Author Archives: David Truss

UCI rather than UBI

Leave a reply

As AI and robotics continue to scale at unimaginable speeds, with AI getting exponentially smarter and robots increasingly more agile, we’ve got to realize how many jobs will disappear in a very short time period. This isn’t a gradual transition, it’s not a move from one field to another like farmers transitioning into factory workers during the industrial revolution. It’s a massive shift from human labour to machine labour that the world’s economies simply aren’t designed to absorb.

I’ve seen a growth in the number of people talking about the need for Universal Basic Income (UBI), but I fear this isn’t enough. I fear that the idea of giving millions if not billions of people a basic income, but no real means for most of them to supplement those incomes as an insufficient solution. We don’t need UBI, we need UCI – Universal Comfortable Income. It’s not going to be enough to give people a basic survival income. We are going to need to see governments, and maybe even companies, share their resources and wealth with people, or else who is going to have the resources to buy the products and services AI and robots will offer?

The potential for dissatisfaction and ultimately unrest seems scary to me. A world with a couple dozen trillion-dollar companies, and a handful of trillionaires running them, is also a world with vast populations of people eking out a subsistence lifestyle, unable to do more than meet their survival needs. A basic income, requiring additional sources of income to appreciate the offerings of a fully automated economy, will not survive without a revolt for too long.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there are other solutions to this problem. Maybe I’m too bullish about to how far things will advance in a short time. That said, the potential for the scenario above to occur in the next decade is not zero. It might be a pessimistic bad-case or even worse-case scenario, but it’s possible… and scary. If things advance as fast as I think they will, we can’t continue to have UBI conversations, we need to move the goal posts and start really thinking of UCI.

Honing Observation Skills with Questions

Leave a reply

I love this quote by James Clear:

“Observation is a skill, and like any skill, it can be trained and honed.

Even if you’re not a negative person, you may be skilled at noticing negative things. Sometimes people are good at noticing the reason things won’t work out or have a tendency to fixate on the latest distressing story.

But you can train your eye toward the opportunities each day quietly presents. You can become competent at noticing your good luck: the little moments of joy, the stranger who helped, the small things that went right, the opportunity in front of you right now.

What are you competent in observing? And which types of observations seem to serve your life best?” ~ James Clear

I’d add one more question, and that is, ‘What questions are you asking to ensure you are making the right observations?‘

‘Why don’t things work out for me?’ …is a very different question from, ‘I wonder what good will come of this?’

‘What else could go wrong?’ …is a very different question from, ‘What opportunities will present themselves now?’

James Clear makes a great point about needing to observe opportunities, I just think the path to get there is giving our brains, which are massive answering machines, the right questions to ask and then answer.

Trying to rebuild old posts

Leave a reply

Yesterday after work, I fell into a bit of a rabbit hole. Apparently my ‘Subscribe by email’ button isn’t working on my blog and a relative asked me to add her to my subscriptions because hers was broken, and she was no longer receiving blog updates from me. I spent a bit of time looking at it, but even with AI help, I think I need to add a plugin to fix it and the first one I tried had an expensive subscription that I didn’t want to sign up for. After playing around for a bit, and then moving all my old ‘Pair-a-Dimes’ subscribers to Daily-Ink, (not fully realizing what I was doing), I decided to hold off on any more tinkering with subscriptions.

However, now I was on the back end of my blog and I realized that a post I was looking at had a related post with a broken image. So I clicked on the post, ‘Alan November: “Do learning”‘, and discovered that the image, probably a screen shot of a Tweet, was the point of the entire post, and I don’t have a back-up of it. It was an Alan November tweet, so I thought I’d go to X.com and find it, but Alan deleted his account and so now I have no idea how to fix this?  Essentially, the post is meaningless now, and there’s nothing I can do about it. That said, I will dig up my old laptop and see if I have it saved there as a last resort.

This happened because I used a proxy website, Posterous -now defunct, to be able to blog from my phone when I lived in China. However, as I meandered around my Daily-Ink blog I also found additional broken links. I was able to update 2 videos that were no longer available, with the same video at a different link. I also found references to other people’s blogs and those links are no longer working. I can’t do anything about this. Then I realized that I have shared a bunch of links with different link shorteners that are defunct. One of those is tr.im, which is also in a few of my old presentations. And there are a bunch of links across my blog where I used my own link shortener 2di.me (from my ‘Pair-a-Dimes’ blog days). I still pay to use this domain, but at $40 a year, just to maintain old links, it seems like a waste of money. But before I give it up, I think I’m going to do my best to find these links and update them with the full URL. That will take hours of time, but I have a plan to do it in the next year.

I don’t know when I’ll eventually give up my blogs and let them go the way of the dinosaur, but even these posts will disappear one day. What I’m surprised about is how many links to blogs I’ve referenced are already gone. Bloggers I admired and respected have let their blogs go, links to them just hit ‘404 – Not Found’ pages. Sometimes these links and broken images are not essential to the message I’m sharing, but other times what I shared loses its meaning without them.

It’s sad, but also not really worth worrying about. With over 2,500 posts now, all the broken links probably don’t add up to 2% of these, and in all honesty, nobody is seeking out Daily-Ink posts from over a decade ago. I’ll update what I can as a labour of love… and keep blogging. This too shall pass, but not yet. To misquote one of my favourite poems, ‘there’s miles to go before my blog sleeps’.

So, as a final thought, to those that subscribe, read on social media, and meander here occasionally, thank you for finding your way to my writing. I’ll do my best to keep this space tidy, with live links, and working images.

Agency, not information

Leave a reply

One of my favourite quotes comes from Derek Sivers,

“If more information was the answer, then we’d all be billionaires with perfect abs.“

I was reminded of this in a video shared with me yesterday morning, “Can Paper Stop Tyrants?“. In it the vlogger, Tad Stoermer, shares:

“Too many people are still talking as if words act on their own; As if law acts on its own; As if constitutions act on their own; As if conventions just magically act on their own. They don’t, people act…”

He sees the futility in people waiting for action against tyranny… which simply is not coming. Then he continues with something he was told by European literary scholar, Dr. Julia Holloway:

“Evil continues when people convince themselves that stopping it is somebody else’s job… What is missing in our time is not information, it’s agency. It’s the capacity to see suffering as real, and then understand that action is required. Her point was that a culture that devalues the humanities also devalues the habits of empathy and moral imagination that make action possible.”

We seem to live in an era of outrage, whereby there is some expectation that outrage itself is action. “Can you believe this is happening?” is not a statement that prevents something from happening at that point, or in the future. Yet, that seems to be the stance most people hold.

Outrage without action is a loud but impotent form of acceptance. 

It holds no agency, and does not promote change. When conventions are broken, it’s easy to be upset, but conventions are only conventions because good people hold them up as such… and it’s that ‘holding them up’ that just isn’t happening.

_______

*Update: I read this by Chris Williamson after posting, and it seems too fitting with this post not to share:

“The gap between words and actions has never been bigger.

You can be the least virtuous, meanest, most dishonest human on earth, but if you say the right things on social media, the world will be unaware.

No one stress tests the words coming out of most people’s mouths.

Which means that appearing good becomes more important than being good.

Performative empathy is more rewarded than genuine empathy.

Posting about mistreated groups is more incentivised than helping mistreated groups.

Words have become more important than actions, because you can tweet the words without needing to do the actions.

It’s the path of least resistance for everyone.

This isn’t me saying that you can’t do good whilst posting about it online.

But that many (maybe even most?) of the people who proselytise about how virtuous and caring they are, and how it’s everyone else who is evil/malignant/the enemy, are allowing their morality to stand on the shoulders of limited scrutiny.

Beware the people who only say good things, but don’t do good things.“

​

Way more Waymo

Leave a reply

Here is a statistic from the company Waymo:

“In less than two years, the company’s average weekly paid robotaxi trips have grown tenfold, from 50,000 per week in May 2024 to 500,000 per week today.” Source: Waymo’s skyrocketing ridership in one chart

This is amazing growth. It’s not an isolated statistic. We are seeing this kind of growth in robotic focused manufacturing, and we are seeing it in the use of AI to do many jobs that humans used to do.

Are we ready for this? Are we ready for the gig economy to be eaten up by automation? Are we ready for not just blue collar but also white collar jobs to dwindle as AI takes over these jobs at an exponential rate? Are we ready for AI teachers, AI servants, AI drivers, AI delivery, AI accountants, AI lawyers, AI programmers, and AI in fields we thought would always need humans in them? Are we ready for way more of this kind of Waymo growth occurring simultaneously across many sectors?

We aren’t ready. Yet this is coming our way. It’s that simple.

Our responses in each case will be reactionary. For every current Waymo passenger there are probably a few potential customers thinking, ‘That’s scary, I’m not ready to put my life in the hands of a robot driver on the highway or the busy streets of downtown at rush hour.’ But those stats will dwindle. For every worker who thinks, ‘My job is safe, they’ll always need me,’ there are others who thought the same just a few years ago, and they are now looking for a job, often in a different sector than what they’ve been in.

Yes, there are limitations to this growth in some sectors. Yes, new jobs may come up that are uniquely human in nature. Yes, there are yet unharnessed opportunities for people to make a greater income (with less effort) in areas that they would not have imagined just a few months ago. It’s not all doom and gloom… but make no mistake, the exponential growth of AI powered advances will be drastically affecting all of our everyday lives sooner than most people realize. Waymo’s growth is emblematic of the kind of growth we will see in almost every aspect of our lives.

Turn your BS Detector fully on

1 Reply

I remember when I used to look to the news for objective truth. I believed the role of a reporter was capital ‘T’ Truth, and their job was to remove as much bias as possible. I’m not sure if that ever existed, but we are now at a point where that idea is dead and buried. It seems like every news outlet is intentionally choosing a biased starting point before reporting what they share.

Maybe this isn’t new, but the level to which this seems obvious right now is alarming. One of the problems is the willingness of politicians and even executives to blatantly lie. Because then even the choice to be objective and just share the news becomes a choice to share misinformation. If a newscast willingly shares a quote that is an obvious lie or exaggeration, and does not share commentary on the lie, then ultimately they are promoting the lie.

We know from research that hearing wrong information repeatedly will make us more likely to believe it. So even a ‘non-biased’ reporting of misinformation is a kind of dose of that misinformation seeping into our brains as a potential truth. And so we are being hit with misinformation in two different ways. The first is intentional: overly biased news that fully intends to sway our opinion. The second is an attempt at being non-biased but ultimately sharing lies.

What we are left with is a need to have our bullshit detectors fully on at all times. I’m frequently left wondering if something is true or not? If the repotting is based or not? I often get my news from social media, and I end up having to spend time verifying the source or confirming the information shared. Just yesterday I saw some outlandish quotes that I thought were satire, and when I went to the actual source, I found out they were true. In this case it was the message and not the reporting that was outlandish. In other cases it’s not necessarily a misquote, but a real quote taken out of context. And then there are outright intentional lies being created and shared.

To me, this loss of trust in news media is scary. I am left wondering how many people actually take the time to check sources, rather than just believe the news that fits their narrative and beliefs, and discredit things that don’t fit with their beliefs? We seem to be in a sort of post Truth era where we either question and verify everything we hear, or we just accept that news is just a fiction dancing around the truth.

It leaves me feeling like I’ve got to keep my BS detectors fully on at all times.

Meaning in the Universe

Leave a reply

I love this quote by Brian Cox,

There’s only one interesting question in philosophy. The interesting question is, what does it mean to live a finite, fragile life in an infinite, eternal universe? I think the answer is, paradoxically, whilst we are definitely physically insignificant, I’ve just said that the Earth is one planet, around one star, amongst 400 billion stars, in one galaxy amongst two trillion galaxies, in a small patch of the universe, right?

So we’re definitely small, you can’t argue with that, we’re just specks of dust. But if you think about what we are, we’re just collections of atoms. Our bodies were made in stars, right? So it’s all cooked over billions of years. And we’re in this pattern that can think, you have a means by which the universe understands and explores itself, which is us. And that sounds unlikely when you put it like that, that you can have a few things that were cooked in the hearts of stars, you stick them together in a pattern and suddenly it has some ideas and starts writing music.

There aren’t any other worlds where this happened, certainly in our galaxy. So it could be that this planet, notwithstanding its physical insignificance, is the only place where anything thinks.

Think about it… think about consciousness and thinking… without thought the entire universe has no meaning. And so, while we live on an insignificant planet, in an insignificant solar system, in an insignificant galaxy, in an insignificant part of the universe… we might also be the only significant part of all existence, or at the very least, in our own, known part of the universe.

We are simultaneously insignificant and potentially the most significant thing in the universe. Without consciousness there is no meaning to the universe, and while there might be a lot of evidence of life beyond our solar system, there is no guarantee the these other life forms have achieved the level of consciousness of humans.

This makes me question my own assumptions about consciousness and free will. I’ve previously said in my post, ‘Consciousness and Free Will’:

1. I don’t think consciousness is fundamental.
And;
2. Consciousness comes from an excess of processing time.

But maybe my first premise doesn’t need to be true for my second one to be true. Maybe consciousness is fundamental, but we need excess processing time in order to tap into it?

Maybe consciousness is essential to the existence of the universe, because without it, why should the universe even exist? If that question doesn’t create at least a little existential angst, I’m not sure what would?

Are we beings that became conscious so that we can add meaning to the entire universe, or is the universe somehow dependent on consciousness and we are simply living beings capable of tapping into this on some fuzzy frequency? A fuzzy frequency which also clouds our minds with a desire to seek beliefs that make sense of a consciousness far too great for us to truly understand?  Be it religion or physics, we are meaning seekers, and we might just be the most important meaning seekers in the entire universe.

 

The corner staircase

Leave a reply

I’ve always had this vision of building my own house. I have no experience with architecture, I struggle to build IKEA furniture, and lack basic handyman skills… but I’ve always wanted to design my own dream home. One feature I envision is a staircase in an all-glass corner of the house. It’s kind of a double spiral staircase, and it is designed such that both at the top and the bottom, you walk towards the corner to go both up and down the stairs, and they turn at the halfway point. At the top, you just walk towards the corner and then have a choice of turning either to the left or right. Essentially, you go down about 5 or six steps to a landing where the spiral splits both ways, going away from the corner and along the side walls.

At the bottom of the steps, the first 2 steps create a half circle or crescent, going completely across the corner. Then the stairs spiral left or right with a railing that is only about 6 inches above and behind the second step at the center, and then spirals up with the steps to railing hight by the 4th or 5th step. This creates an empty space on the inside of the spiral, behind the first 2 steps. In this space, underneath the stairs that are coming  down from the floor above, there is a waterfall and then a fish pond in the void behind the spirals.

One more feature is that the wall behind the waterfall has 2 possible positions, one is just less than 90º and the other is just a bit more than 90º. This allows the waterfall to either be a true falls, with water splashing as it lands in the pond, or it can be subtle with water silently sliding down the wall into the pond. So, it’s a wonderful, natural background noise when you want it, but also a subtle trickle when you’d like quiet.

I’ve tried drawing it, but can’t seem to get it right. The AI image I created here is a start of the idea, although not completely what I envision. I’ve tried many times to tweak this image, or use other tools, but I lack the descriptive skills to really get what I want. Still, this would be one feature I’d love to have if I was ever given the chance to design my own house.

Reimagining Schools

1 Reply

Since November I’ve been connecting, every few weeks, with Will Richardson and a group of educational leaders from around BC, Canada in a professional development session run by the BCPVPA (BC Principals and Vice Principals Association) called ‘Reimagining Schools: Confronting Education‘. Right off the bat, Will shared some framings:

• Everything is nature
• We’re not facing “problems” to be solved. We are in a predicament.
• Our predicament stems from the fact that we are out of relationship with each other and all living things on the planet. All of our challenges flow from this disconnect.
• Education is complicit in creating these challenges.
• Collapse is not new. What’s new is that systemic privilege is no longer a buffer.
• Our personal challenge is to face reality or “sit with the shit” and not run from complex, difficult questions.

There are a few deep thoughts that have brewed from these sessions, and yet oddly enough the two most impactful things came from outside the sessions.

First a conflict within me. Will shared a post on LinkedIn where he said,

“I think it’s telling that for all of the conferences and presentations and talks and essays and “achievements” that people post and discuss here, only about 2% of them seem to make any note of the fact that they are happening while:

~ecological limits are being breached
~social trust is eroding
~ AI is reshaping cognition
~ politics are destabilizing
~ inequality is deepening
~ biodiversity is declining at alarming rates

I mean, without using those contexts as a lens for our gatherings or our teaching or writing, what is the actual relevance that we can claim, not just around education, but around living life on the planet in general?

It’s either denial or ignorance. Or maybe it’s concern that if we ground our work in those lenses, no one will show up or read or listen…”

I commented:

“I’d push back a bit and ask what is the conference about?

There’s a cognitive dissonance that is invited when the mind has to weigh these things AND also take in information that people are going to a conference to learn about.

I’m seeing your question play out on social media where people are being called out for not being political and sharing their political stance… on a channel where politics is never discussed.

There needs to be a balance, we can’t stick our head in the sand, but we also can’t pretend (and I do intentionally mean pretend) that acknowledging major issues of global concern are equivalent to somehow authentically addressing them… and topically addressing them when our topic isn’t directly affected by them is to me worse than not mentioning them. It can be a distraction without gain to the intended message.”

Will responded:

“Dave Truss So, I’ll push back a bit on the push back. 🤣

I don’t think it’s a “calling out” as much as it is a reminder. And I don’t disagree that just naming them authentically “addresses” them, but it does provide a different lens for whatever question is in front of us at that moment. Every topic is affected by them. Every one.

Modernity wants to separate everything out into pieces and ignore the interconnectedness of the whole. This is the world we live in right now. It’s all entangled.”

The comment conversation continued, and is worth reading, but doesn’t add to my conflicted feelings about this. On the one hand I completely agree with Will, if we aren’t bringing a contextual lens to what we are sharing, we are somehow missing the interconnectedness of some of the things we should most value and care about. But on the other hand, I’m sitting in a place right now where just two days ago I wrote about being ‘Intentionally disconnected‘ because paying attention to the rather disturbing world events right now feels like too much. I ended the post saying, “for now I lack the capacity to engage. It seems like a futile activity that will anger and upset me, with no gain. It is rare for me to actively choose to be uninformed, but right now is one of those times.”

Therein lies the conflict. I agree with Will, yet I don’t think I’m the only one who isn’t ready to face the harsh realities of the predicaments we are in… especially when I’m trying to learn something new. I think for our students it’s the same. The last of the framings above is, ‘Our personal challenge is to face reality or “sit with the shit” and not run from complex, difficult questions.”

I get it, I really do. But when I’m at a conference or when a student sits in a class, do we really need to ‘sit in it’? Do we need to connect everything we do to the predicaments we live in? Do we need this lens to permeate what we are learning? If I channel my inner Will Richardson I think I’d ask myself, ‘But what value is the learning if it isn’t addressing the predicaments we are in?’ … Again, I’m left conflicted.

For example, can I teach students about using AI in an ethical way and not mention the cost of the energy drain? Is mentioning this once enough or should that be the bigger lesson? Do I need to bring the dire state of the world into every lesson, predicament after predicament? Is this even healthy? Maybe I’m just too stuck in the current educational context to see the bigger picture? I really don’t think that these sessions answered this for me, and yet I feel I have a deeper understanding of the need to confront hard truths… and ensure that what we choose to teach be taught with a lens of a world in environmental, political, and social challenges. Will shared the following quote in one of our sessions:

“If we fully accept the world as it is—in all its harsh realities— then we can develop the very qualities we need to be in that world and not succumb to that harshness. We find our courage, morality, and gentle, nonaggressive actions by clear seeing and acceptance. As we accept what is, we become people who stand in contrast to what is, freed from the aggression, grasping and confusion of this time. With that clarity, we can contribute things of eternal importance no matter what’s going on around us—how to live exercising our best human qualities, and how to support others to discover these qualities in themselves.”
~ Margaret Wheatley “So Far From Home”

The second insight I’d like to share came after our first session. Will invited any of us who could stay on to do so. During that after-session conversation I mentioned that I was retiring. The topic of my school, Inquiry Hub, came up and I mentioned that I was proud of what our team has been able to do, transforming the learning outside of the traditional high school box. And yet, I was disappointed that our little school has not had a greater impact on the rest of the district. Will responded saying something like, ‘Dave, if you were able to do that, you would be a unicorn because I haven’t seen that happen yet.’

That simple statement had an unburdening effect on me. It is sad, yet it comforted me. For the past 13 years my small team of teachers and I have created a very special place for self-directed learners to have some true agency over what they are learning, while still providing an opportunity for them to meet all the requirements they need for their post high school ambitions. It has been an amazing ride, and the fact that it didn’t really spread beyond our walls isn’t something that should weigh on me as I head into retirement. The test of my leadership will show if the school thrives after I’m gone.

Overall, I really enjoyed the sessions with Will, and with the other educational leaders from across BC. I appreciated the experience of sitting in the discomfort of knowing things must change in education and sitting in the predicament rather than cherrypicking shallow solutions and discussing them like we were solving all the world’s problems. I encourage educators to follow Will on his journey to confront education and reimagine schools and join one of his cohorts of educators on similar journeys of discovery.

Is Artificial Intelligence Reducing Our Intelligence?

Leave a reply

Joe Truss shared a great article with me, ‘The hidden cost of letting AI make your life easier‘, by Shai Tubali on Big Think. Towards the end of the article, Shai shares this:

“[Sven Nyholm’s] deeper worry is not that AI will outperform humans, but that it will appear to do so, especially to non-expert eyes. “Current forms of AI threaten meaningful activities,” he argues, “because they look far more intelligent than they are.” This appearance invites trust. People begin to treat AI as an oracle, mistaking an impressive engineering achievement for understanding. As misplaced confidence grows, judgment weakens. Skills develop less fully. Capacities are handed over too easily, and with them, forms of meaning that depend on effort.

Nyholm links this directly to the value of processes, including confusion, detours, and lingering with complexity. He punctures the idea that everything should be fast and efficient. Speed may feel pleasant, he concedes, yet it undermines patient thinking and reconsideration. He points to an Anthropic advertisement promising a paper completed in a single day: brainstorming in the morning, drafting by noon, polishing by afternoon. What disappears in this vision is the slow work of searching, getting lost, following the wrong thread, and returning with insight. “Many ideas,” Nyholm says, “come from looking for one thing and finding something else instead.” When AI delivers tidy, unified answers, it spares us that work. In doing so, it risks weakening our capacity to break complex problems into parts, examine assumptions, and think things through with precision.”

AI reduces the productive effort and struggle that makes both learning and understanding stick. Accessing information is profoundly different than understanding information, and directs the learner towards an answer instead of a learning process. This article reinforced some ideas I’ve already shared.

In ‘Keeping the friction‘ I said, “Decreasing the challenge doesn’t foster meaningful learning. Reducing the required effort doesn’t make the learning more memorable. Encouraging deeper thinking is the goal, not doing the thinking for you.”

And in ‘What’s the real AI risk in education?‘ I said, “Real learning has a charge to it, it needs to come with some challenge, and hardship. If the learning experience is too easy, it won’t be remembered. If there isn’t enough challenge, if the answers are provided rather than constructed, the learning will soon be forgotten. Remove being stuck, struggling, and failure, and you’ve removed the greatest part of a learning experience.”

I see this in my own learning. There are times I sit and read a full article, like the one shared above, but there are other times that I don’t bother and just throw a long article into an LLM and ask for a bulleted summary of the key ideas. However, I remember articles I read far better than articles where I only read the AI summaries.

How deep would my learning and understanding be if I only went as far as to read AI summaries? How much will my confidence and my belief in understanding grow, without the depth of knowledge to support my confidence and understanding? Would I be creating a kind of false fluency in topics where I lack true depth of understanding?

The convenience of using AI might not just be changing how we learn, it might be changing what we believe learning is… Perceiving learning as having access to information rather than having a deep understanding of a topic that needed to wrestle with to be truly understood. In this way, the convenience of using AI to think for us might just be reducing our intelligence.