Here are three paradoxes, according to Virginia Dignum, my guest today: 1. The more capable AI becomes, the more it reveals the richness and complexity of human intelligence. 2. Less bias in AI does not necessarily create more justice. 3. The pursuit of artificial superintelligence may ultimately reveal that humanity's greatest intelligence is collective, not artificial.

We discuss the limits of computation, the dangers of confusing data with reality, why AI ethics often misses deeper social problems, and what it would mean to build technology that genuinely serves human flourishing rather than replacing it. Our conversation is grounded in the book “The AI Paradox”, authored by Virginia, who is a professor in Responsible Artificial Intelligence and the Director of the AI Policy Lab at Umeå University in Sweden.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Jonathan Schaeffer thinks we're building AI the wrong way.

While large language models have produced remarkable results, he argues that hallucinations, bias, and unreliability aren't bugs that can be fixed—they're consequences of the underlying architecture itself. In his view, LLMs are an important stepping stone, but not the path to the kind of AI we can truly trust.

We discuss whether current AI systems are "good enough," automation bias, AI regulation, data centers, environmental costs, and the race toward AGI. We also debate whether society should slow down long enough to put meaningful guardrails in place before deploying increasingly powerful AI systems at scale.

Jonathan Schaeffer is a Professor of Computing Science at the University of Alberta and a pioneer in artificial intelligence research.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

My guest, Mona Sloane, author of Predicted: How AI Is Restructuring Social Life, argues that AI has become part of our social infrastructure. Its predictive systems increasingly shape how we work, find information, build relationships, and navigate society.

Mona worries that as prediction becomes embedded in more areas of life, we risk becoming less willing to deliberate, challenge assumptions, and shape our own futures. I push back on whether AI really should be understood as infrastructure and whether predictions made by AI are fundamentally different from the predictions humans have always made.

We also discuss democracy, power, regulation, and what happens when prediction becomes the dominant way of understanding the world.

Book: https://a.co/d/04GwwuFR

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Science depends on more than just results. It depends on researchers asking questions, testing hypotheses, challenging assumptions, and scrutinizing evidence.

My guest, Emily Sullivan, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy of Science and AI at the University of Edinburgh, argues that AI is beginning to influence every stage of the scientific process—from deciding which questions get asked to how papers are written, reviewed, and published.

We discuss algorithmic monocultures, scientific de-skilling, AI-generated research, and whether the pressure to accelerate discovery risks undermining the very process that makes science reliable in the first place.

I'm sympathetic to the promise of AI in science. Emily is concerned that, if we're not careful, we may end up optimizing for scientific output at the expense of scientific inquiry itself.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

My guest, Fabio Tollon, a postdoctoral researcher on the BRAID programme at the University of Edinburgh, argues that answering that question is more difficult than it first appears. Traditional theories of moral responsibility suggest that people should only be blamed for actions they understand and control. But AI systems seem to challenge both requirements.

We discuss responsibility gaps, the problem of many hands, whether AI developers are more like parents or engineers, and Fabio's distinction between moral responsibility and moral answerability. Along the way, we explore whether answerability can help us make sense of AI harms when blame is difficult to assign.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Aligning an AI traditionally looks like a matter of giving it rules to obey. But my guest, Gillian Hadfield, Professor of AI Alignment and Governance at Johns Hopkins University, thinks that’s the wrong approach. She argues that we need to think about what it means to have a normative capacity - an ability to categorize behavior as (un)acceptable in a given context by observing that context - and then think about what it would mean to give that capacity to an AI. Lots to dig into here, including especially our disagreement about whether she’s focused on an ethical normative capacity vs. a prudential normative capacity.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Technologist’s are racing to create AGI, artificial general intelligence. They also say we must align the AGI’s moral values with our own. But Professors Ariela Tubert and Justin Tiehen argue that’s impossible. Once you create an AGI, they say, you also give them the intellectual capacity needed for freedom, including the freedom to reject your given values. Originally aired in season 2.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

The Thomson Reuters Foundation recently conducted a global survey and found that most companies are lagging in their attempts to govern AI. For me the most surprising stat is that 85% of companies don’t have any training on AI risks for their employees. I think that’s just insane. Today my guests are Antonio Zappulla, CEO of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, and Katie Fowler, Director of Responsible Business. We talk about how they conducted their research, their results, and what incentives there are for businesses to do better.

To get in touch with Thomson Reuters Foundation to participate in their next survey, please go to: https://www.trust.org/newsletter/

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

My guest, Carissa Véliz, is author of the new book “Prophecy: Prediction, Power, and the Fight for the Future, from Ancient Oracles to AI.” Her thesis is that when leaders in AI say things like “AI adoption is inevitable,” they’re not making a prediction, but rather giving us a command and attempting to legitimize their power. Is she right? Have a listen!

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Chapter Six: Dream Teams for Ethical Nightmares

• Three Types of ENC Teams
• ENC Teams as Emergency Response
• Tools for Teams
• ENC Teams in Bloom

Chapter Seven: ENC: An Approach So Flexible It Makes Simone

• Biles Look Like C-3PO
• Hands Off!
• You Do You
• Marrying ENC to Existing Practices
• Folding Existing Resources into ENC Teams
• Folding ENC Teams into Existing Resources
• The Ethical Nightmare Challenge for... Everyone

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Chapter 4: The Standard Approach to Responsible AI Is Crumbling

• The Standard Approach
• The Madness in the Method
• Turn That Smile Upside Down
• Cats and Tigers, Oh My!

Chapter 5: Why I Like Nightmares and You Should, Too

• The Power of Nightmares
• What Good Nightmares Look Like
• And Now the Moment You've Been Waiting For

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Chapter Two: Things Get Complicated with Generative AI

• So Now We’re Going to Lose My Grandmother, Again
• The Creators’ Version of a Rough Draft
• The Creators Align (Kind of)
• BigBusinessAI
• The Master Prompter
• The Changing AI Risk Landscape

Chapter Three: Humans Had a Good Run, but Now I Bring You... AI Agents!

• How to Build an AI Agent
• AI Agent Ecosystems
• Agentic Sources of Ethical Nightmares
• The Classic “But Humans Make Errors, Too!” Objection
• The Ground Exploded Beneath Our Feet
• After the Earthquake

Interlude: Get a Grip, Man!

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

My new book released just two days. It’s about how insanely complex the AI risk landscape has become, why the standard approach to Responsible AI is broken, and develops a novel approach to avoiding the worst of AI. In this episode I offer you the Introduction and Chapter 1 of the audiobook. If you don’t laugh at least once, I consider the book a failure.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

ISO 42001 sounds serious. It's got a serious (and boring) name, it's backed by 60+ countries, and some companies seek ISO 42001 certification. But is the standard any good? Does it actually prevent harms? Can we have generic standards? And how can the standards be flexible enough to account for the fast paced change in the AI world? I’m a bit of a skeptic about all this, but my guest, Patrick Sullivan, VP of Strategy and Innovation at A-lign, is a true believer. And he makes a strong case. You decide if my skepticism is unwarranted.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Technologist’s are racing to create AGI, artificial general intelligence. They also say we must align the AGI’s moral values with our own. But Professors Ariela Tubert and Justin Tiehen argue that’s impossible. Once you create an AGI, they say, you also give them the intellectual capacity needed for freedom, including the freedom to reject your given values. Originally aired in season 2.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

My guest today, Josh Gellers, Dean at the University of North Florida, argues that AI has more awards. More specifically, he thinks that AI has been used to create new biological organisms that meet the criteria for moral worth. Does that mean that AI itself has moral worth? Should we think that if something is not natural it lacks moral worth? All this and more in today’s episode

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

My guests today - Professor Kate Vredenburgh and VR specialist Lauren Wong - argue that there are at least two strong reasons for calming down: first, AI isn’t good enough to replace us at our jobs. Second, even if they were, it’s up to us to develop AI in a way that supports rather than replaces us. We also talk about whether AI adoption is suffering for the same reasons the metaverse was never successful: we’re failing to appreciate how to get people to justifiably buy in to the technology.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Are we dependent on social media in a way that erodes our autonomy? After all, platforms are designed to keep us hooked and to come back for more. And we don’t really know the law of the digital lands, since how the algorithms influence how we relate to each other online in unknown ways. Then again, don’t we bear a certain degree of personal responsibility for how we conduct ourselves, online or otherwise? What the right balance is and how we can encourage or require greater autonomy is our topic of discussion today. Originally aired in season two.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Much of what we find fulfilling in life isn’t the having but the doing. It’s the process of working through a problem, taking action, doing what needs to be done. But that meaning may be on the verge of being greatly diminished; so contends my guest, Sven Nyholm, Professor of Ethics of AI at lMU MUNICH. I push back in various ways: how real and/or imminent is this threat, really? And who is responsible for staving it off?

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Anthropic just got the axe from the U.S. government for refusing to allow the Department of Defense (War?) to use Claude for autonomous weapons systems and mass surveillance. For the first 15 minutes of this conversation with Michael Horowitz - professor at UPenn, Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations, and formerly Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development and Emerging Capabilities and Director of the Emerging Capabilities Policy Office at the DoD - we talk explicitly about Anthropic vs. the U.S. government. Why Anthropic did it, why this is more about personality than policy, and more. In the remaining 45 minutes you’ll hear a replay of an episode Michael and I did back in October, in which Michael defends the functional and ethical importance of potentially using AI for autonomous weapons systems.

Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands