Tag Archives: future

Infinite within the finite

Civilization is built on infinite growth within a finite system. Until our values move away from a focus on consumerism and wealth accumulation, we are never going to get to either environmental/planetary or human well-being. The energy demands are just too great and simultaneously too destructive.

Will AI solve or magnify these problems? I fear it will indeed magnify them. It’s not just the energy demands of these Artificial Intelligence machines that’s the issue, it’s the promise of more goods at a cheaper price. It’s the promise of every gadget you desire, affordably made by automated, robotic systems in dark factories by intelligent robots that don’t need the lights on. It’s the promise of a luxury electric car for $15,000-20,000; a $5,000 robot that does all your chores at home; a 3D printer that can manufacture high quality, factory grade products in the comfort of your own home. All that’s needed are the resources to build these things… unlimited resources being taken from a planet with limited resources.

That’s right, to make this amazing, almost limitless future possible, we just need infinite resources from a finite planet. Meanwhile, wealth accumulation is being concentrated, the middle class is shrinking, and we are madly extracting resources from the earth, with little concern over the environmental impact.

It’s. Just. Not. Sustainable.

An AI advertisement

I scrolled past this add a few times before paying any attention to it. But then it gave off an uncanny valley feeling that made me look a little closer. I think it was the very staged first question that bothered me most, and yesterday I finally took the time to watch it through a critical lens. It’s an ad for a Tai Chi app, but I cropped the video to hide the brand because I don’t want to amplify it, I want to critique it.

Here is the ad:

And here are a list of telltale things that suggest it is AI.

1. Look at the opening image. The woman is talking at a 90° angle to the stage, and there is no one at the podium below her.

2. The ‘expert’ is a perfectly chiseled man who is never named. No recognition of him as an expert in the field… because he’s fictitious.

3. Obviously fake audience members. The first image shows a blurred bearded man who doesn’t seem real to me. The second image has a man wearing a partial microphone like the expert.

4. The painfully fake script.

“Isn’t a gym better?”

“Gym doesn’t work after 40.”

This isn’t necessarily evidence of AI, it could just be bad writing, but it comes off feeling very wrong and unnatural. It’s like there was an intent in the text to make the expert sound like English is his second language but his voice doesn’t carry that same suggestion.

5. Comments are turned off. There is no benefit in having viewers outing the ad as fake. It’s better to allow the ad to fool more people without being called out.

The reality is that I could pick this ad out as fake, but that’s only because it was done poorly. We are going to see a lot more ads done this way and they are going to be good enough to fool us completely. It’s just a matter of time, and that time is approaching very quickly.

Margins over manpower

Amazon just laid off over 14,000 people. According to Beth Galetti, Senior Vice President of People Experience and Technology at Amazon, who wrote that they are ‘Staying nimble and continuing to strengthen our organizations’, “The reductions we’re sharing today are a continuation of this work to get even stronger by further reducing bureaucracy, removing layers, and shifting resources to ensure we’re investing in our biggest bets and what matters most to our customers’ current and future needs.

What are the ‘biggest bets’ they they are investing in? Chips. AI chips. Profits before people. Margins over manpower. The human equation in a company no longer matters. People are as expendable as office supplies. Need cost savings? Fired employees save a lot more money than reducing the cost of paper and staples.

The shareholder model of capitalism is slowly collapsing. It’s the middle and upper middle class that is getting laid off. Meanwhile, large companies like Nvidia invest billions of dollars in Open AI, and Open AI takes that money and buys Nvidia chips. Simultaneously, all these companies lay off staff to amplify margins, buy more chips and grow even larger.

Top executives who are already making millions hit their shareholder targets and get bonuses. Meanwhile regular employees face layoffs and have no job security. You think your $200,000 job is safe? Only until the next quarter’s earnings are going public, or until the merger is completed after your small company is swallowed up by one of the big guys.

If it was just Amazon, that would be one thing, but similar reports of layoffs have recently been announced at IBM (9,000 jobs in the US alone), UPS (34,000 jobs), Nestle (16,000 jobs), Intel (24,500 jobs)… the list goes on. What happens to the global economy when hundreds of thousands of people become jobless while large companies recycle their money, reinvesting in each other in circular deals where funding is promised back to the investors in product purchases?

What happens in a world where profits and margins matter more than people?

Show me don’t tell me

I can’t imagine that resumes and cover letters are going to look the same in the next few years. Basically, with everyone using AI to enhance or even completely write these documents, they aren’t going to stand out all that easily. And furthermore, the jobs people will be applying for will not be the same either. And so I think two things are going to become far more used to hire, both of which go far beyond a resume and cover letter.

Both of these hiring approaches involve ‘Showing me’ what you can do. First, show me that you have credentials pertaining to the skills we want to see in our employee. Secondly, show us what this looks like on a temporary contract, so that we know hiring you is going to work out.

What credentials do you have? What specific training can you show us in a job interview test? And now let’s have you try the job out for a few months and then do a hiring assessment. So no more resumes and cover letters, just fill out this smart form with hierarchy tree’d questions that dig deeper when you show credentials that we are looking for, and skips those questions when you don’t have evidence of certifications or experience. Some questions require skills in a particular field that need to be answered, and the questions get progressively harder.

Bye-bye resumes and cover letters, hello to showing me what you can do in an interview. The resume is replaced by a form. Credentials get you an interview. The cover letter changes to uncovering your skills in an interview. If you don’t have experience, you better have credentials or micro credentials. While a university degree will still be an asset, it’s just one of many credentials that will matter. And even with all this, you will still need to show, to demonstrate, that you are right for the job before a long term agreement to hire will be made.

In my lifetime

I was only one-and-a-half years old when Apollo 11 landed on the moon just 56 years ago. The computer guidance system was sophisticated for the day, but simple by today’s standards. Years later when I bought the 64k adapter for my Commodore Vic 20 home computer, which needed to be plugged into my television, I had access to more memory than the Apollo.

Today most calculators have more memory than that. So do our fridges, and other household items that really don’t even need it. We routinely purchase more sophisticated items than the computer that landed the first space ship on the moon.

Now we are asking LLM’s that do billions of calculations a second questions and we don’t even fully understand their processes leading to the answers. The sophistication of these tools are so much greater than anything humankind has created before. Few people in the world truly understand the workings of these tools, in the same way that not many people understood what the Apollo 11 navigation computer was doing back in 1969.

So where is this all leading? What technological advances am I going to see in my lifetime? Are we all going to have house robots doing chores for us. Will we no longer drive because cars will drive (or fly) themselves better than we can? Will I go to the bathroom and my toilet will tell me I’m deficient in a certain vitamin after analyzing my poop?

I’m fascinated by how fast we’ve innovated in less than 60 years. I recognize how much faster we’ve innovated in the last 30 years compared to the 30 before that, and it makes me think that if the rate of innovation continues, I’ll see even greater innovations in the next 15 years. That’s the nature of exponential growth and I think that innovation has been far more exponential than incremental.

I spend a fair bit of time thinking about the future… Be it the future of technology, education, health and longevity. In each of these areas I see things changing drastically in the next 15 years. But I don’t have a crystal ball and I’m not sure that I can separate science from science fiction, or innovation from imagination, as I look forward. In all honesty I have no idea how far technology and innovations will take us in my lifetime, but I’m excited about the possibilities.

Will AI undermine social media?

What if AI created media completely changes our online habits? I’ve already noticed that I’m disappointed when I realize a video that caught my attention is not real… That it’s not (for example) a video catching a house cat scaring away a bear from a child, but rather an AI imagined scenario. Right now that’s about 5-10% of me feed, but what happens when that percentage is over 50%?

Am I going to pay as much attention to what I watch and read when I know more than half of my feed is artificially concocted to attract and hold that attention? Will the appeal be there?

I’m already gravitating to podcast conversations, and a smaller communities of people I actually know, as places to get new information from, will my social media stream look the same as it does today? Or will it shrink away from seeking new, but likely artificially created information, to smaller communities that I know are real?

And how will this affect younger generations and their addictions to their phones? Maybe it will just redirect their attention to seeking real connections, but they’ll still do that digitally, not changing habits as much as where their attention goes. But maybe, just maybe, AI infiltration or perhaps I should say infestation, of social media will see us all living a little further away from our screens.

Stories that define us

I heard a quote, not from the original source, which said young people today are going to be the first generation to die with more memories of other people than memories of themselves.

Social media has become so pervasive and so consumed that people spend more time watching other people do things than doing things themselves. And now it’s getting even more extreme with AI videos becoming a large part of social media, with some videos being obviously artificial, but many more seeming real… I fear that not only are people growing up living the stories of other people, but also living invented stories simply to keep them watching. Sure I can say the same about television. I still have memories of watching Gilligan’s Island, Get Smart, Hogan’s Heroes, Looney Tunes cartoons, and yes, even The Brady Bunch. Television gave us stories long before social media. But there was always a hard ending time for tv shows, or at least until the, ‘Same bat time, same bat channel,’ the next day or next week.

The entertainment stories now are not formatted the same. They aren’t designed to hold your attention for 20 to 22 minutes out of a half hour with commercial breaks. Instead, they are like an unlimited stream of commercial breaks. Quick soundbites to grab your attention. Short bursts of information, excitement, or extravagance. All designed to keep you watching the next clip, and the next, and the next. Soon an afternoon that could have been spent creating your own memories has disappeared and memories of other people (real or invented) sharing their experiences becomes the only thing you have to remember.

What are the stories that are defining us today? How are they different than ones previously shared? Are they making our lives richer, or slowing replacing our lives? At the end of a week, how much of your life are you remembering and how many stories that you share and talk about are actually not your stories at all?

Gangsta AI in the hood

This is next level music production and creation. The quality of this remix is unreal. I think this is one of the best remixes of a song I’ve ever heard… and I’m not even a blues fan.

Here is Coolio’s Gangsta’s Paradise.

And here is the AI blues version

I don’t know how I feel about liking AI created music so much? To me, it’s the creative endeavours of humankind that make us such unique beings in the galaxy, if not the universe.

Then I hear this and I think, we are not alone anymore. I expect AI to ‘out intelligence us’ soon enough, but I wasn’t expecting such a quick transition to ‘out artistically creating us’! Sure this is based on a song by Coolio, which is based on Pastime Paradise by Stevie Wonder…. And so it is not truly original. But we are still in the very early stages of AI musical creativity, and I fear just like we can’t trust video clips anymore without questioning if they are AI, soon we won’t be able to listen to a great new song without wondering which AI model created it?

Loving the song version but feeling like AI is getting pretty gangsta and taking over the formerly human creative hood.

The infinite classroom

I recently heard someone describe AI as the infinite classroom… You can get anytime learning, catered just to you. And for a moment I thought, ‘I remember Google being described like that, and YouTube too.’ Now, I know that the ‘catered to you’ part of Artificial Intelligence is a richer experience than Google or YouTube, but that doesn’t mean that we haven’t kind of been here before. The guy went on to say that schools today are irrelevant. He was American and his focus wasn’t K-12 education but rather ‘investing’ $200k+ for a college degree that could be irrelevant by the time you get it.

Still, this made me think of all the digital distractions that make school less appealing and engaging compared to out-of-school offerings and opportunities… From AI providing meaningful, just-in-time learning, to social media, to gaming. Be it for learning or entertainment the competition for attention is significant outside of school.

So how do we engage students in schools when an infinite classroom as well as unlimited distractions are happening outside of schools?

What we shouldn’t do is bring back more traditional testing to ensure students don’t cheat using AI. What we also shouldn’t do is try to compete with the outside world and attempt to make schools more entertaining.

What we should do is create rich experiences where students are exposed to concepts and ideas that they would not have found on their own. We should provide social opportunities to learn together. We should provide opportunities for student voice and choice.

It’s not about competing with the infinite. It’s about cultivating learning experiences where students feel invested in the experience. It’s about fostering curiosity and providing shared learning opportunities that challenge students meaningfully.

In a world of infinite distractions, engagement in schools needs to be community and relationship focused. If it’s just about accumulating information and content, then classrooms as we know them will be no match for the infinite classroom (and unlimited distractions) that out of school opportunities will provide.

Uncivility

The statements that I wholeheartedly disagreed with almost everything Charlie Kirk stood for, AND that I am deeply saddened and appalled that he was gunned down, murdered, are not contradictory. In fact, put together, these two statements make another statement: They say that violence is not an answer to disagreement in a civil society.

Violence is uncivil.

When societies accept violence as a natural consequence to disagreements, they lose site of what it means to be a free society. They permit further violence as a solution to disagreement. They invite and incite tyranny, control, and loss of freedoms. They go down a path to being less civil, and more dangerous. And they lead to a society more greatly restricted in both rights and freedoms as citizens.

I’ve said before, “We need a society that allows disagreement. We need to be civil about how we protest. Because there is no civil society where violence and damaging property works one-way… only the way upset people think it should. Societies that tolerate inappropriate protest are inviting responses that are less and less civil. And nobody wins.”

Nobody wins, civility is lost, and rationalizations or justifications of any kind promote the worst kind of tolerance… tolerance to violence.

Related:

Appropriate Protest