Reading this, my immediate thought is that learning good epistemics (so that you can understand what is good research and what isn't) is a difficult skill that requires commitment and effort. And people who don't already have a good grasp on it will have a hard time realizing it.
BUT we have a social mechanism to solve for this called school. Young people, who we invest in. And a simple prerequisite is to have highschool and college classes simply being about reviewing scientific articles and figuring out if they are trustworthy or not and why.
Reading through 5-6 science papers hyper critically and developing a taste for what is good and bad science does not feel like something that is above %50 of college graduates. and that would be a game changer.
Thank you for your very logical look at decision making. It reminded me of something I learned about Einstein, he always reevaluated a scientific hypothesis several times in the desire to really make a decision on what was the undeniable truth.
When he discovered the final equation that was the absolute true answer it seemed to scream out in his brain and sensibilities. We must trust our instincts in finding our truths.
Yes!!! This reminded me that, I've been trying to decide what the topic should be of the next "Our Story So Far" post, and I think it's going to be about "the truth of feeling" referencing that Ted Chiang story, but also the many people who have come to this same conclusion: that our gut feelings, the things that resonate, the things that spark joy & curiosity, *are* pointing us to truth. And that over & over again in big scientific breakthroughs we see this pattern, of intuition driving it.
Thanks for your response to my comment. I do enjoy reading your Substack and the comments from the readers.
Just a quick note about another Substack writer I enjoy is Slick <heyslick@substack.com> . The latest article was about "Nick Land and the Cult of Acceleration".
Your article and this article brought me back to my college days, specifically Logic and Philosophy. Our brains have been researched to the degree that the circuitry of our brain has become in so many ways the definition of our actions. I just wonder if we’re so programmed that something like AI is going to or has overtaken our instincts and abilities to find our truths?
do you mean like, is it possible that these systems may know us better than we know ourselves?
If so, I have a lot to say, but the short version is: even if that is true, it's bottlenecked by our ability to recognize it. A system may tell us truth, but if we fail to understand it, and act on that misunderstanding, that's us being misled.
Like, we still have to do the work to understand & grow even if advanced superintelligence exists. But (1) I don't actually think that's here yet, nor are we necessarily on the cusp of it. I think Gary Marcus may be right about LLMs (2) it matters not just what is true but what we desire. We have agency in what *becomes* true as we interact with the world.
What you say is still being lived as we look towards the future. Although, I have to question why then did SCOTUS, the realm of elite legal minds where We The People look towards for final decisions on a variety of issues. Why did the majority make the decision they did today on deportation and civil rights? It lacks intelligence, humanity, empathy, compassion, and justice. What altered their knowledge of historical precedent and sensibilities?
This is excellent, and fits into a broader move away from centralised authority and institutionally approved 'truth' and towards something more dynamic, robust, inclusive and fruitful.
Reading this, my immediate thought is that learning good epistemics (so that you can understand what is good research and what isn't) is a difficult skill that requires commitment and effort. And people who don't already have a good grasp on it will have a hard time realizing it.
BUT we have a social mechanism to solve for this called school. Young people, who we invest in. And a simple prerequisite is to have highschool and college classes simply being about reviewing scientific articles and figuring out if they are trustworthy or not and why.
Reading through 5-6 science papers hyper critically and developing a taste for what is good and bad science does not feel like something that is above %50 of college graduates. and that would be a game changer.
Thank you for your very logical look at decision making. It reminded me of something I learned about Einstein, he always reevaluated a scientific hypothesis several times in the desire to really make a decision on what was the undeniable truth.
When he discovered the final equation that was the absolute true answer it seemed to scream out in his brain and sensibilities. We must trust our instincts in finding our truths.
Yes!!! This reminded me that, I've been trying to decide what the topic should be of the next "Our Story So Far" post, and I think it's going to be about "the truth of feeling" referencing that Ted Chiang story, but also the many people who have come to this same conclusion: that our gut feelings, the things that resonate, the things that spark joy & curiosity, *are* pointing us to truth. And that over & over again in big scientific breakthroughs we see this pattern, of intuition driving it.
Thank you for this comment!
Thanks for your response to my comment. I do enjoy reading your Substack and the comments from the readers.
Just a quick note about another Substack writer I enjoy is Slick <heyslick@substack.com> . The latest article was about "Nick Land and the Cult of Acceleration".
Your article and this article brought me back to my college days, specifically Logic and Philosophy. Our brains have been researched to the degree that the circuitry of our brain has become in so many ways the definition of our actions. I just wonder if we’re so programmed that something like AI is going to or has overtaken our instincts and abilities to find our truths?
do you mean like, is it possible that these systems may know us better than we know ourselves?
If so, I have a lot to say, but the short version is: even if that is true, it's bottlenecked by our ability to recognize it. A system may tell us truth, but if we fail to understand it, and act on that misunderstanding, that's us being misled.
Like, we still have to do the work to understand & grow even if advanced superintelligence exists. But (1) I don't actually think that's here yet, nor are we necessarily on the cusp of it. I think Gary Marcus may be right about LLMs (2) it matters not just what is true but what we desire. We have agency in what *becomes* true as we interact with the world.
What you say is still being lived as we look towards the future. Although, I have to question why then did SCOTUS, the realm of elite legal minds where We The People look towards for final decisions on a variety of issues. Why did the majority make the decision they did today on deportation and civil rights? It lacks intelligence, humanity, empathy, compassion, and justice. What altered their knowledge of historical precedent and sensibilities?
This is excellent, and fits into a broader move away from centralised authority and institutionally approved 'truth' and towards something more dynamic, robust, inclusive and fruitful.