Go AI??

Artificial Intelligence is in the air again. It is such a nice concept, the inventors of which have been suspected of nourishing the "God complex." Deep blue triumphed in chess and beat out mere humans in Jeopardy, Watson can understand how music is made and speak about it in a synthesized human voice, and now the famous search company has conquered Go. What's left in AI to solve?

Silicon has been alluring to engineers for four decades. They could double the speed of the "chip" in every 18 months and the mere extrapolation of this idea would have instructed even those less mathematically endowed that the belated singularity, is indeed near. Now that the game of Go, that potentially has infinite permutations of moves, has been conclusively solved by the electronic brain, we are likely nearing the inevitable. And that is bad news, especially for those in school toiling with such mundane subjects as computer science, programming and application development. Very soon, all of these will be delegated to machines, most of which would be artificially intelligent to a level, perhaps surpassing even contemporary politicians. Some had claimed decades ago that humans are nearing a state of "perfect knowledge." In Physics, the speculation has been that no mystery will remain in a few decades. Now humanity has taken an important leap to the future that artificial intelligence can quickly mop up any remaining mystery in any field - physics, medicine and even economics.

Chess, Jeopardy, self driving cars, neural nets seeking cat videos, twitter girl, Go... extrapolation certainly indicates the unstoppable triumph of artificial intelligence. The only remaining mystery is what billions of ordinary humans would do. The quantum computer they carry on their shoulders will become virtually useless in this regime of artificial intelligence dominance.

Scaling humanity

Reaching a critical mass and the minimum efficient scale are important concepts for many systems - biological, economic and business. Humans, separated by space and time for most of their history, could not reach this inevitable threshold for nearly hundred thousand years. Supported by technology, there are encouraging signs that we are fast approaching the minimum efficient scale of knowledge creation and consumption. The planet remains to be heavily endowed and it can easily support many multiples of humans as long as they are able to network their brains for the benefit of all.

What appears to be lacking is a framework. Weak attempts before, such as religion and countries, simply could not sustain a momentum that will unify in sufficient numbers to reach the necessary scale. Basic sciences, albeit attractive in many ways, could not light the passion underneath the human kiln. The strong forces that are operating to separate rather than unify, aided by the clan experiences of humans, have had the upper hand, thus far. However, technology is making irreversible impacts on the human psyche, propelling them to the next level. If so, they could make the planet, eminently contact worthy for outsiders.

Humans have been here before, however. In all cases, it appears that they have come up short. Insufficient technology for networking appears to be the common culprit in previous attempts. Stitching human brains together to reach the minimum efficient scale has eluded them. This was aided by hard constraints such as life span. Shrinking space and time as well as expanding life spans appear to be necessary conditions for sustainable development. Here, technology seems to show encouraging signs.

Space agencies and physicists lamenting about lack of "contact" may be well advised to ask why such "contact" would be made.

Mathematical music

Recent research from the University of Tokyo (1) that proposes a deeper dive into the structure of music by analyzing - "the recurrence plot of recurrence plot," in an effort to understand the emotive power of music, could be misplaced. Mathematical probing into the structure of creative work often failed to understand the substance of emotions that aid such phenomenon. Mathematics has been an important language in the history of human development. However, humans have been less perfect compared to constructs math could reasonably model and they often exhibit irrationality and creativity at random. It is the lack of "structure," that defines creativity and the effort expended by educational institutions in an effort to define such irrational phenomenon in a language that mathematicians can understand could be wasted.

Human emotions have been enigmatic - they escaped mathematical modeling thus far. Evolution seems to have been flexible enough to allow human behavior that has little value in hunting and survival. However, such work perpetuated the human psyche in a world of stress and tribulation, and lifted it into a realm that is mathematically undefinable. The visions of Einstein and Bach, unconstrained by mathematics, propelled humanity forward. As the engineers attempt to prove "gravity waves,' exist a century after it was proposed by sheer creative thought, one has to wonder if humanity is being sterilized of such a notion.

Mathematics, an idealistic concept, is inept at the analysis of human emotions.

(1) http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/chaos/26/2/10.1063/1.4941371

Lawless innovation

A recent study (1) that argues that "constituency statutes have significant effects on the quantity and quality of innovation" in companies, seems to fall into the same trap of pitting stakeholder value against shareholder value. For many decades, the argument has been that companies and societies (e.g. Scandinavia) that focus on the value of stakeholders - employees, communities and the environment do better than those focused on shareholder value (e.g. US). This is a result of a wrong perception that a focus on shareholder value is based on "short term profits" and stakeholder value maximization is a long term process. There is significant empirical evidence that the market and investors are not "short term focused" and are fully capable of assessing and valuing any choices (short or long term) made by the mangers of the firm. Assuming that markets are myopic, without evidence, may not be a good thing.

It is important not to assume the first correlation found in the data is the underlying cause. Note that stakeholder value choices, unless they translate into shareholder value in any horizon, are value destroying. Further, "Quantity and quality of innovation," are difficult to measure. Few innovations are responsible for most of the GDP in the economy and in winner takes all markets, marginal benefit of innovation in aggregate is simply noise. A more interesting question is the structure, systems and strategies of firms (2) that encourage innovation. It is possible that innovative firms will remain so, regardless of the bureaucracies and statutes imposed on them.

Innovation emanates from the culture of the firm - not from the laws created by those, out of touch with the present economy.


(1) http://esciencenews.com/articles/2016/02/18/a.stake.innovation
(2) https://www.crcpress.com/Flexibility-Flexible-Companies-for-the-Uncertain-World/Eapen/9781439816325