CharonY

I think it is because of our perception that folks treated black folks worse in the past, therefore we expect indicators also to be worse (relatively speaking). But the issue is that the system never fully corrected the issues that already put them on a different path and with all the other issues, that also affects white low-income folks on top, a widening gap is exactly what we expect to see. Conversely, it means that whatever measures where done were insufficient to close that gap and it is unclear whether it can be, as intergenerational wealth is a big driver and even if all negative factors were gone over night, they still start behind. I don't think that the folks in power are smart or inclined enough to develop such long-term strategies. I think what happened is that in their quest to improve things like targeted marketing, they more or less stumbled over the impact of these mechanisms and only after that that, started to weaponize it for their gain. Silicon Valley seemed to have gone through multiple stages, starting from the "do no evil" part where a lot was driven by developing and finding use for tech, then increasingly drive it towards monetization which at some point culminated in power and control. Pretty much like every comic book villain story.

Absolutely. One of the elements I am interested in is the erosion of trust, associated with factors such as inequality. There is also a large body of research looking into things like institutional trust that have been eroding across the political spectrum, in some areas these are politically segregated (e.g., there is a big divide relating to racial wealth inequality) but quite a bit overlap when it comes to criticism regarding the "elite" (though with different view on who are part of it). One theme related to the erosion in trust is related to lack of perceived fairness. During times of shock (e.g. financial crisis 2008, COVID-19, now war on Iran and tariffs), the burden is not only shared unequally, at the top the wealth actually increases. This observation suggests for many that the system is "rigged" as the wealthy disproportionate benefit from good economic developments but are insulated from the negative ones. Conversely, the bottom do not see the benefit but are are at high risk at status loss. These are, as you noted, the consequence of many factors making up the system. And while some have partially better solutions, the interconnection of modern economy largely means that pretty much no country is fully protected from these developments.

Thanks for the clarification. I think this is true, but addresses yet another domain, i.e. that of power inequality and associated self-enrichment. One issue with attempts at centrally planned economies is the intrinsic high inefficiency and overall reduced economic envelope compared to capitalist societies. As a consequence, everyone was by default poorer. And in that context, the Soviet Union is a great comparison to modern Russia, the former having a centrally planned economy, and the latter changing switching to capitalism. In both power differences are known and sometimes exerted by the same group of people. Studies there do suggest that inequality has increased after the switch to capitalism (see e.g., Davies: Personal Wealth from a Global Perspective). But again, the caveat is that there is more inequality with an overall bigger pie. I.e., the overall baseline has improved but inequality almost immediately increased in tandem. The issue with all such system is whether there is some mechanism to stabilize a steady state (i.e. there is inequality but fixed at a given level) or whether it somehow continues forever, which of course inevitably means collapse (or an entirely new state). I think a reason why this worry is coming up again is because the AI folks somehow simultaneously claim multiple contradicting things at once. I.e. AI and robots will make humans obsolete, yet somehow it won't cause mass-poverty and somehow the companies still will be endlessly profitable (though they are not even profitable now) and also no one will have to work, but no we won't need to have a completely new economic model (somehow). This opens up the space for new and old worries and almost demands a better grip on what all of that will mean for the next generation(s).

No, I see your point, but what I mean is that in case of monuments or similar structures, the context matters. Oppenheimer's legacy could "just" highlight the scientific, organizational and engineering achievements, just the doomsday scenario that nuclear weapons enabled, or even focus on how McCarthy's anti-communist hunt led to him losing his security clearance. IOW, to me it is not only about the person, but also the question what message we want to send when we create monuments in their honor. Folks are complicated, and I generally prefer to depict folks as human and enable a discussion regarding their legacies. I think the Manhattan project is even a bit disconnect to the outcome, I think a clearer depiction of the issue would be e.g. portraying Stalin as a bulwark against Nazis and conveniently downplay the whole other rest of his legacy. I.e., in my mind monuments to great men tend to gloss over the complexity of each person and I think I just have an automatic dislike to such shortcuts. I do recognize that as my own preference, and potentially, failing. And that creates a system in which the fetters on capitalism are diminished. A system where laws would prohibit that, would be a different system, wouldn't it? Well, the EU also has similar issues, at a lower level. The fetters are, on average stronger than in North America. However, there was a big push around the 2010s for a more neoliberal/free trade in order to boost economies. And for a while it did. But even there the gap between rich and poor is increasing, in part adding to the rise of the far right (who then ironically accelerate the process). In my mind, what happens in the US is not the cause of the issue, but to a large degree just a symptom. The economic system does not come in with built-in safeguards and there has been a big push to reduce them further. It is quite possible that economies will indeed stagnate as many predict if there are too many regulations, but the current development does not appear to be sustainable, either. It should also be added that the economic issues in the US and elsewhere did not start with Trump. He (and COVID-19) just made such a mess that the fractures just became so much more visible. If those things hadn't happened, and the Supreme Court were a bit less weird, it would likely just take a bit longer to arrive where we are.

I suspect it depends a lot on context. I.e. who initiated it and to what purpose. During the Jim Crow era, a lot of confederate statues were built in direct rebuke to equal rights, for example. In other cases it might also be just naivete where the folks celebrate a particular achievement, but were just not aware of the issues, just by general lack of education in this area. Though in these cases it can be bit difficult to disentangle it from soothing the conscience. In my mind worshipping any person comes with issues as MigL pointed out, humans are faulty creatures. And while it might be fine to celebrate certain achievements, by worshipping persons you inadvertently tend to minimize those faults. That in turn make it easier to dismiss victims of their actions. I wished we would treat folks as humans, rather than idols.

I think that is a good way to move towards a more equitable economic system. The idea of our mixed economy was always to balance out the flow of capital to the top and devaluing labor, which is pretty much how capitalism works (and which Adam Smith considered a virtuous cycle, but where folks like Marx recognized that it does not in fact create an expanding pie where everyone gets richer). The issue is that the balance is increasingly perceived to be off, especially in the service economy, where products are increasingly intangible and wealth seems to increasingly move independent of production. That being said, wealth and with that, power, has accumulated so massively in few hands, it seems now to be almost impossible to move the needle towards redistributing. Especially as folks almost reflexively fear some sort of market breakdown (but conveniently forgetting that for some reasons the major market crashes again made the richest even richer). But that, in my mind does not touch the fundamental societal issues. What baffles me is that especially social media companies are not only a thing, but that they are so massive. It is somewhat dystopian that a system can make money bytaking away your attention, and spoon-feed you content. Together with addictive hardware (cell phone), it has massively re-engineered human society world-wide. As we have discussed before, other major events (books, radio, TV) had similar wide-scale effects. But at least in modern times, these technologies have, I believe for the first time, systematically degraded human abilities across the spectrum, at scale. Folks focus a lot on the decline in various scoring domains (e.g. maths, reading, writing, etc.), but I think beyond just the skills it also has eroded reasoning abilities in a very strange way in younger folks. I think that is almost immediately connected the next part. With a decline of basic reasoning skills, we have reverted to an almost exclusive in-group based trust system. Someone who is considered to be part of the group is endlessly trust worthy, regardless of facts. My work has drifted ever more into the public health area and the one thing I increasingly believe is at fault is the internet, where the virtual has become more real than the real world. Emotions have increasingly become the currency of trust, not facts or reasoning. The interesting thing that happens, if you engage with folks in person and demonstrate goodwill, many are at least more willing to listen. But the format is very important and decoupling reality with what they heard online is often hard and inconvenient work. No system currently likes to do that, and because news (and the fact that you call it a news show sort of already outlines the problem) want to make money, and they are basically just competing with content creators into an endless downward spiral. Even if folks listen to analyses, what they really want to hear is that the analysis reaffirms their feelings. And again we enable that by degrading basic reasoning skills among the next generation(s). This is again an economic argument, and it is equally baffling, but perhaps also understandable that corporations don't understand/care for that. Economy has always been short-sighted, looking at immediate improvements of productivity, efficiency and profit, rather than long-term vision. Almost by design capitalism is reactive (which is its big strength) but resilient to long-term planning. The right regulations might be able to change the course, but I have not yet seen a convincing framework of what needs to be done, or even what vision we have for the future. And I do think that the societal changes that we have, will make those visions ever more blurry.

There are already autonomous robotaxis and what we currently learn is that it obviously cuts down on human failings, such as cell phone use and other distracted driving, DUI etc. And therefore outperform drivers especially under good conditions. The issue is a bit murkier under bad weather, dusk/dawn situations, but this could be areas of improvement. It should be noted that this is likely not exclusively a software-side issue, though companies like Tesla treat it as such, but also a sensor-side issue. LIDAR significantly outperforms camera only, for example. If we get tot the point that autonomous driving becomes the norm, I would assume that liability will be similar with respect to robotaxis, i.e. the manufacturer will be liable, for crashes while in autonomous mode. Though there will be questions regarding shared liability with respect to maintenance or use beyond the terms that will likely exist (e.g. driving outside of established grids). But again, I don't think that autonomous driving, at least for the foreseeable future, is an AI-only question.

Unfortunately, in practice that has been quite challenging. There are numerous studies showing that quite a few of the forensic methods used in court are flawed and judges often struggle with Daubert adherence, with one of the issues being lack of science literacy. There have been multiple calls for more rigorous means to ensure scientific validity (here is one from the Obama White House https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf) But again, in practice apparently there was little improvement. Or at least that is the impression I got from reading articles such as this here: https://www.scispace.com/pdf/forensic-science-daubert-s-failure-3fqt704qv8.pdf I suspect it will depend a lot on the judge and their perception on AI how admissible the evidence is. However, as there is a strong desire from tech companies to push AI into everything, I suspect that until sufficiently evidence to the contrary is being presented, it will be also accepted, like similarly other iffy forms of forensic data. In otherwise highly regulated areas, such as medicine, machine-learning algorithms had a huge impact on many levels, from medical imaging, operation of medical instruments, patient-donor selections, to diagnoses and insurance pricing. Often, it took years until failures became apparent (e.g. due to poor selection of training data, overfitting or simply disconnect with realities on the ground). This will likely happen in the judiciary.

No doubt, regulations are written in blood as the saying goes. Strangely, it is never the blood of profiteers. Great, I now know that you want to make lembas muffins for larvae. Do you want me to write the whole recipe or should we torture the elves first?

That and other lawsuits tackling liability (including causing harm and other safety concerns) will hopefully start to shape a regulatory framework for AI and its use. Also, do you want blueberry in your muffin or mealworms?

To be fair, Hegseth and his ilk were cheering for the other side to win.

Well, but then President Vance under direction of Supreme Leader Thiel can just pardon him, together with the tech insurrectionists of 2028. I am not even sure what to fix. Much of what you describe are, in my mind the result of systemic societal changes. The US is not even the sole exception, just a particularly inept one that also managed to offend almost everyone internationally. However, most issues also pop up elsewhere. Journalism is degrading, in large part due to the fact that they are not economically viable anymore. Education is more slowly starting to go a similar route. Anti-establishment resentments are everywhere, some fueled by good reasons, others by utterly crazy stuff. Mechanistically one can add checks, but fundamentally the ultimate check are the voters. And it does seem that their ability to make reasonable decisions is being eroded. And I do not see a quick fix for that on the horizon.

Or what or how they tested in the first place. The best argument to dismiss such claims is if they appear predominantly or exclusively in video formats. They are not for a serious audience and are design to sell and mislead, not to inform.

IQ has developmental components. It is not something that you can really raise. What you can raise however, is to perform better in certain types of tests, if that is what you mean. Certain types of IQ tests try to reduce that component, but I am doubtful how effective those are.

It's awesome. And even easier if you get my approved protein supplement made from real organic aromats. Maximize your brain at the cost of only one or two kidneys. Like and subscribe!

IQ is a score that is associated with a wide variety factors, many of which not really do not understand. Some factors which have been associated with include high (parental) socioeconomic status, nutrition, a stimulating learning environment, frequent reading etc. So while the question in OP doesn't make a lot of sense, the factors associated with higher IQ can be, in fact enjoyable (good food, reading books, stimulating environment etc). Of course, the correlation is not causation caveat also applies here. Getting better grades is not necessarily associated with IQ. I.e. if you train to improve your grad your IQ may not be impacted (much). And it should also be added that the IQ test was initially developed to test learning deficiency not the other way around. But in a broader sense, learning anything can be enjoyable.

I see. I think it depends a bit on the system, in most capitalist dominated societies I see that folks often see efficiency as the biggest virtue, and thus being efficient (i.e. using least amount of time) to perform a task is what drives them. Spending time to really "get it" is often seen as inefficient. That is an interesting point and I do wonder what impact it has. However, it depends on quite a few factors. If we think about low-income countries, folks who are not able to attend school most likely won't have access to infrastructure allowing them access to AI or other tools. The other element is that in many countries higher educations is not quite as expensive as in the US so the amount AI is going to lessen the barrier is not entirely clear to me. Attitude-wise, I found that on average, students from non-Western countries had more drive than many of their Western counterparts with more interest in building skills. However, and this might again be a discipline thing, a lot if was the desire for hands-on bench experience and use of high-cost analytical gear, which were not available in their home countries. I am sure for folks aiming to be tech entrepreneurs or influencers the situation will be very different. Though from what I have heard, entrepreneurism has been flourishing (perhaps somewhat locally) in those places already, especially as the internet became more accessible. It just mostly escaped Western notice.

You mean actual obesity? Perhaps. Though I think I was just overstretching a metaphor a bit here.

This goes a bit towards what iNow said earlier- it depends on how you use it. If you use prompts to ask for different opinions and their underlying reasoning, it could be beneficial. But there is little incentive for it to used that way. What seems more common is that folks use it to a) strengthen their existing conviction (multiple studies focused on spreading misinformation, perpetuating bias and so on) and b) seem to drive cultural homogenization (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/23727322251406591). From a perspective of watching the mind of young folks developing I think the reason is rather simple. We basically provide a buffet that has equal access to broccoli, brussels sprout and kale and carrot as well as pizza, steak, chocolate etc. Then we tell them to only eat what is good for you. The maybe top 1-5% will take the vegetable and they would likely do well regardless of the system. For the rest however, the bottom is falling out and you can barely rouse from their self-induced pizza coma. Some do realize how poorly they are doing, but they still aren't able to stop due to a mix of anxiety, trained incompetence, peer and performance pressure, etc. The only messaging we have left is really that you should eat more of the metaphorical vegetable (and also show them how to do it). But this is about as effective as say no to drugs. Or combating obesity (without wonder drugs).

I think it is well-established that these tools degrade the specific skills that they replace. The issue with AI is that it is perceived as not confined to any one domain and some use it to offload basic thinking and, apparently communication. I have heard reports that some students even try to use it for in-class interaction. In one article I read, a simple question was something like: "What do you think about that book. Did you like it, or not?" Apparently, half the class gave very similar chat-GPT generated answers.

Absolutely. Right now, I see them as an amplifier. That goes for both,competence and incompetence. In most cases, it is not equivalent to an expert, as the latter will more likely tell you why you are wrong. The carefully curated cases outperforming MDs tend to be edge cases where certain specialized abilities (e.g. pattern recognition, case matching etc.) outperform the average MD in controlled test. That being said, I also vaguely recall that some cases, radiologist underperform when they use AI. This could be down to who and how the tool is being used. I believe worst and best-performing radiologists, benefitted list from AI, suggesting that a certain level of competency is required to use it, but also that the boost has a ceiling. Typically there are some discussions on the economic system that in medieval times were based on agricultural/feudalist system. I would think that at least peripherally the importance of the Silk Road in shaping the ancient/medieval times as an early version of global trade. I also recall some discussion on the economics of pilgrimages and crusades, including building areas of worship and hospitality around often fake relics (i.e. early form of tourism). I guess history teachers do have some leeway to focus on what they want, but the one I had back in the day loved to talk more about the social science of history rather than wars.

Actually that is the part where I see the most convincing evidence for a good use- if they are properly curated and deployed in a specific setting (i.e. not the general chatbot for the masses). The reason is that medical knowledge is a mostly contained system, where MDs basically use established frameworks to make diagnoses. For that, if hallucinations can be kept in check, they are frightening good and outperform MDs in multiple contexts. That might be, but in research the big hurdle is to convince folks to give you money to test your ideas.

Well, I got a bigger mug. That is what I meant with "processing" i.e. generating ideas based on existing knowledge, but in my mind that process is finite as new physical discoveries are needed, in my mind. So that is the part I don't understand. Why provide them with power for them to generate the money to pay humans to do things, including discoveries. Why don't we pay folks right now to work on ideas that they are not getting realized because they don't get funding? I.e. doesn't AI seem to be an unnecessary middleman for that process?

So this is something that I am very curious about. On the software engineering side, this is very scary as it suggests to be capable to fully replace humans. In the broader discussion this is also shown as evidence that it is inevitable that it will surpass humanity's capabilities. What is your take on it? I may be entirely wrong, but sounds to me that the assumption is that software capabilities are virtually endless. I do not have the expertise to dispute that, but intuitively I would think that there is some limit. Even if it combines all the existing knowledge humanity has right now, and by being able to process it in a way no human can would discover things that humans either can't or would need to do it collectively and slowly, it does not follow for me that this expansion is limitless. At some point all the knowledge that can be generated based on existing one would hit some sort of boundary. At minimum it would require hardware (or people) to do additional discoveries to push boundaries further outward, and really that is where we are right now in my field, anyway. We do not have a sparsity of ideas or hypotheses, we lack manpower and funding to explore them (and ironically, the funding is tighter as quite a bit gets diverted to AI related fields). Or at least, that is my perspective, but I am curious how it looks like from other angles. A phrase from Gibson comes to mind. "The future is here but not evenly distributed." I think that would fall under cleaning up the mess once it is out? I am wondering a bit whether the paste is really all out, whether we really are thinking properly about cleaning up, or whether we are still at the process of squeezing really hard.

I get that. But perhaps because of the way I am trained to think about systems, I am always a bit baffled and disappointed that there is a kind of fatalism associated with that. I get what you are saying, it is there and we need to deal with it. But among decision-makers what I see is more akin to, the toothpaste is out, so there is nothing we can do. And then they are surprised that they keep accumulating toothpaste and that it doesn't in fact clean itself. I guess I am seeing a lot of parallels to other, much slower moving issues, like say global warming, where issues were not only predictable, but actually accurately predicted, a menu of actions were laid out, and then mostly ignored until the issue got so bad that folks then resigned to it, with no real game plan to address it meaningfully. Why not create a better tube? What about effective clean-up system. Or perhaps we can even develop improved metaphors? Increasingly I feel that we are using our brains mostly to please our egos and/or get rich, rather than solving real-life problems. Understood. I have no doubt that your industry is changing. From the outside, it reads to me like the industrial revolution on steroids. I am not entirely sure regarding my position, but I always used to be a tech enthusiast, both in private as in professional life, although technological changes in science undergo slightly different rhythms (typically more hardware than software, with quite a few notable exceptions). But with the cracks in systems and society I am seeing (and again, quite a bit I fear is the old man syndrome) I am increasingly drawn to the human side of things and getting increasingly skeptical regarding the impact of tech in our lives. Not in a Luddite sense of way, but I think one of dimming optimism which slowly turns into pessimism. Or as my wife put it, it feels like we are not aiming for Star Trek (next generation that is) but instead for the wost black mirror episodes. The way the system is moving, it feels that humanity plays a big role in diminishing its role. Which weirdly is also echoed by the US government, which makes me question my sanity before I have my sixth coffee.