help them return to healthy growth patterns.

This is truly amazing work.

The Cirque d'Hiver in Paris is considered one of the oldest, if not the oldest, active circus in the world. Some say it's only the oldest circus venue, since it has hosted many different kinds of performances over the years. So technically, it's not just one circus. But you get the point, it's old.

The past weekend, I attended Spectaculaire, the circus currently showing. What can I say? Going to the circus is amazing. It's real human beings doing amazing things, the sort of things we mostly see in videos or movies these days. It actually reminded me of The Greatest Showman, one of my favourite movies.

The experience of being there in person is so different though. Watching a circus movie is like stimulating a tiny part of your brain; seeing it in person stimulates your whole body.

On the seat next to me was a mom with her baby. Every time a new part of the show began, the baby got so excited. You could observe that full-body stimulation happening in real time. Compare that to babies looking at a screen, they seem lifeless, hypnotized.

A reminder to my future self: go to the circus, especially when you have kids.

I've witnessed a lot of speculation about why Luigi Mangione allegedly killed the United Healthcare CEO. The stated explanations range from his worldview, to his chronic pain or his dislike for the American healthcare industry. Or was it a psychosis? Fact is that he sees killing as a way to solve problems. If that wasn't true but he still embodied all the other reasons previously mentioned, Brian Thompson would still be alive. His worldview might be niche, his back pain might have been unbearable and the American healthcare industry might truly suck, but these factors don’t justify or explain why he chose to kill. People who see killing as a solution to their problems are those that kill. That’s the why, and that’s what matters most.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is a private international association. Founded in 1971 in Paris by a group of journalists and doctors, they have been providing emergency medical care in conflict zones, epidemics, and areas with limited access to healthcare. Today, they count around 70,000 collaborators in more than 70 countries.

It's one of those NGOs that has avoided major corruption and scandals. I believe it's in large part due to their charter which defines clear rules that everyone has to follow. There are three principles that seem very important: 1. They operate "irrespective of race, religion, creed, or political convictions." 2. They observe "neutrality and impartiality in the name of universal medical ethics and the right to humanitarian assistance and claims full and unhindered freedom in the exercise of its functions." 3. They maintain "complete independence from all political, economic or religious powers".

MSF has an honourable goal and has identified the right principles to operate by. The result is more than 50 years of unparalleled impact in frontline medical humanitarian aid.

I regularly use YouTube for entertainment and mostly watch documentaries or short stories created by small companies or independent creators.

I've been watching some creators for many years. For example, Yes Theory and Beau Miles. They mostly create small documentaries about their adventures and trips, which are always original and heart-warming. When I want a mix of creativity and laughs, I watch Zac Alsop or Cody Ko. When an important CrossFit competition happens, I watch Buttery Bros or TeamRICHEY. All these accounts have been making great content for years, and I truly appreciate their work.

Some creators have come to my attention more recently, and I will see over time if they can keep up the great work. During the American election, I really enjoyed laughing with no cap on god. After running events, I've been regularly waiting for the videos of Total Running Productions. When I want a funny and strong opinion on some science-related topic, I watch Sabine Hossenfelder. A bit of a surprising but, I believe, promising creator couple is James & Lola. Their videos talk about their life as OnlyFans creators and sex more broadly. They come across as honest and real, and their videos are educational in a unique way. I hope they continue that way.

Place all your eggs, as early as possible, into a single company that creates something fundamentally new and aims to completely transform the context in which it operates. The people or machines within that company must be capable of figuring out how to accomplish this and be willing to dedicate all their time and effort towards it.

There is only one strategy that can yield even higher returns and that's to create that company yourself.

I really enjoy experiencing deeply human interactions. Whether its witnessing them or being a real part of them, they usually turn into memories and feelings that stick with me the longest. One of these experiences was portrayed in a movie I watched last night, called Daddio. The entire movie is one deeply human conversation and while watching it I couldn't help myself to think that if these two characters were real, their interaction would probably stick with them for a long time.

Actually, it's not the interaction that sticks with us the longest but the person we have this interaction with. We go through life and we experience all kinds of things and some people stick and some people don't. And those that stick, they literally and figuratively go through life with us from that moment on. They are sticky.

One of those that stuck with me over the years is Vitalik. Interestingly, I've not had a single conversation with him and he doesn't know that I exist. Stickiness is a very curious thing.

I'm pretty sure most of you would find him sticky too and so I suggest you find out for yourself. Two days ago I finally streamed Vitalik: An Ethereum Story A documentary portraying, I believe, one of the most important projects and stories of our time. I recommend you take the time and watch it. For me personally, this documentary just applied another layer of glue on Vitalik.