Whatever the coming parade of shiny new objects might contain, one way to predict what's coming is to ask... What do humans want? Or, to narrow the lens a bit, what do humans want enough that they're willing to pay to get it?
This prediction method flips the script and approaches prediction from the human side instead of the AI industry side. It's imprecise, and won't tell us what feature will be released on what date. But if we're trying to take a longer view, asking what humans want seems a good place to start.
There's nothing too new in this suggestion, it's basically what business people do all they time when they're trying to gauge market demand. The question is less "what can we make" and more "what will they buy"?
I kinda agree. But that's just too general. I think that without going much deeper into the question it can yield any useful answers at all. To me, the interesting thing is that SOS is new in AI. It wasn't this way before. Also, companies not only do what people want but what's possible to do depending on the state of science and technology. They would gladly make AI agents but they can't just yet. The SOS applies not just to useful stuff but to about anything that comes out. That's the "tragedy".
Yea, I was expressing a general principle, agree. Going deeper in to the "what do humans want" question is an excellent idea, though that's kinda hard to do on Substack.
I agree that companies will experiment to see what's possible. But if those experiments don't somehow connect to "what will they pay for" the experiments may not be possible for too long.
SOS can raise the question of WHY do we crave the distraction, excitement, stimulation etc? If that question were to lead us deep in to the human condition, we might learn something about human's children, AI, too?
This is challenging to explain briefly, but I'll give it a go. A good writing exercise.
1) We are made of thought. Much or most of the human condition arises from the properties of what we're made of psychologically.
2) Thought operates by dividing the single unified reality in to conceptual parts. Nouns are a quick example.
3) The "me" is a key conceptual part.
4) Seen through thought, "me" seems very very small, and "everything else" appears very very big.
5) This perception gives rise to existential fear, a key source of most human problems.
6) We tend to bury the existential fear under a huge pile of SOS.
7) One way to translate the above out of theory and in to experience is to discard all the distractions for awhile. Example: Take a chair and a lunch out in to some quiet isolated part of nature. Get there at dawn, and stay until sunset. No devices, books or other distractions. To the degree possible, do nothing. Just observe one day of your life go by.
At the least such an experiment will probably make our addiction to distraction more clear, which can help prepare the ground for asking why we are addicted.
Well, I'm surprised you arrived at "existential fear" that way, but I agree. I would have said existential void, but yeah, I do agree that's the deeper reason for SOS (and many other seemingly unrelated trends of modern civilization). I happen to have an essay almost finished on this topic that goes back to Nietzsche's death of god as the origin of our existential dread and despair.
On an unrelated note, know that there will always be little interest in the beginning. Only time and improvement reward the thankless effort that we put in at the beginning. That's what I did and it worked out! In case you didn't see this: https://www.awritersnotebook.org/p/how-to-succeed-on-substack
Ok, fear of the void, fear of not existing. Fair enough.
I see the God idea, religion in general, as being a response to the fear of the void. So when "God died" as Nietzsche would say, people were left scrambling to find another response, and to a significant degree, that has been SOS.
As I understand it, the divisive nature of thought is the source of the fear. It's that divisive nature which creates the "me", which experiences itself as being separate from, and thus vulnerable to, everything else.
The sad irony is that religions and philosophies (like this post) try to explore, explain, and heal the fear in the medium of thought (ideas, doctrines, books etc) thus feeding the source of the fear, thought itself. It's kind of like an alcoholic trying to cure themselves with a case of scotch. :-)
This is related to AI in the sense that whatever is going on in the human condition is going to be inherited by AI. I'm not really trying to change the subject, but dive deeper in to it.
Great analysis. Most things are blown out of proportion these days. The ability to diagnose signal within all the noise is critical.
Whatever the coming parade of shiny new objects might contain, one way to predict what's coming is to ask... What do humans want? Or, to narrow the lens a bit, what do humans want enough that they're willing to pay to get it?
This prediction method flips the script and approaches prediction from the human side instead of the AI industry side. It's imprecise, and won't tell us what feature will be released on what date. But if we're trying to take a longer view, asking what humans want seems a good place to start.
There's nothing too new in this suggestion, it's basically what business people do all they time when they're trying to gauge market demand. The question is less "what can we make" and more "what will they buy"?
I kinda agree. But that's just too general. I think that without going much deeper into the question it can yield any useful answers at all. To me, the interesting thing is that SOS is new in AI. It wasn't this way before. Also, companies not only do what people want but what's possible to do depending on the state of science and technology. They would gladly make AI agents but they can't just yet. The SOS applies not just to useful stuff but to about anything that comes out. That's the "tragedy".
Yea, I was expressing a general principle, agree. Going deeper in to the "what do humans want" question is an excellent idea, though that's kinda hard to do on Substack.
I agree that companies will experiment to see what's possible. But if those experiments don't somehow connect to "what will they pay for" the experiments may not be possible for too long.
SOS can raise the question of WHY do we crave the distraction, excitement, stimulation etc? If that question were to lead us deep in to the human condition, we might learn something about human's children, AI, too?
Surely. Why do we crave that? It's an important question. Why do you think?
This is challenging to explain briefly, but I'll give it a go. A good writing exercise.
1) We are made of thought. Much or most of the human condition arises from the properties of what we're made of psychologically.
2) Thought operates by dividing the single unified reality in to conceptual parts. Nouns are a quick example.
3) The "me" is a key conceptual part.
4) Seen through thought, "me" seems very very small, and "everything else" appears very very big.
5) This perception gives rise to existential fear, a key source of most human problems.
6) We tend to bury the existential fear under a huge pile of SOS.
7) One way to translate the above out of theory and in to experience is to discard all the distractions for awhile. Example: Take a chair and a lunch out in to some quiet isolated part of nature. Get there at dawn, and stay until sunset. No devices, books or other distractions. To the degree possible, do nothing. Just observe one day of your life go by.
At the least such an experiment will probably make our addiction to distraction more clear, which can help prepare the ground for asking why we are addicted.
Longer Version Here: https://www.tannytalk.com/p/article-series-the-nature-of-thought
I intended to write much more at that URL, but there was so little interest I shifted my focus to hippy cartoons instead, my preferred SOS. :-)
Well, I'm surprised you arrived at "existential fear" that way, but I agree. I would have said existential void, but yeah, I do agree that's the deeper reason for SOS (and many other seemingly unrelated trends of modern civilization). I happen to have an essay almost finished on this topic that goes back to Nietzsche's death of god as the origin of our existential dread and despair.
On an unrelated note, know that there will always be little interest in the beginning. Only time and improvement reward the thankless effort that we put in at the beginning. That's what I did and it worked out! In case you didn't see this: https://www.awritersnotebook.org/p/how-to-succeed-on-substack
Ok, fear of the void, fear of not existing. Fair enough.
I see the God idea, religion in general, as being a response to the fear of the void. So when "God died" as Nietzsche would say, people were left scrambling to find another response, and to a significant degree, that has been SOS.
As I understand it, the divisive nature of thought is the source of the fear. It's that divisive nature which creates the "me", which experiences itself as being separate from, and thus vulnerable to, everything else.
The sad irony is that religions and philosophies (like this post) try to explore, explain, and heal the fear in the medium of thought (ideas, doctrines, books etc) thus feeding the source of the fear, thought itself. It's kind of like an alcoholic trying to cure themselves with a case of scotch. :-)
This is related to AI in the sense that whatever is going on in the human condition is going to be inherited by AI. I'm not really trying to change the subject, but dive deeper in to it.