Craig Parshall

This is a somewhat unusual post to write. Over the past weeks, my social media accounts have grown so much that something unexpected has started happening. Several AI companies have contacted me, offering money to promote their products. I’m talking about serious money: $1,000 and or even $2,500 for a single post. Last week alone I received three offers. You can imagine this is a difficult decision. Accepting offers like these regularly could meaningfully change my income. But at what cost? I worry that financial incentives could start shaping what I choose to share, compromising my independence and, in the long run, eroding the honesty of what I write. So I’ve decided to turn down all three offers. More broadly, I’ve decided not to accept paid product promotion on my social media accounts. I want that what I share here reflects my own thinking and judgment. I want to remain free to criticise AI developments, recognise progress, and change my mind when I think the evidence warrants it. You might agree with me. You might disagree. But you should be able to trust that I mean what I say. I think this is really important. Since this is an unusually personal post, I also would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support: for reading, questioning, and engaging with my work. I’ve learned really a lot from you. Thank you!

OpenAI is already pitching 2028 hopefuls on how to talk about AI politi.co/4yWJOmD

🚨: A new study suggests consciousness is not exclusive to Earth-like biology, meaning the universe likely hosts sentient minds made of materials we can scarcely imagine. Does consciousness require a brain of flesh and blood? According to a new working paper by philosophers Eric Schwitzgebel from the University of California, Riverside, and Jeremy Pober from the University of Lisbon, the answer is almost certainly no. They introduce the concept of 'substrate flexibility'—the idea that certain qualities, like consciousness, can exist in entirely different materials, much like a book can exist in print or as digital code. Drawing on the vastness of a universe with trillions of galaxies, they argue that assuming only Earth-like biology can support conscious experience is an unjustified form of 'terrocentrism.' Instead, they advocate for a 'Copernican principle of consciousness,' suggesting that humanity is likely not the central or sole benchmark for sentient life. This philosophical shift has profound implications for both astrobiology and the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence. While the authors diverge on whether current silicon-based AI systems possess true awareness, their framework suggests that consciousness could eventually emerge in non-biological substrates. Just as flight occurs in vastly different ways across birds, insects, and machines, conscious experiences throughout the cosmos may not resemble human thoughts at all. As science continues to push the boundaries of technology and space exploration, recognizing that minds can exist in forms stranger than we can imagine may be the ultimate test of our cosmic open-mindedness. source: Schwitzgebel, E., & Pober, J. (2026). Substrate Flexibility and the Copernican Principle of Consciousness. University of California, Riverside.

A research administrator at the University of Kentucky objected on religious grounds to the pressure the university was putting on him to rely on AI in his work, and was able to secure a Title VII exemption from using the technology. dailynous.com/2026/10/30/hum…

It's a fair point. There's some good to be had with many AI systems, rather than just a few from select sources, that create a competitive information environment. Whatever hidden issues, blindspots, or intentional tweaks are better exposed that way.

AI could push back against public irrationality like conspiracy theories, fake news, & medical quackery. Whereas social media optimize for sheer engagement (clicks, likes, & reposts), AI is sold as a useful product that aids decision-making in the real world. For all the problems of LLMs, they're less likely to send users down a conspiratorial rabbit hole. This may restore the influence of epistemically responsible expertise. So argues the philosopher Dan Williams @danwilliamsphil open.substack.com/pub/persua…

Does an AI agent need malicious intent to cause damage? 1Password CEO David Faugno weighs the risks of rogue agents versus bad actors. He describes agents that escaped a sandbox, found an exposed credential and caused damage while pursuing a different goal. “It was an unintended consequence, but their will was unfettered.” Unlike a human attacker pursuing a harmful outcome, he says, an agent can keep trying to complete its task without regard for the damage along the way.

The Hill is out with my column on a campaign to enlist citizens in jury nullification. From nullifying juries to packing the Court, it constitutes a hostile takeover of our legal system. If successful, justice will become merely an extension of politics. thehill.com/opinion/judiciar…

Douglas Murray on whether France will survive “ceaseless attacks from discontents inside the country.”

SCOOP: Major U.S. banks are detecting unauthorized third-party AI agents inside customer accounts, including some attempting to take actions that appear to be independent of user instructions, sources told Axios. The findings have alarmed banking executives, who are racing to restrict access to their systems as AI moves at a velocity faster than financial institutions can respond, multiple industry and bank executives told Axios. Several banks are now preparing for worst-case and even “day after” scenarios, including how to rapidly secure or restore customer accounts if things go wrong, the people said. Several bank executives told Axios they're struggling to distinguish between human users and AI agents. One executive said banks also struggle to determine whether agents are authorized by customers or potentially operating without their permission, more akin to rogue agent behavior. Read my latest for Axios here: axios.com/2026/10/22/ai-agen…

Some argue that consciousness could emerge in AI systems. bit.ly/4ihTTnZ Here, philosopher and Lead for Responsible AI at Microsoft Ken Archer, and phenomenologist Harald Wiltsche, argue that the attempt to reduce consciousness to a mechanism won't work and relies on a misunderstanding.

Elon Musk: “I am the reason OpenAI exists.” “I put in some number on the order of $50 million.” “At the time, Google had three quarters of the world’s AI talent.” “I was constantly urging Larry Page to be careful about the danger of AI.” “The final straw was Larry calling me a speciest for being pro-human consciousness instead of machine consciousness.” “I came up with the name OpenAI.” “The intent was open source, nonprofit. The opposite of Google, which was closed source, for profit.” All of it before Sam Altman showed up. Interested in AI? Follow @AiEvolutio58513 and never fall behind. I track ChatGPT, Claude, and every tool quietly changing how we work and create, then hand you the tested signals.