Category: Future

  • Peak Abstraction

    Saturday mornings are sometimes spent at the lake nearby – walking/jogging around it. A few weeks ago, I saw a few dressed-for-exercise folks spending the entire time doing an intense “exercise” – posing for selfies! To be fair, the lake is pretty, but..

    It led me to an interesting line of thought. Before I let you in on that, some context setting, or you might close the tab at the ridiculousness of it. Given that the species has lacked telepathy, we have been abstracting for a very long time. Sensations, emotions and thoughts that make up our subjective reality needed to be conveyed. We converted them into everything from facial expressions and actions to drawings to language – spoken, written and then published soon as we entered the machine age. You are now reading what I am thinking.  (more…)

  • The abstraction of trust

    Usually, I use evolution. But that indicates a forward movement, and in this case, I am not so sure now! I had a thought on how the notion of trust in transactions has changed, and felt that I should document it, even if it’s in a super simplistic way!

    1. It began with a producer/consumer – consumer/producer relationship in the form of barter.

    2. A central currency suddenly opened up trade and now it could just be producer – consumer

    3. That also meant that a middleman could enter the system, hence a producer – seller – consumer (more…)

  • In other fake news..

    Went by the title, did you? Ha! This is less about fake news, and more about what could be called its second order effect. In Against Empathy, Paul Bloom writes about how many beliefs are not the products of reasoning, and gives sports teams fans and even political support as examples. He also brings up the point that these views don’t really matter because of the minimal impact one person’s belief has on the world at large. The contrast offered is one’s everyday morality that affects those around. He goes on to say that because of this minimal impact, we should look at people’s views on global warming, health care etc in the same light. The difference between truth and their views does not really matter because it doesn’t really cause a huge impact. To be fair, he is not happy writing this. I wasn’t really happy reading it either, because I saw at least one horrible exception – think personal hygiene values (“I won’t use a deodorant because.. global warming”) and you’ll get the picture. That definitely has an impact!

    But moving on, he also explains how people are capable of rational thinking on things that matter. This is where I differ. I am not denying that people are capable. They probably begin that way, but I think the capacity is lost over time. Why do I think so? (more…)

  • Heartificial Intelligence

    John C. Havens

    The title might seem like a bit of a corny wordplay, but I think you’d find it hard to come up with an alternative that best describes the premise of the book. Artificial Intelligence is slowly but surely becoming an inherent part of our lives, and I’d say that our situation is a bit like the ‘frog in boiling water’ scenario. That’s not to say that we will be ‘cooked’ but our sensitivity to the challenge is not really at the levels it should be at. Most of the discussions are around two themes – the extermination of our species by malevolent robots, and the increasing automation of jobs and the economic and societal repercussions. Both usually end up with polarising stances.

    One of the reasons I liked this book is that the author is not on either of the extremes – doomsday or paradise – his approach is very pragmatic. The first six chapters take the reader through the process of understanding the lay of the land – from describing how our happiness is slowly getting defined by tracking algorithms, and the complete lack of transparency and accountability in those who have access to this data, to the economics and purpose of a human life and how it’s changing, to the (seeming) limits of artificial intelligence, and finally the need to have an ethics/value system in place as we go faster in our journey of designing increasingly complex AI. (more…)

  • The Gatekeepers

    To quote Robert Wright from Non Zero: 

    To stay strong, a society must adopt new technologies. In particular, it must reap the non-zero-sum fruits they offer. Yet new technologies often redistribute power within societies. (They often do this precisely because they raise non-zero-sumness- because they expand the number of people who profit from the system and so wield power within it.) And if there is one opinion common to all ruling classes everywhere, it is that power is not in urgent need of redistributing. Hence the Hobson’s choice for the governing elite: accept valuable technologies that may erode your power, or resist them so well that you may find yourself with nothing to govern.  

    I consider the ruling class as gatekeepers because they control the access of the remaining populace to prosperity. Across time, different entities have played the role of gatekeeper by controlling different facets that can change society’s general prosperity. To name a few, religion by controlling behaviour, government (aristocracy to democracy) by controlling the central currency and freedom of all sorts, media by controlling information,  and the wealthy, by the sheer ability to control deployment of capital, and thereby job creation.   (more…)