DARREN REMINGTON

Even as the world becomes saturated with seemingly unlimited information, “the benefit that ought to come with having a variety of opinions” writes author Bill Bishop, “is lost to the righteousness that is the special entitlement of homogeneous groups.” The result is divisiveness, polarization, and rancor in our national discourse – First World tribalism – with crowds gathering at the poles of every issue.

Being unbiased is a lot like being humble: as soon as you think you are, you aren’t. Neither are a finite state of being but a continuous struggle to not allow our perspectives poison our opinions.

There is a subconscious tendency to substitute the conviction, forcefulness, or decibel level of opinionators as a proxy measure of their comprehension of the issues or veracity of their statements. Such correlations are imaginary and often inverse.

The danger in regulating AI too early is comparable to defining airline regulations in the early 1900’s at the time of the Wright Brothers earliest flights: all flights must be limited to 400 yards (since no plane can safely fly further), no faster than 45 mph (faster puts the pilot at too much risk), no higher than 15′ (pilots can survive a 15′ fall but not a 50′ fall), shall be in a straight line (planes are too unstable in turns), requires a catapult launch into the wind and a wind speed of no less than 15 knots (for the safety of the pilot and bystanders), and no more than one passenger is allowed (since no engine or airframe can safely support more). Any one of these then “common-sense” rules would have severely impacted the evolution of the airline industry. Jurisdictions not subject to such rules would become the industry leaders. No one has the prescience necessary to successfully regulate an early-stage technology.

The issues at the core of our national debates are more complicated than can be explained in soundbites and slogans by talking-heads and special guests. The media caters to our TL;DR-afflicted nation with over-simplified lowest common denominator journalism which completely fails us when the issues are not black-or-white or when the answers require caveats. Nuanced discussions don’t make attention grabbing headlines or dramatic journalistic copy so media reporting disproportionately accentuates extreme perspectives to create the conflict-drama that drives viewers and readership. The resulting rhetoric polarizes rather than convinces.

We get what we deserve if we allow our policy-making representatives vote on laws they haven’t read and don’t fully understand.

In reality, most of us depend on others to articulate the issues, to interpret data, and explain the implications. Few of us have the time or interest to read background reports for ourselves; even fewer have the inclination or ability to examine primary data. The volume, breadth, and complexity of our national issues defy casual understanding and frequently overwhelm sincere seekers of deeper insight. As a result, we substantively rely on the opinions of others to form our own. Yet, many of those on whom we rely as the basis of our opinions are doing the exact same thing. […] This is a perverse dysfunction in the way we form and reinforce our opinions.

We are not the "free thinkers" we think we are. What we eat unavoidably impacts our physiology; the information we consume inevitably affects our opinions and perspectives. You cannot eat junk food with impunity; you cannot consume information without consequences.

The analysis these [machine learning] systems are capable of performing are so vast and at levels of complication and scales so immense that human verification, by hand or thru traditional methods, is staggeringly difficult. With any ML system in which the answer is really important, a big challenge facing ML data scientists is finding a way to validate the results.

AI produces a lot more hay making finding the needle much more difficult.

Tattoos are a down payment on a future regret.

The issues at the core of our national debates are more complicated than can be explained in soundbites and slogans by talking-heads and special guests. The media caters to our TL;DR-afflicted nation with over-simplified lowest common denominator journalism which completely fails us when the issues are not black-or-white or when the answers require caveats. Nuanced discussions don’t make attention grabbing headlines or dramatic journalistic copy so media reporting disproportionately accentuates extreme perspectives to create the conflict-drama that drives viewers and readership. The resulting rhetoric polarizes rather than convinces.

In reality, most of us depend on others to articulate the issues, to interpret data, and explain the implications. Few of us have the time or interest to read background reports for ourselves; even fewer have the inclination or ability to examine primary data. The volume, breadth, and complexity of our national issues defy casual understanding and frequently overwhelm sincere seekers of deeper insight. As a result, we substantively rely on the opinions of others to form our own. Yet, many of those on whom we rely as the basis of our opinions are doing the exact same thing. […] This is a perverse dysfunction in the way we form and reinforce our opinions.

There is a subconscious tendency to substitute the conviction, forcefulness, or decibel level of opinionators as a proxy measure of their comprehension of the issues or veracity of their statements. Such correlations are imaginary and often inverse.

Even as the world becomes saturated with seemingly unlimited information, “the benefit that ought to come with having a variety of opinions” writes author Bill Bishop, “is lost to the righteousness that is the special entitlement of homogeneous groups.” The result is divisiveness, polarization, and rancor in our national discourse – First World tribalism – with crowds gathering at the poles of every issue.

Some things are too important or too complicated to be reduced to bullet points on slides.

We get what we deserve if we allow our policy-making representatives vote on laws they haven’t read and don’t fully understand.

We are not the "free thinkers" we think we are. What we eat unavoidably impacts our physiology; the information we consume inevitably affects our opinions and perspectives. You cannot eat junk food with impunity; you cannot consume information without consequences.

Las Vegas is a good place for people who like to make mistakes.

Being unbiased is a lot like being humble: as soon as you think you are, you aren’t. Neither are a finite state of being but a continuous struggle to not allow our perspectives poison our opinions.

Even moderate confirmation bias can result in reality dysmorphia.

We are all hypocrites but introspective people use this insight to moderate their self-righteousness. There’s an inverse relationship between introspection and intolerance.

The analysis these [machine learning] systems are capable of performing are so vast and at levels of complication and scales so immense that human verification, by hand or thru traditional methods, is staggeringly difficult. With any ML system in which the answer is really important, a big challenge facing ML data scientists is finding a way to validate the results.

The danger in regulating AI too early is comparable to defining airline regulations in the early 1900’s at the time of the Wright Brothers earliest flights: all flights must be limited to 400 yards (since no plane can safely fly further), no faster than 45 mph (faster puts the pilot at too much risk), no higher than 15′ (pilots can survive a 15′ fall but not a 50′ fall), shall be in a straight line (planes are too unstable in turns), requires a catapult launch into the wind and a wind speed of no less than 15 knots (for the safety of the pilot and bystanders), and no more than one passenger is allowed (since no engine or airframe can safely support more). Any one of these then “common-sense” rules would have severely impacted the evolution of the airline industry. Jurisdictions not subject to such rules would become the industry leaders. No one has the prescience necessary to successfully regulate an early-stage technology.

The media caters to our TL;DR-afflicted nation with over-simplified, lowest common denominator journalism which completely fails us when the issues are not black-or-white or when the answers require caveats. Nuanced discussions don’t make attention grabbing headlines or dramatic journalistic copy so media reporting disproportionately accentuates extreme perspectives to create the conflict-drama that drives viewers and readership. The resulting rhetoric polarizes rather than convinces.

AI produces a lot more hay making finding the needle much more difficult.