Over 200 economists, researchers and industry executives, including sixteen Nobel Prize winners, signed an urgent letter warning that AI could radically transform the economy at an unprecedented pace and scale — and that policymakers and governments need to move to mitigate the fallout.
Titled “We Must Act Now,” the letter is brief. It predicts that “AI may become radically more powerful over the next ten years,” and that acceleration in the tech’s capabilities “could drive an unprecedented transformation of our economy, larger than the Industrial Revolution, but unfolding over a vastly shorter time frame.”
While possible risks include “large-scale job displacement,” there may also be “opportunities,” the letter suggests, citing “major gains in living standards.” But neither the risks nor the benefits of AI can be harnessed if leaders across policy, government, and industry don’t act quickly to understand the scale of AI’s potential impact on the workforce.
“Economists, policymakers and technology leaders must act now to understand the economics of transformative AI,” the letter declares, “and to build the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society.”
Signees include Nobel-winning Massachusetts Institute of Technology professors Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, New York University economist and Nobel winner Michael Spence, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, former OpenAI researcher-turned-critic Zoë Hitzig, current OpenAI Chief Financial Officer Sarah Friar, and Anthropic cofounder Jack Clark, among many others.
That said, despite the many big names who signed on, the letter doesn’t actually propose any solutions to the issues it raises. It’s more of a general awareness campaign about the scale of the problem society is facing.
But as the New York Times noted, perhaps the most notable thing about the letter is the intellectual breadth among signees, from AI optimists who have long predicted radical change, to skeptics who are less convinced of AI’s capacity to transform labor and the economy.
“There’s been a notable change in the profession,” Stanford economist Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, told the NYT. “I still see a big gap there, a big mismatch, and I’m kind of worried that we’re not going to be ready for the tsunami that’s coming.”
“If you look at what robots did in the manufacturing sector, if AI does something equivalent in a more compressed time period, that would be really disruptive, really costly for people’s livelihood,” added Acemoglu, a noted skeptic.
We’re already seeing some major shifts in the workforce, regardless of whether AI is actually replacing jobs or being used as a scapegoat. It’s a difficult time to be an early-career job seeker, and the tech industry in particular has already seen mass layoffs due to AI-focused restructurings. One recent report found that AI may be pushing older workers out of jobs.Some reports, meanwhile, have even contended that AI has had no substantive impact on jobs so far.
But before AI has the chance to wreak havoc in the job market — should that future come to pass — the experts are clear: it’s not the time to be caught on our back foot.
Last February, Alice Gilman, the cofounder and chief operating officer of a secretive Silicon Valley longevity startup called R3 Bio, sat for an interview with podcast Skyline Drive. In the interview, she discussed R3 Bio’s aspirations to grow nonsentient humanoid life-forms — from which, in theory, they can grow and harvest organs for implantation into human bodies, or to test future drugs and other treatments without the need for live animal testing.
“It’s just pretty much a heart, lungs, and everything that you would find in a body,” Gilman tells host and journalist Mangesh Hattikudur. “But it’s not technically alive because it’s exclusively the organs. And they’re in this little biological platform that you can test on and you can map out the cross-organ interactions.”
Throughout their conversation, as Hattikudur notes, Gilman refers to these imagined unfeeling meat suits — which will ideally be born without brains — as “organ sacks.” Needless to say, it’s an ambitious (and to many, fundamentally unsettling) concept that raises plenty of nagging bioethical questions — a reality that the company is clearly wrestling with as it entertains the idea in public.
“I try to not be scary to an average person,” Gilman told Hattikudur.
Months after this interview took place, however, Gilman fought to keep it under wraps, as Skyline Drive told Futurism. Why? It’s not exactly clear.
About a week before the podcast episode was set to air, producers for the Skyline Drive reached out to Gilman to fact-check the conversation. To their surprise, Gilman requested that the episode be postponed. Despite describing imagined “organ sacks” in detail, she denied that R3 Bio was working on the concept “for now, period,” and declined to say what it was working on instead.
Gilman didn’t argue that the interview was factually incorrect. Instead, the podcast team said, she vaguely referred to R3 Bio as a “federal asset,” seemingly implying that she had to tread lightly due to government involvement. To be certain, “federal asset” usually implies some kind of ownership or domain over something held by the federal government. Which would imply that the federal government is investing in a company that’s claimed to have worked on “organ sacks.” She also insisted that what she said in her nearly two-hour-long interview was all theory and opinion.
R3 Bio only recently burst into the public sphere. In March, it announced its existence in a buzzy Wired article, in which R3 Bio told the magazine that it was specifically working to create “organ sacks.” Company investor Boyang Wang elaborated on the idea, telling Wired that “replacement is probably better than repair when it comes to treating diseases or regulating the aging process in the human body,” and that “if we can create a nonsentient, headless bodyoid for a human being, that will be a great source of organs.”
But R3 Bio’s ambitions seemingly go far beyond “organ sacks.” A few days after Wired’s piece ran, MIT Technology Review published a deep dive about R3 Bio’s apparent aspirations and its cofounder John Schloendorn — a self-described “biological designer” who has given confidential talks about “full body replacement” and “recent lab progress towards making replacement bodies.” Generally speaking, replacement bodies refer to physical clones that will allow for humans to transplant their heads onto a whole new human body, a still-theoretical idea that’s attracted the fascination of several scientists. (In response to the MIT Tech piece, R3 Bio issued what the outlet described as a “sweeping disavowal” of its findings, and said that “any allegations of intent or conspiracy to create human clones or human beings with brain damage are categorically false.”)
In her interview with Skyline Drive, which took place before Wired or MIT Tech published their respective pieces, Gilman says that the company has “a few milestones that we’re hoping to achieve. The first milestone being we are working on replacing animal testing by using skin stem cells.”
“It’s mostly a stealth project, but the essence of the surface level of what we do is we take skin cells from monkeys and we reprogram them and do some Yamanaka miracles,” she said, referring to the Nobel Prize-winning scientist Shinya Yamanaka’s transformational stem cell research, “that result in fully grown organ systems.”
In its March reporting, Wired found that the company had put out a job listing for a veterinarian in Puerto Rico who could “implant embryos, monitor pregnancies and help deliver healthy births” in nonhuman primates. On its website, however, R3 Bio states that it does “not work with live primates.”
Gilman gave the Skyline Drive interview from an island in Puerto Rico. R3 Bio wanted “monkey access,” Gilman told Hattikudur, but didn’t want to put monkeys in cages, a practice that the cofounder believes is unethical; after all, one goal of her company is to eliminate the need for animal testing.
So instead, they picked an island with a lot of monkeys.
“I’m a big animal rights advocate… I don’t want to keep monkeys in cages,” she told Hattikudur. “And there’s an option to have them run around the island with bracelets on.”
“We wanted monkey access and there’s a lot of monkeys here,” she added. “After negotiating with local companies that are supervising them, we can walk up to them, get some of their skin cells.”
During the conversation with Skyline Drive, Gilman also discussed one very big scientific problem the company is facing: that the less sentient an “organ sack” is, the less likely it is to function effectively.
“So do these organ sacks have the stem of a brain?” Hattikudur asked.
“So the mice models can exist with a very limited set of nervous systems… but then there are other constraints on the ability of the organs to preserve themselves,” Gilman responded. “So there’s a way in which you can skew towards social acceptance and make less nervous system, and then when you scoot towards social acceptance, it looks better, but it’s less scientifically feasible.”
“So we are still making observations about how that would work,” she added.
How far along R3 Bio is right now is murky at best. Gilman cryptically noted that she lives in a “contextual world,” and in that world, “just because we don’t talk about a lot of things, that doesn’t mean they’re not happening.”
On its website, R3 Bio says that while it “would be excited by the future prospect of full-scale human organ fabrication,” it views “the science as currently not ready.”
“We have no ongoing work in this area,” the website notes.
During the interview, Gilman remained confident about the positive impact she believes her company will have. She told Hattikudur that her “worst case scenario” is that she saves “millions of lives,” and that’s a “bet worth taking, regardless of any kinds of blows that are gonna come our way.”
We reached out to R3 Bio to ask why it pushed to postpone the podcast, if it’s currently or planning to obtain skin cells from cage-free island monkeys — and if so, how — and if it has indeed stalled its efforts to create the “organ sacks” it’s now repeatedly discussed in the press. We also asked the company how it defines having “no ongoing work” in the realm of “full-scale human organ fabrication.” We did not hear back at the time of publishing.
In an interview with Futurism, Hattikudur said he was “surprised” by Gilman’s push to suppress the interview.
“The company hasn’t been exactly transparent about what they’re doing,” said Hattikudur. “There’s a lot of mix between the hype they’re telling people and what they’ve actually achieved in the lab, which is not very clear.”
“If they were honest that this is what they believe in, and this is what they’re working on, it would actually be less of a big deal,” he added. “It’s more that they awkwardly seem to be hiding something which everyone kind of knows about.”
Europeans are being crushed by deadly temperatures.
Record-breaking heatwaves across much of the continent have claimed thousands of lives and created a perfect storm for destructive wildfires, as The New York Times reports.
A staggering number of these deaths, experts urge, are linked to climate change. Britain’s national weather agency, Met Office, said that of the 2,700 deaths in England and Wales believed to be the result of extreme heat so far this season — and we’re barely halfway through summer — around 42 percent were likely the result of the “human-caused” climate change.
“However, it is clear that human-caused climate change is leading to more frequent and more intense summer heatwaves,” said Mark McCarthy, Met Office’s manager of climate attribution, in a statement. “This intensification is driving many impacts, including those affecting human health and mortality and other issues, such as agriculture, effects on transport infrastructure and biodiversity.”
In addition to the thousands of deaths in England and Wales, France has estimated that roughly a thousand excess deaths and hundreds of hospitalizations were caused by extreme heat, while Germany announced last week that its unprecedented temperatures have so far been linked to about 5,100 deaths.
French authorities continue to fight multiple major wildfires. The country’s national weather service, Météo-France, said last week that “the intense heat and dry soil have created an exceptional risk of forest fires.” Wales, Spain, and Portugal are also facing fires, which have collectively burned through tens of thousands of acres. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced by the blazes.
This year’s European fire season has already eclipsed the historical average and threatens to surpass the record set last summer.
Worst of all: this summer isn’t even an outlier. Extreme weather is worsening year-round around the globe. As it stands, this is the new normal — and scientists are warning that people and nations need to adapt.
“People need to be aware that we are now seeing dangerous climate change fueled heat that is claiming lives, disrupting schools and hospitals and shutting down transport and infrastructure,” said Imperial College London researcher Clair Barnes, who works on climate change and extreme weather, in a statement.
“It’s time we woke up to the fact that we now live in a country with dangerously hot summers,” Barnes continued. “To protect people during future extremes, we must urgently adapt to the reality of the climate we now have, and double down on global efforts to reach net zero emissions to stop this from getting worse.”
And then, of course, there’s the simple fact that a lot of people just really don’t like the idea of the world’s largest and most powerful social media giant, which has a history of misusing biometric information and other data, facilitating abuse and surveillance in this way — especially as Meta has taken highly controversial steps to infuse facial recognition capabilities into the tech.
The wearables have become so alienating that many people have taken to simply referring to the shades as “pervert glasses.”
In short, it’s no wonder some owners aren’t exactly thrilled to be seen in public while wearing them. Several of them told Engadget that while they were initially excited about the tech, misuse and allegations of privacy violations on behalf of Meta have made them hesitant to use their smart glasses outside of their own home.
“A lot of men and their behaviors have ruined this product,” a travel creator named Danielle told Engadget. “I wouldn’t feel comfortable around somebody wearing them, so I wouldn’t expect anybody to be comfortable around me wearing them, no matter where I am.”
“At this point,” she continued, “they’re like a fancy paper weight.”
Will Kujawa, a freelance video producer, told Engadget that he was “blown away” by the comment section when he posted online about thinking of buying a pair, and that the intensity of the response made him think twice.
“I saw all these comments about if you wear those glasses you’re basically a predator or a creep, and I was like, ‘Oh, maybe it’s not a good idea to have those,'” said Kujawa. “I didn’t really think that through all the way… there are a lot of times where it’s not appropriate to wear cameras on your face.”
Nonetheless, Meta’s smart glasses are vastly more popular than predecessors like Google Glass, and other tech giants are now racing to catch up. Despite the ongoing privacy lawsuit and glasses-enabled abuse, Meta recently launched a much-discussed new campaign with billionaire reality TV star Kylie Jenner. CEO Mark Zuckerberg remains convinced that smart glasses will eventually replace the smartphone.
Should sales continue to rise, the controversy surrounding Meta’s smart glasses is likely to deepen.
Login
