Show Notes
In this episode of the Existential Hope Podcast, Niklas Berild Lundblad, a philosopher, researcher, and former policy lead at Google DeepMind, Google, and Stripe, explores the interplay between progress, complexity, and the transformative potential of artificial intelligence.
Niklas discusses why asking the right questions is crucial for navigating our future, especially as AI challenges our self-perception and introduces new forms of complexity. He discusses the "soft narcissism" in AI development, the distinction between AI and AGI, and why we should view current AI not as a mirror, but as a strange, exotic artifact whose full capabilities we are still underestimating.
In this conversation, we explore: The critical relationship between progress and complexity, and why managing this dynamic is essential for societal growth (including the "Red Queen effect"). Why current AI developments feel different from past tech hypes. The potential for AI to revolutionize scientific discovery. How AI could accelerate its own diffusion. The need for curious regulators, mechanisms for change, the challenges of agentic AI, and how cultural biases might affect our approaches to regulation. The Solow Paradox and the Gartner Hype Cycle as frameworks for understanding technology adoption.
On the Existential Hope Podcast hosts Allison Duettmann and Beatrice Erkers from the Foresight Institute invite scientists, founders, and philosophers for in-depth conversations on positive, high-tech futures.
Full transcript, listed resources, and more: https://www.existentialhope.com/podcasts
Follow on X. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
More from The Existential Hope Podcast
We see elections as the foundation of our democracy, but Aristotle thought they create an oligarchy. In ancient Athens, democracy worked by choosing leaders among ordinary citizens by lottery. How could we revive this idea to improve today’s democratic systems?
For 50,000 of generations, humans have passed civilization down to their children. We could be the first generation to hand its future to AIs instead. Should we? Or could the best AI be the kind that chooses to step back and leave some things to us?
Google DeepMind has a 7-hour-long roleplaying game that helps real scientists and policy makers understand how AI will transform science by 2030. And those who played it have found it more informative than any policy brief.
In 2024, Taiwan was flooded with deepfake scam ads. Instead of a crackdown, the government texted 200,000 random citizens: what should we do? People’s proposals became law within months, and by 2025 deepfake ads were down 94%.
There are AIs running labs with little human intervention right now. And they’re doing experiments that human experts would never try. Is this changing what and how science gets done?