"The Singularity?" Continuing on...

The Final Narcissistic Injury of Humankind

“Subdue the Earth!” With these resounding words, the divine command of the Old Testament spurred humanity's entrance into the world. For countless generations, people held unwaveringly to the notion that the Earth must be the center of the cosmos. Surely our loving Creator would place humanity—his most cherished creation—on a pivotal planet rather than relegating us to a dim corner of the universe. Enter Nicolaus Copernicus, the disruptor of Earth's centrality, shattering the illusions of the faithful. While this cosmic demotion was a bitter pill, it laid the groundwork for groundbreaking scientific discoveries and revolutionary technologies, from Einstein's general relativity to quantum theory, space exploration, and the James Webb Space Telescope. Our “cosmological injury” initiated a series of painful revelations that Sigmund Freud called the “narcissistic injuries” of humankind.

Fast‐forward three centuries, and Charles Darwin unveiled another unsettling truth: We were not fashioned in God's image but are the products of biological evolution. This “biological injury” stripped humanity of its God‐ given status, positioning us firmly within the animal kingdom. Our collective ego suffered another blow, but this made way for progress and new knowledge, such as genetic engineering and decoding the human genome.

In the twentieth century, humanity endured a “psychological injury,” learning that unconscious drives and emotions governed us far more than rational thought, moral imperatives, or conscious willpower. This third bruise to our self‐ esteem led to remarkable advancements, particularly in medicine and psychology.

This series of painful realizations, which have shaken human certainties to their core, now enters a final chapter in the twenty‐ first century. Humankind confronts its ultimate narcissistic injury—the colossal violation of our self‐ esteem by the mistaken belief that we can create a posthuman hyper‐ technology that can outperform us in every way: the Ubermensch. In the Nietzschean sense, this isn't a human endeavor but a form of self‐ deception, a “mind extension” whose underlying “spirituality” is neither understood nor explainable—just a disparate species that could render its progenitors Homo obsoletus.

In this new era, Man—the Mensch—has now taken evolution into his own hands, seeking to transcend the limitations of our biological existence. Through a technological singularity, humanity aims for nothing less than bliss, divinity, and immortality born out of the machine: Deus ex Machina. The created now become the creator of their creation, forging a new reality where biological constraints no longer define our potential.

This bold endeavor challenges the very nature of human existence. We journey to reshape our existence and redefine our place in the cosmos.”

— The Singularity Paradox: Bridging the Gap Between Humanity and AI by Anders Indset, Florian Neukart

OF TECH RELEVANCE, ON CNN TONIGHT

 

I'm watching. Very interesting.

   

All of this tech news is on fire this weekend. 

 

MONDAY UPDATES

OK, are you a "Doomerist," an "Accelerationist," or just still Befuddled?

 

MARK ZUCKERBERG SPEAKS TO THE AI FUTURE

The Future is for Everyone
The Path to a Positive AI Future
Mark Zuckerberg, META CEO, Aug 10, 2026

We are fortunate to live at an incredible moment in history. In the next few years, people will be able to use superintelligence beyond human capacity to create and discover extraordinary new things, build new businesses, express new ideas, learn new concepts, and advance our health and quality of life. As we get closer to this moment, it is important to develop a philosophy for how we can best use superintelligence to ensure it improves all of our lives, work, communities, freedom and safety.

The defining questions of our age are who will have access to superintelligence and what will we direct it towards. Will it be centralized and restricted to a few institutions, or will it be a tool that empowers everyone?

We propose a philosophy based on individual empowerment as the source of prosperity, invention as the primary purpose of superintelligence, and balance of power as the foundation of safety…

Yeah, sure. Ben Goertzel responds.

Zuck’s Version of “The Future is for Everyone” Has a Few Small Issues...

 

ANOTHER "MANIFESTO." SAM ALTMAN CHIMES IN

The Gentle Singularity
We are past the event horizon; the takeoff has started. Humanity is close to building digital superintelligence, and at least so far it’s much less weird than it seems like it should be.

Robots are not yet walking the streets, nor are most of us talking to AI all day. People still die of disease, we still can’t easily go to space, and there is a lot about the universe we don’t understand.

And yet, we have recently built systems that are smarter than people in many ways, and are able to significantly amplify the output of people using them...

Yeah, sure. Everyone talking His Own Book...

 

 

I'll cede the last word to Demis for now.

Hassabis said, "The thing nobody is talking about is the philosophical question. What is meaning? What is purpose? What does it mean to be human once all of this arrives?"

He said, "We need great new philosophers." But philosophers do not write the checks. They don't get a seat at the table where trillion dollar decisions are made. The people at that table are building the future right now with jagged intelligences that cannot learn, cannot plan longterm, and cannot be trusted to stay behind a guardrail that doesn't even exist yet. That's not a plan. That is a gamble. And every single one of us is in the pot.

"The Singularity?"

Lots to catch up on. Cheryl and I have quietly been out of town for a week (SF Bay Area, and Las Vegas). I'll be following up topically ASAP on material relevant to my prior David Eagleman "Inner Cosmos" post. Got a good bit of reading down while gone.

 

New book coming shortly, reviewed in Science Magazine.

     

 

apropos, see "AI Slop and Scientific Publishing."

 

"Uncertainty?" "Two Cheers for Uncertainty." 

 

SUBSTACK UPDATE: THE LATEST FROM BEN GOERTZEL

Proposing an experimental OmegaHive loop for turning agentic coding into cumulative, testable progress toward human-level AGI and maybe beyond — we are actually building this now, and playing with preliminary versions!

Among the many interesting things that popped up at the AGI-26 conference last week in San Francisco, one of them stuck out for me as being of particular “meta-level” importance.

What I’m talking about is how many conference attendees I talked to who were trying to have their agent hives code AGI for them, by taking a whole bunch of papers off the internet (including my own papers, and others from the Hyperon team) and asking their agents to bash them all together into an AGI codebase and make it tick.

One form this takes uses our own OmegaClaw system. OmegaClaws are agentic loops that wrap up LLMs together with knowledge graphs built on the Hyperon AtomSpace infrastructure, with fairly sophisticated reasoning and pattern matching running over them. The symbolic component supplies the agents with more episodic memory, more long-term memory, more of a sense of self than a vanilla coding agent has. So you take a system like that — not yet an AGI, but possessing a powerful agentic loop, some memory, some reasoning, some notion of who its mother is — and you tell it: download these 25 of Ben’s papers, turn them into code, integrate them into your memory, reason with them, extend yourself.

I think this sort of process has in it the seeds of a workable approach to building AGI. 

The main problematic issue here, as anyone who has done a lot of AI research will tell you, is the gap between having a software component that sort of works in some small test — and/or, say, whose workings you can even prove correct with some nice math — and having something that really works at scale and in real life…

Okeee Dokeee, then. I'm a reasonably intelligent guy with a fairly lengthy and varied digitech Sheet, but this cat is well above my pay grade. 

 

Ben is involved with this AGI academic offering:

 

Tuition for the M.S. will set you back about $32k. Worth it? Were I not 80+ and increasingly physically ailing, I'd consider ponying up.

 

Another Ben Goertzel thingy:

 

Click

ON DECK: THE INFINITY MACHINE

 

This is yet another riveting book. Read a ton of it while returning home to BWI from LAS on Southwest. Lotta dots starting to connect. All of the current Usual Suspects and then some. Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Altman, Page, Brin, Karp, Amodei...

QUICK SAMPLE

...I was shown into Hassabis’s office. Almost immediately, the enormity of AGI bubbled up again in conversation. 

“So it will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution?” I asked, curious to hear more about the post-scarcity future. 

“Yeah, I think so,” Hassabis reiterated. “Maybe AI is more like fire and language. Or maybe it’s as big as the emergence of the prefrontal cortex in humans. I mean, it’s on a level with those caves where tens of thousands of years ago some brilliant person had the idea of making handprints on the wall. 

That’s the dawn of consciousness, isn’t it? “Look, the Industrial Revolution, let’s not minimize that. Power and energy and steam engines. That’s the first information age, by the way—Maxwell’s equations.” 

Hassabis was referring to the four equations published in 1865, describing the relationship between electricity and magnetism and paving the way for everything from telescopes to electrical engineering to Einstein’s general theory. 

“Now we’re in the second information age: We’ve gone from physical information to pure information, thanks to computers. 

“And then maybe now we’re about to enter the third age, which is the AI age, where the information comes alive. It starts to process itself, to generate itself. It becomes autonomous.” 

I wondered what it was like to live in the familiar, pre-AGI world, the world of chessboards and seared bream, but also to imagine a future with AGI so vividly. 

“For me, science is a spiritual endeavor,” Hassabis answered, circling back to our discussions of religion. 

“Maybe ‘spiritual’ is too mystical a word. But I feel I’m communing with the universe whenever I am trying to understand it. 

“It’s very deep for me, building AI. Because it will help me to understand the universe and realize my purpose. 

“I mean, this is what Spinoza said,” Hassabis went on, referring to the seventeenth-century Dutch philosopher. “That God is present in nature, so understanding nature is a spiritual endeavor. And Einstein, although he was not conventionally religious, agreed. He said he believed in the God of Spinoza, and I think he meant what I mean. 

“People assume, oh, religion’s over here, science is over there, it’s weird to put them together. But in my world, humanism and spiritualism and science all go together.

“It’s like with Leonardo da Vinci. His anatomical drawings are beautiful art as well as unbelievable biology. Da Vinci is my favorite because everything’s just flowing into one river. And that’s how I try to live. Everything’s fluid.” 

I read out a line from a biography of Spinoza, which Hassabis had recommended in one of our earlier conversations. The line reminded me of the intensity with which Hassabis pursued his scientific mission. 

“Philosophy was for Spinoza, not a weapon, but a way of life, a sacred order whose servants were transported to a supreme and certain blessedness.”[7] 

“I agree with that 100 percent,” Hassabis interjected. 

“If you ask what life is really for, it’s to do with knowledge or self-knowledge. And I think that is our purpose because why otherwise would the world be constructed like this? Why would science be possible? Why should computers be possible? What about semiconductors? Why should sand, with a bit of copper, do anything?

“These things are, strangely, set up for scientific endeavor. So whether you want to call that God’s design, or whether it’s just the universe, or a simulation, I’m open-minded about all of that. I think that’s part of what we’ll find out, when we’re on this journey. 

“But in the meantime, it feels like the flow of the universe is going in this direction, towards discovering the answers. And I’m part of that flow, I’m going with that flow, and it’s exhilarating.”

Mallaby, Sebastian. The Infinity Machine: Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence (pp. 113-115). (Function). Kindle Edition.  

  
This is one helluva book. About a 15 hour read (I'm not finished yet).

 

RETURN TO SOME EVOLUTIONARY GROUNDING

 

Click

What is "life?" What is "the purpose of life?" (Assumes there is one.)

 

WHAT IS "INTELLIGENCE," FOR THAT MATTER?

 

Doris & David Jonas:

   

UPDATE: BREAKING NEWS

 

Kai-Fu Lee, the C.E.O. of the artificial-intelligence company 01.AI, lives in a mirrored high-rise in Beijing, near a procession of landmarks that emperors considered the center of the cosmos. Lee takes early meetings at a nearby hotel that could be in any country, except that the room service is delivered by robots painted in the livery of butlers and maids. State propaganda hails these robots as emblems of China’s ascent; in the hallway, most people sidestep them with the kind of indifference usually reserved for a Roomba.

Over breakfast one recent morning, Lee, wearing a white polo shirt and rimless glasses, spoke about the future with an air of sanguine curiosity. He was born in Taiwan in 1961 and built his career by following the moving frontier of opportunity. He got a degree in computer science from Columbia in the eighties and went on to Carnegie Mellon to study the fledgling field of A.I.—which he described back then as a “most promising science” that would be “men’s final step to understand themselves.” He ran speech recognition at Apple, and in 1992 appeared on “Good Morning America” to show off a prototype computer that used voice commands to record the news on a VCR. (The host, Joan Lunden, marvelled, “It’s almost going to be like a friend.”) During a stint at Microsoft, he recalls, he urged Bill Gates to buy an ambitious startup called Google, but Gates declined. Lee later became the head of Google in China…

A 64-minute excellent New Yorker lomg-read that could not be more timely. Yeah, likely paywalled. Totally worth it.
 

More ASAP...