Human judgment and artificial intelligence, working together on intelligence, consciousness, history, and the future.
Understanding morality, acting on it, and protecting humanity are different problems. The AI-risk paper asks what could preserve a meaningful human future through a rapid transition to superintelligence.
AI Risk →A conditional future history explores what follows when AI begins improving AI: rapid changes in digital work, pressures on institutions, and a physical world that takes longer to rebuild.
AI Takeoff →Intelligence is not a guarantee of benevolence. This paper asks what happens when civilization-relevant superintelligence arrives, distinguishing extinction, enduring domination, and catastrophe from which recovery remains possible.
What changes after AI can improve the process that improves AI? A conditional future history follows the consequences for research, jobs, households, institutions, and the physical economy.
Human-directed harm is a distinct problem from autonomous loss of control. This assessment separates the ability to cause a major disaster from the ability to destroy society’s capacity to recover.
What does a human contribute when AI can research, calculate, criticize, and write? Documented collaborations offer a concrete way to examine that question.
Words such as “unlikely” already contain judgments. Bayesian reasoning puts those judgments where others can inspect and challenge them.
Does the end of biological life necessarily end conscious existence? This paper separates evidence about brain dependence from assumptions about how a subject is produced or sustained.
What is reality ultimately made of—and is the world we observe its fundamental level? Those are different questions, and this paper models them separately.
If a future technology reconstructs a person, has that person survived? Technical restoration, consciousness, identity, and meaningful psychological continuation require separate answers.
The Buddhist tradition contains distinct claims about the self, suffering, consciousness, and reality. Evaluating them separately reveals where contemplative evidence is strongest—and where it is limited.
A comparative assessment of the conventional attribution, Edward de Vere, Henry Neville, and other possible principal authors, with explicit attention to the assumptions driving disagreement.
A focused historical question: did Christianity begin around an actual first-century Jewish founder? This reassessment compares the surviving evidence under historical and mythic-origin hypotheses.
Most unusual aerial reports can have ordinary explanations without resolving every strong case. The paper evaluates a mixed public record rather than assuming one cause for all sightings.
A dated forecast of House and Senate outcomes, with a separate examination of conventional and extraordinary response scenarios.
No papers match. Try a broader term or choose all topics.
Why a smarter system is not automatically a safer one.
Read essay ↗Why AI takeoff can be fast without making the physical world instantaneous.
Read essay ↗What Bayesian reasoning adds—and what it cannot supply.
Read essay ↗A centaur combines human and AI contributions. Here, the aim is to make reasoning explicit enough that a reader can identify exactly where an argument should change.
Read the research standards →Lawyer, former adjunct professor, and chess Senior Master. Cornell J.D. and M.A. His current work uses sustained human–AI collaboration to examine difficult questions across disciplines.
About Rodney →Explore interview themes, find the relevant paper, or send a substantive challenge to the analysis.
Media & contact ↗