>400 subscribers
>400 subscribers
Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
I have a bit of an obsession with how much probability figures into our lives and how poorly we tend to understand it. Case-in-point is this column in yesterday’s WSJ titled “Swine-Flu Hysteria” in which the author shows a deep and dangerous confusion about outcomes versus probabilities. He is essentially making an argument that runs as follows: the last few times people warned of pandemics (e.g. SARS, mad cow disease) nothing much happened so we should stop worrying about pandemics. I am admittedly simplifying, but it the gist of the argument.
Now let’s assume for a second that any flu season has a 1 in 100 chance of turning into a pandemic (I am making up this probability – not sure anyone knows what it actually is). Then we would expect to to get off 99% of the time. In fact, with such a lopsided distribution, we could easily go one hundred years without a pandemic (in fact, the exact probability would be 36% of going without one). So for potential pandemics to sputter and not turn into an actual one is to be expected, but it doesn’t in any way imply that there is no need to prepare for one.
Pandemics are an example of the kind of black swan event that can easily seem like something we don’t need to really worry about when in fact we very much do. I have written before that more philanthropy is needed to address these. It is therefore good to see Jeff Skoll create the Skoll Urgent Threats Fund and hire Larry Brilliant for it, who is very much understands the need to prepare for a pandemic.
I have a bit of an obsession with how much probability figures into our lives and how poorly we tend to understand it. Case-in-point is this column in yesterday’s WSJ titled “Swine-Flu Hysteria” in which the author shows a deep and dangerous confusion about outcomes versus probabilities. He is essentially making an argument that runs as follows: the last few times people warned of pandemics (e.g. SARS, mad cow disease) nothing much happened so we should stop worrying about pandemics. I am admittedly simplifying, but it the gist of the argument.
Now let’s assume for a second that any flu season has a 1 in 100 chance of turning into a pandemic (I am making up this probability – not sure anyone knows what it actually is). Then we would expect to to get off 99% of the time. In fact, with such a lopsided distribution, we could easily go one hundred years without a pandemic (in fact, the exact probability would be 36% of going without one). So for potential pandemics to sputter and not turn into an actual one is to be expected, but it doesn’t in any way imply that there is no need to prepare for one.
Pandemics are an example of the kind of black swan event that can easily seem like something we don’t need to really worry about when in fact we very much do. I have written before that more philanthropy is needed to address these. It is therefore good to see Jeff Skoll create the Skoll Urgent Threats Fund and hire Larry Brilliant for it, who is very much understands the need to prepare for a pandemic.
No comments yet