Tagged: philosophy
The Less Committed Noah, A Review of “The Coming Wave” by Mustafa Suleyman
To recap, I admitted to myself some months ago that I knew nothing about AI. I also doubted that anyone uttering the sounds, “A-I” (“It’s an acronym”, taught Kamala), knew much more than me. This belief was bolstered and informed by my nearly-techie brother’s share that his bosses advocated the use of the phrase wherever possible during meetings with clients as it perked people up. In other words, AI is trending. (There is nothing new in this confession of mine.)
The first book I decided to read was Melanie Mitchell’s Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans.
I then asked a friend for any recommendation he might have, and that is how I ended up reading Suleyman’s book.
To be clear: there is no need to read this book. It is not earth shattering. It will not change your life. It truly does not have much by way of content. A Toastmaster friend once told excitable me, in an effort to dissuade me from buying his book, that these days books are little different than business cards. That is about right for Coming Wave.
But I did read it and consider it and this is my blog so I am going to share my thoughts.
Maybe because I have been reading a bunch of ‘evolution of physics’ books, I read “wave” in the title and pictured (and was intrigued by) the wave in lightwave. Maybe it was because I have already asserted that AI is merely man’s newfound ability to sense electricity with greater refinement than ever before that I didn’t see “water” wave. Whatever the reason, I was totally taken aback by Suleyman’s opening alignment with Noah. It’s actually shocking. Seriously, consider it. There is a man, who by all accounts is ‘successful’, and he chose to warn the world of cataclysmic disaster.
What?
Perhaps it was my background in Biblical Studies that clouded my thinking. But the end of the Deluge account in Genesis includes the Rainbow and the promise to never flood “the world” again. This leaves two choices available to authors. First, believe the Bible story and live a peace-filled life. Second, totally miss the conclusion of the Bible story and with astounding boldness, still identify yourself with the main character in some bastardized version of the story.
But what do I know? I’m often told it is better to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
So I read on.
Suleyman opens the book with a Glossary, much like post-graduate work requires. But unlike post-graduate work, no editors or friends told him that his definitions are nebulous. Take “Waves” for example.
“The global diffusion or proliferation of a generation of technology anchored in a new general-purpose technology.”
Global, generation of technology, anchored, and general-purpose technology all need to now be defined.
Another term (pessimism aversion) includes the word elites. What exactly is an elite? My best guess is the intro-extro couple from Susan Cain’s Quiet who can’t decide on how to seat guests at their parties. (Throw pillows and a bar with top chairs was the solution, if I recall.)
All this might seem too detailed and in the weeds, but I assure you of my earnestness. What exactly is the threat? Why don’t I feel it? How come when I hear “pessimism aversion” I think, “Does he mean hope?”
I’ve talked about how unappealing it is for politicians to constantly hedge their positions elsewhere on this blog. Well, Suleyman cannot but hedge. His warning, so laughable, is always immediately followed by, “But it is also possible that it only rains the exactly perfect amount.”
Fourteen chapters, two hundred eighty-eight pages worth of Noahic warning, immediately hedged.
Again, Noah didn’t hedge. This commitment is one major reason Noah is timeless. Suleyman, on the other hand, will not be remembered. His wave will not form—regardless of his book’s grand clarion call for containment (and central planning at a level red blooded Americans will never tolerate).
Moving on to “new to me”.
I have to admit that Suleyman did introduce a few topics that Mitchell left out of her more focused general audience primer. Synthetic Biology, according to Suleyman, is a hand-in-hand technological advancement. Think Arnold building Arnold.
Suleyman also introduces the concept that, running with the Terminator theme, Arnold won’t care about nation-state boundaries (which Suleyman defines, abhorrently, as “collective fiction resting on the belief of everyone concerned”). The example of this coming hellscape (the “warning” before the hedge) being, ta da, Hamas. Or, maybe a good analogy are the fringe groups in the NW part of America which seem to always be trying to separate statutorily from anyone who can say “sanctuary city” with a straight face.
Then again, it is possible that AI actually ushers in more rainbows and the first ever unicorns. You just never know.
To be honest, and this is the end, Suleyman’s main problem is he cannot (nor can anyone it seems) meaningfully define AI. Melanie Mitchell essentially teaches us how AI works, but Suleyman doesn’t mean that AI. His warning is about the coming AI. You know, the one that really is going to put an end to the Anthropocene and all the blood-pumping bipedal organisms with opposable thumbs and large frontal cortexes.
My final takeaway, the one I sent to the recommending friend, is: Either (A) AI programmers like Suleyman are trying to suggest the coming AI is concretely analogous to handing nuclear bombs to the homeless or (B) they don’t mean that.
If (A), then right now we must immediately issue a call to arms and begin a first of its kind unceasing kinetic war against them. If (B), then there is no coming wave.
One Friday Lunch Thought
Did anyone else notice how fast Crumbl pivoted? They storm into the nicest parts of town (or sides of the street) with some of the best cookies ever—but it turns out you have to take a lunch break while eating them. So now they have mini-cookies.
And these are cookie-sized.
New questions which are fascinating to consider include:
- How did they not know about the size issue?
- Did they have any data that suggested they would have been unsuccessful starting with normal size cookie?
- Would they change their initial strategy if they had to do it all over again?
Whatever the answers, I need to say: “Please don’t ever pivot on flavor! They’re wonderful!”
How Would Illiterate People React to Sydney’s Jeans Advertisement?
I feel very, very special for this post’s question.
I feel like I am pretty in-touch with how the Right has handled the stupid Woke response to the ads. But I haven’t seen anyone ask this question.
How do you think illiterate people would react to Sydney’s Jeans commercials? And for bonus points, “Would the illiterate be afforded anymore grace than the Woke received?”
“The Koran” is What “The 1619 Project” Longed to Be
I was writing a friend an email about how inaccurate the Koran was regarding its recounting of events recorded earlier and definitively in the Bible and the thought hit me. The Koran’s relationship to the Bible is essentially what the 1619 Project tried to do to American History.
I share this because I know none of you will ever read the Koran. Yet I know that some of you still are curious about the book, given the state of international relations these days.
For me, I read it almost a decade ago while at a Christian Seminary, on my own initiative, with the intention of finally learning if the jihadic violence was taken out of context. In other words, I was well aware people (opponents and zealots) can take the Bible’s violence out of context. I kept hearing the Koran was a promoter of violence whole-cloth, so I finally got ahold of one and read it.
Surprisingly, I discovered that the calls to religious violence weren’t even the worst part. The worst part was the utter lack of reality in its description of human history, specifically, the events covered (basically exclusively) by the books of the Bible.
Call to Action: (for Christians who base their faith on the Bible) Study the Bible and teach the Bible with an emphasis on accurate transmission of the contents, more than doctrinal conclusions and wild claims about essentially unproven results of Christian living. For example, when I teach my kids the Bible, I end by saying, “The point is that you are going to hear people attack the Bible. But when you know the Bible, you are going to be able to see that they are not actually attacking the Bible. The people don’t know the Bible. Don’t miss this point. They attack straw men. It’s not that the Bible magically compels faith in Jesus Christ. But there is something about the Bible. It has the curious ability to compel or call forth continuous uninformed opinions. Seeing these for what they are allows us to help them see their error, rather than join in their error.”
When I Think Of Russia and Ukraine, I Think of My Mom
My brother “blocked” me over a year ago. When there are in-person events we are cordial, and even able to have conversations. But he won’t accept texts or calls.
Naturally, he still chats with our mom.
Naturally, I still chat with our mom.
But my mom will not play the middle man. She has never had interest in playing the middle man—between anyone. That is just her prerogative.
This is why I think of my mom, when I think of Russia and Ukraine.
America (meaning “Americans”) does not want to play the middle man. I believe this is the fullest truth that can be asserted regarding the situation.
Reading Log 8.6.25
I used to have a several t-shirts which had authors’ faces on them. James Fenimore Cooper was one of them. I just like his books. They feel historical, even though I know they are fiction. If you are open to testing the waters, I’d start with Last of the Mohicans, but eventually Afloat and Ashore should be read.
I will write a proper book review of Suleyman’s The Coming Wave soon. (It’s about AI.) Just know that he opens by expressly saying that he means to call to mind Noah with the word “wave”. Oooo. Scary.
Poems are what they are. Some are fun. Some are painful to get through. Holmes obviously wrote with great ability. But that didn’t mean his poems are all tier one.
Volume 1 of Reporting Vietnam (and what I have read of Vol 2) will change your life. These should be required reading for all American highschoolers. In short, Ho Chi Minh first entered the political scene in a big way in WWII by insisting Vietnam should be independent. Then in an interview in 1962 he said it will take maybe 10 years for America to give up. In 1973, before a full 10 years, America withdrew. Consider these facts. Ask: Why did America oppose Ho? I am of the firm opinion that in the future, it will be common knowledge among American History buffs that Vietnam was the true turning point in American History. Everything occurring today (in politics) goes back to that war. To be clear: The lesson I will distill to my own progeny is the following. “Ho wanted something and achieved it. Why did America even try to stop him? Oh, I know. Communism. Well, ‘F$&* Communism’. Communism makes people lose their minds. Why? It’s not to be feared. No idea is. And hug any Vietnam veterans that you meet. Also, America has no duty to help any country out of some sort of compassion. We now have Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (hopefully not Ukraine) as proof that the task of “helping” is impossible. People have to help themselves. America should do what we want precisely because we want to do it. Period.”
Aeschylus’ poems are fantastic. They are timeless too. Read and re-read.
Those essays in Volume 10 (final volume) of Gateway to the Great Books are exceedingly worthy. Of special note is JS Mill and Voltaire. Emerson is a great contrast to Mill. John Dewey is a must-read for anyone in Education—but unfortunately he will never be read by the uneducated. Sad.
Finally, the Vicar of Wakefield. This is a book that “moralizes”. Do you even know what that means? It means to use a story to teach how to act. Our culture, nearly every member, regardless of gender ;), does not believe in teaching morality. So you will not likely see the value of this book. I even doubt that my kids will understand it. But we’ll find out together when they’re old enough. Not the best book. But a good one on how to find happiness during unhappy circumstances.
The Answer to, “What ‘Gender’ means?” A Question Posed by My PhD Candidate Friend
For posterity.
I have to tell a story because I cannot see how the plain didactic situation will help given that you haven’t seen it yet.
I had a friend who was a math professor and he was adamant about Free Market economics. Once he gave me a link to his “behind paywall”guru—a link to one of those YouTube clips that can only be viewed if you have the link, which follows the overall belief he held that humans should pay for valuable things/ideas.
In the clip, the guru/astrophysicist-teacher-dude said, “Every word should have one and only one meaning.” That caught my attention because it is so asinine. The idea that words should be like numbers or math symbols is just ludicrous. To set that as a goal is ludicrous. Immediately questions like, “Which language would these ‘one meaning only’ words be in?” came to mind.
With me?
This relates to gender because language is where gender starts. There are languages (Hebrew and Greek among myriad others) which, when spoken, seem to add or subtract little suffix sounds (like ee or ish) to what we would call pretty much any non-verbs—so nouns, adjectives, prepositions etc. If I were to do this in English, it might sound like, “Hey, Matt! Throw her the ball-ee. And then, Jill, throw Matt the ball. Then, Matt, when you get the ball back, see those girls over there? Throw the ball-ee–ish to them.” (In this example, ee is female and ish is plural).
Why did these sounds develop? Who knows.
But anyone, including you, who would have been looking at or listening to the language(s) would be inclined to recognize (or be taught) that the “ball” part of the sound is the same concrete item and word, but the suffix sound (or lack thereof) changes depending on whether a female is involved.
The catch, of course, is that the method isn’t 1-to-1; in other words, there are exceptions to the rule. But the rule still comes to our minds. So words (aloud and written—many of earliest languages were merely copying the sounds, no such thing as proper spelling existed) became known as the idea…drumroll…GENDER!!
What should humans have done? Is the idea/object behind the word “ball” and “ball-ee” the same thing? Or not? I suppose you could argue that they are two different things. But that seems overly complex. In the end, there is one ball. But for some reason, when it is thrown to a human with boobs and a va-jay-jay, it is called “ball-ee” (in my example).
Next, fast forward through history until the last century and (I am very earnest and serious here; I have come across other folks who admit the following too) we come to the point where this concept of math symbols (think x and y and π), with their one and only one meaning, are thought of as superior to all the often unclear complications of ordinary language. In short, instead of written language copying sounds, people wanted language to represent ideas and with exactness.
HERE IS THE JUMP/CONNECTION: One day someone suggests the idea that biological sex (penis vs vagina) is irrelevant. But they immediately confuse everyone listening because the honest response is, “How can I not be a woman/man?” So these people borrow the grammar category (abstract label) “gender” and apply it to their (NEW) idea. (The idea being that the concrete reality of your biological sex is ultimately irrelevant.)
I offer for your consideration, that even you, friend, must be able to use the word gender when you communicate, both to show you understand grammar, AND to show you understand what time you are living in. There is an idea, however incorrect, called gender now. This is no different than, say, how the ideas psychology and communism are relatively new to the passing scene.
Put in dictionary style, gender (in the context of “ethnicity, class, and gender”) is the IDEA that biological sex is ultimately irrelevant.
I Propose A Guessing Game
Read the following paragraph from a news article and guess the year.
I offer that the first and major clue is the last line, “…got into the papers.”
This puts us back before the internet. So pre-90s.
I’m not from New York. I have only visited once. There may be names that a New Yorker would know are old and therefore help date the event. But I don’t know them.
The idea that people are fighting about the elevation of a flag is immemorial, so that doesn’t help. But add “American” to the kind of flag and obviously we’re post-1776.
A quick review of steel’s development indicates post-1856 and Bessemer Process.
“Medical students” as a phrase immediately calls to mind post-WW2, so post-1945.
This means, if you guessed anywhere between 1945-1990, I’d say you “won” my game. Congratulations!
Of course, the true winners of the true game are those who can withstand the “hype” to which the news cycle demands undying attention.
The real date is 1970. That means for 65 years we have recorded evidence that some Americans want to lower the flag and others want to raise it back up. Or, 65 years of “Same $&@%, different day.” Or, 65 years of “Nothing to see here; move along.”
Rapid Fire Movie Reviews, The Order, 65, 28 Weeks Later
The Order with Jude Law, on Hulu, is pretty fantastic. But turn it off before you start seeing the black screen “wrap up facts”. Trust me.
65, with the new Star Wars bad guy, is not about only him on a violent planet. I hate when they mess up the previews. I’m talking from the opening scene you‘re struck by the fact that the movie is not what the previews made it out to be. On the whole, the very idea of people marooned on killer, dinosaur infested planet Earth while the dinosaur-killing asteroid is visibly on its way is kinda a cool story. Add in some language barrier stuff and other family interest moments and it really isn’t a bad sci-fi flick. Just very poorly marketed.
28 Weeks Later is old, but it is still fantastic. The best part—and now I am really looking forward to the newest one—is the speed which the virus infects the new zombie. It is nearly instantaneous. This got me thinking though.
Is the novel speed concept an analogy for the times we live in? I’m not saying the writers intentionally meant to make an analogy. I mean more like in the sense that it was inescapable. Like how 80s movies had muscular military men instead of breathy and broken women saving the day.
I am talking about politics and education.
We seem to be living in a time when everyone makes up their mind instantly, and then attacks incessantly. And no one ever changes their mind.
TDS strikes and BOOM! You won’t talk to your parents.
MAGA hits and BAM! No more chatting with your brother.
Follow me?
Compare this rage virus zombie tale to, say, any movie which portrays leprosy, or other old and slow moving diseases and what is the difference? The time period. No rapid rage virus zombie conversions in the dark ages or period pieces. And no slow leper death scenes in air conditioned rooms with laptops and Twinkies.
Just something for your consideration as the winter and family meals approach.
In the end, there are three lessons to be learned from these movies.
Number 1. Do not read The Turner Diaries.
Number 2. Do not become a pilot if the reason you are doing so is to save your daughter’s life.
Number 3. Do not make out with your long lost wife whom you thought you saw die from a zombie attack—at least not until the military doctors clear her.
My Money on What Bongino “Saw”
I’m so tired of conspiracy theorists. Lunatics one and all. I can’t even listen for amusement anymore. Thanks for nothing, guys.
Want to know where my money is bet on Dan Bongino’s claim?
Bongino’s talent, if you ever listened to his podcast, is keeping an audience in suspense. It’s an impressive skill, but ultimately no different than selling nothing burgers.
Want to know what he “saw”?
He will soon report that what he saw was bureaucracy.
That’s it.
Captain’s Log 