A newsletter/blog/column/podcast (possibly) exploring the intersection of emerging technologies and society through the lens of what it might mean to be human in a technologically complex future
Welcome to Substack! Looking forward to reading your takes on AI and the future of us humans. I wrote a sci-fi anthology about us humans in the near future, if you'd like to see. The book is called 'No End Code' and it's on a crazy promo right now - free - if you want a copy. https://www.amazon.com/No-End-Code-M-Weaving-ebook/dp/B0B9682CQ6
Thanks for this interesting blog, which aligns pretty well with some of my interests. I'm new here, so for now I'll reply to this:
You write, "..how we can hold on to some semblance of being masters of our own destiny..."
One answer to this challenge could be simply to slow down. As example, imagine that you had to write all your articles at an ever accelerating rate of speed. That factor alone would likely increasingly lead to error.
I liked the graphic in your video which showed...
Problem => Innovation => Solution => Problem
The faster we go around that circle the less likely it is we'll get things right. This seems important because if the next problem we create with innovation is too big, it can bring our journey around the circle to a quick end. Nuclear weapons come to mind here.
It seems to me the fundamental challenge we face is philosophical. We're clinging to "more is better" relationship with knowledge that made sense in the long era of knowledge scarcity. But we no longer live in that old knowledge scarcity era, but in a revolutionary new era characterized by knowledge exploding in every direction at an accelerating rate. We aren't updating our knowledge philosophy to adapt to this new era. Technically we're racing forward, but philosophically we're clinging to the past.
Thanks Phil. One of the things that's increasingly hard to grapple with is the tension between "should" and "can" -- it's easy to argue that we should slow down, but this often feels like telling the tide it should back off a bit -- a nice idea, but never going to happen in a complex system driven by underlying laws and principles that don't respect what feels right :)
Hi Andrew, thanks for your reply. I'm intrigued by the irony of how utterly confident we are about pushing the knowledge explosion forward ever faster, and how utterly defeatist we typically are about learning how to control the process. We seem to pride ourselves on not being in control, which is a strange phenomena indeed.
I would argue that learning how to control the knowledge explosion becomes a bit easier once it dawns on us that doing so isn't optional. We are pretty darn capable when we have our backs against the wall. The primary challenge currently seems to be that we don't yet realize that we are in that situation.
Imagine that you had to write every article on this blog a bit faster than the last one. Ok, so you could use chatbots and other tech to help you keep up. But so long as the process continues to accelerate, sooner or later you're having to produce each article in 13 seconds. 12, 11, 10, 9 etc...
Welcome to Substack! Looking forward to reading your takes on AI and the future of us humans. I wrote a sci-fi anthology about us humans in the near future, if you'd like to see. The book is called 'No End Code' and it's on a crazy promo right now - free - if you want a copy. https://www.amazon.com/No-End-Code-M-Weaving-ebook/dp/B0B9682CQ6
Thanks for this interesting blog, which aligns pretty well with some of my interests. I'm new here, so for now I'll reply to this:
You write, "..how we can hold on to some semblance of being masters of our own destiny..."
One answer to this challenge could be simply to slow down. As example, imagine that you had to write all your articles at an ever accelerating rate of speed. That factor alone would likely increasingly lead to error.
I liked the graphic in your video which showed...
Problem => Innovation => Solution => Problem
The faster we go around that circle the less likely it is we'll get things right. This seems important because if the next problem we create with innovation is too big, it can bring our journey around the circle to a quick end. Nuclear weapons come to mind here.
It seems to me the fundamental challenge we face is philosophical. We're clinging to "more is better" relationship with knowledge that made sense in the long era of knowledge scarcity. But we no longer live in that old knowledge scarcity era, but in a revolutionary new era characterized by knowledge exploding in every direction at an accelerating rate. We aren't updating our knowledge philosophy to adapt to this new era. Technically we're racing forward, but philosophically we're clinging to the past.
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/our-relationship-with-knowledge
As I read through your site I'll be interested to see if/how you comment on this angle. Please feel free to direct me to relevant sections as needed.
You've picked a great topic for a blog, I'm guessing this project attract considerable interest.
Thanks Phil. One of the things that's increasingly hard to grapple with is the tension between "should" and "can" -- it's easy to argue that we should slow down, but this often feels like telling the tide it should back off a bit -- a nice idea, but never going to happen in a complex system driven by underlying laws and principles that don't respect what feels right :)
Hi Andrew, thanks for your reply. I'm intrigued by the irony of how utterly confident we are about pushing the knowledge explosion forward ever faster, and how utterly defeatist we typically are about learning how to control the process. We seem to pride ourselves on not being in control, which is a strange phenomena indeed.
I would argue that learning how to control the knowledge explosion becomes a bit easier once it dawns on us that doing so isn't optional. We are pretty darn capable when we have our backs against the wall. The primary challenge currently seems to be that we don't yet realize that we are in that situation.
Imagine that you had to write every article on this blog a bit faster than the last one. Ok, so you could use chatbots and other tech to help you keep up. But so long as the process continues to accelerate, sooner or later you're having to produce each article in 13 seconds. 12, 11, 10, 9 etc...