Reformation, Enlightenment, AI







There's a strong argument that the advent of the printing press in Europe lead, at least initially, to years of religious war before supporting the sustained progressive force of the Enlightenment.

Are we seeing a similar pattern with the internet? It's early promise of an enlightenment 2.0, a kind of phase shift in the growth of knowledge and collaboration, seems to be overshadowed by fighting, partisanship, and extremism that is disrupting national and global governance.

Perhaps sufficiently disruptive communication technologies get the public more upset than enlightened, at least at first. Old dogmas die hard before new visions can become realized. Perhaps we will continue to see a growing amount of internet-driven strife, on social medial and mobile platforms, hopefully flaming out sooner and less bloodier than the Europe's reformation.

And what would an enlightenment 2.0 bring? Those who predicted an internet-fueled uptick in growth have been scratching their heads. My guess is that, as these tech platforms gather sufficient data, the big tech firms will create something on the spectrum of a transformative artificial intelligence. The development of AI requires machines to teach themselves, which requires massive data inputs which are now becoming available via the internet and social media.

Like many, I think this boils down to when, not if. The printing press appeared in 1440, the steam engine's replacement of human physical labor appeared in 1776. Maybe a similar leap, where machines take over most of human cognitive labor, will occur in our lifetime? It will almost undoubtedly take less than 300 years.

Closing thoughts:
To anyone particularly outraged by something you saw on facebook or twitter: maybe you're contributing to the reformation more than to the enlightenment? To anyone upset by the current state of societal disarray: who has ever given up a dogma without shots fired? Maybe it's teaching the AI's how to bring about radical abundance? To anyone sanguine about AI: have you read and Nick Bostrom?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Better Way to Interpret "Screen Time"

When I first saw this study, I tried to develop ways to hide my phone from myself: " The Mere Presence of Your Smartphone Reduces Brain Power " But Lulie Tanett flipped this around on me. Study finds that people prefer to do other things with their time than complete boring tasks: https://t.co/i8EQmuDLcc — Lulie (@reasonisfun) July 16, 2019 Of course! Of course it's hard to do boring tasks with the option of something more interesting nearby. The lesson, according to Lulie, is that we should be focusing on not forcing ourselves to do boring stuff. As she articulates here , relying on self discipline to force oneself to complete boring tasks is a failure, not a virtue. It is a failure to recognize why the task is valuable, which makes it fun. To do boring stuff is to be confused. This informs the entire discussion about "screen time." We should stop thinking about screens as stealing our attention away from what matters, and instead think about sc...
Read more

Points on Popper - problems over definitions

Image
A recent conversation with my friend Michael illustrates the point: We had been talking about art and creativity and the like, and at some point he blurted out at me to "go and make some art." I challenged him on the definition of art by claiming that I do creative things all the time. Thus ensued a back and forth about definitions, what counts as artisinal versus functional, what theories of art are important. When Michael suggested we learn about Bauhaus to see if it can shed light on our discussion, I suddenly grasped the relevance of Karl Popper. Popper hated quibbling about definitions, claiming an inverse relationship between the amount of jargon in a field and the information content within it. Practitioners wind up endlessly debating semantics and take their eye off knowledge creation. For Popper, knowledge creation comes from finding and addressing problems. What is wrong about the world? What doesn't make sense? What two ideas or explanations contrad...
Read more

Why "No" is Good for Children

The word "no" has a bad reputation in parenting - Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner even recommends ways to avoid it . The charge is that the word can be used up 400 times per day, eventually causing children to overreact to it by flying into a tantrum, or otherwise ignore it altogether. But the Popperian style of parenting not only loosens restrictions on using the word, it sees "no" as a crucial word in children's development. To see why, we need to take a pretty large step back and consider the purpose of parenting.  For Popperians, the job of the parent is to help the child understand the world. By developing explanations for how the world works, including how the child's own mind and psychology works, the child becomes a healthy adult. Interestingly, this process doesn't stop in adulthood, because no explanation is ever known to be the final, best explanation. In fact, adulthood is an arbitrary designation that has more to do with cultural...
Read more