“Artificial intelligence has the verbal skills of a four-year-old”

This was written in 2013.

Over the decades it has become apparent that simply throwing more processor cycles at the problem of true artificial intelligence isn’t going to cut it. A brain is orders of magnitude more complex than any AI system developed thus far, but some are getting closer.

And in the seven years since this post, we now have GPT-3, capable of writing essays at least as good as college graduates, on just about any topic that interests you, whether that’s cryptocurrencies or the history of feudalism or the chemistry of marijuana.

I’m not trying to single out this article. It’s just a powerful reminder of how difficult it is for anybody to properly assess current technology, because of our inability to fully grasp the effects of exponential growth and the surprises of non-linear innovation.

We keep trying to peer into the future, and we keep being surprised when the future actually arrives.

What else are we getting wrong about our technologies of today? What other technologies have the skills or experience of a four year old?

A few come to mind: Virtual reality. Blockchains. Robots (although this is increasingly not the case).

“You have to remember that in today’s world GDP is a very poor measure of economic health”

Lately I’ve been reading Detlev’s book, Paper Money Collapse. In particular I found the chapter on cryptocurrency and the chapter on solutions to the global monetary debt crisis to be extremely clear and practical and informative.

This online interview he did with ValueWalk was also quite good. I’ve shared a few of my favorite excerpts below:

—

But by 2009 I had become very pessimistic on our financial system as a result of my study of Austrian School economics and my own experience after almost two decades in the business

I am convinced this crisis is misunderstood by most. We are witnessing the failure of our fiat money system. This will get much worse. I try to position myself for it.

It is no surprise to me that the Austrian School has such a strong appeal for real-life entrepreneurs and risk-takers. No other school of thought understands entrepreneurship, risk-taking, capital accumulation and capital maintenance, relative prices and the real-life elements of time and error

I think a gigantic intellectual bubble exists in which most financial market participants operate. That bubble will probably only get pricked by real events, i.e. the massive crisis that is now unfolding.

In fact, one of the first historic examples of a paper money system outside Medieval China, was Massachusetts, which, in 1690 when still a British colony, issued paper money to fund military excursions into French Quebec. Then there were the famous continentals, a paper money issued by the Continental Congress in 1775 to fund the Revolutionary War. These early experiments with paper money ended like they always do – with worthless paper tickets

…from 1879 to 1914 there was no meaningful deflation or inflation in the system at all. This was a time of hard, inflexible and stable money. This was a period– in the US and globally – of solid economic growth, rising living standards and growing international trade, and of harmonious economic relationships between countries

The methodology of the Austrians is superior, but the methodology of mainstream macroeconomics, and Keynesianism in particular, is appealing to politicians. These schools perceive the economy as an organism that sometimes performs below potential, which then provides a convenient excuse for the politicians to get involved.

You have to remember that in today’s world GDP is a very poor measure of economic health. In the EU, 50 percent of recorded economic activity is conducted by the public sector. In my adopted home country, the UK, it is 53 percent. The public sector spends more money than all private individuals and corporations put together. This is more socialism than capitalism.

Interviewer: If you were Ben Bernanke what would you do now?
Detlev: Abdicate. His mandate is contradictory and impossible. He is supposed to provide a stable medium of exchange for the American public, and at the same time provide an unlimited backstop for Wall Street and Washington. Well, it is one or the other. We already know which one he chose.

I mean, it makes sense, but then again…?

In short, the bank is already and at all times bankrupt; but its bankruptcy is only revealed when customers get suspicious and precipitate “bank runs.” No other business experiences a phenomenon like a “run.” No other business can be plunged into bankruptcy overnight simply because its customers decide to repossess their own property. No other business creates fictitious new money, which will evaporate when truly gauged.

…only one way to find out ;)

From the free PDF, What has government done to our money? by Murray Rothbard.

TED talk notes #3, Noah Feldman: Politics and religion are technologies

politics and religion are analyzable as technologies, via conceptual design

democracy is a way to channel power from many into hands of few

Islam – means of construing universe as way to bring salvation to its followers
to achieve goals: peace, justice, equality as viewed within its doctrine

there isn’t a clear symbol for democracy or Islam, as such are subject to wide interpretation

“because they’re technologies, they’re manipulable”

democracy and Islam are portrayed as incompatible, but technologies are more malleable than that
an Egyptian activist group was blocked from forming a party which presented a combination of democracy and Islam

Just a special book: “There is no limit to the most complex things we will make.”

I’ve read Kevin Kelly’s book What Technology Wants two times now, and often re-read highlights from the book, and I’m always discovering new things I missed before.

I think one reason – among many – for the wonderful breadth and depth of his insights, is his ability to analyze technology as if it were a living, breathing, evolving super-organism.

There is no limit to the most complex things we will make. We’ll dazzle ourselves with new complexity in many directions. This will complexify our lives further, but we’ll adapt to it. There is no going back. We’ll hide this complexity with beautiful “simple” interfaces, as elegant as the round ball of an orange. But behind this membrane our stuff will be more complex than the cells and biochemistry of an orange. To keep up with this complexification, our language, tax codes, government bureaucracies, news media, and daily lives will all become more complex as well. It’s a trend we can count on. The long arc of complexity began before evolution, worked through the four billion years of life, and now continues through the technium

Here are more of my highlights.

And here are Derek Sivers’s highlights from the book, too.

One more mind-blaster:

There is nothing we have invented to date about which we’ve said, “It’s smart enough.”