Space to Think

Welcome [Gien] to the 'Infinity'. Congratulations with your first interest and question! While you're looking around, take a sneak at the links in the footer, including help section. It explain how this place works.

If I understand you correctly, your question is equivalent to question: "How can we quickly solve all the geologically recent problems of global concern, that human development has created?"

That's a very broad question, implying things like climate change, things of geological concern.

However, in the content section, you mostly include the human political and self-organizational issue.

Even though most such problems could be traced back to the human self-organization and politics, it is worth noting that humans are just a type of mammal, that are a bit like honey-badgers, that individually persistently look for solutions to goals they want to achieve within the scopes of their interests, making it hard to control them. The scopes of interests must intersect in a very meaningful way this to happen, as different personalities are excited about different aspects of the same things, and using different words.

For example, while the geological formulation of the problem perhaps may evoke emotional response to you, it is information-theoretic formulation (for example, how I described a similarly global issue here), that seem to evoke emotional response to me. Other people yet, will have other vocabularies that evoke emotional response, for example, economic vocabulary, and so on. As the "honey-badgers" obsessed with that side, they will view the world from that perspective, and are likely to engage in some activities to push towards the positive futures from the perspectives they feel important. What will be the outcome -- is anyone's guess, and yes, just like a bunch of "honey-badgers", humans are not that well coordinated, when it comes to the global issues.

The invention of the Internet perhaps was the single greatest contribution to make them coordinated, and we're still figuring out how to use the power of the Internet to achieve such self-coordination and mobilization.

I agree that it is a valuable resource that needs to be incentivised in some way. Their existence and low adoption rate all point to a bigger opportunity. The underlying logic is to make learning more accessible. However, it is done within a siloed context. What is the bigger goal here? It is to promote high efficacy of cumulative cultural evolution (cce). If the problem is reframed from this deeper, cultural, anthropological perspective, we could learn from this failure of MOOCs to redesign an open knowledge commons for humanity that is the education system for the future of humanity.

So in essence, not only incentifying them, but remaking them in a new system that mitigates this problem.

[chronological], the green heart means "I hear you".

// If education taught useful skills perhaps employers would have requirements by grade.

In fact, if they taught useful things, people would go for education like bees for honey.

My education was very bad and I learned most things by myself. I found that education is mostly day care.

If education taught useful skills perhaps employers would have requirements by grade. But it doesn't seem to work like that.

I would like to have a digital account of my qualifications and be awarded certifications of my skills that I have demonstrated. Perhaps if we took evaluation of human skills seriously rather than very poorly created curriculums which are just regurgitation of information.

(12 years at school + 4 years in a university) x 9 months x 20 days x 8 hours per day, is 23040 hours. At the world's average hourly wage of approx. 10$/hour, is $230,400. Now, one would just have to prove that some percentage (e.g., 95%) of that school education was crap and useless, and get back some of that money, just like people do with faulty products asking refunds.

// For example, training a version of Google’s language model (BERT) which underpins the company’s search engine, produced 1,438 pounds of CO2 equivalent in Strubell’s estimate to nearly the same as a round-trip flight between New York City and San Francisco. In practice, a single model is trained a large number of times before it's put in production.

[bobi.rakova], a few more thoughts:

1,438 pounds (=652 kg) of CO2 for Google language model? Training AI models from big data is expensive, but trained once, a model can be reused very cheaply large number of times. Google may re-train the model frequently, so it depends on the frequency, which your comment doesn't mention. Also, it doesn't mention how they are training this model -- if they have something pre-trained already, and training only the top layer, the statistic of expensive entire training would misrepresent the reality of relatively cheap top layer training (transfer learning) on top of the base model. Suggestion: It would be good to mention the total amounts.

In general, because it's expensive to train, but cheap to use, it would be great to have large public model zoo, or model market, so as to prevent people re-training expensive models. I wonder, what's the largest public model zoo that humanity has. Having something like "GitHub" for AI models would also be very liberating to people who have no hardware on which to train large models, but still want to benefit from AI models. I think I had this as a separate idea somewhere.

Thanks for your response [Ruta]! I agree, I think this idea of enironmental justice pushes us to imagine a future where Nature is a stakeholder.

I think it is important to differentiate between AI and technology in general. In my experience, often times, the engineering of an AI model start from the idea of full automation because an AI system can do what people do - faster, cheaper, and better than humans. I think this is why it becomes important to consider the cnsequences as automating away the human introduces new kinds of challenges.

I think it'd be easier to start with the impact assessment of AI models which directly interact with environmental systems as then we could more directly measure the potential impact. Does that make sense?

// Time doesn't have to be productive. We are not insects. [...]
// It doesn't have to make someone rich it just needs to push the envelope.

Yeah, agree with you here, [chronological]. We should not force people to be productive. If they are productive, it should come from their inner drive. The point is, if we want the wonderful futures promised by the good sci-fi, then finding out resources or hidden resourcefulness is important.

// spiral structure inside //

I see! So, I suppose, the bacteria would be the Spirulina (though, it's abundant)? What would those "protected areas of Earth" be?

Those who lived in .su and landed in .us, remember, that:

• capitalism is like evolving bacteria
• communism is like blood-feeding cells

Yes, you can evolve super-bugs through subjecting organisms to challenging conditions, but to ensure reliability, one has to grant social security.