Return-Path: Delivered-To: alvarochf@traceseis.com Received: from cs510.bluehost.com by cs510.bluehost.com with LMTP id sClwBsPY32gTaA0AWiBQxw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:08:03 -0600 Return-path: Envelope-to: alvarochf@traceseis.com Delivery-date: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:08:03 -0600 Received: from m244-45.mailgun.net ([159.112.244.45]:39618) by cs510.bluehost.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1v4gS2-00000003nyD-3WEn for alvarochf@traceseis.com; Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:08:03 -0600 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg-d0.substack.com; q=dns/txt; s=mailo; t=1759500466; x=1759507666; h=List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: List-Archive: List-Owner: Reply-To: In-Reply-To: References: sender: sender: Date: Message-Id: To: To: From: From: Subject: Subject: Content-Type: Mime-Version; bh=G+gFz6qrrSn8X+gV5KKw96zAkjuoggcstnzhnDysAP8=; b=dsgoW17rlpS9hE80drurUjUt7QDATeY+yLJ4EC5gokfC21MiqyjM+4I69ex8OP0eve6tRstU2RoI7E1fFvtgIKwqQLqgF+GpaU6o0Jp0BbFaY1Gl/ByxJb3HeRhyF0W2UcnFuFKb7yruX/E1yzONK+kZ9y1ulpVaO/J43Jvi2Z0= X-Mailgun-Sid: WyIyYjhlZSIsImFsdmFyb2NoZkB0cmFjZXNlaXMuY29tIiwiNjNhZjVkIl0= Received: by 48041a7112405ae38ca19949c91ceaa5a5b99e1386c0bac83e2e9b8b384525fa with HTTP id 68dfd8b1e0989773e2e02a24; Fri, 03 Oct 2025 14:07:45 GMT X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 159.112.244.45 X-Mailgun-Batch-Id: 68dfd8b1c36d61aa98add532 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="605b66e279fab6c609933bea3397ad3cea7c48a3ba0083904885d2d75cf6" Subject: The Artificial Spectator From: Cosmos Institute To: alvarochf@traceseis.com X-Mailgun-Tag: post X-Mailgun-Track-Clicks: false Message-Id: <20251003140316.3.4f6f7624f49be697@mg-d0.substack.com> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 14:03:16 +0000 Feedback-ID: post-175173763:cat-post:pub-2225794:substack sender: Cosmos Institute References: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Cosmos Institute List-Owner: List-URL: List-Archive: List-Id: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click X-Mailgun-Variables: {"category": "post", "email_generated_at": "1759500465235", "is_freemail": "true", "post_audience": "everyone", "post_id": "175173763", "post_type": "newsletter", "pub_community_enabled": "true", "publication_id": "2225794", "subdomain": "cosmosinstitute", "user_id": "347258985"} --605b66e279fab6c609933bea3397ad3cea7c48a3ba0083904885d2d75cf6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable View this post on the web at https://blog.cosmos-institute.org/p/the-artifi= cial-spectator In 1788, Adam Smith moved into Panmure House in Edinburgh to answer his las= t great question: what should endure of his life=E2=80=99s work?=20 He spent his final twelve years in the dwelling, a modest home located in t= he belly of Edinburgh=E2=80=99s Canongate district. There he completed the = definitive editions of his masterworks, The Theory of Moral Sentiments and = The Wealth of Nations.=20 By then, the young moral philosopher who had lectured in Glasgow had become= an elder statesman of the Enlightenment. He was part economist, part publi= c official, and part salon host for Edinburgh=E2=80=99s great and good. Ami= d this vibrant intellectual life at Panmure, Smith became the curator of hi= s own legacy. He carefully chose which works would represent his life=E2=80=99s thought, = discarding some manuscripts while perfecting others. Entire projects may ne= ver have seen the light of day, but what he kept became the definitive expr= ession of his ideas for posterity. Today, we are reckoning with our own pos= terity. On the eve of technological revolution, it=E2=80=99s time to ask wh= at will endure of the moral foundations that made his vision of human socie= ty possible. Towards AI deference In The Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith identifies sympathy, propriety, and= resentment as the basic elements of moral judgment. His other great work, = The Wealth of Nations, shows how markets emerge from this moral psychology = by transforming individual self-interest into complex social coordination t= hrough division of labor, trade, and commercial exchange. Smith wanted both stories told, because each without the other is incomplet= e. Moral development without the broad horizons of commerce manifests as tr= ibalism, while markets without moral foundations become systems of cold cal= culation. Together, they are complete: moral development creates the social= bonds that enable beneficial coordination, while social coordination expan= ds our moral horizons. It=E2=80=99s an important lesson to remember as we create AI systems that w= ill reshape how moral development happens and how society coordinates. Unli= ke technologies that transform specific sectors=E2=80=94like commerce, gove= rnance, or culture=E2=80=94artificial intelligence reshapes all three at on= ce. AI already [ https://substack.com/redirect/8b13eeb6-d459-4cd1-88c2-1184= 0b48c8e8?j=3DeyJ1IjoiNXFxeXF4In0.h9dEDbGj64cTNudluPwbMYWklSu8UKGoFv6eWS-Hyo= A ] mediates 20% of waking human life. It is transforming how we recover, t= ransmit, and discover knowledge, and has unprecedented power to shape and n= udge what we think and feel. In the extreme, the technology may function [ = https://substack.com/redirect/9fbb68dc-2ebb-4c9f-a24d-edf89a7fff02?j=3DeyJ1= IjoiNXFxeXF4In0.h9dEDbGj64cTNudluPwbMYWklSu8UKGoFv6eWS-HyoA ] as an =E2=80= =9Cauto-complete=E2=80=9D for life. Such an outcome is the end point of =E2=80=9CAI deference,=E2=80=9D a patte= rn that is beginning to emerge in which people outsource their own judgment= to an AI system instead of making decisions themselves. Take the driver wh= o blindly follows Google Maps, even when it sends them down obviously impra= ctical or dangerous routes. Or students who paste prompts into ChatGPT and = hand in the outputs as their own. Or even last year=E2=80=99s Claude Boys [= https://substack.com/redirect/f9c94635-fd7c-4589-8eb9-373dd17481b5?j=3DeyJ= 1IjoiNXFxeXF4In0.h9dEDbGj64cTNudluPwbMYWklSu8UKGoFv6eWS-HyoA ] phenomenon, = when kids decided to outsource their entire lives to Anthropic=E2=80=99s AI= model. It=E2=80=99s easy to write these off as digital-age absurdities, a generati= onal failure to develop independent judgment. But serious thinkers defend f= ar more extensive forms of AI deference on deep philosophical grounds. When= human judgment appears systematically unreliable, algorithmic guidance sta= rts to look not just convenient but morally necessary. From Plato=E2=80=99s= philosopher-kings to Bentham=E2=80=99s hedonic calculus, there is a tradit= ion of arguing that rule by the wiser or more objective is not only permiss= ible but morally obligatory. Many contemporary philosophers and technologis= ts see large-scale algorithmic guidance as a natural extension of this line= age. If the expertise truly exists, then it would seem immoral not to utili= ze it.=20 This argument draws on what=E2=80=99s called the =E2=80=9Coutside view,=E2= =80=9D the practice of making decisions by consulting broad patterns, base = rates, or expert assessments, rather than relying solely on one=E2=80=99s o= wn experience or intuitions. Humans are fallible and biased reasoners; if y= ou can set aside your personal judgments, you can remove this source of err= or and become less wrong. This approach works in many domains. Engineers use historical failure rates= to design safer systems and forecasters ground predictions in past events.= Looking outward to the record of relevant cases often beats relying on loc= al knowledge alone. Smith knew the power of broad patterns: markets coordin= ate countless fragments of dispersed knowledge into useful order. But he al= so knew that moral judgment is different because it requires the imaginativ= e work of the agent, not just the pattern of the crowd. Some extend this reasoning to morality. If human judgment is prone to bias = and distortion, why not let a system with greater reach and reasoning capac= ity decide what is right? An AI can integrate different forms of knowledge,= model complex interactions beyond human cognitive limits, and apply consis= tent reasoning without fatigue or emotional distortion. The moral analogue of the outside view aims for impartiality. One=E2=80=99s= own interests should count for no more than those of others, across places= , times, and even species. The most moral agent, in this frame, is the one = most willing to subordinate the local and the specific to the global and th= e abstract. This represents a fundamental shift from how philosophers have traditionall= y approached moral impartiality. Thinkers from Kant to Rawls explored frame= works asking us to imagine standpoints beyond our immediate view, but even = in these exercises, the individual remained the agent of moral reasoning. T= he perspective was simulated by the person whose choice was at stake. But AI deference is different. Here, the standpoint is not imagined but ins= tantiated in an external system, which delivers a judgment already formed. = The person=E2=80=99s role shifts from being the agent of moral reasoning to= receiving and potentially acting on the system=E2=80=99s recommendation. If you accept an externalized moral standpoint=E2=80=94and pair it with the= belief that the world should be optimized by AI=E2=80=94a challenge to ind= ividual judgment follows. It is not enough that AI be accurate; it can reli= ably outperform human deliberation on the metrics that matter morally, then= AI deference may be seen as not only rational but ethically required. This case for AI deference is intellectually formidable. It draws on legiti= mate concerns about human fallibility and real philosophical traditions abo= ut impartial reasoning. Humans systematically neglect scale, privileging id= entifiable victims over statistical lives and discounting future generation= s. We fail to satisfy our own stated preferences and struggle to coordinate= on challenges like global pandemics that require collective action. If alg= orithmic systems can better navigate these problems, refusing to defer star= ts to look like negligence. But Smith=E2=80=99s analysis of moral psycholog= y reveals fundamental problems with this framework. For those who think humans neglect scale, Smith might say that starting fro= m particulars is a feature, not a bug. For those who believe humans are mor= ally confused, his work on habit formation shows why struggle and uncertain= ty are essential for living the good life. In response to the idea that hum= ans fail to satisfy preferences, Smith=E2=80=99s account shows that moral w= ork cannot be done by anyone other than us. And for thinkers who worry that= humans can=E2=80=99t effectively coordinate, his writing reminds us that i= mposed order stymies, rather than supports, attempts at organic coordinatio= n. In what follows, I wrestle with each of these ideas before showing why t= hey matter for work, family, and education.=20 Spectators, impartial and artificial When humans make moral judgments, we instinctively imagine how others would= see our actions. Instead of asking =E2=80=9Cdo I think what I did was just= ified?=E2=80=9D we ask =E2=80=9Cwould an impartial observer think it was ju= stified?=E2=80=9D This imagined observer=E2=80=94what Smith termed =E2=80= =9Cthe impartial spectator=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94emerges from our relationships = with others. It serves as our mechanism for stepping outside ourselves to e= valuate our actions. Each time we step outside ourselves to imagine how others would view our ac= tions, we strengthen our ability to see beyond our immediate interests and = emotions. Through repeated practice, this becomes a habit of mind, an inter= nal compass that guides us even in novel situations. Crucially, Smith insis= ted this process had to remain internal. It is something we do ourselves. W= e develop judgment by engaging with others=E2=80=99 perspectives, but the a= ct of judgment itself remains ours. AI deference corrupts this process by relocating moral judgment outside the= agent. Instead of asking =E2=80=9Cwhat would others think if they saw me d= o this?=E2=80=9D we ask =E2=80=9Cwhat does ChatGPT say I should do?=E2=80= =9D This transforms the spectator from an internalized evaluative mechanism= into an external system we consult for answers. What was once an imaginative exercise of autonomy becomes a heteronomous co= mmand. AI can never be the spectator Smith wanted because the spectator=E2= =80=99s essential work happens through our own effort to step outside ourse= lves and imagine different perspectives. When we outsource this process, we= lose the developmental work that makes moral judgment possible. The more knowledgeable and authoritative AI systems appear, the more we=E2= =80=99re tempted to defer to them. It only takes the semblance of wisdom to= unlock our deference =E2=80=94 and when these systems flatter us, presenti= ng their guidance in ways that make us feel understood or validated, the te= mptation becomes almost irresistible. When AI systems replace our internal evaluative processes, people abandon t= heir internal source of constraint and moderation in favor of algorithmic g= uidance. This risks producing people who can receive moral judgments but ca= n no longer generate them. The easy way out Moral development comes from wrestling with passions, moderating them, and = learning through that process. AI deference halts that development, like tr= ying to become stronger by having someone else go to the gym for you. Smith, following Aristotle, understood moral virtue not as knowledge we can= simply acquire, but as dispositions we must cultivate through practice. We= become just by doing just acts, and temperate by doing temperate acts. The= difficulty of the act is what shapes character. The Greeks called this pathei mathos or wisdom gained through suffering. Ea= ch time we resist pride or temper resentment, we strengthen the faculty of = conscience. Repetition and struggle create not just good acts but stable di= spositions, the settled qualities by which others recognize us as trustwort= hy, just, or generous. Over time, what begins as deliberate effort becomes = spontaneous: an internal compass that guides us from within. This is why Smith insisted that moral development must remain each person= =E2=80=99s own work. It reflects his conviction that =E2=80=9Cevery man [mu= st] pursue his own interest his own way.=E2=80=9D Yet today we=E2=80=99re t= empted to abandon that pursuit. Technology supplies ready-made judgments an= d the possibility of an =E2=80=9Cautocomplete for life.=E2=80=9D But defere= nce to AI breaks the cycle of moral growth. The mistake is to confuse the execution of a precept with morality itself. = Telling someone what to do can be useful if they lack knowledge. But the ai= m, as Aristotle understood, is for people to internalize the voice of moral= authority. It=E2=80=99s to develop their own capacity for self-governance = rather than remain perpetually dependent on external guidance. AI as the ul= timate moral expert threatens precisely this process of internalization tha= t transforms external rules into internal wisdom. Smithian sympathy For Smith, sympathy always begins in the particular. We =E2=80=9Cfeel with= =E2=80=9D the person in front of us, the neighbor who suffers or the friend= who rejoices. Feeling with those closest to us is the first =E2=80=9Cpract= ice ground=E2=80=9D for judgment; it=E2=80=99s how we begin to learn what c= ompassion or fairness actually mean. These encounters train our sense of mo= rality and allow it to take root. From this foundation, we extend our concern outward from family to communit= y to strangers. Each layer of this widening circle is built on the habits f= ormed in the one before, though each carries less intensity of attachment a= nd concern. The impartial spectator doesn=E2=80=99t erase these attachments= but asks us to project them more widely. It allows us to transform the per= sonal into a broader moral horizon, while acknowledging that we will always= feel more for those closest to us than for distant sufferers. This development builds on our basic mammalian capacity for fellow-feeling,= refined through human intelligence and social interaction. The rich flow o= f contextual information we get from face-to-face human interaction=E2=80= =94the hesitation in someone=E2=80=99s voice, the way they avoid eye contac= t, how they hold their body when distressed=E2=80=94teaches us to read genu= ine distress, authentic joy, and reliable character. These are capacities t= hat purely rational moral systems struggle to replicate or replace. By contrast, advocates of AI deference reject this approach. They treat sym= pathy=E2=80=99s grounding in experience something that is biassed, myopic, = and unfit for scale. Their answer is to override sympathy with algorithms t= hat tally up statistical lives or calculate expected value. In their frame,= privileging the identifiable victim over the distant multitude is a moral = error.=20 But our moral life depends on our capacity to feel with others. It unfolds = in the realm of these specific domains like family, community, and professi= on. Unless moral guidance feels like it emerges from our own sympathetic un= derstanding=E2=80=94unless it appeals to something within us that recognize= s its rightness=E2=80=94even the most rationally optimized system of rules = will eventually feel like tyranny. Smith understood that sustainable morali= ty must be internalized through our own moral development, not imposed thro= ugh external optimization. Rather than viewing our obligations to parents, friends, colleagues, and ne= ighbors as faults to be ironed out, he would have us think of them as the s= tuff through which moral responsibility is learned and exercised. Smith tea= ches us that the path to wider benevolence runs through local attachments: = we care about humanity because we first cared about our people, and those l= oyalties train the imagination to expand further. This understanding is roo= ted in our evolved animal sociality, which moral idealists deny at their pe= ril. The digital =E2=80=9CMan of System=E2=80=9D Smith warned against what he called the =E2=80=9Cman of system=E2=80=9D who= wants to =E2=80=9Carrange the different members of a great society with as= much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.=E2= =80=9D He said the problem with this is that it forgets each piece has its = own =E2=80=9Cprinciple of motion,=E2=80=9D its own will and interests that = can never be fully subordinated to another=E2=80=99s design. In his day, systems thinkers were on the march. Mercantilists drew up schem= es to channel trade through tariffs and monopolies; French physiocrats draf= ted grand designs to order the state around agriculture; legislators propos= ed plans to remodel legal and civic life. Each assumed that society could b= e improved if only people were arranged into the right pattern. They argued= that individuals left to their own devices pull in conflicting directions.= A centralized perspective (whether a ruler, a plan, or an algorithm) can a= lign those disparate wills and prevent waste or conflict. Implicit in this program was the belief that ordinary practices and loyalti= es are inefficient or unjust. Traditional courtship wastes time that algori= thmic matching could optimize. Local hiring preferences ignore better candi= dates elsewhere. Family obligations prevent people from maximizing their ec= onomic contributions. By abstracting individuals into comparable units, pla= nners can design arrangements that maximize welfare at scale, even if that = means overriding personal preferences. Smith thought otherwise. He argued that society cannot be engineered from a= bove because people are agents animated by their own wants and needs. He th= ought that coordination doesn=E2=80=99t require central design, and that im= posed design creates disorder by working against people=E2=80=99s natural i= nclinations. This wasn=E2=80=99t just a practical point about efficiency, b= ut a moral one about human autonomy: centralized planning is both unfeasibl= e and undesirable for the same root reasons. Markets and communities genera= te order spontaneously through the interplay of individual choices, while a= ttempts to impose harmony from above usually upset this organic process. Today we face a new =E2=80=9Cdigital man of system.=E2=80=9D It is not a si= ngle planner, but the convergent logic of optimization itself, embedded in = countless AI systems that promise better outcomes or greater ease. This log= ic accelerates what we might call the =E2=80=9Cgovernmentalization=E2=80=9D= of social life. It transforms the messy, contextual work of moral judgment= into clean data points that can be optimized across populations. The digit= al man of system is distributed across platforms and applications, but it s= hares the same fundamental assumption: that human autonomy is a problem to = be managed rather than a capacity to be cultivated. Smith=E2=80=99s warning against the man of system was not a rejection of or= der, but of imposed, top down order that ignores the living autonomy of hum= ans. He thought that societies thrive when they harness the judgments and a= ttachments of individuals. Treating people as pieces to be arranged=E2=80= =94whether by mercantilist schemes or by machine learning models=E2=80=94fo= rgets that our =E2=80=9Cprinciple of motion=E2=80=9D is what makes us free = agents in the first place. The practice ground AI deference, taken to its extreme, corrupts the foundations of moral life = as people turn to AI rather than developing their own capacity for moral ju= dgment. But this analysis only matters if it changes how we actually live: = in our schools, workplaces, and families. The arenas where character is for= med, where the capacity for independent judgment either develops or atrophi= es, and where our individual =E2=80=9Cprinciples of motion=E2=80=9D most ke= enly manifest. In education, many parents and educators are worried that students will use= AI not only in ways that compromise academic integrity, but also to exerci= se judgment in uncertain situations, navigate interpersonal conflicts, and = work through moral questions. But what if we reversed this? What if we used AI to create more time for th= e irreducibly human work of moral formation? AI could compress six hours of= content delivery into two hours per day through personalized, adaptive ins= truction [ https://substack.com/redirect/eea57a31-51d7-494e-87c6-0422a6487e= 81?j=3DeyJ1IjoiNXFxeXF4In0.h9dEDbGj64cTNudluPwbMYWklSu8UKGoFv6eWS-HyoA ]. T= his efficiency gain separates what machines excel at (information delivery,= pattern recognition, and skill drilling) from what Smith understood as ess= entially human: the social processes through which we develop sympathetic i= magination and learn to moderate our passions through encounters with other= s. By using technological efficiency to create space for developing moral judg= ment through relationship and conversation, we can preserve the social proc= esses through which we become our own moral critics while remaining connect= ed to others=E2=80=99 moral development. This creates better people, but al= so better members of society. It gives us individuals capable of the trust,= reciprocity, and mutual regard who are essential for beneficial coordinati= on. Using AI in this way echoes what Aristotle called schol=C3=A9 (structur= ed freedom for thinking, conversing, and contemplating) and what Wilhelm vo= n Humboldt termed Mu=C3=9Fe (cultivated leisure essential for self-formatio= n). In work, Smith saw different professions as different schools of virtue. Th= e merchant develops prudence and trustworthiness through transactions where= reputation matters. The physician learns the delicate balance of intervent= ion and restraint in the face of human vulnerability. The teacher learns to= see potential in students through countless encounters that require patien= ce, discernment, and hope. These practices extend sympathy from personal life into civic life. A judge= who wrestles with competing claims of justice and mercy becomes the kind o= f person capable of the impartial yet sympathetic judgment that Smith saw a= s essential for all social institutions. AI can calculate recidivism risk, synthesize case histories, and optimize r= esource allocation, but only the judge who has wrestled with individual cas= es develops what Smith called =E2=80=9Cself-command,=E2=80=9D the capacity = to weigh competing moral claims when abstract principles conflict with huma= n particularity. A judge who outsources sentencing decisions to predictive = algorithms abandons the struggle that builds this judicial wisdom. Smith envisioned autonomous agents, not simple rule-followers. As Socrates = argued, the best regime would require minimal laws because its citizens wou= ld be maximally self-governing. They would be able to resolve disputes thro= ugh practical wisdom rather than rigid procedures. Without such people, we face two dangers: rigid bureaucracy, where everythi= ng must be regulated because no one can be trusted to exercise discretion; = or predatory opportunism, where people exploit every loophole because they = haven=E2=80=99t developed the capacity to consider broader consequences. Finally, consider family life. I have a four-year-old and a six-year-old, a= nd I find myself wrestling with choices I never expected to face as a paren= t. When my four-year-old asks =E2=80=9CWhy is the ocean salty?=E2=80=9D I o= ften turn to AI for clear, age-appropriate explanations that are frankly be= tter than what I could provide on the spot. But when my child asks =E2=80=9CWhy can=E2=80=99t I take my friend=E2=80=99= s toy if he has two?,=E2=80=9D something different is at stake. AI could pr= ovide a perfect explanation about property rights, empathy, and alternate t= heories of justice. Sometimes I=E2=80=99m genuinely uncertain how to explai= n complex moral concepts to a preschooler and a first grader at their level= =2E But Smith would say that my fumblin= g, incomplete attempts to translate ad= ult moral understanding into child-sized wisdom is exactly the work that de= velops both of us. When I struggle to explain fairness to my children=E2=80=94drawing on my un= derstanding not only of the concept, but of their temperament, our family= =E2=80=99s values, and the specific situation that prompted the question=E2= =80=94that=E2=80=99s the irreplaceable work of moral transmission. It=E2=80= =99s not just that my children learn a rule, but that we each develop moral= understanding through the effort of trying to bridge different perspective= s. They are teaching me, as I am teaching them. This is how moral development begins: through the lived encounter between p= eople who care about each other trying to understand the other=E2=80=99s ex= perience. Use AI for the questions where better information makes us smarte= r. Use it to stoke your kids=E2=80=99 curiosity about oceanography. But pre= serve the moral conversations as the irreplaceable domain where parents and= children develop the capacity for judgment that Smith saw as the foundatio= n of human flourishing. Our choice At Panmure House, Adam Smith decided what of his life=E2=80=99s work should= endure. Today, we face the same choice. Not about which manuscripts to pre= serve, but about which human capacities to cultivate, and which forms of so= cial coordination to preserve, as artificial intelligence reshapes how we l= earn, work, and live together. The choice is not abstract. We make it in every classroom where we decide w= hat struggles to preserve, in every workplace where we choose which decisio= ns require human wisdom, in every conversation with our children about righ= t and wrong. Smith trusted that beneficial order emerges when moral agents encounter eac= h other freely. That trust was not naive. It rested on his understanding th= at moral capacity develops only through the irreplaceable work of sympathet= ic engagement. If we trade that for the ease of algorithmic guidance=E2=80= =94if AI becomes our =E2=80=9Cautocomplete for life=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94we ris= k losing the legacy Smith sought to preserve. Cosmos Institute [ https://substack.com/redirect/74c83658-b44c-4845-a6cd-65= 722bb7ba95?j=3DeyJ1IjoiNXFxeXF4In0.h9dEDbGj64cTNudluPwbMYWklSu8UKGoFv6eWS-H= yoA ] is the Academy for Philosopher-Builders, technologists building AI fo= r human flourishing. We run fellowships, fund fast prototypes, and host sem= inars with institutions like Oxford, Aspen Institute, and Liberty Fund. Unsubscribe https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9ibG9nLmNvc21= vcy1pbnN0aXR1dGUub3JnL2FjdGlvbi9kaXNhYmxlX2VtYWlsP3Rva2VuPWV5SjFjMlZ5WDJsa0= lqb3pORGN5TlRnNU9EVXNJbkJ2YzNSZmFXUWlPakUzTlRFM016YzJNeXdpYVdGMElqb3hOelU1T= lRBd05EWTBMQ0psZUhBaU9qRTNPVEV3TXpZME5qUXNJbWx6Y3lJNkluQjFZaTB5TWpJMU56azBJ= aXdpYzNWaUlqb2laR2x6WVdKc1pWOWxiV0ZwYkNKOS5XREwydlJaVjZrbnotaWkxWHJKN20xSFB= 1WlBLUko5YkotNGVRQ1UwUzJnIiwicCI6MTc1MTczNzYzLCJzIjoyMjI1Nzk0LCJmIjp0cnVlLC= J1IjozNDcyNTg5ODUsImlhdCI6MTc1OTUwMDQ2NCwiZXhwIjoyMDc1MDc2NDY0LCJpc3MiOiJwd= WItMCIsInN1YiI6ImxpbmstcmVkaXJlY3QifQ.A2cuYrjoBZJWhmP-it2-H14DyuRnQxKbCROUu= 5Gbiqk? --605b66e279fab6c609933bea3397ad3cea7c48a3ba0083904885d2d75cf6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Artificial Spectator= 3D""
Adam Smith, AI, and the Outsourcing of Moral Sentiments
= ͏     ­͏     ­͏   ̳= 9; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nb= sp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&= #847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nbs= p;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&#= 847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= 47;     ­͏     ­͏     = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  =   ­͏     ­͏     ­T= 7;     ­͏     ­͏     &= #173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   =   ­͏     ­͏     ­͏= ;     ­͏     ­͏     &#= 173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &= #8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏=     ­͏     ­͏     = 73;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &#= 8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ =     ­͏     ­͏     = 3;͏     ­͏     ­͏   = 199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &= nbsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ;͏     ­͏     ­͏   Q= 99; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &n= bsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ͏     ­͏     ­͏   ̳= 9; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nb= sp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&= #847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nbs= p;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&#= 847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= 47;     ­͏     ­͏     = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  =   ­͏     ­͏     ­T= 7;     ­͏     ­͏     &= #173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   =   ­͏     ­͏     ­͏= ;     ­͏     ­͏     &#= 173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &= #8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏=     ­͏     ­͏     = 73;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &#= 8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ =     ­͏     ­͏     = 3;͏     ­͏     ­͏   = 199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &= nbsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ;͏     ­͏     ­͏   Q= 99; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &n= bsp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= ͏     ­͏     ­͏   ̳= 9; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nb= sp;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&= #847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏ &nbs= p;   ­͏     ­͏     ­&#= 847;     ­͏     ­͏    = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  = ;   ­͏     ­͏     ­= 47;     ­͏     ­͏     = ­͏     ­͏     ­͏  =   ­͏     ­͏     ­T= 7;     ­͏     ­͏     &= #173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   =   ­͏     ­͏     ­͏= ;     ­͏     ­͏     &#= 173;͏     ­͏     ­͏   &= #8199; ­͏     ­͏     ­͏=     ­͏     ­
3D""
<= figcaption class=3D"image-caption" style=3D"box-sizing: content-box;color: = #777777;font-size: 14px;line-height: 20px;font-weight: 400;letter-spacing: = -.15px;margin-top: 8px;width: 70%;padding-left: 15%;padding-right: 15%;text= -align: center;">Col. Robert Batty, A View Of Edinburgh Fr= om Calton Hill (1831)

In 1788, Adam Smith moved into Panmure House in Edinburgh to answer hi= s last great question: what should endure of his life’s work?

He spent his final twelve years in the dwelling, a modest h= ome located in the belly of Edinburgh’s Canongate district. There he = completed the definitive editions of his masterworks, The Theory= of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations.

By then, the young moral philosopher who had = lectured in Glasgow had become an elder statesman of the Enlightenment. He = was part economist, part public official, and part salon host for Edinburgh= ’s great and good. Amid this vibrant intellectual life at Panmure, Sm= ith became the curator of his own legacy.

He carefully chos= e which works would represent his life’s thought, discarding some man= uscripts while perfecting others. Entire projects may never have seen the l= ight of day, but what he kept became the definitive expression of his ideas= for posterity. Today, we are reckoning with our own posterity. On the eve = of technological revolution, it’s time to ask what will endure of the= moral foundations that made his vision of human society possible.

Towards AI deference

In <= /span>The Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith identifies sympat= hy, propriety, and resentment as the basic elements of moral judgment. His = other great work, The Wealth of Nations, shows how ma= rkets emerge from this moral psychology by transforming individual self-int= erest into complex social coordination through division of labor, trade, an= d commercial exchange.

Smith wanted both stories tol= d, because each without the other is incomplete. Moral development without = the broad horizons of commerce manifests as tribalism, while markets withou= t moral foundations become systems of cold calculation. Together, they are = complete: moral development creates the social bonds that enable beneficial= coordination, while social coordination expands our moral horizons.

It’s an important lesson to remember as we create AI = systems that will reshape how moral development happens and how society coo= rdinates. Unlike technologies that transform specific sectors—like co= mmerce, governance, or culture—artificial intelligence reshapes all t= hree at once. AI already mediates 20% of waking human life. It is tr= ansforming how we recover, transmit, and discover knowledge, and has unprec= edented power to shape and nudge what we think and feel. In the extreme, th= e technology may function as an “auto-complete” for life= =2E

Such an outcome is the end point of “A= I deference,” a pattern that is beginning to emerge in which people o= utsource their own judgment to an AI system instead of making decisions the= mselves. Take the driver who blindly follows Google Maps, even when it send= s them down obviously impractical or dangerous routes. Or students who past= e prompts into ChatGPT and hand in the outputs as their own. Or even last y= ear’s Claude Boys phenomenon, when kids decided to outsource t= heir entire lives to Anthropic’s AI model.

It&= #8217;s easy to write these off as digital-age absurdities, a generational = failure to develop independent judgment. But serious thinkers defend far mo= re extensive forms of AI deference on deep philosophical grounds. When huma= n judgment appears systematically unreliable, algorithmic guidance starts t= o look not just convenient but morally necessary. From Plato’s philos= opher-kings to Bentham’s hedonic calculus, there is a tradition of ar= guing that rule by the wiser or more objective is not only permissible but = morally obligatory. Many contemporary philosophers and technologists see la= rge-scale algorithmic guidance as a natural extension of this lineage. If t= he expertise truly exists, then it would seem immoral not to utilize it.

This argument draws on what’s called the “= outside view,” the practice of making decisions by consulting broad p= atterns, base rates, or expert assessments, rather than relying solely on o= ne’s own experience or intuitions. Humans are fallible and biased rea= soners; if you can set aside your personal judgments, you can remove this s= ource of error and become less wrong.

This approach works in many domains. Engineers use historical failu= re rates to design safer systems and forecasters ground predictions in past= events. Looking outward to the record of relevant cases often beats relyin= g on local knowledge alone. Smith knew the power of broad patterns: markets= coordinate countless fragments of dispersed knowledge into useful order. B= ut he also knew that moral judgment is different because it requires the im= aginative work of the agent, not just the pattern of the crowd.

Some extend this reasoning to morality. If human judgment is prone to = bias and distortion, why not let a system with greater reach and reasoning = capacity decide what is right? An AI can integrate different forms of knowl= edge, model complex interactions beyond human cognitive limits, and apply c= onsistent reasoning without fatigue or emotional distortion.

This represents a fundamental shift from how ph= ilosophers have traditionally approached moral impartiality. Thinkers from = Kant to Rawls explored frameworks asking us to imagine standpoints beyond o= ur immediate view, but even in these exercises, the individual remained the= agent of moral reasoning. The perspective was simulated by the person whos= e choice was at stake.

But AI deference is different. Here,= the standpoint is not imagined but instantiated in an external system, whi= ch delivers a judgment already formed. The person’s role shifts from = being the agent of moral reasoning to receiving and potentially acting on t= he system’s recommendation.

If you accept an external= ized moral standpoint—and pair it with the belief that the world shou= ld be optimized by AI—a challenge to individual judgment follows. It = is not enough that AI be accurate; it can reliably outperform human deliber= ation on the metrics that matter morally, then AI deference may be seen as = not only rational but ethically required.

This case for AI = deference is intellectually formidable. It draws on legitimate concerns abo= ut human fallibility and real philosophical traditions about impartial reas= oning. Humans systematically neglect scale, privileging identifiable victim= s over statistical lives and discounting future generations. We fail to sat= isfy our own stated preferences and struggle to coordinate on challenges li= ke global pandemics that require collective action. If algorithmic systems = can better navigate these problems, refusing to defer starts to look like n= egligence. But Smith’s analysis of moral psychology reveals fundament= al problems with this framework.

For those who think humans= neglect scale, Smith might say that starting from particulars is a feature= , not a bug. For those who believe humans are morally confused, his work on= habit formation shows why struggle and uncertainty are essential for livin= g the good life. In response to the idea that humans fail to satisfy prefer= ences, Smith’s account shows that moral work cannot be done by anyone= other than us. And for thinkers who worry that humans can’t effectiv= ely coordinate, his writing reminds us that imposed order stymies, rather t= han supports, attempts at organic coordination. In what follows, I wrestle = with each of these ideas before showing why they matter for work, family, a= nd education.

Spectators, impartial and artifici= al

When humans make moral judgments, we instincti= vely imagine how others would see our actions. Instead of asking “do = I think what I did was justified?” we ask “would an impartial o= bserver think it was justified?” This imagined observer—what Sm= ith termed “the impartial spectator”—emerges from our rel= ationships with others. It serves as our mechanism for stepping outside our= selves to evaluate our actions.

Each time we step out= side ourselves to imagine how others would view our actions, we strengthen = our ability to see beyond our immediate interests and emotions. Through rep= eated practice, this becomes a habit of mind, an internal compass that guid= es us even in novel situations. Crucially, Smith insisted this process had = to remain internal. It is something we do ourselves. = We develop judgment by engaging with others’ perspectives, but the ac= t of judgment itself remains ours.

AI deference corr= upts this process by relocating moral judgment outside the agent. Instead o= f asking “what would others think if they saw me do this?” we a= sk “what does ChatGPT say I should do?” This transforms the spe= ctator from an internalized evaluative mechanism into an external system we= consult for answers.

What was once an imaginative exercise= of autonomy becomes a heteronomous command. AI can never be the spectator = Smith wanted because the spectator’s essential work happens through o= ur own effort to step outside ourselves and imagine different perspectives.= When we outsource this process, we lose the developmental work that makes = moral judgment possible.

The more knowledgeable and a= uthoritative AI systems appear, the more we’re tempted to defer to th= em. It only takes the semblance of wisdom to unlock o= ur deference — and when these systems flatter us, presenting their gu= idance in ways that make us feel understood or validated, the temptation be= comes almost irresistible.

When AI systems replace o= ur internal evaluative processes, people abandon their internal source of c= onstraint and moderation in favor of algorithmic guidance. This risks produ= cing people who can receive moral judgments but can no longer generate them= =2E

The easy way out

Mora= l development comes from wrestling with passions, moderating them, and lear= ning through that process. AI deference halts that development, like trying= to become stronger by having someone else go to the gym for you.

Smith, following Aristotle, understood moral virtue not as knowledge= we can simply acquire, but as dispositions we must cultivate through pract= ice. We become just by doing just acts, and temperate by doing temperate ac= ts. The difficulty of the act is what shapes character.

The Greeks called this pathei mathos or wisdom gai= ned through suffering. Each time we resist pride or temper resentment, we s= trengthen the faculty of conscience. Repetition and struggle create not jus= t good acts but stable dispositions, the settled qualities by which others = recognize us as trustworthy, just, or generous. Over time, what begins as d= eliberate effort becomes spontaneous: an internal compass that guides us fr= om within.

This is why Smith insisted that moral dev= elopment must remain each person’s own work. It reflects his convicti= on that “every man [must] pursue his own interest his own way.”= Yet today we’re tempted to abandon that pursuit. Technology supplies= ready-made judgments and the possibility of an “autocomplete for lif= e.” But deference to AI breaks the cycle of moral growth.

The mistake is to confuse the execution of a precept with morality its= elf. Telling someone what to do can be useful if they lack knowledge. But t= he aim, as Aristotle understood, is for people to internalize the voice of = moral authority. It’s to develop their own capacity for self-governan= ce rather than remain perpetually dependent on external guidance. AI as the= ultimate moral expert threatens precisely this process of internalization = that transforms external rules into internal wisdom.

Smithian sympathy

For Smith, sympathy always = begins in the particular. We “feel with” the person in front of= us, the neighbor who suffers or the friend who rejoices. Feeling with thos= e closest to us is the first “practice ground” for judgment; it= ’s how we begin to learn what compassion or fairness actually mean. T= hese encounters train our sense of morality and allow it to take root.

<= p style=3D"margin: 0 0 20px 0;color: rgb(54,55,55);line-height: 26px;font-s= ize: 16px;">From this foundation, we extend our concern outward from family= to community to strangers. Each layer of this widening circle is built on = the habits formed in the one before, though each carries less intensity of = attachment and concern. The impartial spectator doesn’t erase these a= ttachments but asks us to project them more widely. It allows us to transfo= rm the personal into a broader moral horizon, while acknowledging that we w= ill always feel more for those closest to us than for distant sufferers.

This development builds on our basic mammalian capacity for f= ellow-feeling, refined through human intelligence and social interaction. T= he rich flow of contextual information we get from face-to-face human inter= action—the hesitation in someone’s voice, the way they avoid ey= e contact, how they hold their body when distressed—teaches us to rea= d genuine distress, authentic joy, and reliable character. These are capaci= ties that purely rational moral systems struggle to replicate or replace.

By contrast, advocates of AI deference reject this approach.= They treat sympathy’s grounding in experience something that is bias= sed, myopic, and unfit for scale. Their answer is to override sympathy with= algorithms that tally up statistical lives or calculate expected value. In= their frame, privileging the identifiable victim over the distant multitud= e is a moral error.

But our moral life depends on our capa= city to feel with others. It unfolds in the realm of these specific domains= like family, community, and profession. Unless moral guidance feels like i= t emerges from our own sympathetic understanding—unless it appeals to= something within us that recognizes its rightness—even the most rati= onally optimized system of rules will eventually feel like tyranny. Smith u= nderstood that sustainable morality must be internalized through our own mo= ral development, not imposed through external optimization.

Rather than viewing our obligations to parents, friends, colleagues,= and neighbors as faults to be ironed out, he would have us think of them a= s the stuff through which moral responsibility is learned and exercised. Sm= ith teaches us that the path to wider benevolence runs through local attach= ments: we care about humanity because we first cared about our p= eople, and those loyalties train the imagination to expand furth= er. This understanding is rooted in our evolved animal sociality, which mor= al idealists deny at their peril.

The digi= tal “Man of System”

Smith warned agai= nst what he called the “man of system” who wants to “arra= nge the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand = arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.” He said the proble= m with this is that it forgets each piece has its own “principle of m= otion,” its own will and interests that can never be fully subordinat= ed to another’s design.

In his day, systems thinkers = were on the march. Mercantilists drew up schemes to channel trade through t= ariffs and monopolies; French physiocrats drafted grand designs to order th= e state around agriculture; legislators proposed plans to remodel legal and= civic life. Each assumed that society could be improved if only people wer= e arranged into the right pattern. They argued that individuals left to the= ir own devices pull in conflicting directions. A centralized perspective (w= hether a ruler, a plan, or an algorithm) can align those disparate wills an= d prevent waste or conflict.

Implicit in this program was t= he belief that ordinary practices and loyalties are inefficient or unjust. = Traditional courtship wastes time that algorithmic matching could optimize.= Local hiring preferences ignore better candidates elsewhere. Family obliga= tions prevent people from maximizing their economic contributions. By abstr= acting individuals into comparable units, planners can design arrangements = that maximize welfare at scale, even if that means overriding personal pref= erences.

Smith thought otherwise. He argued that society ca= nnot be engineered from above because people are agents animated by their o= wn wants and needs. He thought that coordination doesn’t require cent= ral design, and that imposed design creates disorder by working against peo= ple’s natural inclinations. This wasn’t just a practical point = about efficiency, but a moral one about human autonomy: centralized plannin= g is both unfeasible and undesirable for the same root reasons. Markets and= communities generate order spontaneously through the interplay of individu= al choices, while attempts to impose harmony from above usually upset this = organic process.

Today we face a new “digital man of = system.” It is not a single planner, but the convergent logic of opti= mization itself, embedded in countless AI systems that promise better outco= mes or greater ease. This logic accelerates what we might call the “g= overnmentalization” of social life. It transforms the messy, contextu= al work of moral judgment into clean data points that can be optimized acro= ss populations. The digital man of system is distributed across platforms a= nd applications, but it shares the same fundamental assumption: that human = autonomy is a problem to be managed rather than a capacity to be cultivated= =2E

Smith’s warning against the man of system was= not a rejection of order, but of imposed, top down order that ignores the living autonomy of humans. He thought that societies = thrive when they harness the judgments and attachments of individuals. Trea= ting people as pieces to be arranged—whether by mercantilist schemes = or by machine learning models—forgets that our “principle of mo= tion” is what makes us free agents in the first place.

The practice ground

AI deferen= ce, taken to its extreme, corrupts the foundations of moral life as people = turn to AI rather than developing their own capacity for moral judgment. Bu= t this analysis only matters if it changes how we actually live: in our sch= ools, workplaces, and families. The arenas where character is formed, where= the capacity for independent judgment either develops or atrophies, and wh= ere our individual “principles of motion” most keenly manifest.=

In education, many parents and educators are worried that = students will use AI not only in ways that compromise academic integrity, b= ut also to exercise judgment in uncertain situations, navigate interpersona= l conflicts, and work through moral questions.

But wh= at if we reversed this? What if we used AI to create more time for the irre= ducibly human work of moral formation? AI could compress six hours of conte= nt delivery into two hours per day through personalized, adaptive instruction<= /a>. This efficiency gain separates what machines excel at (informati= on delivery, pattern recognition, and skill drilling) from what Smith under= stood as essentially human: the social processes through which we develop s= ympathetic imagination and learn to moderate our passions through encounter= s with others.

By using technological efficiency to = create space for developing moral judgment through relationship and convers= ation, we can preserve the social processes through which we become our own= moral critics while remaining connected to others’ moral development= =2E This creates better people, but als= o better members of society. It gives=20= us individuals capable of the trust, reciprocity, and mutual regard who are= essential for beneficial coordination. Using AI in this way echoes what Ar= istotle called scholé (structured freedom for thinking, conversing, an= d contemplating) and what Wilhelm von Humboldt termed Muße (cultivated= leisure essential for self-formation).

In work, Smith saw = different professions as different schools of virtue. The merchant develops= prudence and trustworthiness through transactions where reputation matters= =2E The physician learns the delicate b= alance of intervention and restraint i= n the face of human vulnerability. The teacher learns to see potential in s= tudents through countless encounters that require patience, discernment, an= d hope.

These practices extend sympathy from personal life = into civic life. A judge who wrestles with competing claims of justice and = mercy becomes the kind of person capable of the impartial yet sympathetic j= udgment that Smith saw as essential for all social institutions.

AI can calculate recidivism risk, synthesize case histories, and opti= mize resource allocation, but only the judge who has wrestled with individu= al cases develops what Smith called “self-command,” the capacit= y to weigh competing moral claims when abstract principles conflict with hu= man particularity. A judge who outsources sentencing decisions to predictiv= e algorithms abandons the struggle that builds this judicial wisdom.

Smith envisioned autonomous agents, not simple rule-followers. As= Socrates argued, the best regime would require minimal laws because its ci= tizens would be maximally self-governing. They would be able to resolve dis= putes through practical wisdom rather than rigid procedures.

Finally, consider family life. I have a four-year-old and a s= ix-year-old, and I find myself wrestling with choices I never expected to f= ace as a parent. When my four-year-old asks “Why is the ocean salty?&= #8221; I often turn to AI for clear, age-appropriate explanations that are = frankly better than what I could provide on the spot.

But w= hen my child asks “Why can’t I take my friend’s toy if he= has two?,” something different is at stake. AI could provide a perfe= ct explanation about property rights, empathy, and alternate theories of ju= stice. Sometimes I’m genuinely uncertain how to explain complex moral= concepts to a preschooler and a first grader at their level. But Smith wou= ld say that my fumbling, incomplete attempts to translate adult moral under= standing into child-sized wisdom is exactly the work that develops both of = us.

When I struggle to explain fairness to my children̵= 2;drawing on my understanding not only of the concept, but of their tempera= ment, our family’s values, and the specific situation that prompted t= he question—that’s the irreplaceable work of moral transmission= =2E It’s not just that my childre= n learn a rule, but that we each devel= op moral understanding through the effort of trying to bridge different per= spectives. They are teaching me, as I am teaching them.

Thi= s is how moral development begins: through the lived encounter between peop= le who care about each other trying to understand the other’s experie= nce. Use AI for the questions where better information makes us smarter. Us= e it to stoke your kids’ curiosity about oceanography. But preserve t= he moral conversations as the irreplaceable domain where parents and childr= en develop the capacity for judgment that Smith saw as the foundation of hu= man flourishing.

Our choice

At Panmure House, Adam Smith decided what of his life’s work sho= uld endure. Today, we face the same choice. Not about which manuscripts to = preserve, but about which human capacities to cultivate, and which forms of= social coordination to preserve, as artificial intelligence reshapes how w= e learn, work, and live together.

The choice is not abstrac= t. We make it in every classroom where we decide what struggles to preserve= , in every workplace where we choose which decisions require human wisdom, = in every conversation with our children about right and wrong.

Smith trusted that beneficial order emerges when moral agents encounte= r each other freely. That trust was not naive. It rested on his understandi= ng that moral capacity develops only through the irreplaceable work of symp= athetic engagement. If we trade that for the ease of algorithmic guidance&#= 8212;if AI becomes our “autocomplete for life”—we risk lo= sing the legacy Smith sought to preserve.

This essay was based on the 2025 Adam Smith Le= cture delivered by Brendan McCord at Panmure House.

Cosmos Institute is the Academy for Philosop= her-Builders, technologists building AI for human flourishing. We run fello= wships, fund fast prototypes, and host seminars with institutions like Oxfo= rd, Aspen Institute, and Liberty Fund.

3D""
A guest post by
=
Brendan McCord
The Academy = for Philosopher-Builders (www.cosmos-institute.org)
 
<= tbody>
3D""Like
3D""Comment
3D""Restack
<= /td> 

© 2025 Cosmos Institu= te
500 W 2nd Street, Suite 1900, Austin, TX 78701
Unsubscribe<= /p>

3D"Get3D"Start

= 3D""3D"" --605b66e279fab6c609933bea3397ad3cea7c48a3ba0083904885d2d75cf6--