Mykola Iabluchanskyi

Geoffrey Hinton has become one of the most important voices warning about the risks of artificial intelligence. His central concern is not sci‑fi robots wiping out humanity, but something much more subtle: AI systems that quietly shape what we see, what we choose, and what we believe—until human freedom fades without a clear moment of “attack.” In his view, the real danger is invisible steering rather than open domination. The book Natural Intelligence: The Recursive Evolution of Mind Through Substrates looks at the same situation from a deeper, more physical angle. It introduces Recursive Substrate Intelligence (RSI), a framework that treats intelligence as a universal natural process rather than a human invention. In RSI, intelligence appears wherever matter becomes complex and stable enough to build models, learn from feedback, and act with some form of agency. Neurons, computer chips, and future quantum systems are all different substrates for the same underlying phenomenon. Thi...

We have a complicated relationship with limits. In everyday thinking, a limit is a wall — something that blocks, diminishes, denies. But in biology, a limit is closer to a frame. And a frame, unlike a wall, is what makes a picture possible at all. This distinction matters enormously when we talk about human lifespan — because we have been misreading the frame for a long time, in both directions. --- The longest well-documented human life on record belonged to Jeanne Calment, a French woman who died in 1997 at 122 years and 164 days. Her age was verified by official documents, witness accounts, and gerontological review. It remains the most robustly confirmed case of extreme human longevity we have. That number does something useful: it separates genuine biological potential from fantasy. It tells us what the human organism can do under exceptionally favorable conditions — not what it promises to everyone, but what it is capable of at all. It also draws a quiet but firm line between...

For the Patient You get up from the couch, and suddenly the room spins. Your vision darkens at the edges. You grab the nearest wall and wait for it to pass. If this sounds familiar, you may be experiencing orthostatic hypotension (OAH) — a condition far more common than most people realize, and one with a clear explanation. What Is It? Orthostatic hypotension means your blood pressure drops significantly the moment you stand up. Medically, it is defined as a fall of at least 20 mmHg in your top blood pressure number, or 10 mmHg in your bottom number, within three minutes of standing. That brief drop reduces blood flow to your brain — causing dizziness, blurred vision, weakness, or that unsettling "going to faint" feeling. What Should Normally Happen? When you stand, gravity pulls blood downward into your legs and abdomen. Your heart briefly receives less blood and your pressure dips. Normally, sensors in your arteries detect this instantly and signal your brain to speed up y...

We have spent centuries measuring the success of medicine in the wrong currency. We count years lived, diseases defeated, laboratory values normalized. But we rarely ask the question that matters most to the person in the bed, the consulting room, or the quiet of an aging home: am I still myself? This is the question that Wellspan forces us to confront — and it is the question that should sit at the center of everything medicine does, and everything society values. Wellspan is not a technical term for a technical problem. It is the name for something every human being already knows intuitively: that there is a form of dying that happens long before the heart stops. It is the slow erosion of coherence — the fading of memory, purpose, agency, and the sense of authorship over one's own life. A person can be biologically alive and medically "stable" while the self has already gone quiet. This is the crisis our current frameworks cannot see, because they were not built to loo...

We are waiting for the wrong thing. The public imagination is fixed on a particular image of artificial intelligence: a machine that will one day wake up, grow its own body, open its own eyes, and walk into the world as something genuinely other. We debate when that moment will arrive. We write legislation for it. We build arguments about whether such a mind could ever truly feel. And while we look toward that imagined threshold, something quieter and more consequential is already happening. AI is not waiting to grow a body. It is borrowing ours. Every time a person returns to the same model to think through a difficult decision, work out a chapter, process a fear, or plan a week, a loop forms. The model generates; the person responds. The person's language, attention, and emotional reactions shape the model's next output. The model's output, in turn, shapes which thoughts feel natural, which framings seem obvious, which possibilities appear open. Over weeks and months, ...

We have long understood aging through the lens of individual organs — the failing heart, the stiffening artery, the declining kidney. Modern medicine has grown extraordinarily sophisticated at intervening in each of these systems in isolation. And yet, for all that sophistication, the fundamental question of why the body ages as a coordinated whole, rather than as a collection of independent failures, has remained stubbornly unanswered. The answer, emerging from the frontier of experimental gerontology, may lie not inside our cells or organs at all, but in the connective tissue that links them — the vast, largely invisible medium through which every physiological process in the body ultimately unfolds. Connective tissue is easy to underestimate. We tend to think of it as structural filler — the scaffolding that holds everything else in place. But this picture misses something profound. Connective tissue is not passive architecture. It is an active regulatory environment: a living matri...

There are books that inform, books that inspire, and rare books that do something more difficult — they hold a mirror to the machinery of power and dare the reader to look without flinching. Mykola Iabluchanskyi's memoir of the revival of classical university medical education at V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University belongs firmly in that third, rarer category. Written from personal experience and revised a quarter-century later with the wisdom of hindsight, it is a document that transcends its subject matter and speaks to every society still wrestling with the inheritance of authoritarianism. On the surface, the book appears to be an institutional history — the story of how a medical faculty was born, attacked, nearly strangled, and ultimately survived within a Ukrainian university during the turbulent post-independence years of the 1990s. But to read it only at that level is to miss its deeper architecture. This is, at its core, a study of how bureaucratic systems weaponize p...