Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

.Michael Nielsen provides another example of how the tech tree is far vaster than we realize, and how we won't really get to explore much of it at all, even over millions of years: Think about how many interesting biological technologies are downstream of the particular way in which...

81,196 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Really enjoyed chatting with Michael Nielsen about how we recognize scientific progress. It's especially relevant for closing the RL verification loop for scientific discovery. But it's also a surprisingly mysterious and elusive question when you look at the history of human science. We approach this question stories like Einstein (who claimed that he hadn't even heard of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which is supposed to have motivated special relativity, until after he had come up with the theory), Darwin (why did it take till 1859 to lay out an idea whose essence every farmer since antiquity must have observed?), Prout (how do you recognize that isotopes exist if you cannot chemically separate them?), and many others. The verification loop on scientific ideas is often extremely long and weirdly hostile. Ancient Athenians dismissed Aristarchus's heliocentrism in the 3rd century BC because it would imply that the stars should shift in the sky as the Earth orbits the sun. The first successful measurement of stellar parallax was in 1838. That's a 2,000-year verification loop. But clearly human science is able to make progress faster than raw experimental falsification/verification would imply, and in cases where experiments are very ambiguous. How? Michael has some very deep and provocative hypotheses about the nature of progress. One I found especially thought-provoking is that aliens will likely have a VERY different science + tech stack than us. Which contradicts the common sense picture of a linear tech tree that I was assuming. And has some interesting implications about how future civilizations might trade and cooperate with each other. So many other interesting ideas. Hope you enjoy this as much as I did. 0:00:00 – How scientific progress outpaces its verification loops 0:17:51 – Newton was the last of the magicians 0:23:26 – Why wasn’t natural selection obvious much earlier? 0:29:52 – Could gradient descent have discovered general relativity? 0:50:54 – Why aliens will have a different tech stack than us 1:15:26 – Are there infinitely many deep scientific principles left to discover? 1:26:25 – What drew Michael to quantum computing so early? 1:35:29 – Does science need a new way to assign credit? 1:43:57 – Prolificness versus depth 1:49:17 – What it takes to actually internalize what you learn Look up Dwarkesh Podcast on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.

Dwarkesh Patel

290,897 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Shuler: If you think about every industrial revolution we’ve been through, working people have helped us make that transition. It’s really because we’ve helped tame the technology and figured out how to use it in the most effective way. So I think your question about augmentation versus replacement is the big question we have. If we can all agree that this is about making our jobs better, safer, easier, and more productive, then we’re all in. But if you’re looking to de-skill, dehumanize, and replace workers, to put people out on the street with no path forward, then absolutely you’re going to have a revolution. So I think that’s something we all need to be very real about and think seriously about. If we’re going to have productivity gains, working people—the ones who make these industries happen—need to share in that. There hasn’t been a lot of discussion about that here. Of course, in terms of how we create policies, how we create tax infrastructure, whether or not we are redistributing—yes, that word is a dirty word around here—we need to talk about it and confront how we’re going to make sure working people share in the gains of these technologies. And if you look at the numbers of jobs, let’s talk about job quality. Yes, maybe there are a lot of jobs created, but what kind of jobs are we talking about? Are they jobs that can sustain a family? Is it a job where people can actually work one job? One job should be enough.

Acyn

41,942 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад