THE GRAND SYNTHESIS ("Singularity", or the Lost Primal Eye Unified Field). My work spans nearly 50 years, and has covered an incredibly rich matrix of disciplines: evolutionary biology, philosophy of mind, clinical hypnotherapy, theology.
Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis says humanity may already be standing in the foothills of the singularity. AI agents are now coding, researching, planning, paying, helping with science, and cutting real work from days to minutes. The big question is no longer whether AI is perfect. It’s whether imperfect AI has already become useful enough to speed up everything around it.
📩 Brand Deals \& Partnerships: [email protected].
✉ General Inquiries: [email protected].
🚀 New Channel: / @space.revolution.
📌 What You’ll See:
Google DeepMind’s warning that we are entering the foothills of the singularity.
SOURCE: https://www.axios.com/2026/05/26/deep… new Gemini for Science tools built to speed up scientific discovery SOURCE: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai… AWS letting autonomous AI agents make payments and complete transactions SOURCE: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/what… AxiomProver helping prove new math results in Lean and Mathlib SOURCE: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.05090 Biohub’s new world model of protein biology trained across billions of sequences SOURCE: https://biohub.ai/esm/protein ARC-AGI-3 showing the huge gap between today’s frontier AI and human reasoning SOURCE: https://aiforautomation.io/news/2026-… 🚨 Why It Matters This is bigger than another AI model update. Google DeepMind is now openly talking about the singularity, while AI agents are already starting to speed up coding, science, business, and research. Some experts think AGI may be closer than expected, while others say current AI still lacks true intelligence. Either way, the AI race is shifting fast from chatbots into agents that can plan, act, build, discover, and change real workflows. #google #singularity #ai.
Google’s new Gemini for Science tools built to speed up scientific discovery.
SOURCE: https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai…
AWS letting autonomous AI agents make payments and complete transactions.
SOURCE: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/what…
AxiomProver helping prove new math results in Lean and Mathlib.
SOURCE: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.05090
Biohub’s new world model of protein biology trained across billions of sequences.
SOURCE: https://biohub.ai/esm/protein.
ARC-AGI-3 showing the huge gap between today’s frontier AI and human reasoning.
SOURCE: https://aiforautomation.io/news/2026-…
🚨 Why It Matters.
This is bigger than another AI model update. Google DeepMind is now openly talking about the singularity, while AI agents are already starting to speed up coding, science, business, and research. Some experts think AGI may be closer than expected, while others say current AI still lacks true intelligence. Either way, the AI race is shifting fast from chatbots into agents that can plan, act, build, discover, and change real workflows.
#google #singularity #ai
I shook his hand once. I have never forgotten it.
It was a bionic hand, and Nigel Ackland gripped mine like any man would, except this one whirred and clicked and carried more meaning in a single gesture than most of us pack into a lifetime of handshakes.
Nigel is gone now. We miss him. He called himself ordinary. He was anything but.
Thirteen years ago, on Singularity 1 on 1, we sat down to talk about life with a bionic arm. And somewhere in that conversation we wandered into territory the world only just got around to naming this month: the Enhanced Games.
We asked whether people would one day volunteer to be enhanced. Whether the line between fixing a body and upgrading one was ever as solid as we pretended. Whether the Paralympics might one day be the more interesting show.
In 2013, those were thought experiments. Last weekend in Las Vegas, they sold tickets.
13 years ago, I sat down with Peter Joseph, musician, filmmaker, and founder of the Zeitgeist Movement.
His argument was simple, and uncomfortable: the system we live under (debt-based money, work-for-survival economics, infinite growth on a finite planet) isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as designed. And it’s running out of runway.
In 2013, this sounded radical. In 2026, it sounds like a weather report.
We covered a lot of ground in 75 minutes: the Resource-Based Economy, the role of Artificial Intelligence in managing scarcity, the schism between Zeitgeist and the Venus Project, sustainability, central planning, and the technological singularity itself.
You don’t have to agree with Peter to take the conversation seriously. I don’t agree with all of it. But the questions he was asking back then are the questions we’re being forced to ask now, except we’re asking them in an era when AI systems can actually do things he could only theorize about.
The technology has caught up with the critique. The philosophy hasn’t caught up with the technology.
What counts as death? And who gets to decide?
In the summer of 2013, I traveled to Scottsdale, Arizona to visit the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, the world’s leading cryonics organization, founded in 1972. CEO Dr. Max More gave me a full tour of the facilities and walked me through the entire process: from the moment clinical death is declared, through controlled cooling and vitrification, to the cryo-tanks holding (at the time) 117 patients in long-term storage.
I also asked him, somewhat selfishly, whether my big bald head would fit comfortably in a neuro-patient container.
After the tour, Max sat down with me for a 25-minute conversation that covered:
Affordability and the real cost of membership Why minimizing cooling delays after clinical death is critical, and what long-distance members do about it Preserving pets, because of course people ask Chemical brain preservation as an alternative path The importance of protecting the neuron’s microtubules The case for an X Prize style competition to reduce tissue damage Where cryonics sits inside the broader transhumanist project.
My favorite line from Max, the one I still come back to:
Almost 12 years ago, a 16-year-old girl named Stefanie wrote to me the night before her senior year of high school. She could not sleep. She was terrified of the Singularity. And she wanted to know what she could actually do about it.
I still get these messages. More of them than ever, in fact. The names change. The fear does not. If anything, in the age of frontier AI, autonomous agents, and accelerating capability, the desperation in young people’s voices has only deepened.
What struck me when I went back to read my reply was how little I wanted to change. The advice I gave Stefanie has, mostly, stood the test of time. So rather than rewrite it, I am simply reposting it. A few of the things I told her then, and would tell any anxious young person today:
Be unreasonable. The reasonable person adapts to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to herself. All progress depends on unreasonable people. Shaw was right.
Think in decades, not weeks. Life is a marathon, not a sprint. Persistence will be your best friend and your biggest enemy.
Prepare to fail. It took Edison thousands of attempts to make the light bulb. What matters is not how many times you fall, but how long you are willing to endure.
Black holes are regions in space where gravity is so strong that nothing, even light, can escape. Einstein’s theory of general relativity breaks down inside black holes, either by the presence of a so-called “curvature singularity” or “Cauchy horizon.”
A curvature singularity is a point where density and spacetime curvature become infinite, the laws of physics break down, and matter is crushed into an infinitely small space. A Cauchy horizon, on the other hand, is a boundary beyond which the future cannot be reliably predicted by known physics theories.
Francesco Di Filippo, a researcher at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Frankfurt, recently carried out a theoretical study that challenges the assumption that black holes must inevitability possess either a singularity or a Cauchy horizon. His paper, published in Physical Review Letters, shows that the combination of electromagnetic repulsion from electric charge and quantum effects described by Stephen Hawking’s radiation theory could prevent the formation of singularities and Cauchy horizons in some black holes.
“Machine learning is progressing faster than you think.”
Geordie Rose said that to me in 2013.
Back then, it sounded like the kind of thing a quantum computing CEO says to drum up attention. Today it reads like a weather report.
Thirteen years ago, the D-Wave founder and CTO sat down with me for over two hours and laid out a thesis most observers found extreme: machine learning would become broadly available far faster than anyone hoped, and quantum computers would help us build AI by 2029.
The 2029 date sounded like science fiction.
It does not sound like science fiction anymore.
“We are in a time of circulating flesh.”
Stelarc said that to me 13 years ago. In 2026, it reads less like art criticism and more like a status report.
He had grown an ear on his arm. He had hung himself from hooks 25 times. He had let strangers on the internet choreograph his muscles through electrical stimulation, his body remote-controlled across continents.
Most people called it spectacle. I think it was inquiry.
Because long before deepfakes, before voice cloning, before AI agents wearing our faces, was already asking the question we now cannot avoid:
Where does the body end and the network begin?
13 years ago, I walked into Dr. Stuart Hameroff’s operating room with a camera, a microphone, and a single stubborn question:
Is consciousness computation?
Hameroff, an anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona, and co-author with Sir Roger Penrose of the Orch OR theory, said no.
Emphatically. Unfashionably. Against the entire weight of mainstream neuroscience and Silicon Valley orthodoxy.
At the GF2045 conference, where I first met him, Ray Kurzweil went out of his way to declare Orch OR “totally wrong.” Others called it speculative. Untestable. Unscientific.
Today, in the age of large language models, that argument is no longer a niche dispute among philosophers and physicists. It is the decisive question of our century.