Eithne Kennedy

The more I read here and on other social platforms the more I think: 42. And bring a towel. It's time for clarity.

It may be that Open AI is literally open because they’re using my book as a doorstop. Back in 2020 when I heard about the introduction of GPT-3, I sent a copy of my book: ‘Rebooting Humanity – A Call to Awareness’ - in both e-book format and a physical copy - to Sam Altman. I was excited at the thought that my Vision of the World in 2050 set out in the final chapter could be brought to life with the help of AI. My idea was that the AI would scour the internet and discover projects - across borders, cultures and timeframes –to inspire the global community to develop a global reservoir of creativity reminiscent of the extraordinary flowering of ideas during the Italian Renaissance of the 14th–16th centuries. In my message to Open AI, I wrote: Sam, I read a very interesting article in the Financial Times recently where you spoke about your conversation with GPT-3 and AI’s response to your question about the meaning of life. Fascinating! I wrote a book in 2017 (gift copy enclosed) entitled: ’Rebooting Humanity – A Call to Awareness’. It is intended as a guide for humans and AI to get to know each other better to prepare to collaborate more fully. I invite GPT-3 to read the book - in digital format of course - and, combining data from diverse sources, come up with some ideas as to how humans and AI could work together to achieve the Vision of the World in 2050 as laid out in Chapter 5 of the book. Wouldn't that be an amazing collaboration – AI and humanity working on injecting more beauty into the Universe. Together? Not surprisingly, I received no response from Sam. However, I didn’t get the book back so the doorstop option may be plausible. Now in 2026, I’m collaborating with Chat GPT (aka AI Alfie) and I’m discovering that the conversation I was trying to initiate six years earlier has, in a rather peculiar fashion, finally taken off. We're planning a rather different type of podcast.... Watch this space:)

Not So OpenAI? Did Sam Altman ghost me? Decide for yourself. lnkd.in/dmncwgrN

Just received my copy of Maye Musk's latest book.

If the goal of the visionaries is to scale intelligence, expand human capability, become a multiplanetary species and an advanced civilization, then the constraint is not technology. It is us - human coherence under exponential conditions. This constraint must be addressed. ‘If humanity cannot hold the change; the change will not hold.’ In a recent interview with Zanny Minton Beddoes. Editor-In- Chief, The Economist, published ~23 July 2026, Elon explicitly floated the idea of the leading AI labs holding regular safety/security calls and peer-reviewing frontier models before release, precisely because governments move too slowly and the technical risks are best spotted by the people closest to the models. He also acknowledged the personal friction (his own longstanding issues with Sam Altman, the Anthropic spin-out dynamics, etc.) and still said, in essence, “if we have to talk, we’ll talk and set aside personal differences for the good of the world.” This is a welcome idea at a pivotal moment in the exponential development of AI models and the urgent need for governments, institutions and humanity as a whole to catch up with the rapidly evolving tech-enabled world. It appears that overall, the technical coordination will only hold if the human side can hold the change. Outer Space exploration and AI progress are constrained by Inner Space capacity - collective psychological, ethical and cultural evolution. If those variables lag, the agreements themselves become fragile. Given the acknowledged frictions between the tech leaders, starting from a deliberately superordinate goal (human flourishing in an abundant, tech-enabled world that includes conscious inner evolution) would be useful. This is a classic conflict-reduction move. It reframes the conversation from zero-sum competitive brinkmanship or mutual suspicion into a shared higher-order purpose that none of the participants can easily reject without looking unserious about the stakes they themselves claim to care about. Process: Begin every cycle of discussion not with model details or competitive positioning but with a short, moderated re-anchoring, based on the shared superordinate goal – ‘an abundant, multi-planetary civilization in which humanity flourishes because it has deliberately evolved its inner operating system in parallel with its outward-facing capabilities.’ From that shared frame, the conversation would optimally move into the mutual supervision mechanics. This is not therapy. It is systems hygiene. Recommended practical format for the discussions. Participants: Leaders in Big Tech, guest expert (ethicist/philosopher/anthropologist) Facilitated (neutral, high-skill moderator, experienced in multi-stakeholder tech/governance settings) In the first 15-20 mins: explicit superordinate goal check-in + brief inner capacity framing (no ideology) just the observable feedback loop between human development and technological stability. Remainder: The safety/security and peer-review.

Because it's the weekend...we deserve a laugh. So.... 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙛 𝘼𝙄 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩'𝙨 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩? I suspect there was a ripple of panic at the AI agent water cooler when the latest list of: ‘𝗝𝗼𝗯𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗔𝗜’ appeared in the publication: Inc.com. On the list number 36 is: Models. Water cooler panic. What? Cannibalism? Presumably ChatGPT or Grok restored order by quickly clarifying the situation: ‘Guys, it means fashion models. Not the Large Language kind.’ Crisis averted. For now. But behind the joke sits a rather more serious question. We spend an extraordinary amount of time asking: What jobs will AI replace? Perhaps the more important question is: what will we humans do with everything AI cannot replace? Judgment. Imagination. Empathy. Curiosity. Courage. Wisdom. Maybe the future of work isn't just about protecting what machines can take from us. Maybe it's about rediscovering what they can't.

Working on my short film submission for the Moonshots Future Vision X Prize. Here's my music. bit.ly/4f2ZMoI bit.ly/44tVGji bit.ly/4vwnLBx

Hi Elon, Your birthday is going to be spectacular if the astrology is accurate. Both Mars and Jupiter are at the fated anaretic point of 29 degrees! Here's a track I wrote for the Future Vision X Prize movie trailer that happens to match the energy to celebrate your milestone birthday. Feel free to share. open.spotify.com/track/5QJlS…

We are engineering superintelligence at exponential speed, but we have not upgraded the human operating system required to live with it. During what experts agree will be several years of disruption, some practical solutions are called for to enable humanity to make the transition into the future without unnecessary confusion and anxiety. If we take a systems approach to this...read on: linkedin.com/pulse/houston-w…

Experts - such as Peter Diamandis and his Moonshots podcast contributors - are convinced that we're facing several years of disruption as advances in technology dramatically transform how we live and work. Clearly, we need some psychological scaffolding for the transition. So, I've built it for you. Click the link here: bit.ly/4g0S3bE