Democracy's event horizon

Recent results from a survey (1) of 2200 Americans showing over 1 in 4 believe that the sun goes around the earth is problematic for democracy. The system, that reflects the aggregate opinion of all participants, has served humanity well in recent years. However, the same characteristic could be its Achilles' heel as its leaders will have to reflect its population. If aggregate knowledge present in a democratic society falls below a threshold value, it can act like the event horizon of a black hole. Once through it, there is no turning back as it will spiral down to a singularity.

There have been telltale signs in many democratic societies for some time. In the world's largest democracy, elections were decided by last names and not policy choices. In Southern Europe, star power has been more dominant. More recently, powerful democratic countries have opted for less optimal outcomes. All of these may imply that democracy, as a system, is running out of its originally intended use - assure optimum outcomes for society in the long run. Instead, it is now more likely to reinforce low knowledge content, if it is dominant.

One democracy appears to have resisted the race to the bottom. Down under, where penalties are imposed for those not bothering to vote, high turn-out has assured that knowledge content of the voters is above the democratic event horizon. It appears that the prescription for ailing democracies returning sub-optimal results is to enhance voter turnout, possibly by the imposition of penalties. The biased selection in the non-voter cohort may be just enough to keep the system from the plunge to the unknown.

(1) http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says

The irony of Artificial Intelligence

The indiscriminate use of the term "Artificial Intelligence," by analysts and consultants, demean what it was originally meant to be and is still supposed to imply. Those who have worked in this area for decades, much before the internet, search and autonomous vehicles existed, know fully well that there is nothing "artificial" about it. A lack of definition for "consciousness," has constrained computer scientists and philosophers alike from conceptualizing intelligence. Faster computers, memory and unlimited capital are unlikely to advance the field any further unless we return to thoughtfully studying the underlying issues. Let's do that before a few gamers think that they have accidently invented the "artificial mind."

Intelligence, something solely attributed to humans till very recently, is now shown to be present in a plethora of biological systems. Biological systems, however, are not an infinite array of on-off switches nor do they process information as computer systems do. So the idea that one can network a large number of silicon based idiot boxes, using mathematics from the 60s, to replicate the brain is fraught with issues. The recent fad of "artificial general intelligence," - the ability to teach a computer virtually anything such that it can not only replicate a human but also become a lot better, is a nice fantasy. What the technologists may be missing is that it is not a software problem. The millennials have become good at software but projecting what one is good at onto hard problems may not the best path forward.

Nature had nearly 3.8 billion years to perfect the underlying hardware to deliver intelligence. It was a slow and laborious process and it was never a software problem. Once the hardware was perfected, it was able to run virtually any software. This may give a clue to those plunging head first into teaching machines to "think," using software and age old mathematics. More importantly, the current architecture of computing representing calculators is not amenable to modeling intelligence. Just as there is a distinct difference between Arithmetic and Mathematics, conventional computers differ significantly from a true quantum computer. Adding and subtracting numbers fast is one thing but conceptualizing what it means is quite another.

The unfortunate term, "Artificial Intelligence," has led many mediocre lives astray. And God, with an immense sense of humor, seem to still lead them down blind alleys.

Expert complexity

A new tool rolled out by a research institution (1), allows decision-makers reach better decisions by surveying experts. Specifically, a related paper published in Nature Energy concludes that wind energy costs will fall by 24-30% by 2030 (2). To understand what method of alternate energy production is most viable, one has to disaggregate the problem into two distinct questions:

1. What's the status-quo economics - i.e what is the total cost of production per unit of energy for all available modalities - including, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, nuclear, fossil and others? And, it is important to understand total costs, however "green," the manufacturers of the turbines and solar cells claim to be.

2. How is this cost likely to decline by scale or newer technologies or both?

The first question has significant available data and does not require any expert opinion. The second question has two parts to it - scale based decline in cost and the probability of the arrival of a technology discontinuity. The former is also an empirical and engineering question that does not require experts to open up their infinite wisdom and the latter is mere speculation that experts could certainly contribute to.

More generally, alternative energy production techniques have comparable status-quo metrics that informs which method is dominant. The idea that "we should try everything," is fundamentally faulty as there is only one best design. The scale question requires more analysis and thought - part of this is related to total available quantity (i.e. how much energy could the world produce if it were to harness the source with 100% efficiency) and the other is related to efficiency gains that will accrue due to scale and learning effects. Both of these questions are well explored in many fields and thus we can easily create forecasted metrics of cost per unit of production across production modalities, without troubling the experts.

Scientists and policy-makers have a tendency to complicate simple problems. But it typically does not add much value, even with software, experts or research. Numbers are more reliable predictors of the performance of engineering systems than experts.

(1) https://carnegiescience.edu/news/new-tools-assess-future-wind-power
(2) http://esciencenews.com/articles/2016/09/13/new.tools.assess.future.wind.power

Eaten alive

Recent research from the University of Texas (1) sets the timing of the genius Homo excursion out of Africa to an earlier time and a harsher reality. They "mingled," with saber-toothed cats, wolves and hyenas and they ate only as many times as they were eaten. With a brain size smaller than half that of the modern human, their tools were primitive and their processes less compelling. They were effectively scavengers, with a badly designed and fragile infrastructure, that was no match to the mighty cats.

Human ego may have overlooked some information in the past as they had imagined their ancestors tall, dark and sturdy, leaving Africa, with a highly sophisticated technology, the hand ax. The UT team, based on a large sample over a 4 hectare area, argue this is not the case. The finding has implications, not only for history but also for biases that systematically creep into academic studies. In this contemporary world, where possibly half the population is likely unaware that its seven billion inhabitants are closely related, regardless of their outward appearances, scientists may need to do a better job in education. For without education, entire countries could walk back decades of progress and entire continents could move toward punishing tactical conflict. And, that would not be significantly different from what existed 1.8 million years ago, in architecture and context.

Humans have paid a big penalty because of their incessant curiosity, exploring foreign lands before they were possibly ready but what they brought to humanity is valuable knowledge. It will be a shame if modern humans lose it.

(1) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/meet-frail-small-brained-people-who-first-trekked-out-africa