Month: November 2024

Roles and their levers to create value:
Investor: capital ++++
Leader: humans +++
Professional: skills/expertise ++
Laborer: Time +

In a world increasingly dominated by artificial intelligence (AI) and automation, fears about job security and the relevance of human creativity are understandable. The rapid advancements in technology have led many to question whether AI will render human creators obsolete. However, this perspective misses a fundamental truth: while AI can replicate and even enhance certain tasks, it cannot replace the unique human qualities of vision, taste, and leadership. These attributes are the bedrock of innovation and are more critical now than ever before.

The Irreplaceable Value of Human Vision and Taste

At the core of every groundbreaking creation lies a human vision—a compelling idea that captures the essence of what people need or desire. This vision is intricately linked to taste, the discerning ability to recognize and appreciate what resonates on a profound level. Rick Rubin, for instance, is a music producer who has profoundly influenced the industry not by playing instruments or writing songs, but through his exceptional taste and ability to bring out the best in artists. He identifies raw talent and shapes it into something extraordinary, a skill that no algorithm can emulate.

Similarly, Steve Jobs transformed technology not by inventing new hardware, but by envisioning products that seamlessly integrate into people’s lives. His keen sense of design and user experience set Apple apart in a crowded market. Jobs didn’t engineer the iPhone himself; he led teams of talented individuals to realize his vision. This underscores the irreplaceable role of human insight in driving innovation.

AI as a Tool, Not a Replacement

Throughout history, technology has served as a tool to amplify human capabilities. The invention of the printing press, the steam engine, and the internet each revolutionized society, but none replaced the fundamental need for human creativity and leadership. AI is the latest in this lineage of transformative tools. It excels at processing data, identifying patterns, and performing repetitive tasks with unparalleled efficiency. However, it lacks consciousness, emotional intelligence, and the ability to comprehend the nuanced complexities of human desires and morality.

Consider the magnificent Sagrada Família in Barcelona. Designed by Antoni Gaudí, this basilica has been under construction for over 140 years, brought to life by generations of artisans inspired by Gaudí’s original vision. AI could potentially assist in architectural design or construction techniques, but it could not originate the visionary blend of Gothic and Art Nouveau styles that make the Sagrada Família a singular masterpiece. It’s the human touch—the vision—that breathes life into such projects.

The Primacy of Understanding the Human Condition

The humanities—philosophy, literature, art, and history—provide invaluable insights into the human condition. They help us understand emotions, motivations, and ethical considerations. This understanding is essential for creating products, services, and art that genuinely resonate with people. AI, despite its computational prowess, cannot grasp the subtleties of human experience.

Content without context is merely information. What gives content value is its ability to connect with an audience on an emotional or intellectual level. AI can generate music that mimics Bach or write articles that follow a specific format, but it cannot create something that captures the zeitgeist of the times without human guidance. It doesn’t understand why a piece of music moves us or why a story inspires us—it merely processes data.

Leadership in the Age of AI

As technology evolves, so does the nature of work. The roles that require routine, predictable tasks are most susceptible to automation. However, positions that require strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and ethical judgment are becoming increasingly vital. Leadership involves more than managing processes; it’s about inspiring people, making moral decisions, and setting a vision for the future.

Leaders define objectives, identify target audiences, and devise strategies to meet their needs. They possess the wisdom to make judgments that machines cannot. The story of King Solomon’s judgment illustrates the depth of understanding and compassion required to make complex decisions—qualities inherent to humans.

Adapting and Thriving with Technological Advances

Artists and creators have always adapted to new tools and mediums. The introduction of photography didn’t eliminate painting; instead, it expanded the possibilities of visual art. Digital music production didn’t eradicate live performance; it opened new avenues for sound exploration. Similarly, AI offers new tools that, when leveraged properly, can enhance human creativity.

To stay ahead, individuals must be willing to embrace change, continuously learn, and develop skills that complement technological advancements. This includes honing one’s vision, cultivating taste, and enhancing leadership abilities. By doing so, we ensure that technology serves us, not the other way around.

The Enduring Need for Human Judgment

Ultimately, humans are the arbiters of value and morality. We decide what is good, what is beautiful, and what is meaningful. AI can present options based on data, but it cannot make ethical choices or understand the implications of those choices on society. As we integrate AI into various facets of life, the need for human oversight becomes even more critical.

The Future of Collaboration Between Humans and AI

Envision a future where AI handles the mundane aspects of work, freeing humans to focus on innovation, strategy, and connection. In such a world, the most successful individuals will be those who can effectively collaborate with AI—leveraging its capabilities while providing the human insight that machines lack.

Actors may use AI to enhance their performances, but the emotional depth they bring to a role is uniquely human. Musicians might employ AI to experiment with new sounds, but the soul of the music comes from human experience. Even in fields like medicine or law, where AI can process vast amounts of information, the application of that knowledge in a compassionate and ethical manner remains a human responsibility.

Conclusion: Embrace the Human Advantage

Rather than fearing AI as a competitor, we should view it as an ally that can help us achieve greater heights. By doubling down on the qualities that make us uniquely human—our vision, creativity, empathy, and moral judgment—we can carve out roles that are not only secure from automation but are also more fulfilling.

The key is to remain adaptable, continuously seek knowledge, and focus on the big picture. Understand the needs and desires of people, and use technology as a means to meet them. In doing so, we not only secure our place in the future but also contribute to a world where technology enhances human life without diminishing the essence of what it means to be human.

In the age of AI, it’s not about competing with machines but about leveraging them to amplify our uniquely human capabilities. By embracing this mindset, we can transform potential threats into opportunities for unprecedented growth and innovation.

Ah! Experts. Yes. The experts.

We should talk at length about these experts, this priesthood, their moral authority, their flawless judgement, and why we should subserve our intellect and judgement of self-evident truths to the experts.

Where in our constitution does this deference to experts serve to enable democracy?

The experts, of course. Trust the experts.

The regular man doesn’t know what’s in his best interest. We need overlords. We need the experts to tell us. Yes, they possess judgement that surpasses the average man.

Let us hand over our conscience to the experts. Let the experts govern us. Hell, the common man is too stupid to know what’s best for himself. Why give him the ability to vote? Yes, voting is so antiquated when we have experts, this priestly class that walks on water.

Speaking of authoritarianism.
Complexity doesn’t mean complicated.

Mathematics is simple, but complex.

I think things are made to be unnecessarily complicated to obfuscate the truth.
The notion of conspiracy is a red herring. It prevents you from thinking. We dismiss anything labeled as a conspiracy. It’s a deliberate red herring to prevent critical thought.
If there is anything I’ve learned in my life, it is that Truth is simple.

Confusion is not truth, and the more confused, the further you are straying from a truth.

The past 8 years I’ve had vivid dreams about these figures. Potent dreams. We were friends. Despite a period of 7 years of disdaining Trump, all the times we met and were with eachother in my dreams I respected him and endeared him, and he was respectful and kind. This always left me unsettled upon waking, as there appeared to be dissonance in who he was in my dreams and who I think him to be. Musk was always building rockets. Always seemed to have his eye on the stars, always busy and working. In my dreams with him, we never had a personal relationship, like I did with Trump. With Bieber, we we see eachother and embrace eachother as long lost friends. I was never enamored by him. We spoke about intimate feelings and thoughts, shared vulnerability. There was a loneliness that we recognized in eachother, and it comforted us. Despite the throngs of fans, we should sit and talk, hug it out like brothers, and talk about life, the ups and downs, the struggle.

This dreams have always been very bizarre and inexplicable.

I’ve always wondered what they could mean. Other than my wife, there is no one else I ever dream about, and certainly not repeatedly. These figures populated my dreams for years now. It’s strange, but I ask myself what it means, if anything.

I was thinking about this a lot this election.

The narratives. The consensus around narratives. The distortion of perception. How fear is used as an instrument to craft perception. It keeps people enslaved to their perceptions, and expression of their latent denial of death.

Why it happens. To which demographics. How it happens. Who is most susceptible.

I thought about the Dunning Kruger effect: The rational model holds that overly positive prior beliefs about one’s skills are the source of false self-assessment.

I have a statue in my office that I look at everyday named Rising Sun, by Adolf Weinmann. It represents Icarus, and the consequences of Hubris. When they were preparing their flight to escape, his father Daedalus, the genius engineer and architect, advised his son to “to take the middle way”, but his son was “drawn by desire for the heavens” and perished by not heeding his fathers advice, taking too much stock in his ability.
–Metamorphoses (Kline) 8, the Ovid Collection, Univ. of Virginia E-Text Center
(https://ovid.lib.virginia.edu/trans/Metamorph8.htm#482327661)

There is a similar story of Phaeton and his father Phoebus, who guided the chariots that pulled the sun across the sky. Phaeton wished to drive the chariot and failed to heed his father’s guidance and proceed in the middle way. He lost control of the chariots, destroying the earth, and himself in the process.
–Metamorphoses (Kline) 2, the Ovid Collection, Univ. of Virginia E-Text Center (https://ovid.lib.virginia.edu/trans/Metamorph2.htm#476707490)

A reminder that our self-assurance is more than often a flaw in our self-assessment, a self deception of our inflated ability to reason and accurately perceive.

The more sure you are, the more skeptical you should be. Self virtue is fatal. There is a natural tendency to accumulate self virtue as we grow in education, knowledge, status, money, prestige, success, titles, degrees.

The true value of education, of knowledge, is the ability to recognize your ignorance, not escape it. We never arrive. It is the realization that, as the island of knowledge grow, so too do the shores of ignorance.

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. WS

This year I’ve spent a lot of time reflecting on narratives, channels of influence, personalities, righteousness.

Thales (the “first” philosopher) is attributed with the aphorism: “Know thyself” . It was inscribed on the Temple of Apollo in Delphi, who was the god of Truth.

I think it’s easy to get caught up in trying to determine what’s true, versus what is true of ourselves. And seeking the ends of the former is often what leads to these threads of self deception, as we lose sense of the self which serves as the basis of the reality we seek.

It’s unsettling, yet liberating, to gain an awareness that there are alternative realities that exist. It should humiliating, and can be embarrassing, that our perceptions are not the only perceptions, that there may be narratives supporting perceptions which more closely align to a truer base reality.

But getting to that truth, that base reality, requires humility.

Our closeness to God is proportional to the size of our ego. God is reality, nothing more and nothing less, and the reality can only be experienced in the present. The present requires a loss of self. Only then can you experience reality for what it is, rather than what you think it is. Reality is truth.

“We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents.” Emerson said.

I think of how malleable groups of people can be, and why, and reflect on the institutions they affiliate with, and why. Institutions are groups of people under the spell of a moral authority. Government. Media. Academic. Religious. Corporate.

Institutions are allergic to original thought.

They commit atrocities by leveraging a populous when people appeal to the authority of their association, rather than the authority of their own truth. But cultivating a population that can appeal to self-evident truths requires a humility.

“The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs. Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist.” Emerson

When the oracle of Delphi proclaimed that none was wiser than Sacrates, he was in disbelief, because “I know that I have no wisdom.”

So he went in search of all the men wiser to refute the oracle but “found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some inferior men were really wiser and better.” “They were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom.”

After his search he concluded “that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing”

“He is the wisest who knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing.”

But “the fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of knowing the unknown; since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is there not here conceit of knowledge, which is a disgraceful sort of ignorance?”

If you’re locked in a room, and the room is all you know, and you believe you are free—- are you free?
Similar to the allegory of the cave.

Inconvenient truths are hardest to perceive. Mostly because of our unwillingness to see, because doing so what mean we must alter our entire paradigm/ way of seeing, and perhaps upend fundamental beliefs we cling to for security.

Everyone’s reality is valid, in the sense that it is their reality. But I believe there are levels of reality. Primitive reality, there are forces acting upon our lives that we attribute to certain causes to, completely ignorant of their true nature or origin.

This applies to natural physics as well as societal.

We perceive higher levels of reality when we move up the causal chain to first principles, or whatever the first mover is or might be.

I like to think there is no power in any one reality beyond the network which shares that reality.

I often wonder how many realities are shared unconsciously— playing games and repeating narratives that feed the reality, without ever knowing the reality you’re participating in.

Democracy.
Communism.
Academia.
Entrepreneurship.
Capitalism.
Government.
Hollywood.
Religion.
Morality.
Etc.

We look at these as prima facie objective enterprises. But the reality of each is a scale, depending on how you’re participating. The realities can invert completely on themselves, depending on how you’re participating, or who invites you to participate in their reality (akin to being dragged out of the cave)

It’s like the closer you get to the higher reality, the more disturbing it becomes, because it shatters the innocent uninformed ideas about the forces actually governing reality.

And we naturally adopt whatever reality is convenient. Not because it’s best or right or true, but because it’s less disturbing, less threatening.

I think about this often.

Trying to square one reality with another. Asking myself what information I’m able to perceive.

I think about the whole notion of the enterprise of philosophy, as I understand it. I was reading Montaigne this week, specifically his essay That to Philosophize is to learn to Die. (https://monadnock.net/montaigne/learn2.html).

It makes me think about these inconvenient truths. To reveal them is to get more comfortable with death. It prepares you for the ultimate reality.

Montaigne says
“He who has learned how to die has unlearned how to be a slave.

Knowing how to die frees us from all subjection and constraint.

There is nothing evil in life for the man who has thoroughly grasped the fact that to be deprived of life is not an evil.”

Our unwillingness to confront certain inconvenient realities is a reflection of our servitude.

There is no freedom— not in the liberal sense— without learning to die. Which is to say, embracing realities and truths which are most inconvenient, which pose the greatest threat to our being.

I think the process of philosophizing is a process which ultimately liberates us. Questioning our realities. Our convenient, cozy assumptions that we are so self assured of, but ultimately enslave us to limited realities.

Philosophy is asking if there is more beyond the room. Sometimes it’s just a matter of knocking on the door and having someone open it. Sometimes it’s just opening it ourselves. Sometimes it’s inspecting and cracking the lock. And I like to think these rooms lead to more rooms, and often these rooms are connected, and we must continually remind ourselves that we are unfree, that there are other realities beyond our perception.

This is why books are useful. But books can also reinforce realities and keep us trapped.

I think about this.

How do we grow. How do we advance, evolve, progress. It’s all a reflection of our ability to exercise this true freedom of choosing. Not accepting the status quo, the given, the false dilemmas presented as fixed options. But scratching at the corners to reveal something always there, but imperceptible because we cling to convenience.