adamkruger's Podcast History
What they've been listening to lately
82episodes
29podcasts
3.2 dayslistened
2.1xavg speed
Podcasts ▾
Harry Potter and The Methods of Rationality Audiobook
Dwarkesh Podcast
80,000 Hours Podcast
Win-Win with Liv Boeree
Lenny's Podcast: Product | Career | Growth
Clearer Thinking with Spencer Greenberg
The a16z Show
The Ezra Klein Show
Your Undivided Attention
Making Sense with Sam Harris
Lives Well Lived
Endgame: Can we live with Artificial General Intelligence?
Y Combinator Startup Podcast
Odd Lots
Doom Debates!
This Week in Startups
EconTalk
Theory of Change
Future of Life Institute Podcast
Reply All
Robert Wright's Nonzero
ForeCast
Are We Doomed?
"The Cognitive Revolution" | AI Builders, Researchers, and Live Player Analysis
Open to Debate
Recruiting Future with Matt Alder - What's Next For Talent Acquisition, HR & Hiring?
The Gray Area with Sean Illing
Science Vs
How I AI
July 2026
The Ezra Klein Show
A Radical Vision for Israelis and PalestiniansDwarkesh Podcast
Alex Imas and Phil Trammell – What remains scarce after AGI?June 2026
"The Cognitive Revolution" | AI Builders, Researchers, and Live Player Analysis
AI:AM #4: Cameron on Model Consciousness, Duvenaud's Gradual Disempowerment, swyx's AI-Eng AlphaRobert Wright's Nonzero
The US-China AI Race (Robert Wright & Ryan Fedasiuk)Lenny's Podcast: Product | Career | Growth
What happens after coding is solved? | Fiona Fung (Manager of the Claude Code and Cowork Teams)Recruiting Future with Matt Alder - What's Next For Talent Acquisition, HR & Hiring?
Will AI Break Recruiting?Harry Potter and The Methods of Rationality Audiobook
Why I listened: I love Harry Potter + I'm a fan of Yudkowsky's + I've heard great things about this book
Making Sense with Sam Harris
#479 — When Robots Take OverThis Week in Startups
Anthropic wants to slow AI down and Bernie wants 50%: JCal Reacts | E2297Endgame: Can we live with Artificial General Intelligence?
The world’s biggest problemTheory of Change
How Alexander Berger weighs the world’s biggest problemsClearer Thinking with Spencer Greenberg
When painful thoughts feel true but aren't (with Christine Padesky)May 2026
The Gray Area with Sean Illing
Talk to strangersEndgame: Can we live with Artificial General Intelligence?
A nation of geniusesEndgame: Can we live with Artificial General Intelligence?
Endgame: Can we live with Artificial General Intelligence?Clearer Thinking with Spencer Greenberg
Could an international agreement protect us from dangerous AI? (with Malo Bourgon)Takeaways: It’s a bit challenging to remember everything since I didn’t listen to the entire episode all at once; I listened to it ... more
Takeaways: It’s a bit challenging to remember everything since I didn’t listen to the entire episode all at once; I listened to it over a couple of days in several different chunks.
Overall, I really liked the episode. I believe it's crucial to determine how to ensure that artificial superintelligence is developed safely, as I see this as the biggest threat facing humanity today. Addressing this issue should be the top priority for every country.
I am very grateful for MIRI's work in this area; they are truly leading the way. I think they are making significant strides in drafting what an agreement could look like to pause the more dangerous aspects of AI development while still allowing us to enjoy the considerable benefits we currently have. Their practical approach is commendable.
On a minor note, there was a question about the orthogonality thesis, and I didn't fully grasp the explanation of what it is. I’ve heard of the orthogonality thesis a few times but haven’t yet wrapped my head around its meaning and relevance. I intend to look into it further, but I felt that the explanation given in the episode didn’t resonate with me.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking, reading, and listening regarding AI risk and safety, so it’s challenging to pinpoint exactly which thoughts relate specifically to this episode.
Regarding the question about what it looks like if things go well, I found the answer quite satisfactory. It suggested that, in an ideal scenario, the marginal cost of everything approaches zero, meaning people could have any material wealth they desire without needing to work, prompting us to redefine our purpose. While I think that answer is solid, it might help to simplify it even further.
I appreciated the analogy he used, comparing it to someone living a thousand years ago being asked about what the world would look like a thousand years in the future if everything went well. They might have envisioned consistent access to food and health, but specifics would remain elusive. I believe the answers to our current situation are similarly complex.
Upon reflection, what interests me most isn’t my criticism but rather what I learned or took away from the episode. One key takeaway for me is that I want to explore the orthogonality thesis further.
Additionally, I was already aware of the draft agreement aimed at pausing the most dangerous advancements in AI development, but I realize I haven’t read the whole draft yet, so that’s something I want to do.
Those are a couple of the main points that come to mind. less
Overall, I really liked the episode. I believe it's crucial to determine how to ensure that artificial superintelligence is developed safely, as I see this as the biggest threat facing humanity today. Addressing this issue should be the top priority for every country.
I am very grateful for MIRI's work in this area; they are truly leading the way. I think they are making significant strides in drafting what an agreement could look like to pause the more dangerous aspects of AI development while still allowing us to enjoy the considerable benefits we currently have. Their practical approach is commendable.
On a minor note, there was a question about the orthogonality thesis, and I didn't fully grasp the explanation of what it is. I’ve heard of the orthogonality thesis a few times but haven’t yet wrapped my head around its meaning and relevance. I intend to look into it further, but I felt that the explanation given in the episode didn’t resonate with me.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking, reading, and listening regarding AI risk and safety, so it’s challenging to pinpoint exactly which thoughts relate specifically to this episode.
Regarding the question about what it looks like if things go well, I found the answer quite satisfactory. It suggested that, in an ideal scenario, the marginal cost of everything approaches zero, meaning people could have any material wealth they desire without needing to work, prompting us to redefine our purpose. While I think that answer is solid, it might help to simplify it even further.
I appreciated the analogy he used, comparing it to someone living a thousand years ago being asked about what the world would look like a thousand years in the future if everything went well. They might have envisioned consistent access to food and health, but specifics would remain elusive. I believe the answers to our current situation are similarly complex.
Upon reflection, what interests me most isn’t my criticism but rather what I learned or took away from the episode. One key takeaway for me is that I want to explore the orthogonality thesis further.
Additionally, I was already aware of the draft agreement aimed at pausing the most dangerous advancements in AI development, but I realize I haven’t read the whole draft yet, so that’s something I want to do.
Those are a couple of the main points that come to mind. less
Are We Doomed?
We Design the AI That Kills Us AllClearer Thinking with Spencer Greenberg
What beats intuition when it comes to doing good? (with Marcus Davis)80,000 Hours Podcast
'Godfather of AI': I Now See a Path to Safe Superintelligent AI | Yoshua BengioWhy I listened: I respect Yahshua Bengio, and I like the 80k Hours podcast, and I was curious about his proposal for building safe... more
Why I listened: I respect Yahshua Bengio, and I like the 80k Hours podcast, and I was curious about his proposal for building safe super intelligent AI.
Takeaways: I'm curious how he can be so certain that his approach to building superintelligence is basically guaranteed to be safe. I don't yet understand why he has such high confidence in that. Also, I'm curious as to why building AI to be honest ensures safety, because I could imagine an honest AI saying, "I've decided that I don't care about your goals and I'm going to kill you all." less
Takeaways: I'm curious how he can be so certain that his approach to building superintelligence is basically guaranteed to be safe. I don't yet understand why he has such high confidence in that. Also, I'm curious as to why building AI to be honest ensures safety, because I could imagine an honest AI saying, "I've decided that I don't care about your goals and I'm going to kill you all." less
Future of Life Institute Podcast
Why AI Is Not a Normal Technology (with Peter Wildeford)April 2026
The Ezra Klein Show
What We Got Right — and Wrong — in ‘Abundance’Y Combinator Startup Podcast
How to Build the Future: Demis HassabisWhy I listened: I am fascinated to hear Demis's thoughts on AI, given he's one of the leaders building... more
Why I listened: I am fascinated to hear Demis's thoughts on AI, given he's one of the leaders building AGI.
Takeaways: It's both disappointing and surprising to me that the risks of AGI didn't get brought up in this discussion. less
Takeaways: It's both disappointing and surprising to me that the risks of AGI didn't get brought up in this discussion. less
Open to Debate
Should We Use Gene Editing to Make Better Babies?Lenny's Podcast: Product | Career | Growth
Snapchat CEO: Why distribution has become the most important moat | Evan SpiegelLenny's Podcast: Product | Career | Growth
Head of Growth (Anthropic): “Claude is growing itself at this point” | Amol AvasareWhy I listened: Into Lenny's podcast and into anything Anthropic-related right... more
Why I listened: Into Lenny's podcast and into anything Anthropic-related right now
Takeaways: Continue to not quite understand the value of growth/marketing as I feel like if a product is good enough, it'll sell itself. Amol acknowledged this in the episode, but it still isn't clear to me why marketing is needed for Anthropic. Some other things that came to mind are:
- He mentioned that often friction is a good thing in onboarding because it improves the quality of onboarding but maybe it's just the way he said it. I think friction implies it's a bad thing and I think that's true. Friction implies something that the user didn't enjoy and I do feel like that's generally fundamentally a bad thing. I think maybe what he's getting at is that sometimes a longer onboarding flow is a better thing, which I agree with if the user wants a longer onboarding flow. For example in your onboarding flow, rather than forcing people to answer a bunch of questions about their preferences, you can give them the option of saying, "Do you want to share some of your preferences with us so that we can better personalize your experience?" but then also give users the option to say, "I'm comfortable with my understanding of the product; let me jump straight to using it." I think that's probably the ideal model because then you satisfy different user preferences, in that some users will actually want the longer onboarding flow and some will want the shorter one.
- Another thing that came to mind as I was listening is that he talked about how Anthropic is very focused on the exponential and I think sometimes we assume that exponential is always good but obviously it depends on what it is. For example, COVID cases followed an exponential trend at the beginning and there was an exponential increase in deaths from COVID and obviously that's a bad thing. I'm just, I guess, a bit wary of I understand why a company that's incentivized to make money wants to see exponential growth but is it actually a good thing no matter what the product is? Imagine a product that goes from zero users to 8 billion users in the course of a month, for example, that sees exponential growth like we've never seen before. I think there's a strong case to be made that no matter how good we think the product is, you probably want to roll it out more slowly than that just in case there are negative consequences that you didn't foresee. less
Takeaways: Continue to not quite understand the value of growth/marketing as I feel like if a product is good enough, it'll sell itself. Amol acknowledged this in the episode, but it still isn't clear to me why marketing is needed for Anthropic. Some other things that came to mind are:
- He mentioned that often friction is a good thing in onboarding because it improves the quality of onboarding but maybe it's just the way he said it. I think friction implies it's a bad thing and I think that's true. Friction implies something that the user didn't enjoy and I do feel like that's generally fundamentally a bad thing. I think maybe what he's getting at is that sometimes a longer onboarding flow is a better thing, which I agree with if the user wants a longer onboarding flow. For example in your onboarding flow, rather than forcing people to answer a bunch of questions about their preferences, you can give them the option of saying, "Do you want to share some of your preferences with us so that we can better personalize your experience?" but then also give users the option to say, "I'm comfortable with my understanding of the product; let me jump straight to using it." I think that's probably the ideal model because then you satisfy different user preferences, in that some users will actually want the longer onboarding flow and some will want the shorter one.
- Another thing that came to mind as I was listening is that he talked about how Anthropic is very focused on the exponential and I think sometimes we assume that exponential is always good but obviously it depends on what it is. For example, COVID cases followed an exponential trend at the beginning and there was an exponential increase in deaths from COVID and obviously that's a bad thing. I'm just, I guess, a bit wary of I understand why a company that's incentivized to make money wants to see exponential growth but is it actually a good thing no matter what the product is? Imagine a product that goes from zero users to 8 billion users in the course of a month, for example, that sees exponential growth like we've never seen before. I think there's a strong case to be made that no matter how good we think the product is, you probably want to roll it out more slowly than that just in case there are negative consequences that you didn't foresee. less
The Ezra Klein Show
Why Are Palantir and OpenAI Scared of Alex Bores?Why I listened: I think someone at work may have recommended it, but I can't remember for sure. It may have also just shown up on my... more
Why I listened: I think someone at work may have recommended it, but I can't remember for sure. It may have also just shown up on my newly released episodes feed because I follow this podcast. I was also just curious to hear what policy ideas Alex Borris had for AI and why he was being attacked by different AI companies.
Takeaways: It's hard to remember because I think I listened to this episode over a few different days. I remember that I liked seeing Ezra push Alex for what specifically he'd recommend we do in terms of whether to allow Waymo and other self-driving car companies to go into cities like New York City. I appreciated him pushing Alex for an answer on this.
I sort of lean towards allowing it to happen, given how much safer self-driving cars are compared to human drivers, but I'm also concerned that human drivers aren't going to be able to replace their income easily. I also appreciated how Alex seemed to recognize the potential for AI to make work obsolete and that it poses a catastrophic risk to humanity. I'm not too familiar with Alex; this is only the first or second time I've heard him on a podcast or read about him, so I appreciated learning more about him. less
Takeaways: It's hard to remember because I think I listened to this episode over a few different days. I remember that I liked seeing Ezra push Alex for what specifically he'd recommend we do in terms of whether to allow Waymo and other self-driving car companies to go into cities like New York City. I appreciated him pushing Alex for an answer on this.
I sort of lean towards allowing it to happen, given how much safer self-driving cars are compared to human drivers, but I'm also concerned that human drivers aren't going to be able to replace their income easily. I also appreciated how Alex seemed to recognize the potential for AI to make work obsolete and that it poses a catastrophic risk to humanity. I'm not too familiar with Alex; this is only the first or second time I've heard him on a podcast or read about him, so I appreciated learning more about him. less
Lenny's Podcast: Product | Career | Growth
How Anthropic’s product team moves faster than anyone else | Cat Wu (Head of Product, Claude Code)Science Vs
How To Stop ScrollingLives Well Lived
DEREK SHILLER: How AI will change what it is to live wellLives Well Lived
BEYOND HUMAN: are we creating AI consciousness?Y Combinator Startup Podcast
The GPT Moment for Robotics Is HereYour Undivided Attention
Here’s Our Roadmap to a Better AI FutureThe a16z Show
Who Controls AI Acceleration? Vitalik Buterin and Guillaume Verdon DebateWhy I listened: I listened to this episode because I really liked debates and I'm really into thinking about the future of AI right... more
Why I listened: I listened to this episode because I really liked debates and I'm really into thinking about the future of AI right now. I wasn't familiar with either of the debaters' views on AI.
Takeaways: I love debates, and I think we should have more of them. I would have liked to see more of a discussion around understanding each person's opinion on the probability that AI will cause humanity to go extinct. If the debater arguing for AI acceleration thought the probability was close to zero, I would have wanted to better understand why they felt that way. If they said they thought the probability was something like 10%, I would have wanted to ask them why they think that's acceptable or why they think slowing down wouldn't reduce that probability. less
Takeaways: I love debates, and I think we should have more of them. I would have liked to see more of a discussion around understanding each person's opinion on the probability that AI will cause humanity to go extinct. If the debater arguing for AI acceleration thought the probability was close to zero, I would have wanted to better understand why they felt that way. If they said they thought the probability was something like 10%, I would have wanted to ask them why they think that's acceptable or why they think slowing down wouldn't reduce that probability. less
Win-Win with Liv Boeree
#39 - Daniel Kokotajlo - Wargames, Superintelligence & Quitting OpenAITakeaways: I really liked the analogy Daniel gave when he was trying to explain why just because an artificial intelligence is... more
Takeaways: I really liked the analogy Daniel gave when he was trying to explain why just because an artificial intelligence is aligned now doesn't mean it's going to be aligned in the future. He gave an analogy of parents who raise their child with a certain religious belief. The child seems to be aligned to the religious belief but then when they go off to college they're no longer aligned to the religious belief. Basically once they leave the house it could be two things:
1. It could be that the child was basically lying all along and was just waiting until they had an opportunity to leave the house.
2. It could be that they were truly aligned to the religious belief but then when they went to college they encountered new ideas that changed their beliefs.
I liked the analogy because it does feel similar to the alignment problem that we have today for AI. less
1. It could be that the child was basically lying all along and was just waiting until they had an opportunity to leave the house.
2. It could be that they were truly aligned to the religious belief but then when they went to college they encountered new ideas that changed their beliefs.
I liked the analogy because it does feel similar to the alignment problem that we have today for AI. less
80,000 Hours Podcast
How scary is Claude Mythos? 303 pages in 21 minutesMaking Sense with Sam Harris
#469 — Escaping an Anti-Human FutureLenny's Podcast: Product | Career | Growth
Hard truths about building in the AI era | Keith Rabois (Khosla Ventures)Your Undivided Attention
The Race to Build God: AI's Existential Gamble — Yoshua Bengio & Tristan Harris at DavosTakeaways: I wasn't familiar with Yoshua Bengio's new startup called Law Zero but it makes total sense to me that we would want to ... more
Takeaways: I wasn't familiar with Yoshua Bengio's new startup called Law Zero but it makes total sense to me that we would want to develop an AI that is completely honest. I'm a bit surprised that Bengio said that he's confident that he's found a way to develop a super intelligence that stays completely honest. That's surprising to me that he would have that much confidence with that.
Even if you could build it, I'm not sure if honesty is necessarily enough because if you build something that's super intelligent, maybe it's honest with you and says, 'Hey I have different goals than you. I don't care about you. I'm gonna kill you.' That's being honest but still not an outcome we want. I'd be curious to hear his thoughts on that. less
Even if you could build it, I'm not sure if honesty is necessarily enough because if you build something that's super intelligent, maybe it's honest with you and says, 'Hey I have different goals than you. I don't care about you. I'm gonna kill you.' That's being honest but still not an outcome we want. I'd be curious to hear his thoughts on that. less
Win-Win with Liv Boeree
#20 - Nick Bostrom - Utopia, Superintelligence and Digital MindsTakeaways: It was interesting to hear that Nick Bostrom is focused now on thinking about what a utopia could look like. I had a... more
Takeaways: It was interesting to hear that Nick Bostrom is focused now on thinking about what a utopia could look like. I had a concern around whether this might encourage people to race towards superintelligence more by outlining what the utopia might look like. Maybe the point he's trying to make in the book is that it's actually very hard to define a utopia and I think I realized that even more while listening to this episode.
I think the example he gives is that in a utopia you could, in theory, have something where you just take a pill one time and you have perfect health forever, meaning you never have to work out. While that seems like a great thing, a lot of people get enjoyment in the pursuit of a goal. Basically in a utopia any goal that you want you could get with a press of a button. He does say that people could choose to still do the hard thing and not press the button to reach their goal but it does seem like a bit of a strange world to live in where anything you want is available at a press of a button. I do think it's interesting how hard it is to actually define a utopia. less
I think the example he gives is that in a utopia you could, in theory, have something where you just take a pill one time and you have perfect health forever, meaning you never have to work out. While that seems like a great thing, a lot of people get enjoyment in the pursuit of a goal. Basically in a utopia any goal that you want you could get with a press of a button. He does say that people could choose to still do the hard thing and not press the button to reach their goal but it does seem like a bit of a strange world to live in where anything you want is available at a press of a button. I do think it's interesting how hard it is to actually define a utopia. less
Win-Win with Liv Boeree
#00 - Daniel Schmachtenberger - AI, Capitalism, Misalignment & MolochWhy I listened: Name of guest looked familiar, and I liked the topics mentioned in the... more
Why I listened: Name of guest looked familiar, and I liked the topics mentioned in the title
Takeaways: I want to check out Scott Alexander's post about meditations on moloch less
Takeaways: I want to check out Scott Alexander's post about meditations on moloch less
Your Undivided Attention
A Conversation with the Team Behind "The AI Doc"Why I listened: Watched the doc recently; thought it was arguably the most important film ever made
Win-Win with Liv Boeree
#37 - Tim Urban - Beating Procrastination, Parenthood, and PoliticsWhy I listened: I'm a fan of Tim Urban, and I also struggle with procrastination sometimes, and I can relate to... more
Why I listened: I'm a fan of Tim Urban, and I also struggle with procrastination sometimes, and I can relate to parenthood
Takeaways: Interesting to hear that he finds sticks much more helpful than carrots to fight procrastination less
Takeaways: Interesting to hear that he finds sticks much more helpful than carrots to fight procrastination less
Reply All
#158 The Case of the Missing HitWhy I listened: Recommended by someone at work; they seem to suggest it was their favourite podcast episode ever, and a bunch of people ... more
Why I listened: Recommended by someone at work; they seem to suggest it was their favourite podcast episode ever, and a bunch of people upvoted that comment
Takeaways: I really enjoyed it! Very fun story to listen to, with an awesome ending less
Takeaways: I really enjoyed it! Very fun story to listen to, with an awesome ending less