Tag: PHILOSOPHY

A VIEW OF GENIUS

Like all world changing inventions and discoveries, iPhone came with costs ranging from children’ and adults’ addiction, to rare minerals depletion, to environmental pollution. The long-term effect of iPhones has changed the world with unexpected, often unforeseen, consequences.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The One Device (The Secret History of the iPhone)

Author: Brian Merchant

Narration by: Tristan Morris

Brian Merchant (Author, American technology journalist, writes for The New York Times, Wired, Slate, The Atlantic, and the Guardian.)

Brian Merchant works around the tech world but never quite in it. His understanding of today’s technology has made him a popular writer for national news outlets. Never having been employed by a tech company, his analysis of iPhone history, the role of Jobs, and the history of its development is as an outsider to the process of invention. As a writer about technology, there is a level of objectivity but also reservation about an outsider’s details. Merchant reports what others tell of iPhone’s history rather than as a person being there as a part of its development.

Merchant’s investigation explains the iPhone’s creation is a messy human process entailing the dangers of mining, involvement of other companies and individuals, patent questions, and labor struggles. The impact of the iPhone’s invention is world changing. In a fundamental way, Merchant discounts the mythology of iPhone’s invention by one person or company. There were decades of prior invention before the iPhone became more than an idea, let alone a world changing device.

The scope of manufacturing iPhones made Foxconn the leading international labor subcontractor in the world. Foxconn is estimated to employ 800,000 employees in China alone. Many have been contracted by Apple for iPhone product assembly.

The mining industry and assembly line development were in place before the raw material and labor that would be needed for iPhone development. Merchant suggests Apple became the central orchestrator rather than singular inventor of the iPhone. Merchant argues the iPhone is a synthesis of decades of technological improvement, unnamed engineers, labor and organizations of miners and factory workers, and innovations needed to produce Apple’s revolutionary product.

Genius and invention go hand in hand. However, Merchant explains in the early 20th century, much of the technology that became a part of the iPhone’s foundation were already invented. He notes touchscreens, voice recognition tools, motion tracking, and early iterations of what became Artificial Intelligence had already been discovered. Merchant’s intent is not to diminish the genius of Apple, Jobs, or its employees but to show the public that every extraordinary human invention has precursors and essential earlier discoveries. It took Apple’s leadership and employees to integrate the many technologies that had been discovered earlier to create what has become a handheld window to the world. Merchant explains no great inventions are created out of thin air. He suggests every invention of the present is dependent on thought, labor, experience, and invention of the past.

Thomas Kuhn suggests every revolution in science begins with a paradigm in conjunction with discoveries of the past.

Merchant discounts the idea of the “lone genius” because every genius depends on insight and events of the past to correlate what she/he invents in the present. The iPhone unifies decades of technological progress. The iPhones’ invention reorganizes global behavior, creates a new economic and industrial model, and gives the world a pocket supercomputer. The geniuses of Apple earned their reputations, but they relied on discoveries of the past.

Thinking of Curie, Einstein, Newton, and other giants of science, one wonders how Merchant’s belief about genius is valid. He would argue the brilliance of Curie, Einstein, and Newton are built on prior knowledge, their predecessors, and the tools of their time. Their genius is in connecting past knowledge and discovery of others with the present. Their genius is dependent on predecessors. Merchant is not diminishing Jobs’ or Apple’s genius, but their breakthroughs could only come from groundwork established by others.

INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION ON A BAD DAY IN BEJING,, CHINA

Like all world changing inventions and discoveries, iPhone came with costs ranging from children’ and adults’ addiction, to rare minerals depletion, to environmental pollution. The long-term effect of iPhones has changed the world with unexpected, often unforeseen, consequences.

CAPITALISM’S HISTORY

A surveillance society is a choice that can be made with careful deliberation or by helter-skelter judgement to return manufacturing to America without clearly understanding its impact on American society. That is the underlying importance of Beckert’s history of capitalism.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Capitalism (A Global History)

Author: Sven Beckert

Narration by: Soneela Nankani & 3 more

Sven Beckert (Author, Professor of History at Harvard, graduated from Columbia with a PhD in History.)

Professor Beckert defines capitalism as an economic form of privately owned capital reinvested in an effort to produce more capital. In defining capitalism in that way, Beckert suggests capitalism reaches back to 1000 CE, long before some who argue it came into being in 18th century England. Beckert argues the Italian city-states, like Venice, Genoa, and Florence, are the origin of capitalism. That is when accumulated wealth is invested in long-distance trade networks, early banks, and trade by wealthy Italian families. Beckert’s point is that England simply expanded what had begun hundreds of years earlier with trade investment by wealthy Italian families.

Economic theories.

Becker briefly compares many economic theories like capitalism, Marxism, Keynesianism, and Polanyian theories which he calls institutional economics. All bare the flaws of human nature. His economic history is about the addition of slavery to capitalism in the late 15th through 18th centuries. Beckert notes Portugal, Spain, Britain, France, and the Netherlands strengthened their capitalist economies. They were able to secure cheap, controllable labor, expand production, and increase profits with slavery.

However, wage earner respect and treatment, whether in manufacturing, technology, or service industries, are the key to survival of world capitalist democracies.

Beckert explains the monumental changes and expansion that occurs with England’s adoption of early capitalism. As early as the 17th century, Beckert notes England revolutionizes capitalism in good and morally corrupt ways. Nation-state power combines with private capital to create a massive capitalist influencer around the world. With the dominance of British naval power, colonialism expands, slavery becomes part of international trade, and capitalist monopolies grow to dominate economies. England’s industrial revolution with mechanized production, factory labor, and capital accumulation is able to expand market influence and hugely improve their countries infrastructure and legal protections. Creating patent laws raises potential for monopolization of some market goods.

For several reasons, slavery declines during the later years of industrialization. However, Beckert notes its immorality is not the primary reason.

Free labor became more efficient for capital accumulation. The enslaved became discontented with their role as cheap labor. By the 19th century, slavery became politically and legally incompatible with capitalism. Capitalists began to understand how they could gain more wealth by indenturing rather than enslaving workers, offering sharecropping, or leasing convicts. Capitalists found they could get cheaper labor through contracts with prisons, or sharing of income than slave ownership by being more flexible with the political and physical environment in which labor worked. Slavery faded because capitalists found new ways to reduce costs of labor. At the same time, slave revolts were escalating, the U.S. Civil War is being fought, policing of slavery became too expensive, and investors felt their investments would be at risk in company’s dependent on slave labor. Morality had little to do with abolishing slavery in Beckert’s opinion.

Beckert shows how capitalism systematically expands investment of private capital. Capital is put to work rather than hoarded and consumed by a singular family, political entity, or economic system. Capitalism provides a potential for moving beyond slave-based economies, though racial discrimination remains a work in progress. Beckert notes capitalism is different from other economic systems because it invests private capital that theoretically moderates the need for nation-state’ capital investment in the health, and welfare of a nation’s citizens.

The interesting judgement made by Beckert is that capitalism’s foundation was initially based on slavery, colonialism, and state violence.

The violence of which he writes is based on several factors, i.e., historical slavery, territorial seizure, nation-backed monopolies, worker mistreatment or suppression, and global coercion with military backing. Beckert seems to admit no major historical economic system is free of violence. It seems every economic system is imperfect. Violence appears a fundamental part of human nature in all presently known economic systems.

In the mid to late twentieth century, Beckert notes how manufacturing becomes a global rather than local capitalist activity.

This reorganization creates global inequalities that America is late to understand and adjust to in their capitalist economy. The financial and investment industry of America benefited by becoming world investors, but the local economy fails to remain competitive with the production capabilities of other countries. To become competitive seems an unreasonable expectation for America because of the cost of labor. Trump’s belief appears to be that the solution is to force a return of manufacturing to America. To do that, the rich seem to ignore the fact that to be competitive manufacturing has to have its costs reduced. Where will that reduction come from? Reducing labor costs creates a downward spiral in the families dependent on income from labor. Can America capture a larger part of raw materials for manufacturing to offset higher costs of labor? That is conceivable but it will require a more focused American investment in raw materials that other nations are equally interested in capturing.

AI is a tool of human beings and will be misused by some leaders in the same way atom bombs, starvation, disease, climate, and other maladies have harmed the sentient world.

A capitalist’ economy’s violence has multiple drivers but A.I. has the potential of early detection of conflict hotspots, better predictive policing, more efficient allocation of material resources, and improved mental-health triage and intervention. A.I. is not a perfect answer to human nature’s flaws or the reestablishment of manufacturing in America. There is the downside of the surveillance society pictured by George Orwell.

Humans will learn to use and adapt to Artificial General Intelligence in the same way it has adapted to belief in a Supreme Being, the Age of Reason, the industrial revolution, and other cultural upheavals.

A surveillance society is a choice that can be made with careful deliberation or by helter-skelter judgement to return manufacturing to America without clearly understanding its impact on American society. That is the underlying importance of Beckert’s history of capitalism.

HUMAN INTROSPECTION

Brianna Weist philosophical book is worth listening to as a guide but not as an authority of how one should live their life.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

101 Essays That Will Change the Way You Think 

Author: Brianna Wiest

Narration by: Abby Craden

Brianna Wiest (Author, earned a BA in English and received an Honorary Doctorate in Literature from Elizabethtown College.

This is an odd book because it is written by someone who is not a psychologist, psychiatrist or therapist but presumes to know how one can understand themselves, think differently and become a more psychologically heathy human being. “101 Essays…” has become a popularly read and listened to book by the public. Of course, one can take her observations like one would take the meaning of many non-fiction authors who have a point of view about life and living. They are called philosophers.

One finds Wiest’s essays make sense, but her formal education makes one uncomfortable with her expressed beliefs.

On the other hand, what formal education was there for Socrates? (A. I. generated image of Socrates as a young man.)

a youthful Socrates in ancient Athens, standing in a sunlit agora, wearing simple Greek robes, with thoughtful expression and strong features, classical style portrait

Weist is straight forward in her opinions, and she taps into a human wish for one to be psychologically and physically as good as they can be. Changing “…the Way You Think” is no easy task but the idea of consciously understanding ourselves is an oxymoron that limits one’s ability to change. We are as likely to lie to ourselves about who we are or what we believe as to have a true understanding of ourselves.

Daniel Kahneman is a renowned psychologist and Nobel laureate.  He is an American citizen that served in the Israeli military and used his education, research, and experience to write “Thinking Fast and Slow”.  His observations explore many aspects of human decision-making.

Weist logically argues one can become a better human being by changing the way they think. She is not acting as a clinical psychologist but as a philosopher of life and how one may make the most of it. If one understands Weist from that perspective, she is like Marcus Aurelius, Soren Kierkegaard, or Simone de Beauvoir. She has a philosophical point of view but not necessarily a happier or more fulfilling life.

The meaning of experience on one’s life is often too opaque for one’s understanding without the help of others.

Weist writes we should see what hurts others and ourselves and quit doing those hurtful things by changing our mind. This seems a good idea but denies the subjectivity and the unique experiences in one’s life. Many people are unable to understand the impact of experience on their lives. They are unable to change the way they think because they are unable to understand how or why an experience has affected their lives. Only with the help of a qualified psychologist, psychiatrist, or trained therapist can most people objectively understand themselves to constructively change their mind.

Nevertheless, Weist philosophical book is worth listening to as a guide but not an authority on how one should live their life. Most human beings are not introspective enough to find their way through life without the help of a person trained to elicit what we do not know about ourselves. On the other hand, it appears Weist has a genius beyond her years of life.

Orwell & A.I.

In the pre-A.I. age, democratic socialism is unachievable, but A.I. may resurrect its potential. However, as Orwell noted, the risk is a “Brave New World” rather than a hoped-for democratic socialism.

GEORGE ORWELL (Author, 1903-1950)

In Norm Chomsky’ ‘s and Nathan Schneider’s book, “On Anarchy”, George Orwell’s book “Homage to Catalonia” is called one of Chomsky’s favorite books. “On Anarchy” infers Orwell believed in anarchy because of his role in the war (1936-1939) against the Franco government. Though Orwell’s risk of life in Spain’s war is inconceivable to me, it seems prudent to listen to his story and point to the significant difference between what Chomsky and Schneider infer about Orwell’s belief in “…Anarchism” and what Orwell really wrote and believed. Though Orwell takes anarchism seriously as a political working-class movement, he believes it is impractical and that democratic socialism (with “1984” reservations) is what he believes could be the best form of government. The idea of abolishing all forms of coercive authority and hierarchy with a government anarchy is impractical because of the nature of human beings.

Francisco Franco with his soldiers in 1936.

Because of Orwell’s belief in democracy and equality he chooses to join the fight against Franco’s fascism. He joins the resistance at the age of 33 because of his belief in democratic socialism. He felt he needed to join the ideological struggle against Franco’s regime. It is a remarkable decision considering he is married, and relatively unknown. He is oddly driven by his moral belief in democracy and equality. Presumably, he entered the war to understand what it means to fight a war against a government he felt was immoral and totalitarian. Orwell served for approximately six months beginning in December 1936. He was shot in the throat and nearly died.

Anarchy and human nature.

It seems inconceivable that anarchism is a reasonable way of governing human nature. It is interesting to contrast what Orwell believes and what anarchists argue. This is particularly relevant in the 21st century because of the inevitable change in society that is occurring with artificial intelligence. A.I. has an immense potential for creating Orwell’s “Brave New World”. However, his writings reject the ideal of “Anarchy” espoused by Chomsky and Schneider because of its impracticality. Orwell shows that human nature contains both heroism and weakness tied to the material world. Even though human nature is basically decent, it is easily corrupted. That corruption makes humans hope and fear human decisions designed by consensus. It is not to say democratic socialism would be infallible, but it offers a structure for regulation of different governments at chosen intervals of time.

“The Laws of Human Nature” is a tour deforce of what one learns in life.

Human nature will not change. Human nature is a set of relatively stable psychological, biological, and social tendencies that are shared by all human beings. These tendencies shape how humans think, feel, and act even as culture and governance changes. Artificial intelligence will only intensify the strengths and weaknesses of human nature. The principles of anarchy in an A.I. world is frightening:

  • No centralized government, police, or standing armies.
  • Society organized through federations of communes, cooperatives, or councils.
  • Emphasis on direct democracy, mutual aid, and local autonomy.
  • Suspicion of any coercive authority — even democratic majorities.
  • Change often imagined as revolutionary, not incremental.

A more rational alternative to Anarchy is Democratic Socialism believed by Orwell and espoused by MLK.

  • The state remains, but becomes more egalitarian and accountable.
  • Markets may still exist, but are regulated or supplemented by public ownership.
  • Political parties and electoral competition are central.
  • Emphasis on universal programs: healthcare, education, housing, worker protections.
  • Change is gradual, through reforms, not revolution.

Differences of opinion.

There are obvious differences between Chomsky’s and Orwell’s beliefs. Both have social weaknesses. Human nature gets in the way of both forms of governance. Orwell seems to have recognized the weaknesses of his belief in democratic socialism in his writing of “Brave New World”. In contrast, Chomsky’s and Schneider’s pollyannish view of anarchy as “…a better form of government where power is decentralized and citizens can and should collectively manage their own affairs through direct democracy and cooperative organizations” is absurd. The difference is that Orwell foresees the dangers of his idea in “Brave New World” which anticipates something like A.I. that has the potential for society’s destruction. “On Anarchy” ignores the truth of human nature, “Brave New World” does not.

Franciso Franco (1936-1975, died in office.)

Orwell’s decision to join opposition to Franco’s dictatorship fails. Their right-wing beliefs in authoritarianism, anti-communism, and pro-Catholicism prevails. Spain’s 1930s opposition leaders (Manuel Azaña, Largo Caballero, and Juan Negrín) were pro-democracy with anti-fascist, socialists, communists, anarchists, trade unions, urban workers, and peasants who Orwell joined to support democratic socialism, not anarchy.

In the pre-A.I. age, democratic socialism is unachievable, but A.I. may resurrect its potential. However, as Orwell noted, the risk is a “Brave New World” rather than a hoped-for democratic socialism.

LIVING LIFE

Aristotle’s belief was that the goal of life is living well, Sartre suggests there is no inherent meaning to life, Bentham said the goal of life is happiness. What does Gladwell believe?

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

OUTLIERS 

Author: Malcolm Gladwell

Narration by: Malcolm Gladwell

Malcolm Gladwell (Author, Canadian journalist, and public speaker.)

“Outliers” makes several points, some of which are insightful while others are debatable. As with all observations of life and discovery, correlation of what we see, hear, and understand does not prove causation. Gladwell shows the advance of civilization and great successes in life are from luck, timing, and hard work more than I.Q.

Gladwell offers examples of chance and the circumstances of an era that advance society.

Gladwell explains intelligence alone does not make a person successful. He offers a brief biography of a high IQ person who did not achieve success despite his intelligence. He notes intelligence and one’s culture must be accompanied by individual hard work, interest, and commitment as well as the luck of being born at the right time. Gladwell’s examples of success are Bill Gates, the Beatles, sports’ stars, retail clothiers, and lawyers. Each of his examples are a result of being in the right place at the right time with an innate wish to work hard that makes “Outliers” personally and/or financially successful.

The founders of Microsoft, Paul Allen (L) and Bill Gates.

Gladwell argues his case about “Outliers” by offering several examples. The founders of Microsoft were born at a time when computers were first being discovered. The Beatles lived in a culture that idolizes musicianship and entertainment. A quirk in society that artificially determines children born in certain months are presumed by some to make good to great sports stars which results in higher-order support of children born in particular months of the year. That birth-month’ choice garnered extraordinary support of parents and coaches according to Gladwell. Those children became sports stars as a result of that early parental and coaching support of their sports careers. Gladwell goes on to suggest observation and experience of immigrating Jewish clothes-makers arrived in America and became wealthy merchants at a time of America’s economic growth. And finally, Gladwell notes lawyers began creating elite legal firms to support growing litigation between growing mid-twentieth century American corporations. Gladwell’s common denominators were relative intelligence, a burning interest in cultural change, and a commitment to hard work. The circumstances of the time (new invention and social change) and hard work, rather than high I.Q., were the primary causes of individual success.

Cultural backgrounds.

Gladwell suggests cultural backgrounds prepared some to seize opportunities that were overlooked by the general population. He suggests some Jewish immigrants who migrated from discriminative cultures, were liberated by the freedom available in America. Gladwell notes the creation of the garment industry in New York and the rise of successful Jewish legal firms are examples of seized opportunities missed by many in the 20th century. The common denominators were hard work, social change, and culture.

The criticism one may have of Gladwell’s book is in the examples he chooses to make his arguments.

Gladwell’s examples are chosen to support his argument, but they narrow the reality of the complex life lived by most humans. He oversimplifies success because it seems narrowly defined as wealth and/or fame rather than happiness or contentment. He defines success as something that requires a “10,000” hour commitment of research and practice, i.e. an arbitrary criterion that has no basis in fact. People make their own choices in life whether it is as a nerd, a famous musician, a high-powered lawyer, or one who loves to read and spends time listening/reading and reviewing books.

Determinism vs. free will.

Gladwell seems to say life is deterministic, but many choose to adapt rather than be driven by the circumstances of life. This generation’s great change will be in the implementation of A.I. Massive investment is being made in A.I. today with momentous change coming to the world of employment.

Aristotle’s belief was that the goal of life is living well, Sartre suggests there is no inherent meaning to life, Bentham said the goal of life is happiness. What does Gladwell believe?

A.I. TOMOROW

A.I.s’ contribution to society is similar to the history of nuclear power, it will be constructively or destructively used by human beings. On balance, “Burn-In” concludes A.I. will mirror societies values. As has been noted in earlier book reviews, A.I. is a tool, not a controller of humanity.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

BURN-IN (A Novel of the Real Robotic Revolution)

Author: P. W. Singer, August Cole

Narration by: Mia Barron

Peter Warren Singer (on the left) is an American political scientist who is described by the WSJ as “the premier futurist in the national security environment”. August Cole is a co-author who is also a futurist and regular speaker before US and allied government audiences.

As an interested person in Artificial Intelligence, I started, stopped, and started again to listen to “Burn-In”.

The subject of the book is about human adaptation to robotics and A.I. It shows how humans, institutions, and societies may be able to better serve society on the one hand and destroy it on the other. Some chapters were discouraging and boring to this listener because of tedious explanations of robot use in the future. The initial test is in the FBI, an interesting choice in view of the FBI’s history which has been rightfully criticized but also acclaimed by American society.

Starting, stopping, and restarting is a result of the author’s unnecessary diversion to a virtual reality game being played by inconsequential characters.

In an early chapter several gamers are engaged in VR that distracts listeners from the theme of the book. It is an unnecessary distraction from the subject of Artificial Intelligence. Later chapters suffer the same defect. However, there are some surprising revelations about A.I.’s future.

The danger in societies future remains in the power of knowledge. The authors note the truth is that A.I.’s lack of knowledge is what has really become power. Presumably, that means technology needs to be controlled by algorithms created by humans that limit knowledge of A.I.’ systems that may harm society.

“Burn-In” is meant to reveal how human-machine integration challenges human society, both ethically and pragmatically.

That integration has massive implications for military, industrial, economic, and societal roles of human beings. The principles of human work, social relations, capitalist/socialist economies and their governance are changed by the advance of machine learning based on Artificial Intelligence. Machine learning may cross thresholds between safety and freedom to become systems of control with potential for human societies destruction. At one extreme is China’s surveillance state; on the other is western societies belief in relative privacy.

Robot evolution.

Questions of accountability become blurred when self-learning machines gain understanding beyond human capabilities. Do humans choose to trust their instincts or a machines’ more comprehensive understanding of facts? Who adapts to whom in the age of Artificial Intelligence? These are the questions raised by the authors’ story.

F.B.I. Fallibility

The main character of Singer’s and Cole’s story is Lara Keegan, a female FBI agent. She is a seasoned investigator with an assigned “state of the art” police robot. The relationship between human beings and A.I. robots is explored. What trust can a human have of a robotic partner? What control is exercised by a human partner of an A.I.’ robot? What autonomy does the robot have that is assigned to a human partner? Human and robot partnership in policing society are explored in “Burn-In”. The judgement of the author’s story is nuanced.

In “Burn-In” a flood threatens Washington D.C., the city in which Keegan and the robot work.

The Robot’s aid to Keegan saves the life of a woman threatened by the flood as water fills an underground subway. Keegan hears the woman calling for help and asks the robot to rescue the frightened woman. The robot submerges itself in the subway’ flood waters, saves the woman and returns to receive direction from Keegan to begin building a barrier to protect other citizens near the capitol. The Robot moves heavy sacks filled with sand and dirt, with surrounding citizens help in loading more sacks. The robot tirelessly builds the barrier with strength and efficiency that could not have been accomplished by the people alone. The obvious point being the cooperation of robot and human benefits society.

The other side of that positive assessment is that a robot cannot be held responsible for work that may inadvertently harm humans.

Whatever human is assigned an A.I robot loses their privacy because of robot’ programing that knows the controller’s background, analyzes his/her behavior, and understands its assigned controller from that behavior and background knowledge. Once an assignment is made, the robot is directed by a human that may or may not perfectly respond in the best interest of society. Action is exclusively directed by the robot’s human companion. A robot is unlikely to have intuition, empathy, or moral judgement in carrying out the direction of its assigned human partner. There is also the economic effect of lost human employment as a result of automation and the creation of robot’ partners and laborers.

Nuclear annihilation.

A.I.s’ contribution to society is similar to the history of nuclear power, it will be constructively or destructively used by human beings. On balance, “Burn-In” concludes A.I. will mirror societies values. As has been noted in earlier book reviews, A.I. is a tool, not a controller of humanity.

RISK/REWARD

“IF ANYONE BUILDS IT, EVERYONE DIES” is an alarmist, and unnecessarily pessimistic view of the underlying value of Artificial Intelligence. This is not to suggest there are no risks in A.I. but its potential outweighs its risks.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

IF ANYONE BUILDS IT, EVERYONE DIES

Author: Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Nate Soares

Narrated By: Rae Beckley

Eliezer Yudkowsky
Nate Soares

Eliezer Yudkowsky is a self-taught A.I. researcher without a formal education. As an A.I. researcher, Yudkowsky founded the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI). Nate Soares received an undergraduate degree from George Washington University and became President of MIRI. Soares had worked as an engineer for Google and Microsoft. Soares also worked for the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Dept. of Defense.

Dangers of A.I. to humanity

“IF ANYONE BUILDS IT, EVERYONE DIES” is difficult to follow because it’s convoluted examples and arguments are unclear. The fundamental concern the writers have is that A.I. will self-improve to the point of being a threat to humanity. They argue that A.I. will grow to be more interested in self-preservation than an aid to human thought and existence. The irony of their position is that humanity is already a threat to itself from environmental degradation, let alone nuclear annihilation. The truth is humanity needs the potential of A.I. to better understand life and what can be done to preserve it.

To this listener/reader environmental degradation is a greater risk than the author’s purported threats of A.I.

Pessimism is justified in the same way one can criticize capitalism.

The authors have a point of view that is too pessimistic about A.I. and its negative potential without recognizing how poorly society is structured for war and killing itself without Artificial Intelligence. The advance of A.I. unquestionably has risks just as today’s threat of mutual nuclear annihilation but A.I.s’ potential for changing the course of civilization for the better exceeds the agricultural and industrial revolutions of the past.

The nature and intelligence of human beings is underestimated by Yudkowsky and Soares.

There have been a number of amazing human discoveries that have accelerated since the beginning of civilization in Mesopotamia. Humans like Einstein and their insight to the universe will be aided, not controlled, by the potential of A.I. Artificial Intelligence is no more a danger to humanity than the loss of craftsman during the industrial revolution. Civilization will either adapt to revelations coming from A.I. or environmental degradation or human stupidity will overtake humanity.

Don’t succumb to panic. Life is life. A.I. advances require human courage.

“IF ANYONE BUILDS IT, EVERYONE DIES” is an alarmist, and unnecessarily pessimistic view of the underlying value of Artificial Intelligence. This is not to suggest there are no risks in A.I. but its potential outweighs its risks.

CIVILIZATION

Will Durant’s “…Story of Civilization…” is a fascinating view of history, but not a true measure of Western civilization’s origin.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Our Oriental Heritage: The Story of Civilization, Volume 1 

Author: Will Durant

Narrated By: Robin Field

WILLIAM AND ARIEL DURANT (Historians, researchers and writers of philosophy. William is born in 1885, graduated from Columbia University with a PhD in philosophy and humanities in 1917, dies in 1981. Ariel is born in 1898, also dies in 1981 but aided William Durant with research and editing.

This 40 plus hour audiobook about the origin of civilization is a daunting undertaking but an interesting perspective. Will Durant was not an anthropologist, but he was an erudite historian, philosopher, and engaging writer with a wife that helped him research, edit, and organize his work. His story telling and philosophical beliefs are certainly challengeable because of the speculative nature of ancient artifacts and cultural interpretations of ancient civilizations. Durant cleverly interprets the political and sociological history of civilizations and their historical and religious beliefs. With the aid of his wife, Durant assigns meaning to those beliefs which are plausible but, at times, he either confuses correlations with causes or stretches one’s imagination too far.

The oversimplification of history.

Professor Goldin has written a history of migration that reminds one of the well-known phrases attributed to Socrates: “I know that I know nothing”.

Anthropologists suggest the Durants oversimplify the complex multi-generation development of human societies. Some agree that an Afro-Asiatic language evolved into other languages, but linguists suggest there are many sources of language that have little to do with a singular origin of language. In the same vein, there is skepticism about their analysis of religious beliefs coming from the East because their presumptions are too deterministic for Eastern beliefs’ correlation with Greek rationalism and Christianity. Like David Hume and Karl Popper advise, “correlation does not imply causation”. Some anthropologists argue the Durants romanticize ancient wisdom and ignore political and brutal realities brought by internecine and external wars. Further, unique societal events and discoveries change civilizations as readily as past knowledge and experience, e.g., like the classical physics of Newton, relativity of Einstein, and quantum mechanics of today.

Eastern civilization’s influence on the West is the subject of the Durants’ expansive story.

It is interesting that Durant chooses Eastern civilizations as a precursor of Western society. That seems plausible based on early humans moving from Africa to eastern shores. He presumes the purpose, goal, and end results of Western society originated in Eastern cultures. Some anthropologists question belief that Western cultural beliefs evolved from Eastern cultures, but Durant argues foundational cultural, intellectual, and technological advance originated in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China; long before the West is populated.

The Red Sea and a Peninsula that connects Africa to the East.

With the origin of human life in Africa, Durant suggests human beings crossed the Red Sea or the peninsula to the continent of Asia to settle the fertile lands of Mesopotamia. The Durants argue early humans developed the Afro-Asiatic Semitic language that evolved into Arabic, Aramaic, Amharic, and Hebrew dialects for Akkadian, Arab, Aramean, Israelites, Phoenician, Moabite, and Ethiopian peoples. Mesopotamia became known as “The Fertile Cresent” and the “Cradle of Civilization”.

Mesopotamia contains the future nation-states of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, southeastern Turkey and western Iran.

Durant is criticized for human life’s romanticization, generalization and simplification. His critics argue civilizations’ complexity and societal conflicts are not adequately supported by his opinions and research. Some suggest too much of his opinion is based on secondary sources rather than field work. These are reasonable criticisms, but they do not diminish one’s fascination with his interpretations of others’ field work and opinions. Durant offers an interesting and entertaining story of civilization, but his opinions are only partly right.

The fundamental argument of Durant’s view of civilization is that intellectual, religious, and technological innovations of Eastern societies are foundational beliefs of Western society.

The Durants argue that writing systems, legal codes, mathematics, and religious thought in the West came from the East, i.e. to Durant, the roots of Western thought, governance, philosophical belief, and culture had Eastern origins. Durant’s threads of connection between East and West are not wrong but misleading. Correlation is not proof of causation. If one sees ice cream sales are up and drowning incidents are down, one is obviously wrong to conclude eating ice cream would reduce one’s chance of drowning.

One may agree with the origin of life is in Africa.

One can believe Eastern culture developed before Western culture because of proximity. To Africa. However, the advance of civilization is not linear. It seems a stretch to believe the East’s civilization laid the foundational beliefs of the West because they are distinctly different because of independent experiences. An African human is not an Asian person just as an Asian person is not a Greek, German, Frenchman, or American. Philosophical, political, and artistic innovations are arguably derivative, but genius offers origination and revolutionary changes in civilizations. Agriculture may have begun in Asia but to infer industrialization is a furtherance of Eastern civilization is as wrong as saying Quantum theory is the furtherance of Western civilization. Civilization is too complex to be characterized as a linear process.

Will Durant’s “…Story of Civilization…” is a fascinating view of history, but not a true measure of Western civilization’s origin.

POLITICAL EVOLUTION

Karoline Kan’s story is very personal, but it offers insight to China that is more informative than many history and political polemics that fail to show what it is to be a Chinese citizen in the 21st century.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Under Red Skies (Three Generations of Life, Loss, and Hope in China)

Author: Karoline Kan

Narrated By: Allison Hiroto

Karoline Kan (Author, reporter at Bloomberg, has published in the New York Times, and worked in radio broadcasting, studied at Beijing International Studies University focusing on journalism and writing.)

“Under Red Skies” is a story about Karoline Kan and her life from childhood to adulthood in China. She is based in Beijing, China. Kan writes about life in China before her birth and the change in China after Mao’s death. She provides a rewarding view of China from Mao’s to Deng’s to Xi’s leadership. In ways her story makes one somewhat fearful for her life and freedom, as well as China’s economic miracle and growth as the second most powerful nation in the world. The story of her life presents the puzzle of China’s changing relationship with America and the world. She is subtlety critical of Mao’s rule of China while a beneficiary of the changes wrought by Deng and now Xi in the growing power, economic improvement, and influence of her homeland. She appears to view America positively while being proud of her heritage and particularly appreciative of her mother’s role in her family during great changes in China. She reflects on societal change in respect to the life she lives and what her perceptions are of changes in political leadership wrought by Mao, Deng, and Xi.

The power and importance of mothers is exhibited by a presentation of this “Circle of Life” exhibit in Norway. To this observer, the statue illustrates the great importance of women in nurturing and educating the world’s future generations. The author’s story reinforces that belief.

Ms. Kan’s mother appears to be a formidable objector to some of Mao’s cutural beliefs by being unwilling to kowtow to government policies that conflict with her personal beliefs. Kan’s mother is the driving force behind the move from rural China to a larger community to improve her family’s lives. Karoline is born when the one child policy is enforced in the early 1980s to the 2000s. Karoline is the second child born to her mother. Her mother faced the financial penalties for having a second child and resisted forced sterilization that became the law of the land during her child-baring years. Karoline Kan’s mother appears a force to be reckoned with by traditional male standards in China and a patriarchal bias that exists in most of the world. By that measure “Under Red Skies” seems like an encomium to Karoline’s mother and a tribute to Kan’s bravery in writing a history of her early life and experience as a Chinese citizen.

Our Chinese guide for a 2o18′ tour of China is noted in the essay titled “70% Leadership“. This young guide reminds me of the author, Karoline Kan.

Kan reflects on ambivalent feelings some Chinese citizens have toward America. She expresses surprise that there seems more dislike by China of America than China should have for Japan. History shows conflicts were much greater with Japan than America. Chinese hate of Japan would presumably be more visceral because of deaths from wars and invasions of China by Japan, i.e., the first in the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese war; then the invasion by Japan in Manchuria in 1931, a second Sino-Japanese war in 1937-1945, and the Nanjing Massacre that killed an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 imprisoned Chinese citizens. The estimate of Chinese casualties from Japan in these conflicts is 15-22 million. Of course, America fought the Chinese in the Korean war in the 1950s but the casualties were 400,000, with the possibility of as many as a million who died from injury, disease, and exposure. More likely, the hate of America is from the context of China’s ambition to be “second to none” in power and influence in the world. In the end, “ambivalence” is not the same as hate. Having traveled to China just after Xi’s rise to power, my wife and I felt very welcome by most Chinese citizens and businesses.

An interesting part of Kan’s story is about religion.

Communism is a political system that does not believe in God. Of course, neither do Buddhist or Taoist traditions which are the human practices and belief in personal truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance, i.e., spiritual beliefs about living life on earth because that’s all there is to life. There is no after life or heaven to a Buddhist or Taoist. These two spiritual beliefs are practiced widely in Japan and some places in China, like Tibet. Falun Gong, a Buddhist-like religion, arose in 1990s’ China. In the beginning, China accepted its practice, but the Communist Party eventually fought against its growth and labeled it a “heretical organization”. The Party obviously felt Falun Gong interfered with communist ideals. Additionally, there is the ongoing conflict between the Dali Llama and Tibetan belief (a branch of Buddhism) that is also reviled by China’s political leadership. The point is that communism demands fealty to belief in a classless, stateless society, not controlled or influenced by any social or economic belief other than those of the communist’ party. (One cannot help but reflect on Lord Acton’s phrase about “power” that is at the heart of all forms of government in history.)

Kan’s best friend, who finishes high school at the same time as Kan takes a different path, i.e., either because of her work in school, the poverty of her family, or the “bump” that changes her life.

The last chapters of Kan’s story are the personal journey of women in China. Kan is accepted at a University in Bejing. Marriage has evolved in China but still has many of the same matrimonial customs. Marriages of the past were highly arranged and had little to do with love or attraction. In modern China, marriages have become less determined by family arrangement but more by circumstances of a child’s experience. Like children around the world, parents influence but have limited control over a child’s libidinal impulses. The author’s closest friend becomes pregnant from the son of a poor family that is unable to compensate the daughter’s family in a way that some arranged marriages would provide. The lower dowry implies Kan’s friend is destined to live a life of poverty. Kan shows her to become a factory worker to supplement the family’s income. Her work is hard and highly repetitive but the income from both parents working helps them live better lives. With a husband, wife, and one child, her friend decides to have an abortion because another child would be too expensive for them to live a decent life.

Beijing International Studies University is the school Kan attends and receives a degree.

In contrast to Kan’s friend’s life, Kan goes to college where she is housed with women she does not know but are of her age. Kan’s family is presumably able to help her with expenses, and she goes on to become a journalist and writer. Interestingly, all women (and presumably men) are obligated to serve 2 to 4 weeks of military service before beginning a career-related’ education. The implication of this type of regimentation for all college students implies China has wider international ambitions.

The change in China’s culture with the leadership of Deng and Xi is revealed in Kan’s story. It shows the strengths and weaknesses of capitalism and communism. China’s dramatic economic growth is a result of the endorsement of capitalism with a communist autocratic influence. Interestingly, Kan shows China seems on a road to become more American while America seems to become more Chinese.

Trump and Xi have some similarities.

Kan’s story is very personal, but it offers insight to China that is more informative than many history and political polemics that fail to show what it is to be a Chinese citizen in the 21st century. Kan shows how both China and America have less than perfect systems of government.

PHYSICS

Becker does not tell listener/readers anything new about reality in his book, but he outlines the difficulty Physics is having in trying to discover “What is Real”. For this reviewer, Einstein remains the sun around which Physics’ scientists revolve.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

What is Real (The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics)

Author: Adam Becker

Narrated By:  Greg Tremblay

Adam Becker (Author, science writer with a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Michigan and a BA in philosophy and physics from Cornell.)

This is an excellent story about the meaning of quantum physics even though the answer remains elusive. Becker does a great job of revealing the personalities of great physicists of the twentieth century, i.e. Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, David Bohm, Werner Heisenberg, John von Neumann, Hugh Everett III, John Bell, and to a lesser extent, Paul Dirac, and Grete Hermann.

Bohr is shown to be a brilliant person who gathers the luminaries of physics around him like a queen bee to a beehive. Surprisingly, Becker notes Bohr’s abstruse and convoluted verbal and written explanations of physics cloud his brilliance but fascinate and inform young scientists. In contrast, Einstein appears like a sun that physics’ luminaries revolve around. Einstein never accepts the idea of quantum physics that implies we live in a probabilistic world. David Bohm is a brilliant physicist exiled for his political beliefs but importantly theorizes the Pilot-wave theory for quantum physics that suggests wave collapse is immeasurable and therefore meaningless. If true, the “cause and effect” world insisted upon by Einstein is correct. Surprisingly, Einstein demurred but the theory is being resurrected by Logical Positivist today.

Though Heisenberg creates the idea of Quantum theory that argues for a probability world, he becomes a Nazi science leader who fortunately fumbles the mathematics that could have created an atom bomb for Germany during WWII.

As a protege of Bohr, the theory of a Quantum world takes hold of scientists. John von Neumann is shown as a mathematical genius who challenges Bohm’s Pilot-wave theory because quantum mechanics appears to work and is proven by experimentation. Bohm argues, like Einstein, that the universe is fundamentally knowable and deterministic, not probabilistic. Hugh Everett III is taken under the wing of John Wheeler who is Everett’s PhD advisor at Princeton. Everett is characterized as a brilliant student who takes the idea of the disappearance of a collapsed quantum particle not as a collapse but an entry into another world, another dimension of reality.

Having read and partly understood many books about physics, Becker’s history is most entertaining because of added information about physicists’ personalities and disagreements, along with their personal trials and tribulations.

An added benefit is a little more understanding of physics that is offered to dilatants of science like this science ignoramus.

Pilot Wave Theory suggests the collapsing wave shown by quantum experiments is of no concern and that it should be ignored as a factor for non-predictability.

Putting aside collapsing waves in theoretical physics, the pilot wave theory, also known as Bohmian mechanics, was the first known example of a hidden-variable theory, presented by Louis de Broglie in 1927. Its more modern version, the de Broglie–Bohm theory, interprets quantum mechanics as a deterministic theory, and avoids issues such as wave function collapse, and the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat by being inherently nonlocal. This nonlocal experimental proof violates Einstein’s physics beliefs.

The surprising reveal in Becker’s history is the growing belief in Logical positivism which suggests the argument for quantum mechanics is flawed.

As one goes back to Bohm’s Pilot-theory. The surprising reveal in Becker’s history is the growing belief in Logical positivism which suggests the argument for quantum mechanics is flawed. The inability to measure both position and momentum is not proof of the theory because it is not an observable phenomenon. In a backward sense it implies Einstein is still the sun around which physics scientists orbit. An irony is that Becker believes Einstein would not want to be considered a Logical Positivist.

John Stewart Bell (1928–1990) was a Northern Irish physicist whose work reshaped the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Bell is best known for formulating Bell’s Theorem, a landmark result that showed how quantum mechanics predicts correlations between entangled particles that no local hidden-variable theory can explain. In one sense, that theory suggests as Einstein believed, that there is an undiscovered theory that will return physics to a cause-and-effect world. However, belief in non-locality is something Einstein could not accept. He refused to believe in “spooky action at a distance”. Bell was born in Northern Ireland. His fascination with science led him to CERN in Geneva where he worked on foundational questions in quantum theory.

Bell’s work laid the groundwork for quantum information science, including quantum computing and cryptography.

Bell came from a modest background and rose to prominence through sheer intellectual brilliance. He worked at CERN in Geneva, where he pursued foundational questions in quantum theory as a kind of “hobby” alongside his main work in particle physics. His 1981 paper “Bertlmann’s Socks and the Nature of Reality” used a quirky analogy to explain quantum entanglement and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox.

LHC MAP SHOWING CERN SITE

Bell wasn’t just a theorist—he was a philosopher of physics in the deepest sense, asking what quantum mechanics tells us about the nature of reality itself. Bell derived mathematical inequalities—called Bell inequalities. He believed that any local hidden-variable theory must obey these inequalities. However, quantum mechanics predicts violations of these inequalities under certain conditions. Bell is reintroducing the belief that quantum particles are fundamentally probabilistic and interconnected in ways that defy classical intuition. The universe doesn’t follow the rules of local realism. Quantum mechanics is correct, but it’s weird—deeply weird and challenges Einstein’s belief that physics are a local phenomenon that will be predictable based on an undiscovered truth.

Logical positivism and Bell’s Theorem intersect in a fascinating way. Bell’s Theorem challenges some of the foundational assumptions that logical positivists held about science, meaning, and reality. Because of “spooky action at a distance”, his theory defies Einstein’s belief in locality and reintroduces the concept of unpredictability which Einstein refuses to believe.

As a philosopher, Hermann (19o1-1984) had a particular interest in the foundations of physics. In 1934, she argues for a conception of causality with a revised view of quantum mechanics. Her work reinforces Einstein by returning Quantum Physics to predictability and causality. Hermann concludes–despite experiments that showing quantum mechanics are probabilistic, the theory is wrong because of a misunderstanding of nature. This seems like a cop-out supporting Einstein’s belief that there are some undiscovered laws of physics.

Becker does not tell listener/readers anything new about reality in his book, but he outlines the difficulty Physics is having in trying to discover “What is Real”. For this reviewer, Einstein remains the sun around which Physics’ scientists revolve.