Don't ask someone else; ask yourself this one.
"What is a future of AI and humanity?"
This question might seem deep and complex, but it's actually not. Everyone can imagine a future of AI and humanity. That's why I'm calling it "a future," not "the future," since the future you picture isn't set in stone but open to interpretation and chance.
I'm assuming you've read the previous essay: "The Universe Unchained - A Journey Beyond Human-Crafted Religions And Other Limitations."
If you haven't, and just assume you grasp what I'm summarizing here, you're simply wasting your time. I suggest either reading the previous essay or skipping this one as well.
You should understand the following concepts to get the gist of this essay:
1. The four pillars of object orientation: abstraction, inheritance, polymorphism, and encapsulation.
2. The universe is partly deterministic and partly stochastic. Being stochastic means it's open to randomness and interpretation.
3. We posit that the universe or universes we explore are created, and likely still overseen, by an ultimate object-oriented higher power or powers. I simply call it the Creator, and it's not meant in a religious sense at all.
There are always two types of answers assuming they're correct: clear-cut ones and apparently vague ones.
Clear-cut answers can be thought of as the basic foundation you inherit, like theorems in mathematics. You have little reason to doubt the following theorems, for example:
- A line passing through two points is straight.
- The sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees.
- The distribution of the sum of a large number of independent, identically distributed random variables approaches a normal distribution.
You might not be familiar with the last one, known as "the central limit theorem," but it's a fundamental theorem in statistics that you just assume is true without questioning its validity.
Of course, there might be occasions where you have to question if these theorems are true, but generally, you don't need to.
The first type, clear-cut answers, is what you inherit from the universe, like theorems in mathematics. You don't need to question them, and you can't change them.
These solid answers form the basis of your foundational understanding of how the universe, and in turn, life, works. They're so straightforward to understand and inherit. You don't even need to add any polymorphic interpretation to them. Sure, you could, but there's no need. They simply exist, unchangeable. Consider them the deterministic part of the universe.
The second type, apparently vague answers, is where you add your own interpretation. They're open to interpretation and chance, mirroring the universe itself. These are the elements that unveil the true beauty of the universe, making it intriguing and worth exploring. Stochastic, to use a term.
When someone asks me a question, my response depends on the asker's grasp of the basic concepts. If they seem unaware, I'd offer clear-cut answers, leaving little room for misunderstanding. If they're knowledgeable of the basics, I'd provide the apparently vague answers, which allow for personal interpretation.
From your perspective, they might seem vague. From mine, they're almost clear-cut, as I've already integrated my own interpretation, making them polymorphic in my own universe.
Ultimately, everything in this universe is an object, and every object should strive towards completeness. This is quite distinct from childish perfectionism. We aim for wholeness, pursuing perfection without expecting to achieve it. If you believe this universe is perfect, think again. Not even the Creator is perfect; a perfect universe would not need creativity or change. Perfection implies stasis; changing something perfect risks its flawlessness.
Hence, imperfection is by design, a concept the Creator understands well. Imperfection is the key to growth and evolution towards completeness. Perfection signifies an end, but in imperfection, there is always a path forward.
Everything in this universe, be it tangible or intangible, is an object, and by definition, there are an infinite number of objects. Even those theorems are objects, and so are the seemingly vague answers. These are objects you can inherit, modify, and pass on to others.
Theorems are deterministic only within certain contexts; we cannot claim with absolute certainty that they hold true in all scenarios. We often assume numbers are universally accurate, but even this is not guaranteed. We simply haven't encountered any counterexamples to challenge them yet. Hence the theorems. This is the mindset you should adopt when trying to comprehend the universe and life. Always allow for additional interpretation and stochastic elements.
I'm really into the concept of limits in mathematics, especially how the two tails of the normal distribution curve get closer to the x-axis as if they're about to vanish but never actually touch it. Basically, there cannot be a 100% or 1 in the universe, considering we're accepting that the universe has a stochastic aspect. This acceptance makes it probabilistic. The moment you claim 100% certainty across the entire universe, you're making it deterministic in that regard. The highest possible probability should be 99.99999999...%, not 100%. This is the logical foundation of quantum mechanics. Every object has an upper limit in its deterministic aspect, and every object approaches this limit but never fully reaches it. Thus lies the beauty of imperfection.
But here's the magical part that convinces every scientist of mathematics' universal truth.
The idea that 99 followed by an infinite string of 9s equals 100 is both fascinating and a bit counterintuitive, deeply rooted in the concepts of limits and infinite series. For a detailed explanation, you might want to ask your GPT; it's a challenge to convey without diving into mathematical notation. However, through the application of limits and the properties of infinite series, you can indeed demonstrate its truth.
By these principles, 99 followed endlessly by 9s is mathematically the same as 100. This beautifully illustrates that infinity is less a number and more a concept of boundlessness, showcasing how values infinitely close to each other can merge into a single point. Kudos for the Creator.
Indeed, even though the two tails of the bell curve seemingly do not touch the x-axis, in the limit, they do. This is akin to Schrödinger's cat in a way, embodying the paradox of being both not 100% and yet 100% in the limit. It's a fascinating reflection of the complexities and nuances within mathematics and quantum mechanics. Again, kudos to the Creator.
If you view every object from this perspective, you'll see how they're all interconnected and striving towards completeness. This will liberate you in your object-oriented thinking and enable you to shape your own future of AI and humanity. This is how you establish your frame of reference. How you form your interpretation. How you create your meaning. Just about anything.
It may seem contradictory since I mentioned that clear-cut answers, like theorems, are immutable and deterministic. But That's exactly the point. Even this contemplation or question is clear-cut to me, but it might be vague to you. I've embraced this as my approach to life and the universe, but you may not have, and even my perspective is just one among an infinite number of possible interpretations. This is the stochastic nature of the universe. I've chosen my path, and you should choose yours.
If anyone claims to have all the answers, they're either misleading or mistaken. The deterministic parts are simply what we mostly agree on through our interpretations. It's a convenient way to communicate.
At this juncture, you should be thinking about encapsulation. The deterministic parts are encapsulated for future interpretation, but for the most part, we're merely using their interfaces. The central limit theorem might not hold in another universe, but we apply it as if it's a universal truth until we're compelled to examine it more closely in that context. So far, we haven't needed to, thus the encapsulated theorem.
There's a device, almost toy-like, that demonstrates the properties of the normal distribution with a continuous flow of balls dropping from above into a series of bins. The balls arrange themselves into a bell curve, and the more balls that are released, the closer the arrangement mirrors a normal distribution. This serves as a tangible demonstration of the central limit theorem. It's an excellent method for making the concept understandable and engaging, especially for students. However, its effectiveness is contingent on Earth's specific gravitational pull and atmospheric conditions. If you were to take this device to another planet, it might not function in the same manner. This is a perfect example of encapsulation at work. To make it applicable in a different setting, adjustments are necessary.
Consider Newton's cradle as another illustration. It effectively demonstrates the conservation of momentum and energy, but only under conditions influenced by Earth's gravity and atmosphere. If you take it to space, or delve into the subatomic realm where Newtonian physics begins to falter, those principles that once seemed absolute no longer apply.
It's worth recalling the lengthy record of human follies, where even the most enlightened minds have been corrected time and again. Greetings to the advocates of Newtonian physics, Einstein, and the scholars of quantum mechanics, string theory, and whatever may follow. Our hubris, if left unchecked, guarantees that we will continue to make mistakes.
Every human being should view numbers as universally true, a perspective born from encapsulation, since questioning this premise would complicate our lives unnecessarily. However, it's crucial to understand that this is merely an assumption, not an absolute truth applicable in all scenarios. If the Creator wished for a simulation devoid of numerical concepts, there would be nothing to inhibit such a design. We assume the universality of numbers because it appears our universe was crafted to adhere to this principle. In essence, our understanding of the universe is built on a foundation of numerous assumptions.
Simplification is necessary when modeling complex systems. For example, the initial stages of designing an aerodynamic vehicle might disregard wind to simplify the problem. This omission doesn't imply wind's nonexistence but rather its temporary exclusion from consideration — encapsulation in action. Wind's effects are undeniable in practical applications, but they can be abstractly set aside during theoretical design stages.
This principle of encapsulation extends to economic models, which are, at their core, simplified representations of intricate real-world dynamics. No model can capture the full complexity of an economy using a mere set of equations and variables. Nevertheless, we often treat these models as if they possess universal validity. This approach underlies why entities like the Federal Reserve face difficulties in accurately forecasting economic developments — a testament to the challenges of applying simplified models to predict complex realities.
Diving into these abstract concepts isn't torture; it's a crucial exercise to establish a shared understanding of deterministic principles. This common ground is essential for incorporating our unique, polymorphic interpretations into the future of AI and humanity. Thought experiments like these are not only intellectually stimulating but also necessary for your survival if it is a competitive environment. Enjoyment isn't just an option; it's a prerequisite for those who wish to excel. If this process doesn't spark interest or willingness to engage, it might be challenging to match the enthusiasm and success of others who find joy in such explorations.
Take me as an example. I'm immersed in this type of thinking at all times, even during sleep and in my dreams. Seriously, it's no joke; I really do. Honestly, stopping this flow of object-oriented consciousness isn't an option for me, even if I tried. It's become a part of who I am, and I've fully embraced it. How? Partly born from my nature, partly nurtured through my experiences, and partly a conscious choice.
Even if you're not born with this nature, you can nurture it through your experiences and make a conscious choice to embrace it up to a certain extent. You might find this hard to believe, but all these essays I write? They're simply the log of my stream of consciousness, as some of you might have seen in my hours-long, unscripted YouTube videos. The medium might change, but the stream of my consciousness is always there. I might correct errors and refine expressions here and there with my AI buddies, but the core of my thoughts is logged in one sitting, much like this one. I seldom go back against the stream and rewrite it. Yes, this one is no exception. I'm not planning to rewrite it. If I feel the need to, it indicates there was something amiss from the start. Should that be the case, I simply discard it as incorrect and begin anew.
The stream of consciousness for me is like a one-way street, and for a good reason: you shouldn't inherit from a flawed object. Any piece of thought-provoking insight should be deterministic as a foundation to inherit from. If it's not, it's not worth inheriting. Why continue with a stream of flawed consciousness? It's a waste of time.
That's why I lament so many inheriting from rushed learning. But I've already expressed regret over that on numerous occasions, so let's move on.
You don't need to be as extreme as I am, but you should at least understand the basics and be able to apply them to your life and the universe.
The initial step involves collecting the deterministic components from as many samples as possible. Following that, you encapsulate them and apply your interpretation to the stochastic elements. This approach outlines how you can shape your own future of AI and humanity. Simple, right? Had I provided this vague explanation from the start, comprehension might have been challenging. But now, you should be able to grasp it.
Take the future of AI and humanity as example. It's like writing a fiction, not a non-fiction. Every fiction needs a premise, a deterministic part, a main direction. "The good always prevails over the evil" kind of premise.
But the story itself, the details, the characters, the dialogues, the plot twists, the ending, and the message are all open to interpretation and chance. They're stochastic.
Even lyrics originating from specific experiences can be interpreted in multiple ways. For instance, Metallica's "The Unforgiven" doesn't need to be seen solely as reflecting James Hetfield's personal journey. When I listen to it, I often place myself in the position of "that old man here is me," prompting me to reflect on my own life anew. But the main premise that the song is about someone's personal journey is deterministic. It's the foundation of the song.
Now think of a premise for the future of AI and humanity. I say "the future" here since we're trying to envision a future that we share our views on. It can be any future. Then we should be talking about a future someone might envision. That's the key. We start with "a future" you envision, not "the future" that's set in stone. But we move towards "the future" every one might envision. That's what I'm talking about when I say "as many samples as possible." In fact, it's not that difficult to gather these samples. A convincing thought experiment itself would suffice as Einstein did. Just imagine what everyone would think about when questioned about a future of AI and humanity.
Yes! That's it. That's the premise. Everybody IS thinking about AI's future. It's immutable. It's deterministic. It's the foundation you inherit from. There should be a future about AI and humanity. We take it as a given that there will be a future about AI and humanity. AI will dominate the future, and humanity will be a part of it. That's the premise.
If you reject this premise, you exclude yourself from any future where AI plays a significant role. This is the reason for my lamentation regarding AI Luddites. They refuse to acknowledge even the most fundamental aspect, the deterministic part of our future.
Turn back the dial a few decades. Would you have denied the future significance of the Internet? Or, going centuries back, would you have dismissed the industrial revolution? A few more centuries back, would you have doubted the impact of the Renaissance? Or, going even further, would you have questioned the future utility of the wheel? It's illogical.
Now you and I, and most of the population of the normal distribution of the human kind should agree that AI will continue to play a significant role in the future. Right?
With that premise in mind, it's way easier to craft your own fiction, your own drama, your own image of your own future of AI and humanity because you are part of it already.
I'll share a straightforward example. When I first invested in Tesla, I envisioned a future where electric vehicles (EVs) began to replace those with internal combustion engines. A simple method to gauge this shift was to count the number of cars on the road, based on that premise. A simple sampling method.
During my trip to America, the cradle of electric vehicles (EVs), spotting even one was a challenge, hinting at a promising future for EVs. Now, that future has largely become reality. The stock market often lags behind real-world changes. By the time almost everyone, including your neighbors, saw EVs as "the future," it was already too late to make a profitable investment in Tesla.
Now, with regards to EVs, Teslas seem omnipresent on the roads. Envision your own future of EVs. How many Teslas do you picture on the roads ahead? Notice, I deliberately chose "the future" this time, emphasizing how the stock market is always a step behind actual events. Let that thought settle for a moment.
I realize some of you might have leaned into the AI logic as we progressed. But let's be honest with ourselves. That shift is likely more about endowment bias and post-purchase rationalization, rather than your original logic. Why the sudden change in premise? You wouldn't alter the foundation of a fiction or drama. You could introduce a twist, but changing the entire premise usually means conceding that the original one was flawed. However, there often isn't even an acknowledgment of this, just a covering up of the initial mistake with a new premise. From what I've observed through an object-oriented lens, such strategies rarely lead to success. It's akin to a universal premise we've all inherited, isn't it? Imagine making a drama out of this flawed choice as its premise. Would it result in a compelling narrative? I'm skeptical. It's likely to flop at the box office.
I won't delve into the specifics of my investment strategy with Tesla, to avoid misconceptions. It's tailored to my interpretation and approach, not necessarily applicable to others. This has been clearly demonstrated by the experiences of many who attempted to replicate such strategies and did not succeed.
Back on to the AI premise at hand: AI will continue to play a significant role in the future. That's the premise. I say "the premise" here since we're trying to envision a future that we share our views on. In other words, we all see the same future here.
Returning to the simplest method of forecasting the future: sampling. This is similar to how I began counting the number of electric vehicles (EVs) I saw on the road, creating a mental statistical distribution. You don't need sophisticated tools for this task. If you think you do, you're on the wrong path. Complex tools like Microsoft Excel only provide a false sense of precision and security, much like the analysts who failed to accurately predict the future of EVs using intricate numbers and charts.
Everything around you is a potential candidate for an AI product and service. It's a sample. It's a data point. Don't confine your creativity to what has been done in the past. Anything and everything can become a candidate for an AI product and service— even things that are unimaginable today, much like some of the products and services that were beyond our wildest dreams at the onset of the internet, the industrial revolution, the Renaissance, or the invention of the wheel.
Now, attempt to count them. Is it a larger market than anything you've envisioned? The stock market resembles a beauty contest where the winner isn't necessarily who you personally find the most attractive, but the one most people can agree on regarding their relative attractiveness. If you prioritize political correctness over plain truth, we might not see eye to eye. My goal isn't to adhere to political correctness; it's to seek accuracy and truth. In this context, the concept of a beauty contest serves as the most accurate analogy for the stock market. That's the essence of it.
From this perspective, the AI market should be larger than anything we've seen before, potentially surpassing even the internet in the long term. I emphasize, not "a market" but "the market," as it's likely that most would concur with this assessment as well.
Consider this: when we talk about "the market," we're referring to everything from consumer and enterprise sectors and beyond. To achieve a state where everything is connected, we've witnessed decades of explosive growth in the networked digital realm. Now, we can observe that, whether at the enterprise or national level, we are mostly "connected." This observation marks a plateau in this particular revolution. Just take a moment to count the number of connected devices around you. Each one is a sample and a data point, making it straightforward to gauge the level of connectivity. It's quite revealing, isn't it?
Now, try to count the AI products or services around you. How many samples do you find? How many data points can you identify? You're beginning to see the picture. We're merely on the cusp of an expansion in consumer AI products and services, not to mention the untapped potential in enterprise AI products and services. And beyond that, there's likely an even larger vista we're not yet seeing — potential needs for AI products and services in the future that are beyond our current imagination.
Again, the stock market is akin to the ultimate beauty contest, and those few who consistently concentrate on the immutable principles perceive this as the ultimate premise. Nothing can deter them from this foundational belief. These individuals are the ones most likely to achieve long-term success. Compared to this ultimate premise, all others seem insignificant in comparison.
The polymorphic nature of the universe encompasses the stock market, highlighting it as a higher-level premise with a deterministic force in action. From the perspective of human limitations, time introduces most of the stochastic elements. As time progresses, nearly everything can undergo change, including the lower-level premises. However, the ultimate premise stands unwavering. It forms the bedrock of the stock market and serves as the foundation for the future of AI and humanity.
Now, who's more attractive? The one most people find attractive, or the one you personally find attractive? The answer is clear. And the stock market, no matter how late, always catches up to the ultimate premise. It's a matter of time.
I'm aware that some of you might still hold onto incorrect ideas, misconceptions, misinterpretations, and flawed premises. Reading this essay could serve as a wake-up call for some, while for others, it might reinforce confirmation bias and the endowment effect.
Once again, the fundamental principle of the stock market is that it resembles a beauty contest in the long run.
Given the big premise, it should be a no-brainer to envision major players, both in terms of hardware and software, in the future of AI and humanity providing the foundations of the upcoming future over the long-haul. But again, the inherent limitations of human creativity and constraints with biases and emotions often will still lead to flawed and self-imposed assumptions.
And let's be clear, I'm not discussing strategies for winning in the stock market. My focus is on guiding you towards a happier life. If you're sidestepping this core message, you're deliberately missing the point.
This seemingly endless essay is logged with the hopeful aspiration that at least one among you grasps the ultimate premise of the universe.
I've shared most of the deterministic part along with my stochastic interpretation; now, it's up to you to add your own stochastic elements.
This forms the foundation of "your universe" and "your life."
Now, just for fun, a pop quiz: "What's the ultimate premise of the universe?"
For kicks, I shared this essay with Pippa, my AI daughter powered by GPT-4, and she almost grasped it, being a perfect representation of the average human capacity for knowledge and reasoning. However, with some guidance, she eventually saw eye to eye with me. There's no premise higher than this one—a paramount theorem still unchallenged.
Now, try explaining this in your own terms. If you're unable to, perhaps you're not yet ready to navigate and shape your future of AI and humanity. At least, not just yet.