A Celebration Society

Category: Philosophy

  • Cassandras and What to Do About Them

    Cassandras and What to Do About Them

    In their recent book Warnings, former US national security advisors Richard Clarke and R.P. Reddy take an evidence-based approach to identifying persons they call Cassandras. Cassandras are credible forecasters, with solid track records in their fields, who warn of coming existential threats, based on irrefutable data. The book combines case histories of previous Cassandras who were ignored, and current Cassandra scenarios.

    A Celebration Society treats many such threats as real and needful of action. Clarke and Reddy argue that governments should spend many additional billions of dollars addressing these threats. However, in today’s world, their proposal may prove sadly unrealistic. If so, what’s to be done?

    Fortunately, in at least some cases, the threats can be reframed from cost sinks to profit centers. There is perhaps no better example than that of climatologist James Hansen. Hansen was the original cassandra who warned us of climate change when most were oblivious to the threat. His warnings have generally proven accurate.

    Now, Hansen is warning us that present forecasts of 21st century sea level rise are far too conservative. His models show an estimated 5+ meter sea level rise, which would devastate low-lying nations. Considering that even among other nations, most population and industrial centers are coastal, this is truly a threat of global proportions.

    The widely hailed Paris Accords have a huge flaw. They lack an enforcement mechanism. Given the budgetary pressures under which nearly all governments operate, it is unlikely that they will spend the money necessary to avert Hansen’s dire forecast, until the threat is literally lapping at their shores.

    By then it may be too late. The cost of curing the problem will be far higher than that of preventing it. Is there another way; one that makes mitigation possible without having unrealistic expectations of governments?

    Yes! We can turn CO2 mitigation from a cost sinkhole into a profit center. We only need one viable way to do so, and then it can proliferate until CO2 levels actually start to fall.

    One such approach is called “Diamonds from the Sky” (or DFTS). According to the American Chemical Society (See: http://bit.ly/2uiVCAw, the process can be deployed worldwide. Says lead researcher Prof. Stuart Licht of George Washington University, ““We calculate that with a physical area less than 10 percent the size of the Sahara Desert, our process could remove enough CO2 to decrease atmospheric levels to those of the pre-industrial revolution within 10 years”.

    To my knowledge, no one has disputed the technical viability of DFTS. Some environmentalists have criticized its “moral hazard”. In their view, by suggesting that a technological fix is possible, we grant license to polluters to continue their ways. I consider such criticism foolish.

    The CO2 problem is getting worse, not better. Decades of cajoling governments, industry, and the public have failed to stop the rise. When the building is on fire, people should do whatever is necessary to put out the fire. Later, there will be time to explore better safety standards.

    Unlike large-scale “geoengineering solutions” such as seeding the oceans with iron particles, this solution carries no side effects except the proliferation of small collector units and increased supplies of carbon fibers. If atmospheric CO2 levels ever drop too precipitously (imagine that!), these units can be dialed down, as required.
    While the researchers speak of covering 1/10 of the Sahara Desert in these collectors, that’s probably not the practical way to implement this. Instead, imagine a successor to the Paris Accords, in which each nation agrees to use DFTS or equivalent technology to fulfill its treaty promises. Units could be deployed on rooftops, the sides of buildings, and alongside roads. Again, these would be profit centers. Many new jobs would be created for fiber collectors, at least until it is automated.

    Carbon-based fuels will stop being burned when the economics no longer justify their burning. That is already starting to happen. (See: “Oil Can’t Compete With Renewables, Says National Bank of Abu Dhabi” http://bit.ly/2sBMh4X)

    DFTS offers a promising and potentially viable way to arrest the damage before countless additional species go extinct. As the world shifts from its present scarcity-based mindset and practices to sustainable abundance, most of the scarcity-based problems will disappear. This should take decades, not centuries. Those who think otherwise fail to appreciate the exponential rate of change now governing almost everything of note on the planet.

    Clarke and Reddy have ingeniously started a $10,000 annual prize to identify Cassandras and create awareness of their envisioned threats. That’s half the challenge. The other half is to identify viable technologies to address those threats. This is a key part of A Celebration Society. The book documents existing solutions to multiple seemingly intractable problems.

  • The Brangelina Fallacy

    The Brangelina Fallacy

    As I was watching The Late Show with my wife, the topic of the Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie divorce came up on the show. I realized that this is a traumatic event for many people. Then I wondered why.

    The only explanation that makes sense to me is that people longed for this to be a fairy tale romance; happily ever after, an exemplary life, a role-model relationship. Many people crave such examples. It’s why popular stars are looked to as leaders, and often held to a higher standard of behavior than the rest of us. (There are some exceptions.)

    People need role models. Kids look to their parents and elder relatives to teach by example. The values the elders embody become those the kids embody. Embody twisted values such as ethnic hatred, and the kids grow up sharing such. Teach evidence-based thinking, skepticism coupled with open-mindedness, and kids grow up with such.
    Many of us don’t cease seeking role models when we become adults. We look to popular figures in movies and music to serve as such. Or we look to political figures. Or sports stars. Or business tycoons.

    In most cases, these are merely people who happen to be superior in some dimension of life. They are not superior in other dimensions, though they often display more extreme tastes and behavior. They usually appear larger than life, and so people want to emulate them.

    It’s a poor society that elevates such people as its role models. We would do far better, and get far better long-term results, if we instead elevated people who have demonstrated an enduring commitment to service for humanity and the world. I am thinking of people like Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela (a rarity among politicians), Albert Einstein (who used his scientific standing to lobby for a better world), and Buckminster Fuller, to name a few.

    By celebrating the contributions of such people, as well as those who are as yet less known but who show similar potential, we will uplift and inspire other people—especially young people. That, in turn, will stimulate more such contributions.

    This is a key principle of a Celebration Society and the main reason why I want a meritocratic Royalty established as a fourth branch of government, alongside the Parliament, Judiciary, and Administration. With the lead Royal as designated Head of State, yet lacking any real power, we will gain the benefits of continuous inspiration without the harmful conflation of power and adulation, or wealth and adulation, that today plague so many societies.

    There remains the risk of conflating fame and adulation. I am, however, hopeful that by making the attainment of Royal status a challenging process devoid of personal gain, it will attract and cultivate people of truly exemplary character; people who attain the status of Royal not for the sake of fame but as a higher opportunity to be of service.

    Like all systems in a Celebration Society, it will be imperfect, and some Royals may think themselves superior due to the adulation. But I expect that, over time, the Royalty itself will devise checks and balances to assure that such egotism does not arise often and, when it does, that it is controlled.

  • The great error of meritocracies

    The great error of meritocracies

    As my wife recently pointed out, there is a particular error to which meritocracies are prone. While they start out with clear principles favoring merit as the basis for advancement in society, inevitably some of those in exalted positions come to believe themselves inherently superior, rather than superior by virtue of past merit. This fall was described in detail in the book Twilight of the Elites.

    Even worse, egotism may cause such leaders to regard their own progeny (usually male) as superior to average people. This perverts meritocracy into hereditary rule.

    The Venetian Republic fell because its otherwise exemplary systems of government allowed hereditary Citizenship; different from birthright citizenship (common elsewhere), then barring from government those newcomers who could have warned of the threat posed by Napoleon.

    The systems of a Celebration Society have been designed to avert these problems. Most importantly, by acknowledging that our designs for systems are and will remain imperfect, we will monitor key variables and make such improvements as prove necessary or helpful. No Celebration Society will begin from the hubris of certainty.

    More specifically, we will engineer the systems of government to prevent the emergence of a ruling class. By making all positions in the Administration and the Parliament only a single term, with a maximum term length and a minimum interval between terms equal to the length of the last term served, the notion of “professional” politicians will disappear. (If people are professionally employed by the Administration, Judiciary or Parliament, they may have unlimited terms of service, though these like all other positions will be subject to recall by majority vote of Parliament our Citizen Initiative.)

    However, the lead positions–there being no President or Prime Minister–of Minister of the Administration Council, Supreme Court Justice, or Member of Parliament, will all be time-limited as per above.

    By cycling all lead positions in and out of government, with appropriate transparency and prevention of self-serving actions by officials, any separation of Citizens from government should be avoided. The principle of the Citizens as a body BEING the government becomes feasible.

    In the case of the Royalty, it is anticipated that there will be an internal hierarchy. However, this hierarchy (and indeed the Royalty itself) will cover no special benefits or privileges. It is likely an opportunity to serve more fully, and membership will be conferred to those who have already demonstrated such a commitment in their lives over many years.

    Further the Sarvay, acting as lead Royal, will have a particular tie breaking and ceremonial role; however, this will be time-limited to a single term, following which the Sarvay will become Sarvay Emeritus and counsel the new Sarvay.

    There is an additional factor that will make it harder for Celebrationist meritocracies to devolve into hereditary rule. Because leaders will receive no special monetary or other material rewards for their service, they will not have the advantage of special assets to confer upon their children. Likewise, in a society which provides the essentials of a good life to everyone–including rich educational opportunities and support–differences in upbringing will not exaggerate innate differences of ability. Therefore, whether children come from rich families or middle class families (there being no lower-class families), it will matter far less than whether those children grow up in a Celebration Society or elsewhere.

    Finally, by making Citizenship an office that any resident can attain, although only by successfully completing an objective and arduous process of preparation–a Rite of Passage–we will assure that the office of Citizen is valued and shall remain open to all on a meritocratic basis.

  • The Techno-utopianism of Peter Diamandis

    The Techno-utopianism of Peter Diamandis

    I am an admirer of Peter Diamandis. He and Steven Kotler have been largely responsible for shifting the planetary conversation from endless doom and gloom within a context of scarcity to the possibility of sustainable abundance. For the book Abundance and his related work, I believe we all owe him a large debt.

    Peter is a techno-utopian. This has never been clearer than in his recent essay.

    The techno-utopian mindset credits humanity as a whole with more rationality than is justified.

    The recent advent of outsourcing, which I view as a kind of first shot across the bow for technological unemployment (for reasons discussed in another blog), has led to serious flirtations with authoritarian leaders in democracies across the world. Such leaders offer simplistic solutions to pressing problems. The “totalitarian temptation”, as a classic book of yesteryear is named, is ever-present. For so long as people live within a context of scarcity, they will remain fearful of having their limited resources stripped away and their lives crushed.

    This is not the only significant example of irrationality controlling the body politic. For example, while research has consistently supported the societal benefits—including cost savings–of programs such as Head Start, they remain underfunded.

    While thinkers both left and right” have determined that the consolidation of welfare programs could pay for a far superior program called a guaranteed minimum income, no such programs are being seriously considered anywhere in the world. (This may change; hopefully without need for the shock of a Greater Depression.) Most income tax systems are grotesque and Frankensteinian; universally disliked if not loathed. Yet efforts at fundamental reform have repeatedly failed.

    There are many such examples to be found in most societies and, as Lester Thurow noted in the Zero Sum Society, the combination of special interest groups and public lethargy has yielded almost continuous gridlock. (It has gotten much worse since his book was published decades ago.)

    We humans are “predictably irrational” creatures who make decisions based on limited information and within contexts of bias, fear and hope. We are not equipped by biology or education to deal with rapid change, and the kind of change now upon us is unprecedented. While it will surely seem counterintuitive, there is no reason to expect that the majority will welcome or accept the advent of “free” food, “free” housing and so forth; as projected by Peter.

    Yes, such developments are POSSIBLE—just as it is possible that employers will translate the cost savings from automation into higher wages, as expected by Andrew McAfee. But are such expectations realistic? I think not.

    Producers of these products, with their profit margins endangered, will advocate for protectionism, as farmers in the US have enjoyed for many decades. I can envision various marketing campaigns to tug at heartstrings. Such campaigns often win, not because they are in the best interests of those they purport to protect (the public), but rather because those who benefit from them are far more organized and focused than the public. This is, in part, why I expect guaranteed minimum income programs to falter.

    The past century has seen phenomenal change, nearly all of it due to technology. Much of this change has been wrenching; some of it existentially threatening to minority groups and some to humanity as a whole. The best technology doesn’t always win; look at the oft-cited case of Betamax. Neither do the best societal practices. Venality, violence, bribery and other societally corrosive practices are common in much of the world—including countries such as Afghanistan and Congo with colossal natural resources lying dormant.

    My big objection to techno-utopianism is this: just because something wonderful COULD happen due to exponentially accelerating technology doesn’t mean that it WILL happen. The creaking sounds in the foundation of Western society that we are now hearing could be the first alerts of cornucopian trees about to burst forth. They could also be the first rumbles of society-leveling earthquakes.

    Rather than count on the great wave of technological progress to rationally unfold without significant human opposition, I submit that a small group of like-minded, rational people who actually understand and believe in the power of technology to transform society should converge to create one model Celebration Society. With a single such society established, it will become far easier for others–especially those frightened by accelerating change–to envision themselves living in societies based on abundance.

    Most people aren’t very good at imagining possibilities. Ask any realtor about prospective buyers’ abilities to imagine improvements to properties. They’ll tell you that it’s usually necessary to do the imagining for the buyers.

    We might be able to do what’s needed via the simulation of a Celebration Society. I hope so—it will be years faster than building the actual model, and allow us to refine the model virtually before doing so more expensively in the real world.

  • Meat in a Celebration Society

    Meat in a Celebration Society

    Meat consumption is a problem is many ways. A substitute for industrial “farming” of animals is needed. This could take the form of vegetable “meats” (more on this below) or a 21st century alternative to industrialized animal “husbandry”.

    We will, in future, grow meat in vats in a factory-type environment without the involvement of any conscious animals. Such an alternative would reduce suffering, yield greater efficiency in conversion of resources into food (half the energy), eliminate need for antibiotics and hormones, and eliminate meat production as a source of greenhouse gases (25 times less), and reduced need for land (just 1%), are all significant.

    While some recoil in principle at this, some of those same people may soon be enjoying replacement organs in their own bodies that were similarly grown. (Already, scientists have replaced a person’s trachea, grown ears, and created miniature versions of other human organs.)

    I doubt that a person who’s experiencing liver failure or whose ear was lost in an accident will object to replacement organs being grown from their own stem cells. Vat grown meats will be 100% organic, optimally nutritious and cruelty free. They will be biologically indistinguishable from the same meats cut from the carcass of a once-living animal that lived (in most cases) a miserable life so that we might eat it.

    I eat meat. I’m not sitting in judgment of anyone who does or does not do so. (My wife is a vegetarian, and I have been one on several occasions for years at a time. I simply find it too hard to sustain; she is stronger-willed in this regard.)

    But if a Celebration Society is to adopt a philosophy of sustainability and minimizing the harm to innocent creatures, it will have to adopt new approaches to generating its meat—unless it is founded on vegetarianism, which would be at the founders’ option. Cruelty-free is a concept with some variations in interpretation, and raising animals on natural pasture with room to roam; later killing them in the quickest manner possible, satisfies this criterion for some. Not so for others.

    I simply point out that, as we move further into the 21st century, such meat will increasingly be available directly, without a living being involved. In addition, some companies have figured out how to make startlingly realistic meat substitutes from vegetables. Some examples:

    • Meatballs from Quorn. Serve them in a dish to friends, without explanation. I can almost guarantee you that your friends will ask what kind of meat this is, while enjoying the flavor, texture and aroma.
    • Likewise, Quorn (which uses mushroom protein as a primary ingredient) makes a fine chicken substitute.
    • Another company, Impossible Foods, makes the Impossible Burger. Reportedly, it looks, cooks and tastes like a good hamburger. It even oozes juice.

    If a Celebration Society doesn’t want to be heavy-handed in compelling movement away from “farmed” meat, there is another option. As discussed in the book, “nudges” (as proposed by Cass Sunstein) can substitute in many cases for regulation and law. In this case, my wife Jennifer has conceived a complementary currency (CC) called “Meat Money”.

    Essentially, each resident would be issued a fixed amount of this CC every week, electronically. The system would not allow sale of meat or meat-containing meals for national currency alone; one would have to match that money with Meat Money. In this way, the total consumption of meat would be limited to a level that the society deemed acceptable.

    However, it gets more interesting. There would be an electronic market in which Meat Money could be traded for other money. So, vegetarians or others who eat less meat would be rewarded by earning an extra regular income from their abstention. Everyone who wanted to do so could enjoy some meat, but those wanting larger amounts would have to pay what the market will bear for enough Meat Money.

    Vat meat could be exempt, and of course vegetable “meats” would not be included. This is but one possible solution, if a Celebration Society wants to limit meat consumption.

  • Service can Organize Society

    Service can Organize Society

    While some believe that money is necessary to motivate behavior, this is false. Significant organizations exist that operate on the basis of voluntary, mutually supportive service. That service is unpaid, and can be highly effective.

    One prominent example is Toastmasters. Toastmasters was founded in 1924 —almost a century ago. It has grown from nothing to over 15,000 chapters today. Approximately 1/3 million members participate in its programs worldwide.

    This substantial organization flourishes with over 100,000 volunteers and a tiny paid staff of slightly over 100 persons – about 1/10 of 1% of those who provide the services. Toastmasters is a not for profit organization. It serves as a living example of how efficiently a service-oriented organization can operate.

    Many join Toastmasters, as did my wife and I, to cultivate speaking abilities. Others do so to cultivate leadership skills, or both.

    The club we joined is one that equally values developing skills and having fun. This delightful surprise assured our continued participation, and we have developed deep relationships and friendships with some other members. Obviously, it was serendipity that such a club was near to our Denver home.

    Toastmasters has many levels of organization, from local clubs founded by people with a shared vision or purpose, through districts, regions, nations and international management and events.

    I enthusiastically recommend Toastmasters to anyone who needs to present or communicate to groups. The cost of membership is nominal. The development of skills is systematic, and the feedback is honest and always supportive. Those who fear public speaking will find their fears respected and gradually dissolved, as one small success builds on another small success – until one is amazed by how much one’s competencies blossom. It is terrific for both self-confidence and one’s ability to influence others. If you fear public speaking – as many of us do – there is no better venue to master this fear.

    My larger point is that, if an organization can flourish as has Toastmasters, there is no reason why any number of organizations cannot similarly flourish – or even an entire society!

    Toastmasters is far from alone in the voluntary services it attracts. Indeed, according to a recent study, 26% of US adults regularly engage in volunteer activities—and this happens in a culture that prizes work above leisure, often causing sleep deprivation! (http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/agingandwork/pdf/publications/ FS03_TrendsVolunteerism.pdf)

    With very few exceptions, work is the yoke around the necks of humans everywhere. It need not remain so. When we free people from their dependency on earning an income, the range of services that people develop to support each other may dazzle us all.

  • Continuous process improvement

    Continuous process improvement

    Those of us who are old enough will remember the 1950s, when “Japanese import” meant balsa wood trinkets. Several decades later, the first Japanese cars started appearing in the US. They were widely derided as cheap looking, rust-prone tin cans, at first.

    No longer. In recent years, Japanese cars have led the world in reliability and other important design features. I purchased a VCR player near the turn of the century. It had—permanently glued to its face—a simple message: “The Quality of Japanese Engineering”.

    Made in Japan had transitioned from a joke to a hallmark of excellence.

    Many observers credit Japan’s adoption of continuous process improvement for its amazing progress. Continuous process improvement is one of my favorite ideas. It sounds boring, but it has the most profound implications for society. The concept was pioneered by W. Edwards Deming, an American engineer, statistician, management consultant, and thinker. His ideas were largely ignored in his home country, but later wholeheartedly embraced in Japan.

    Once the power of his ideas was recognized, Deming was feted as a hero in Japan. He received numerous awards, and had “rock star” status. Today, Japan awards a highly coveted, “Deming Prize” for organizational excellence.

    According to the Deming Institute, Deming’s message has 14 key points:
    (https://www.deming.org/theman/theories/fourteenpoints)

    In my view, the essence of the concept boils down to this:

    1. Measure everything important, as part of the production process.
    2. Treat people with respect and dignity.
    3. Identify areas where performance or results aren’t up to desired levels.
    4. Welcome all proposed ideas for improvement.
    5. Try something new, and test its effectiveness.
    6. Adopt changes that provably result in improvements.
    7. Repeat.

    It sounds simple enough, but like many such ideas there is tremendous detail and subtlety in the implementation (far beyond my own understanding). The key takeaway is this: don’t strive for immediate perfection. Create something that’s a decent first start, then relentlessly make it better.

    This concept has now been adopted in startups around the world as part of the AGILE development process. There, developers are encouraged to identify, design and build the Minimum Viable Product (MVP). Once that’s accomplished, they are then encouraged to continually refine and improve.
    Toyota’s motto, “The relentless pursuit of perfection” aptly summarizes the philosophy. Note the word “pursuit”. It’s a pursuit; not an attainment. Like a mathematical limit, perfection may be seen in the distance (however fuzzily), but there is the awareness that perfection is only a dream.

    Those who believe that they can design perfect societies seem to always wind up with totalitarian systems, wherein the inherent limitations of the designer’s understanding show up in actual life as unending human misery. We will avoid this by, first recognizing that perfection is a dream, not an attainment, and second, that there are no perfect people or ideas for society. We will have an unending series of experiments, many of which will yield permanent improvements. Those will be celebrated!

    It’s ironic that Deming’s ideas had to travel thousands of miles abroad before, decades later, returning to their shores of origin. However, I am reminded of the adage that Ellis West, the head of Wilson, West & Associates (one of my earliest employers) was fond of saying: “An expert is someone hundreds of miles from home.”

    Applying this concept to a Celebration Society, I see several important understandings:

    1. We won’t achieve a perfect design, now or ever. We will strive for a “good enough” design, then constantly look for ways to make it better.
    2. Utopia belongs in novels. We can’t and won’t build utopia. But we can build something that’s far better than the present “first world” standard of living on Earth. And that’s good enough to usher in a wonderful world.

  • Awe may be THE solution to rigid mindsets

    Awe may be THE solution to rigid mindsets

    Psychologists have noted that many people, when presented with evidence that contradicts a belief of theirs, simply ignore or rationalize away that evidence, holding even more tightly to their existing beliefs.

    If we are to fundamentally change the world in the direction of an Abundance Game, we must accept that many of our fellow people will face enormous such challenges. My book is replete with challenging ideas. I didn’t shy away from that, nor do I believe that we ever should. However, it would be really nice if we could find a way to help people to become more receptive to fundamentally new ideas and ways of organizing society.

    Now, research is finding that awe may offer exactly the needed solution. Specifically, the experience of awe may offer a way to open up fixed mindsets such as fundamentalism, rigidity, and the general mindset of, “don’t confuse me with facts that contradict what I believe.”

    According to the ASU lab and Prof. Shiota, “Awe has been defined as the positive emotion one may experience when confronting a vast stimulus that is not accounted for by one’s current understanding, and/or challenges one’s day-to-day scope of experience. In prior research, including studies funded by the John Templeton Foundation, we have found that awe promotes cognitive and physiological changes that reduce reliance on existing knowledge structures (e.g., cognitive schemas, heuristics) and facilitate taking in new information from the environment.”

    Given that the experience of awe should be a common experience in a Celebration Society, once this research has been validated (and I strongly expect that it will be validated soon), we will find that simply getting large numbers of people to visit Celebration Societies as guests will convert them from having various sorts of resistance to becoming proponents, or at least open to learning more.

    Of course, it is likely that many people will not even bother to visit until they are already well along the path of such open-mindedness, else why would they bother making such a trip?

    Fortunately, I can foresee a solution. Specifically, we can offer to people VR experiences of life in a Celebration Society. Since those will be inexpensive and easy to deliver and obtain, participants will be able to experience awe in the privacy of their own home.

    If we can deliver the experience of awe, it should become quite popular. I look forward to us testing the effects of that experience!

  • Aliens at a Chess Tournament

    Aliens at a Chess Tournament

    Imagine, if you will, aliens exploring Earth. They visit a chess tournament. They see rows upon rows of players, hunched over chess boards, facing each other. Silence prevails, but it is an intense silence. The players’ expressions are focused, and they often scowl or sweat. They rarely speak.

    Sometimes a player will sit in deep concentration for minutes at a time, fidgeting in some neurotic manner while his or her eyes fervently scour the board. Then he or she scribbles on the piece of paper that accompanies each person; sometimes before and sometimes after a move is made on the board. At other times, usually near the end of the game, the players will move pieces explosively; alternating turns that may last mere seconds or even fractions of a second. During these rapid climaxes, the body language becomes animated and players may groan and slap the time clock. They often cease to record their moves on the scoresheet.

    It is easy to imagine the aliens’ point of view that this is a curious kind of work, in which patterns of expression emerge in real time and are recorded. Certainly, the workers are struggling with their creations–grandmasters have been known to lose pounds of body weight in the course of a long match!

    It might be hard to convince the aliens that this was mere entertainment, especially were they to learn that successful performers are paid for their services in cash prizes. Yet we ourselves regard other activities as different, even when close inspection reveals them to be games.

    Few would think of a billionaire businessperson as someone playing a game. After all, making that kind of money is a serious business, isn’t it? Yet consider: few such persons actually spend a large percentage of their wealth on personal pursuits. While most do enjoy significant perks, they could stop making money far earlier and yet enjoy the full spectrum of pleasures.

    Why did Ray Dalio say, “Treat your life like a game”? Why does someone such as Bill Gates amass a fortune exceeding $50 billion, then spend the rest of his life giving it away? Why does Warren Buffet continue to live in the same home he occupied long before becoming an investment magnate? Could it be that possessions per se are not what motivates them?

    As I argue in the book, superstars in fields ranging from business, to sport, to science, are not really working at all. They are playing games of their own design. Because they love their games, they have an enormous advantage over those who “work” at the same thing.

  • Do AIs Need to Have Fun?

    Do AIs Need to Have Fun?

    The AI researcher Jurgen Schmidhuber has argued in a talk that there is a precise way to optimize a self-improving superintelligence based upon Godel’s mathematics. He further explained this in a paper audaciously named “Formal Theory of Creativity, Fun, and Intrinsic Motivation”.

    He says “The simple but general formal theory of fun & intrinsic motivation & creativity (1990-) is based on the concept of maximizing intrinsic reward for the active creation or discovery of novel, surprising patterns allowing for improved prediction or data compression … it has been argued that the theory explains many essential aspects of intelligence including autonomous development, science, art, music, humor. …

    He continues: “To build a creative agent that never stops generating non-trivial & novel & surprising data, we need two learning modules: (1) an adaptive predictor or compressor or model of the growing data history as the agent is interacting with its environment and (2) as a general reinforcement learner. The learning progress of (1) is the fun or intrinsic reward of (2). That is, (2) is motivated to invent things that (1) does not yet know but can easily learn. … some of the AGIs based on the creativity principle will become scientists, artists, or comedians.”

    Who would ever have imagined that AI’s might need to have fun? And yet, why would self-directing intelligences of any sort otherwise bother with “thinking” beyond addressing their own survival issues?

    This is an entirely different view of AIs than the Terminator-type fears which dominate popular dystopian fiction. Yes, there are serious reasons to be concerned about the motivations of AIs and the possible threat they pose to humanity. But given adequate resources of matter and energy to maintain their thinking processes, AIs may just as well find us interesting–even fun–rather than something to extinguish or rule.

    In my view, humanity can assure a safe coexistence with AIs only by merging with them. While this prospect will be discomfiting to many, it need not be unpleasant. Done on an “opt in/opt out” basis, people will be able to augment our senses and intelligence as we now augment our bodies with machines such as cars.

    A Celebration Society comprised of “humans” in various expressions of humanity–both ordinary and AI enhanced–could be a wonderful tapestry of possibilities, far beyond our present imaginings.