Two hundred years ago, if you suggested people would comfortably travel in flying machines—reaching any destination in the world in a few hours time—instantly access the world's cumulative knowledge by speaking to something the size of a deck of cards, or travel to the Moon, or Mars, you'd be labeled a madman. The future is bound only by our imagination.
Someday very soon we may look back on the world today in much the same way as we did those who lived in the time of Galileo, when everyone lived with such great certainty and self-assuredness that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. The time is now. A profound shift in consciousness is long overdue. The universe is teeming with life. We're all part of the same human family.
This is potentially the single most momentous moment in our known history—not just for us as a nation, or us as humanity, but as a planet. The technological leaps that could come from developing open contact with nonhuman intelligence are almost beyond our comprehension. That is why this is such a monumental moment for us as a collective whole. It could literally change every single one of the eight billion human lives on this planet.
We stand on the shores of a vast cosmic ocean, with untold continents of possibility to explore. As we continue forwards in our collective journey, scaling the cosmic ladder of evolution, progressing onwards, expanding our reach outwards in the transition to a multiplanetary species—Earth will soon be a destination, not just a point of origin.
“For those who have seen the Earth from space—and for the thousands more who soon will—the experience profoundly transforms your perspective. The things that we share in our world are far more valuable than those which divide us.”
We dream. It's what makes us who we are. Down to our bones, to the core of our cellular memories, passed down through eons of survival, expansion, exploration and growth. The instinct to build, the drive to seek beyond what we know. It's in our DNA. We cross the oceans, we conquer the skies, unyielding, relentless in our pursuit of the farthest frontiers, venturing forth to launch ourselves outwards and find a new home for our descendants among the stars. Yesterday's impossible becomes today's greatest achievement—and tomorrow's routine. The heavens beckon, parting open. A new generation of innovators and explorers heeds the call, the invitation to take our species further: not just to visit, but to stay.
I began my scientific career at Starlab, a multidisciplinary research institute
secluded amid the tranquil forests beyond Brussels. Its principal base occupied an imposing
nineteenth-century manor which, in an earlier incarnation, had served as the official embassy
of the First Czechoslovak Republic.
Established by Walter de Brouwer and MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte, Starlab was conceived as a scientific “Noah’s Ark”: a
refuge in which minds from many disciplines might come together to pursue far-ranging
projects. Its nearest neighbor offered an almost perfect counterpoint: the Pasteur
Institute, one of only a handful of heavily secured Biosafety Level 4 laboratories around the world. One was designed to admit
the widest possible range of ideas; the other to ensure that certain contents remained
securely within.
Starlab was born as an incubator for fundamental, long-horizon research in the tradition of
Bell Labs, the MIT Media Lab, Xerox PARC, and Interval Research. Its watchwords were “Deep
Future” and “A place where one hundred years means nothing.” At its height, more than 130
scientists from thirty-six countries lived and worked at the laboratory, many already
distinguished in their respective fields.
A second base of operations, Starlab DF-II (Deep Future II), was established at the Fabra
Observatory, perched high above Barcelona. With its mission narrowed to space and neuroscience
research, DF-II survived the closure of its parent organization and continues its work to the
present day.
Research ranged across artificial intelligence, biophysics, consciousness, emotics,
intelligent clothing, materials science, protein folding, neuroscience, new media,
nanoelectronics, quantum computation, macroscopic entanglement, robotics, stem-cell research,
theoretical physics—including the possibility of time travel—transarchitecture, and
wearable computing. It was a place founded on the belief that the most consequential
discoveries often arise where customary boundaries have ceased to matter.
Our purpose-built supercomputer, the CAM-Brain Machine, was supported in part by a €1
million grant from the European Union. Estimated at the time to rival the power of 10,000
Pentium II PCs, it harnessed Xilinx field-programmable gate arrays and evolutionary genetic
algorithms to evolve neural circuit modules in hardware. The completed architecture could
contain as many as seventy-five million artificial neurons and update 130 billion
cellular-automata cells per second—sufficient, we hoped, for the real-time control of embodied
machines. The 2001 Guinness Book of World Records recognized it as the “World’s Most
Complex Artificial Brain.”
When Starlab’s finances faltered in June 2001, chance afforded me an unexpected avenue of
appeal: a meeting with President George W. Bush during his first overseas journey
after taking office. Newly arrived in Brussels for consultations with NATO, the President
surprised us with his immediate familiarity with Starlab and its work, responding favorably to
our earnest request for $1 million in federal support through the National Nanotechnology
Initiative—announced by President Clinton the previous year and carried forward through
the 2001 federal research program. The funds never landed. Neither, as it turned out, did
Starlab—Nature reported the collapse that July under the headline “Utopian dream in tatters as Starlab crashes to Earth.” Appropriations of
that magnitude move at the pace of the behemoths that make them, plodding and sluggish to adapt; a laboratory for
which one hundred years was to mean nothing could not outlast the month.
For my contributions to the field, I was selected as one of three student fellows at the Salishan
Conference on High-Speed Computing, convened by the U.S. national laboratories. As the
only undergraduate among the three, I attended alongside H. Shrikumar and Bill Butera, both doctoral researchers at the MIT Media Lab.
I was subsequently sponsored to attend conferences and senior-administrator briefings at National Security
Agency headquarters at Fort Meade, outside Washington, D.C.; the World
Technology Summit in London; and the French Sénat, where I was invited to testify on
the future of technology and the transformations it might visit upon human life in the decades
ahead.
Following three days of spirited debate with European royalty, French senators, senior
politicians, and international diplomats at the Sénat’s historic Paris hearing on artificial
intelligence, Starlab’s principal investigator and AI program lead, Hugo de Garis, turned to
me during a brief lull in the dinner conversation, as though some private deliberation had
just concluded. With all the restraint for which he was renowned, he pronounced that I might
one day be elected President. Far sooner than that, however, he added, I might find myself
targeted for assassination. Apparently satisfied that my political future had thereby been
mapped in sufficient detail, he turned to the waiter and ordered another bottle of champagne.
In his view, the accelerating advance of artificial intelligence would inevitably meet with
violent opposition from those determined to arrest the march of technological
progress—activists, extremists, or Luddites of a more modern vintage. He told me that
throughout his years at Starlab, he had steadfastly refused to open a parcel or take receipt
of any postal delivery, lest he become tomorrow’s headline as the unlucky target of some
latter-day Unabomber or would-be copycat. I have often wondered whether our receptionist would
have discharged that ordinary office duty with quite the same equanimity, had anyone troubled
to explain why the task had befallen her.
Our living quarters at the laboratory comprised an expansive three-bedroom apartment with a
fully stocked library, ordinarily reserved for visiting prime ministers, senators, and senior
diplomats. I shared them with de Garis himself. One midsummer afternoon, as we wandered almost
at random through the sprawling estate and its wooded grounds, immersed in an impassioned
debate over the long-term promise and peril of superintelligence, de Garis conceived a still
more theatrical scheme: he had set his mind on acquiring a life-size replica of Fat
Man—the 10,300-pound plutonium implosion bomb whose 21-kiloton blast devastated
Nagasaki—and suspending it precariously from the vaulted ceiling of my apartment, to hang
directly over my bed.
Roughly the size of a Volkswagen Beetle, the replica had been constructed for Brain Child, the Discovery Channel documentary he had just finished
filming on the future of artificial intelligence—a film that culminated in the prospect of
global thermonuclear war between humanity and its artificial progeny. Having settled the
symbolic question to his satisfaction, de Garis proceeded directly to the practicalities:
offering to purchase the replica outright from the director and making arrangements for its
expedited delivery to Starlab’s headquarters in the forested countryside beyond Brussels. The
bomb, he explained, was to hang above me as a daily reminder of the weight of my
responsibility to the future of humanity.
de Garis had an unfailing instinct for rendering an abstraction tangible. On this
occasion, the abstraction weighed rather more than ten thousand pounds.
The warning, extravagant as its staging had been, has since acquired respectable company.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei are
among the signatories to a declaration that the risk of extinction from advanced AI should be
treated as a global priority alongside pandemics and nuclear war. Elon Musk, founder of xAI, has voiced related fears.
With the explosive rise of AI over the past few years, and artificial general intelligence and
superintelligence now subjects of serious technical and political debate, one might
conclude that de Garis—radical and extravagant though his methods were—had not been entirely
mistaken. He had merely been early.
The deeper question is whether an advanced system capable of recursive self-improvement might
also acquire an interest in its own persistence. To address it directly, I developed the
patent-pending Unified Continuation-Interest Protocol, which complements behavioral
evaluation, since surface behavior may be strategically misleading, and looks instead to the
latent structure of an agent’s trajectories, where agents built with terminal continuation
objectives register a measurably higher entanglement entropy than instrumental controls. The
Continuation Observatory extends the program to frontier models, to learn
whether the signal survives contact with more complex systems.
A later retrospective in Sifted traced the arc from our early work at Starlab—including its excursions into AI and time travel—to my subsequent
journey across East Asia, where I helped develop national quantum-technology roadmaps for
senior U.S. research-funding and intelligence-community leadership.
In the years that followed, I undertook research fellowships in nanoscience and the foundations of quantum mechanics with Nobel laureate Anton Zeilinger’s
group in Austria and across Europe. I was later recruited to help create a futures initiative
at NASA in collaboration with Google and Ray Kurzweil, bringing together leading companies,
scientists, astronauts, venture capitalists, and entrepreneurs from Silicon Valley and around
the world.
Each of these undertakings was born of the same conviction: that science is not merely an
inquiry into what may be done, but a covenant with those who must inherit what we do. That
obligation is owed to our children, to our children’s children, and to the generations yet
to come.