Neither hype nor doom, and specific enough to argue with.
The Aiomic Age examines artificial intelligence through its social consequences — how we work, how we care, how we think, how we are governed, and what comes next. Technical depth is always in service of a societal question.
Most writing on this subject asks you to pick a side and then supplies the evidence for it. We would rather be specific. That means naming the conditions under which we would change our minds, publishing the reasoning behind a reading rather than only the reading, and treating the optimistic case with the same scrutiny as the alarming one.
It also means being willing to be wrong in public. Two of our strands are instruments rather than arguments: the AGI Clock takes a position on how far the technology has come, and the Readiness Index will take one on how prepared our institutions are for it. Both move only with a published justification, and both can move backwards.
The people
An investor
Karim Galzahr
Brings a polymath's range across fields, and the investor's question: what would have to be true for this to matter?
An entrepreneur
Sven Jungmann
Deploys artificial intelligence in real-world settings, and asks of every claim whether it survives contact with users, workflows, and consequences.
A young person
Kellan Galzahr
Will spend a working life inside whatever this becomes, and asks the question the other lenses can afford to defer: what is it like to inherit it?
A scientist
Moss Trestman
A research chemist working on AI for science — attentive to method, to evidence, and to what the data will and will not bear.
What we publish
8 programmes, none of them published yet.