Payback is Hell

The 90’s were a great time, right?  The cold war was over, the Soviet Union humbled and dismantled.  The technology revolution brought ever more powerful computers and the shiny new Internet, with all of its potential for bringing knowledge to the entire world and leveling the playing field.  Global trade was growing and large numbers of people were moving out of poverty into a semblance of middle-class lives.  The United States was the world’s policeman, protecting free trade, settling squabbles and projecting power in a benevolent, quasi-altruistic manner (ha!).  The western developed countries were at the peak of their power and wealth.

It would have been the perfect time for the west to attempt to compensate for the damage that hundreds of years of colonialism and imperialism had wrought on the developing world.  

It would have been the perfect time to recognize the looming hydrocarbon crisis and begin to work towards alternative energy models.  

It would have been the perfect time for reaching out to former adversaries (Russia and China for example) and making a sincere effort to integrate them more fully into the global community.  

It would have been the perfect time to encourage a worldwide effort to address the drug trade and the growing rate of addiction in the west, which was, after all, the driving force for the trade.

It would have been the perfect time to promote education and entrepreneurship in developing countries rather than steal the best and brightest to further consolidate our dominance.

Yes, all of those things are super complicated and hard to achieve, but it would have been a perfect time and a very good idea to make our best effort while we were flying high. 

But that time is over.  Now the west is in free fall, with rising debt, government paralysis, rampant populism and authoritarianism, a supremely self-absorbed class of plutocrats, global warming looming, immigration crises and the USA led by an insane narcissist and megalomaniac.  

The formerly second tier nations – China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia and others – are rightfully claiming their share of the world’s bounty.  The African and Latin American nations with long histories of corruption, squandered economic opportunities and political turmoil (much of it initiated and exacerbated by the west) also yearn for their share, but see their young abandon hope in desperate efforts to immigrate or cleverly fuel the west’s out-of-control drug habit.

All is not lost yet, but the west is rapidly learning that payback is hell.  Now is the time for the world to come together.  The Trumpian unilateralism is a dead end that will lead rapidly to our demise as a species.  AI will only accelerate that demise unless we band together to share its power and potential.  Who will lead us forward?  Who will reject the current zero-sum mentality and argue persuasively for cooperation?  The world is waiting.

Two Hundred Bonjours a Day – My Spiritual Journey on the Camino

I have a very unfortunate injury to my left foot, presumably from playing soccer.  There is no cartilage between two midfoot bones. Walking at all is slightly painful, but becomes ever more so as the distance increases on a given day.  This is a profoundly discouraging injury to a person who expected to run, hike and play soccer into his 70’s and even 80’s.  But such is life.

When Karen decided to walk the French portion of the Camino pilgrimage from Le Puy to Estaing with her German friend Gudrun, I thought I would fly over with her and drive around while she was walking, practicing my French.  But as we got closer to the trip, the idea of joining them for part of each day’s walk and chatting with the predominantly French pilgrims seemed like a better idea and more likely to produce genuine French conversations.

So I rented a car and drove ahead of the walkers, walking a few miles back to meet them each time as I leapfrogged their progress.  They walked from 10-14 miles each day and I would do between 5 and 8.

Walking backwards on the Chemin de Saint Jacques, as it is known in France, was rather odd.  Since almost all of the walkers are moving forward, I passed large numbers of them (sometimes several times in a day!), cheerfully greeting them with a ‘Bonjour’ and maybe a ‘Bon Chemin’.  Some of them stopped me to ask why I was going the wrong way and this allowed me to engage in a conversation about my unique approach, my injury and anything else that might come up.  It was great practice for my French.

In the evenings we stayed at ‘Gîtes’, the very low-cost but convivial lodges for pilgrims.  We stayed in private rooms with bathrooms (spoiled Americans!) but many chose to sleep dormitory style and share bathrooms.  Breakfast and dinner were communal, offering great opportunities to make camino friends and share life stories.

Most of the pilgrims were older, between 50 and 80.  These baby boomer French were less likely to be confident in English and were super supportive of my efforts to improve my French.  The shared goal of walking (even though I was a ‘faux’ pilgrim or Pelegrin, as I joked to all who learned my story) and our shared humanity was a wonderful elixir that seemed to imbue everyone with an optimistic spirit and a sincerely friendly demeanor.

I never tired of saying ‘Bonjour’, and the people I met repeatedly over the course of our ten-day pilgrimage were equally buoyant in their greetings and our shared moments laughing and conversing.  It is clear that human beings really want to get along and enjoy one another’s company when we are on equal footing and sharing a goal.  But sadly, it all seems to break down when the real world gets in the way.  

My very odd and somewhat fraudulent Chemin de Saint Jacques, with its 200 Bonjours a day was a reminder to try harder to see our common humanity in every person I meet.  The bitter pills of our current political climate have poisoned me in that regard, but the antidote is out there if I will only remember to reach for it.

When Is There Too Much Tech? – Part 2 – Save Us From the Chatbots!

As the AI juggernaut wraps its tentacles around us, the question is not so much whether it will bring wondrous new automation, applications and gadgets - that is a given - but more about what we will give up or cede in allowing technology to create, manage and control more of our lives.  And most importantly, the question is whether what we lose is a reasonable trade for what we gain and whether it is simply another step in our evolution as a species, not to be feared, or a slow descent into a more passive and meaningless existence.

Consider this:  When you receive any significant message from someone, whether personal or business, there is now no way to know whether it was generated by an LLM or written personally by the sender.  The sincere note of thanks, the profession of friendship or love, the sharing of thoughts or opinions – are they the expression of the writer’s thoughts or feelings or simply a chatbot’s response to an instruction?  We simply cannot know, and it seems likely that as time goes on it will almost always be the chatbot.  That, to me, is already a profound loss.

The use of chatbots to create something written, whether an essay, a letter, a poem or a song, denies the ‘creator’ the effort, the thinking, the research, the creative struggle that would otherwise have been necessary to craft what the chatbot produces.  And yes, of course, that doesn’t mean that a chatbot can’t be used to ‘augment’ or aid someone’s creative work rather than fully compose it, but imagine the temptation to rely heavily on AI and the high probability that most will succumb to that temptation.

What future student will learn to write effectively, much less beautifully?  It takes hours and hours to learn how to write well.  Think of the hundreds or thousands of pieces of writing one struggles to create throughout high school and college, not to mention the personal missives one sends via mail, email or notes.   Who will take the time and the trouble to do this now?  Only a very few.  Is this an unnecessary skill in the AI ‘best of all possible worlds’ of the future?  Perhaps, but I believe losing this skill is a heavy price to pay.

And if one no longer writes, then we will no longer have to struggle to analyze and deeply understand a topic and organize our thoughts to be able to express them articulately.  Yes, we will have the deep analysis and summary that a chatbot will give us, but it will have been cheaply obtained and we will have been robbed of the critical thinking that is such an important part of any creative or learning process.

In the end, if we rely on chatbots that have been trained on what humans take years to develop, are we not cheating ourselves of that process of development?  Aren't we taking a huge shortcut that will certainly limit our own capabilities by pretending that when chatbots obey our commands they represent us?

Chatbots can create other things – graphics, photos, videos, films, and music for example.  And in the near future it is very possible that their brethren, robots with AI/LLM capabilities, may be able to do almost anything humans do now and more.  Will this empower humans to be creative in new, exciting ways?  Perhaps, but it could also commoditize creativity and result in an avalanche of shiny things that have little substance behind them.   We already see this.

Providing tools for humans to be more creative is one thing, but mimicking human creativity through a massive training process and then independently creating things with input from a human has the potential to make human creativity superfluous and overwhelm the world with cheap and gaudy thrills.

We can hope that people will seek out true human creativity, and I can envision an underground of noble creative spirits carrying the torch of humanity like the oral book reciters of Fahrenheit 451.  Perhaps after a few years the LLMs will be rejected like foreign tissue from the body of humanity and we will learn once again to express ourselves without the addictive aid of a seductive but treacherous interloper.

When is There Too Much Tech? – Part I

I recently completed a five-course series on neural networks and deep learning where I built smaller versions of the AI that is on self-driving vehicles, chatbots/LLMs and other platforms.  While waiting for my million-dollar job offers from OpenAI, Anthropic and others, I have a few thoughts on technology.

BTW, that introduction is intended as a subtle reminder that I am not exactly ignorant when it comes to technology and science.  I am fascinated by these topics and I find it compelling to understand as much as possible about them, but I also find myself less and less interested in using ‘tech’ – the ever-growing intrusion of apps and devices that overwhelm all of us and consume so much of our time and resources.

We have become accustomed to the steady onslaught of tech into our lives since the arrival of the personal computer and the Internet.  And we readily acknowledge the level of addiction that has accompanied it.  Who doesn’t feel anxiety if they leave the house forgetting their smart phone?  How often does one see couples or entire families ignoring one another and mesmerized by their phones at a restaurant?  How long can one resist the insistent urge to check emails, texts, Instagram, Facebook, or either tech offerings?

The number of devices that deliver this technology is growing fast – computers, tablets/iPads, smart phones, watches, ear or headphones, eyeglasses, doorbells, thermostats, home security devices.  It isn’t hard to imagine a time in the near future where we may choose to have a device implanted in our body.

There is no doubt that these advances have brought compelling changes to both our work lives and our leisure time.  Google maps make navigation much easier and less prone to error; ride-sharing and room-sharing apps make travel and vacations easier to plan and execute; Amazon makes every possible purchase simple to find and available in a day or two; music, videos and films can be streamed at any time; social media delights us with an endless stream of clever thoughts, photos and videos, and informs us of every event in the lives of friends, acquaintances and celebrities.

Tech is portrayed as making life easier, saving us time, making us more productive and providing entertainment.  But we also embrace it as a status symbol, an indication of how clever we are and, perhaps most tellingly, as a necessary investment to avoid being left behind – the dreaded FOMO. 

There is a herd instinct in tech usage that is cultivated by the massive marketing efforts of major tech companies and amplified by social media. Even traditional news media hop on the bandwagon with endless ‘gee whiz’ reporting in their efforts to remain relevant. 

And now the age of AI is upon us.  We stand in awe of the chatbots and their uncanny ability to respond humanlike to our queries and serve up endless delights with only the tiniest effort on our parts. We quickly abandon the more rigorous web searches for information, relying on the AI summaries.  We begin to allow AI agents to attend us.  They will manage our work and home life and make us more efficient, more productive, healthier and happier.

But will they really do this?  And at what cost?  At what point does technology become more of a burden than a blessing?  What do we lose in the bargain?  Is there a healthy balance, or is technology ultimately a black hole that will suck us in and transform us into soulless creatures with no agency in our lives? 

These are the questions I want to study in the next part of this essay.  I am no tech luddite now, but I see warning signs on the horizon and I think they bear careful analysis.

The Mystery of Life and Death

As a person who is fascinated by both the beauty and the mechanism of the world around us, I have vacillated between the passivity of simply accepting and trying to enjoy my life and the universe I inhabit, and the struggle of questioning and investigating the first principles and the mystery of that existence.

What is a human being?  We grow ever more sophisticated in our understanding of the body, our genetic code, our physical existence, our maladies, our aging.  It is true that our understanding of the brain lags somewhat.  Scientists have begun to link our thoughts, emotions and consciousness to various parts of that mysterious organ, but the question remains:   Is there more to us than biology?  Is there a soul, a spirit that is immortal?  Is there something that will remain after the heart stops beating and the brain function has ceased?

The question of whether I am more than simply some energy configured in human form is one I have grappled with frequently in my life.  There were times when I was almost willing to fully embrace Christian theology.  And I still am sympathetic to the fervent desire of so many to be adherents to a specific faith and find comfort in their tenets.

But even in my most ardent religious moments a nagging doubt was present.  The exclusive nature of most religions was the first crack in the wall for me.  How could God consider any sincere search for truth to be sacrilege?  And once that small crack emerges, the entire structure of religious certainty becomes very shaky.

As my skepticism about organized religion grew, I found myself jettisoning all specific theologies and veering toward agnosticism.  Some part of me wants to believe that there is an eternal soul or spirit that will endure beyond this mortal coil.  Given how little we understand even today the true nature of the matter and energy that we embody, I see no reason not to wish for some sort of lasting consciousness and existence once my physical body has died.

And isn’t religion ultimately very focused on death and our fear of it?  Religion uses the mirrored prospects of either a hellish or heavenly afterlife to justify its existence and to control behavior.  It promises a reunion with lost loved ones, a rejuvenation of a worn and aged body, a continuation of life without toil, pain or grief.  No wonder it has had such success!

Some great thinkers and scientists seem content to believe that their deaths will be the end for them, and it is hard to refute this type of thinking from a scientific point of view.  Let’s face it, the religious texts are pretty terse on their descriptions of the life hereafter (many mansions in my Father’s house?) and any serious pondering of the possible details of heaven, hell or other post-Earth modalities becomes absurd pretty quickly.

But I find no solace in the idea that my ‘energy’ will simply dissipate and become part of something new in the universe.  I don’t want to cease to exist. I’m neither a fan of growing old nor of disappearing, and the offered platitudes of being remembered by family and friends are only slightly reassuring.

As I draw ever nearer to the end of my physical being, the mystery of life and death becomes much less an abstraction and more a topic to seriously ponder.  But I have no illusions that I will find any answers before my demise.  Perhaps I will hedge my bets and do a deathbed conversion to every possible religion.  But more likely I will simply hope for the best, as I have done in so many aspects of my life, and accept whatever comes.

Space Dreams

Yesterday, the NASA expedition Artemis II successfully launched, initiating a new era in US lunar exploration by humans rather than unmanned missions.  What are we to make of this new phase?  

I was 15 years old when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.  It was super exciting watching it on TV.  Two years later I was in Florida at Cape Canaveral with my father to watch the liftoff of the Apollo 16 mission.  My father was intimately involved in space missions as a director of the National Reconnaissance Organization, a top-secret group that built spy satellites starting in the 60’s.

I had two experiences with the subsequent Space Shuttle program.  The first was when my wife’s uncle, Karl Henize, an astronomy professor astronaut, flew as the mission specialist on Challenger in 1985, at that time the oldest person to go into space. The second was watching in horror from the roof of my company in Melbourne, Florida, as the Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch in 1986.

The history of human exploration is a fascinating one - the challenges and risks, the technology, the courage.  To the extent it embodies a quest for knowledge and experience, it is a wonderful and admirable human quality.  But, of course, it has also been strongly associated with some of the worst human traits – greed, violence and conquest.

This new phase of lunar exploration and potential colonization comes over 50 years after the first visits to the moon.  The motivation seems to be primarily competition and fear of losing ground to other nations.  In recent years China, Russia and India have all announced their lunar projects.  These include establishing lunar bases (China has termed it an International Lunar Research Station) at the South Pole to take advantage of water sources and extended sunlight.  China and Russia will potentially partner to install a nuclear power plant.

There is real potential for conflict as nations jockey for position on the moon.  Can competing nations conduct their operations without resorting to violence?  If history is any judge, then the answer is no.  Every past exploration saw nations battling endlessly to gain advantage.  The only exception has been the exploration of the Antarctica, which is presumably because to date there has been little material advantage in that exploration.

But aside from the potential future conflicts between increasingly antagonistic nations, there is the nagging question of whether we earth inhabitants can justify reaching for the stars when we have so many problems to solve on our own planet.  The resources and riches required to conduct space missions are prodigious.  Can we in good conscience dedicate that wealth to our space dreams when disease and poverty hover over billions of earthlings and climate change and pollution threaten the lives of everyone?

Alas, that question will never be seriously pondered, because space conquest, like war, AI and the re-invigorated arms race, is inevitable.  Fear and hubris, in equal measure, are the inertial drivers that no force of good will or love seems to be able to counteract.  

I admire the ingenuity and curiosity that enable us to explore our universe, and I will be fascinated by the various stages of accomplishment and the new discoveries that occur, regardless of which nation succeeds.  If we could only abandon warfare and the wasteful arms race and work together in these endeavors, I would be doubly proud of their successes.  But I cannot unreservedly praise our space quest when it must ultimately divert attention and resources away from much more urgent human needs on this earth.

The Importance of Fully Comprehending

The mechanics of mathematics and arithmetic came easily to me.  I was one of three kids who were put into algebra in 8th grade at my middle school and I took calculus my senior year in high school with about twenty other kids. Yes, I know that isn’t even close to being remarkable today, but at the time it was pretty advanced!

But I was also a bit on the lazy side as far as schoolwork goes, and though I quickly learned the mechanics of solving problems and achieved good scores, I never bothered to fully comprehend the theory and deeper meaning of the mathematical concepts.  Once I arrived in college I struggled initially to keep up with the math, physics and engineering courses because of this superficial level of competency in mathematics. 

Over time I began to see the folly of my approach to learning.  I had thought I was clever when I could utilize something quickly without much effort, but I was missing the heart of the matter.  It took me a few years, but I finally realized both the necessity and the joy of fully comprehending subjects, of digging deep to master the theory, not just the basic functional pieces.

This very human tendency to acquire knowledge at a superficial level and assume one has sufficient mastery of a topic is at the heart of some of the discord we have in our society and world at large.  The Internet and AI have exacerbated this phenomenon.  People look at a YouTube or Instagram video, or read the AI-generated summary of a topic or event and assume they have ‘researched’ it sufficiently to form a strong opinion.  

Truly understanding the complex questions our society and world face requires a significant investment of time and energy.  Few have the discipline or even the desire to make that investment.  Gaining a decent comprehension of history, economics, psychology, sociology, science and politics requires both energetic inquiry and critical thinking.  

Critical thinking is the skill necessary to investigate and weigh the pros and cons of different points of view or theories in order to make a judgment about a topic.  Some subjects are not easy to fully comprehend, but once the effort is made the meaning is very clear.  Mathematics and much of the physical sciences lie in this domain.  Some scientific work has political implications and may be disputed or have varying theories (climate change, epidemiology, cosmology, vaccines, etc.) but careful analysis and resisting the tendency toward confirmation bias can help illuminate the most likely truth.

Other topics outside of math and hard science are more prone to misunderstanding or oversimplification. In interpretating history and politics one is often seduced by superficial readings and the mythology of one’s childhood or prevailing social conventions.  A healthy skepticism and determination to read more deeply will help render a more nuanced and accurate portrayal.

If more people in our society would strive to fully comprehend the critical issues of our times and avoid making superficial judgments, perhaps the partisanship and rancor would diminish somewhat.  I am not optimistic that the current trends in social media and AI will do anything to improve matters, but I would be happy to be proven wrong!