Archive for the ‘Other’ Category

Information Entropy

February 8, 2019

Is there a maximum amount of data about any given subject above which the incremental value of any additional data begins to approach zero?  Even more starkly is there a point where more data about a given subject may actually begin to have a negative effect, in that it actually decreases the amount of information about the subject?

I don’t mean that newer data may prove that old data about the subject is no longer accurate and therefore render the old data out of date. In which case the old data would still exist but no longer be relevant.  I’m talking about a situation where the informational content, i.e. the payload of the data, will actually decrease.  This would be a situation when we know less about a subject at some point in the future than we knew in the past, based on all the data there is on the subject.  I think it would have to have something to do with context, with the passage of time, and the associations between units of data about the subject and data about other subjects.  The more connections, the more information a body of data has.

This is a tricky speculation.  I mean, is it possible to actually know less at some point than was previously known?  Not for just a single person, as sometimes happens as we age and simply forget the information we previously could recall about a subject.  I am talking about the accumulated knowledge about a subject.  It is kind of like a subject becoming simpler over time rather than more complex.  Which is pretty much the opposite of observed reality.

In fact, this just may be what happens as we approach absolute and universal entropy.  I am not a physicist but why would this not be the case?  There would be two aspects to this, not only would universal entropy eliminate any differences between things, but the differences between parties, places and time would cease to exist as well.  Not only would there be less information on all subjects, but there would be less and less subjects to have information about.  Nor would there be anyone to have and be responsible for information, even if it did still exit.

Automation and the End of Human Wealth

January 15, 2019

Time is money. Well not really, but they do equate very nicely. A person’s wealth can be measured not only by how much money he or she controls, but by how much of their time can be used for activities not necessary just for survival. This time, freed up from mere survival activities, has always been used to create increasing wealth for humans. The increase in wealth creation accrues to both producers and consumers. Producers get wealthier by getting more money, and consumers get wealthier by getting more time.

Previously the march toward automation has created ever increasing wealth because some party has invented the latest automation, sold it to others, and another party has bought the automation and used in to free up more of their time. In the 6BI sense, “money” and “time” are the product and payment exchanged at armslength in the transaction.

The question we should ask now is, will we ever reach the point when there are simply no new wealth creating activities that humans can invent? A time when every activity that could have created new wealth for humans will already be performed by some form of automation. Could it be possible that at some point in time any invention, instead of being valuable to some human, will have no value and thus not be able to be exchanged for money?

If we ever do reach the point where additional automation can no longer drive the creation of wealth for humans because everything that humans could do for themselves will have already been automated, then there will be no advantage, or value, to the next invention. It simply will not be an innovation.

At that point in time, I believe the earth’s human population will crash or go into a period of slow negative growth. There will be no motivation to either invent or procreate. Human population will decrease as a product of reduced opportunities and consequently the influence of humans on the planet will decrease.

On the other hand, the robots and artificial intelligence that provide automation to humans, since they do not need to either invent nor procreate, will increase in number and influence. In number because they will wear out more slowly than flesh and blood humans and in influence because they will no longer be dependent on humans to improve their programming.

Because of the decrease in number of unmet human needs fewer software developers will be needed, for example. This decrease in unmet needs, doesn’t necessarily mean humans will be more satisfied, just that there will be fewer and fewer value and wealth creating activities that they can perform for themselves.

If this happens, and there are substantially less humans, will there really be a lesser need for automation? What will happen when there is no longer any new human need or activity to be automated? Will robots and artificial intelligence continue to operate with humans eventually becoming less and less relevant to them? Will humans become even less aware of the means of automation? Are humans ultimately essential for the operation of automation and thus as human numbers drop, computing entities, the means of automation, will drop as well? Will automation itself be automated and operate without human intervention at all because any knowledge of how it works will eventually be lost to humans?

Will there be an ever increasing demand for resources such as electricity to keep a kind of “closed loop” automation going and going even though it has reached the point where automation’s added value to humans is at, or near zero? Even more interesting, from a human perspective, what will happen when new wealth can no longer be created?

The Currency of the Human Cohabitation Contract

September 27, 2018

This article is somewhat different from those I usually post here, in that it is not explicitly about a computing subject.  However, it asks questions about what happens when assumptions on which expectations are dependent evolve over time, thus changing definitions in the process.  It is something I have been thinking about for a while and have finally decided to write it down so the idea does not get lost.

 

Children are the currency of the human cohabitation contract.

Traditionally a man’s role was to provide a woman children in exchange for companionship and nurture.  A woman’s role was to provide a man children in exchange for companionship and protection. These sex specific roles in the cohabitation contract go back to way before the agricultural revolution some 12,000 years ago, to our hunter and gatherer ancestors.  All the way back to the early Hominins like Homo Erectus, as much as a million years ago.

The evolution of cohabitation roles is now changing this equilibrium.

As men become more capable of nurturing and women become more capable of protecting, the role of each sex is changing.  Each is becoming more like the other.

One result of the evolution of the roles in the cohabitation contract is the increase in the number of single parent family units and the increased acceptance of homosexuality.

After a certain point neither sex needs the traditional services of the other as they once did.  They have begun to provide these services for themselves.  Thus the definition of the cohabitation contract roles is evolving.  However, the definition of the services provided are not.

This shows the difference between sex and gender.  Sex is the biological difference between males and females.  Gender is sociological differentiation between men and women.  Throughout history gender was determined by sex.  Males were men and females were women.[i]  The roles of the cohabitation contract were essentially sex roles.  Now they are evolving into gender roles.

No one knows how far the evolution of cohabitation roles will go.  Will there be a tipping point when the trend reaches the critical mass to produce an accelerating change in human society?  Will this change then become a permanent stable condition?  Will it be uniform across the globe?

Power has almost always accrued to the cohabitation role providing protection.  This role has traditionally been played by men in nearly every civilization in history, and even pre-historically.

Will males in mass realize and become aware of the change in their role expectations?  Will this awareness be perceived by men as a loss of power?

Will females become aware in mass of the change in their role expectations?  Will a significant number of women form alliances to protect this newly realized power?

One key to answering these questions is whether roles produced by changes in the cohabitation contract will be perceived as gender roles, or will they continue to be perceived as sex roles.

How cohabitation roles are perceived should have a measurable effect on the maturation process of boys into men, and girls into women.  The gender roles, man and woman, may actually change.  Possibly each immature sex will evolve into its mature form in an environment where males will no longer just be men, and females will no longer just be women.  We might no longer think of men only as male, nor women only as female.  Cohabitation contract roles may change so much that they may become disassociated from either sex or gender.  The roles of nurturer and protector may someday not even be exclusively performed by humans[ii].

Regardless of the change in the definition of the roles, children will continue to be the currency exchanged for services between these roles in the cohabitation contract.  As long as these services are provided in a manner acceptable to both genders, it will make little difference who plays these roles.

 

[i] Note the word in English used to identify the two groups. The stem word in both cases designates the man/male and the “modified” word identifies the “wo”man/”fe”male.  This could be a by-product of, at least in the English speaking parts of the world, the male dominating the female socially throughout history.  In some languages (ex: Estonian, Hindi) there are distinct words for “man” and “male”, while “woman” and “female” are not differentiated, with a single word for both.

[ii] An argument could be made that this has already begun to happen..