PodcastsBusinessThinking On Paper

Thinking On Paper

Mark Fielding and Jeremy Gilbertson
Thinking On Paper
Latest episode

212 episodes

  • Thinking On Paper

    The Martens Clause: The 1899 Law That Should Govern the AI Age.

    07/04/2026 | 27 mins.
    The Martens Clause, a legal principle drafted by Russian-Imperial diplomat Fyodor Martens during the first Hague Peace Conference of 1899, established that even in the absence of specific written law, nations and individuals remain bound by "the laws of humanity and the requirements of public conscience." 

    Originally conceived as a compromise to prevent the collapse of early international humanitarian law negotiations - when smaller nations like Belgium objected to how occupying powers classified resistance fighters - the clause became a foundational backstop in international law. 

    It was subsequently invoked in some of the most consequential legal proceedings of the twentieth century, including the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46 to counter arguments that prosecuting Nazi war crimes constituted retroactive legislation, the 1949 Corfu Channel case where Albania was held responsible for failing to warn shipping of mines in its territorial waters, and the 1986 ICJ ruling against the United States for mining Nicaraguan harbors and supporting the Contra insurgency.

    Mark & Jeremy from Thinking On Paper are now asking whether this 127-year-old principle could serve as what some are calling a "minimum viable architecture" for governing emerging technologies — particularly artificial intelligence, commercial space operations, and quantum computing — where the pace of innovation vastly outstrips the speed of regulation. 

    Jeremy argues that the clause's core logic — that something not being explicitly prohibited does not make it automatically permitted — could provide a much-needed ethical and legal floor beneath industries currently operating in regulatory grey zones, from AI training on copyrighted data to autonomous weapons systems and asteroid mining rights. 

    Mark counters that the clause has historically only been applied retroactively to clear moral atrocities, and that its deliberately vague language, while effective at building diplomatic consensus, lacks the specificity needed to adjudicate the morally ambiguous questions at the frontier of technology, such as algorithmic bias, AI decision-making opacity, and the concentration of technical power among a small number of corporations and nation-states.

    Please enjoy the show.

    --

    🎧 Listen to every podcast⁠
    📺 Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠
    🏠 Follow us on ⁠X⁠
    🏠 Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠

    To suggest guests or sponsor the show, please email: [email protected]

    --

    (00:00) The First Peace Conference: A Historical Perspective
    (07:37) The Martin's Clause: Implications for Modern Governance
    (10:05) Space Tech and the Outer Space Treaty
    (13:58) AI and the Need for Ethical Frameworks
    (17:21) Accountability in Technology Deployment
    (22:56) The Future of Humanity: Collaboration vs. Competition
  • Thinking On Paper

    The Pentagon's AI war strategy: should machines pull the trigger?

    03/04/2026 | 21 mins.
    Pete Hegseth signed a memorandum to every senior official at the Pentagon directing the Department of War to become an AI-first warfighting force. Six weeks later America was at war with Iran and AI was identifying targets. The memo outlines seven pace-setting projects — Swarm Forge, Agent Network, Ender's Foundry, and four more — and contains one sentence that defines the entire document: "We must accept that the risks of not moving fast enough outweigh the risks of imperfect alignment." Mark & Jeremy get into what every section actually means, why Anthropic was designated a national security supply chain risk for refusing to remove two guardrails, and the question the memo never answers: should a machine ever be allowed to pull the trigger?
    --

    🎧 Listen to every podcast⁠
    📺 Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠
    🏠 Follow us on ⁠X⁠
    🏠 Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠

    To suggest guests or sponsor the show, please email: [email protected]
    --
    Chapters
    (00:00) Artificial Intelligence Strategy for the Department of War
    (00:58) Executive Order 14179: America's AI Military Dominance
    (01:59) China And AI Arms Race
    (04:36) Anthropic & Eliminating Bureaucratic Barriers
    (07:20) The 7 Pace Setting Projects (PSPs) In The Memo
    (08:28) 100% LLM Kill Chain Capability
    (10:22) Palmer Luckey
    (11:53) Intelligence & The AI Open Arsenal
    (13:57) The War Time Approach To Blockers
    (16:46) AI Talent Acquisition At The DOW
    (18:54) We must accept that the risks of not moving fast enough outweigh the risks of imperfect alignment
  • Thinking On Paper

    Iran War Propaganda: Lego, Call of Duty & The Battle For Young Minds

    30/03/2026 | 20 mins.
    Iran posted an AI-generated LEGO propaganda video mocking Trump and Netanyahu. The White House fired back with Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty and a Wii Sports video of Iranian military sites being destroyed.

    A senior White House official told Politico they were "just grinding away on banger memes, dude." 

    A hundred million views later…

    - WATCH ON YOUTUBE -

    This is the AI slop propaganda war, playing out in public - mostly on Twitter -  as the bombs drop, the drones fly and the smoke and mirrors of a confused story evolve.

    Operation Epic Fury has killed hundreds, triggered one of the largest oil and energy shocks in history, and will reshape the Middle East - and global politics - for decades to come. This is the meme war that accompanies it.

    We react to all of it. The Iran LEGO propaganda video. The White House GTA Iran meme. The deleted Call of Duty airstrike video. The Wii bowling Iran war clip. 

    Why did Iran use LEGO? Is this propaganda, or kids playing video game make believe? What does it mean when governments reach for children's toys and video game aesthetics to sell a real war to a generation raised on screens?

    The answer is uncomfortable. It is a desensitisation of death. It is a military hiring video dressed as a meme.

    This is part of our on-going AI and the War Machine Season.

    Please enjoy the show.
    --

    🎧 Listen to every podcast⁠
    📺 Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠
    🏠 Follow us on ⁠X⁠
    🏠 Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠

    To suggest guests or sponsor the show, please email: [email protected]

    Timestamps

    (00:00) What Is Propaganda?
    (00:36) Iran Lego Propaganda Video
    (02:45) Reaction
    (06:55) Whitehouse GTA Iran War Video
    (09:07) Epic Fury - US Wii Sports Video
    (13:22) Call Of Duty Iran War Video
  • Thinking On Paper

    Astroscale, Space Junk & The SpaceX Monopoly: Space to Grow book club

    23/03/2026 | 35 mins.
    The Kessler Syndrome, first theorized by NASA scientist Donald Kessler in 1978, is no longer a distant hypothetical. When an active American communications satellite collided with a defunct Russian satellite on February 10th, 2009, at 22,300 miles per hour, it scattered more than 23,000 trackable debris objects and an estimated 100 million smaller fragments into low-Earth orbit (LEO). 

    Today, companies like Astroscale are racing to develop active debris removal (ADR) technology before orbital overcrowding triggers an irreversible chain-reaction of collisions. 

    The barrier to launching satellites has dropped dramatically — SpaceX alone has reduced launch costs by over 90% through reusable rocket technology — meaning China, Amazon, and countless private operators are flooding LEO with new constellations faster than any international regulatory body can respond. With Starlink already operating thousands of satellites and a license filed for up to one million objects, the orbital environment is approaching what scientists describe as a tipping point: roughly 70,000 objects in LEO is the threshold beyond which collision cascades become self-sustaining and unstoppable, regardless of whether new launches cease entirely.

    The space debris crisis is inseparable from a deeper question about market power, monopoly risk, and the long-term governance of the space economy. SpaceX's dominance in orbital launch, satellite internet, and crewed spaceflight has produced extraordinary short-term innovation — but former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine's warning that "a private monopoly that the government is dependent on" poses unique dangers is becoming harder to dismiss. 

    The US military's submarines, aircraft carriers, and intelligence infrastructure are increasingly reliant on SpaceX's Starlink connectivity and launch capabilities, raising urgent questions about what happens when a single private actor controls the physical infrastructure of a space-to-Earth economy worth trillions. 

    The tragedy of the commons — the economic principle whereby individuals exploit a shared resource in their own interest until it is destroyed — maps directly onto orbital space: every satellite operator externalizes the debris cost onto every other current and future user of LEO. 

    Without binding international coordination mechanisms, investment in debris remediation, and genuine competitive alternatives to SpaceX in the launch market, the space economy risks replicating — and amplifying — the worst failures of terrestrial economics in the most consequential new frontier humanity has ever opened.

    We're reading Space To Grow by Matthew Weinzierl and Brendan Rosseau, this is Part 4. 

    Please enjoy the show

    --

    🎧 Listen to every podcast⁠
    📺 Follow us on ⁠Instagram⁠
    🏠 Follow us on ⁠X⁠
    🏠 Follow Jeremy on ⁠LinkedIn⁠

    To suggest guests or sponsor the show, please email: [email protected]

    --

    Timestamps

    (00:00) How 150,000 pieces of space junk ended up in orbit and why nobody cleaned them up
    (06:21) Kessler syndrome explained: the tipping point where collisions become unstoppable
    (10:57) Why the insurance market is not pricing orbital collision risk
    (13:50) Government intervention, the Moon Treaty and the five-year deorbit rule
    (20:26) Active debris removal: magnets, robots and who is building the solutions
    (22:37) Astroscale: how one company is trying to clean up space junk commercially
    (24:53) Who pays to clean up orbit when the market has no incentive to
    (26:26) Is SpaceX a monopoly and does that matter for the space industry
    (29:08) NASA Administrator: there is only one thing worse than a government monopoly
    (33:04) Space governance, coordination and whether the tragedy of the commons can be solved in orbit
  • Thinking On Paper

    Spin qubits: why semiconductor fabrication is quantum computing's fastest path to scale

    19/03/2026 | 43 mins.
    Spin qubits could scale quantum computing using the same semiconductor fabrication lines that print 50 billion transistors on an Nvidia chip. No new manufacturing paradigm required.

    Brandon Severin, Oxford PhD and founder of Conductor Quantum, joins Mark and Jeremy to explain why that matters. 

    You need hundreds of reliable qubits for meaningful quantum computation. The industry has dozens. Spin qubits, built from modified transistors, controlled by classical voltages, no lasers, no vacuum, may be the most practical path to millions.

    This episode covers:

    Why qubit fidelity and coherence time determine what a quantum computer can actually do
    How AI automates the calibration problem that makes human-controlled quantum scaling impossible - "you can't have a billion Brandons"
    Why trapped ions vs spin qubits is the wrong debate
    What Google's quantum algorithm result actually proved, and why it matters
    Why the physicists who understand semiconductor manufacturing may unlock use cases pure quantum researchers never reach
    The two camps dividing the quantum industry: build one qubit at a time, or build for a million

    Also: quantum startup culture vs the AI boom, Brandon's Y Combinator experience, and why scaling quantum looks more like building a rocket ship than climbing a ladder.

    --
    Brandon Severin: https://www.conductorquantum.com/

    --
    ⁠⁠Listen to every podcast⁠⁠

    Follow us on⁠ ⁠Instagram⁠⁠

    Follow us on⁠ ⁠X⁠⁠

    Follow Mark on⁠ ⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠

    Follow Jeremy on⁠ ⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠

    Read our⁠ ⁠Substack⁠⁠

    Email: ⁠[email protected]

    --

    Timestamps

    (00:00) Introduction: spin qubits and the quantum scaling problem
    (03:47) Trapped ions vs spin qubits: fidelity, coherence, and tradeoffs
    (06:14) What qubit fidelity means and why it determines scaling limits
    (08:25) What is a spin qubit? Building from the transistor up
    (11:06) Semiconductor fabrication as quantum computing's manufacturing advantage
    (15:00) The quantum circus: superposition, measurement, Schrödinger's cat
    (17:17) Shuttling qubits — moving electrons across a chip
    (20:33) How AI automates quantum calibration (the control problem)
    (25:00) Quantum scaling vs AI scaling: the GPU parallel
    (29:08) Quantum startup culture and the AI generation gap
    (32:59) Building for a million qubits — rocket ships vs ladders
    (36:52) Why quantum is taking so long: talent, concentration, and meaning
    (39:43) What seems impossible now that will be routine in 20 years

More Business podcasts

About Thinking On Paper

A technology show for the radically curious. Thinking on Paper isn't about seed rounds and funding. There are plenty of shows for the 1%. Instead, Mark and Jeremy sit down with the CEOs, founders, outliers, and engineers building the future. The premise? The human story of technology. What is the impact for the 99%? 300+ episodes. Guests include IBM, Infleqtion, Nvidia, Microsoft, Kevin Kelly, Don Norman, Carissa Veliz, Philip Metzger, Skyler Chan, Pia Lauritzen, and many more. Start anywhere.
Podcast website

Listen to Thinking On Paper, PBD Podcast and many other podcasts from around the world with the radio.net app

Get the free radio.net app

  • Stations and podcasts to bookmark
  • Stream via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth
  • Supports Carplay & Android Auto
  • Many other app features