Stop advancing 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Bad outcomes which worry those tech leaders include propaganda and misinformation, a loss of valuable jobs, human beings losing control of our civilization: 

"AI labs [are] locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control.”

How likely is it that the request in that letter will put a 6-month pause on every AI lab pushing ahead to increase artificial intelligence? The chance that every AI lab will stop advancing is ~zero. The chance that corrupt results in some form will eventually follow is ~certain.

The letter suggests that government may have to enforce a pause in AI lab research advancement. Will that eliminate risk and prevent the bad outcomes? Again, the likelihood is ~zero.

AI is a tool. Every tool can be used for good and evil ends. What will determine whether the outcome is good or evil? Only the virtue and values of the tool-maker and the tool-user. The task for society is (as it has always been) to try to create good, virtuous individual people. 

It's hard to do.

Stop advancing 1

Artificial intelligence inspires hope. Hope drives technology companies and their researchers to make ever-more-intelligent programs to manage enormous amounts of data that improve every single sector of our economy and help us achieve great new things for the common good.

But that's not the only hope that drives technology. There's also the drive for profit and for control -  neither of which is evil in itself, but can easily be used for selfish or evil goals. Every technology breakthrough for the common good can be corrupted, like what has happened to social media.

Some technology leaders, including Elon Musk and Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak, are really worried.

They got together to write an open letter: It calls on AI labs to quit advancing for six months due to "profound risks." 

photo

(cont'd tomorrow)

Better news 3

Over the last hundred years, living conditions in the U.S. have changed dramatically. Compare how you and your friends live today . . with the standard of living about a century ago.

1915 vs 2015

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a report on the amazingly more prosperous life of an average American worker in 2015 compared to that of an American worker one hundred years earlier, 1915.

How can a comparison be made between different eras? Not by money so much, but by a comparison of what that worker could afford to have in his home.

An article in the 1913 Journal of Home Economics describes an average apartment home in New York City:

". .  a four room flat, rent nineteen dollars, nine in family. . This family of nine has a boarder to help pay the rent. . . There is a bath tub, but the clothes wringer and last winter’s sleds are always kept in it. This is not the home of a very poor family: the father earns twelve dollars a week, two girls are in a factory . ."

(from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)

workers paint the Brooklyn Bridge 1915

Better news 2

Progress within your own lifetime:

Progress

Your country - and your world - has changed since you were born.

Go to yourlifeinnumbers.org, enter your country and the year you were born to find out how much it has changed in your own lifetime. You'll see differences in food supply per person, how much schooling the average person had, average income, and more.

There's been a lot of improvement in most countries. Check out your parents' birth years to see how much improvement there's been since they were born.

Better news 1

Anxiety seems more common than ever, and bad news does seem to attract readers. But not all the news is bad. This week, we start with three inspiring stories from a few years ago.

Longevity

There are more people in the world than ever. At the same time, the average level of both health and prosperity have increased:

"Despite what we hear on the news and from many authorities, the great story of our era is that we are witnessing the greatest improvement in global living standards ever to take place. Poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, child labor and infant mortality are falling faster than at any other time in human history. . . A child born today is more likely to reach retirement age than his forbears were to live to their fifth birthday."

The chart below shows how much child mortality, hunger, illiteracy, pollution and poverty declined globally - just from the 1990 level to that of 2015.

from Human Progress

EV charging 3

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Up til now, Tesla's network (the nation’s most reliable) of 40,000 charging stations has only been available to Tesla drivers, but that's going to change. Last month Elon Musk met with White House aids and struck a deal to open up at least 7500 of them to all makes of EV's by the end of 2024.

Other companies, like General Motors and Hertz, have also made agreements to expand their charging networks using a combination of private funds and federal spending.

In another move by the federal government, more EV's will be qualified for tax credits. Within hours of that decision, Tesla raised the price of its Model Y SUV.

"It's clear this administration is making incredible progress in ensuring EVs' future." Yes, they're all in.

from Fortune

EV charging 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

U.S. government policy at this time is all-in with electric vehicles. Last year the president, the Dept. of Transportation, and the Dept. of Energy announced that $5B - five billion dollars - is going toward a national electric vehicle charging network.

States will use the money to build the charging network, subject to their federally-approved plan, primarily along the Interstate Highway System. It seems drivers will pay a fee to use it, so that 1956 law against selling products at the rest stops will have to be changed.

The new Joint Office of Energy and Transportation was formed to facilitate the joint function of the two departments. Their website, Drive Electric, describes what they're creating:

"A modernized and interagency approach to support the deployment of zero-emission, convenient, accessible, equitable transportation infrastructure"

photo

from Dept. of Energy

EV charging

When you get in your gasoline-driven car, you have no worries about finding a gas station. There are something like 145,000 of them in the U.S. and they're near enough to you. 

Likewise, all owners of an electric vehicle must have easy access to re-charging the battery or there will be no EV industry. That's why Tesla, for example, aggressively built charging stations from the start. They now have over "40,000+ global superchargers." And, of course, a Tesla owner also re-charges at home.

Not sure where you can re-charge? Go here to plan for those stops during your trip. Businesses like hotels and restaurants are encouraged to put in a re-charging wall for their EV customers.

With all car manufacturers pursuing the EV market, the number of gas stations is expected to slowly decline. Charging locations will increase. But don't expect to find one conveniently located at an interstate rest stop, because that would be illegal . . per a law passed in the 1950's.

from FEE

Sargassum 2

Follow-up to this post

A question I had about that seaweed mat in the Atlantic: is it coming to Florida, especially now that spring break is nearly here? The answer is No, it won't pollute those beaches, though there may be a bit of a nuisance further south in the Keys.

Here's a current satellite-based map of its size and location between Africa and the Gulf of Mexico:

image

The mat is not without advantages. It's a good habitat for some sea life, and it absorbs carbon dioxide (it's brown algae). But in excess, it could cast shade on big ocean areas and that's potentially a low-light problem for marine life.

Science labs are watching the mat but haven't answered all the questions yet - except for the obvious advice to keep boats out of it. See one that is trapped in a mess here.

from St. Pete Catalyst

Dutch farms 4

Follow-up to these posts

Farmers made their point with public opinion over the past two years in The Netherlands. They stood up to their government and won over voters, to the point that just last week they won 15 seats in parliament for their new political party, the BBB. 

In a democracy, you take your complaint to the public. If many of them agree with you, they will vote in people with different policies. That's how it works. That's what happened. 

photo

from Reuters

Sargassum

For over ten years a wide mat of seaweed has been floating in the Atlantic Ocean between Africa and the Gulf of Mexico. It's a kind of algae that blooms in the spring/summer, kind of harmless but very much a nuisance.

Beaches in Mexico have piled up with it, then it rots, then it smells and turns vacation destinations into disgusting destinations that tourists want to avoid - a big clean-up challenge when it lands on beaches.

photo

Well, it's not entirely harmless. Underwater machinery gets clogged, it can choke corals, and it may trigger respiratory problems. 

This year's bloom is expected to be huge, which is saying something. It's already been more than 5,000 miles long and can be seen from space.

from NBC News

Charitable 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Europe's nations are considered by some to be more charitable, more generous because they have more extensive welfare programs than the U.S. But some would say that it's not generosity if the government forcibly takes your tax money to give it away. 

So by the standard of voluntary giving, it's a different story.

European nations tend to give personally to charities at the rate of about 2-5% of their income. Year after year, Americans give personally to charities at the rate of about 10% of their income. 

Quoting from a 2022 report, "here's a stat to savor: America was the world's most generous country this past decade."

from FEE

Charitable 1

How much should we tip the server at a restaurant? It's a personal decision based on the service we receive, what we think is expected, and how generous we feel. 

Average restaurant tipping is tracked and analyzed, along with other restaurant data. Of twelve large metro areas, the two California cities (San Francisco and Los Angeles) are at the bottom of the list in terms of what percentage of the bill an average diner will give to the server. No explanation is offered for lower California tipping. Any ideas?

photo

Here's one possibility. Under federal law, restaurants can pay below the minimum wage if average tipping puts the wage above the minimum. But California forbids this. So servers are paid at least the minimum wage, plus whatever they earn in tips. 

If customers know this, would they reduce their tipping? Maybe and maybe not. 

Generosity beyond tipping - that is, to charities - can be tracked on a much bigger scale. Charitable giving can be measured for whole nations. 

from FEE

(cont'd tomorrow)

Next nuclear 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Smaller, modular nuclear fission reactors are being built now by several companies - modular meaning that parts can be bought off-the-shelf and then assembled on-site. 

That's what a 36-year-old is working on. In 2017 he devoted his life to fighting climate change. His company, Last Energy, has a deal with Poland to deliver ten of them by 2025. 

image

He figures it will cost $100 million per reactor, each one producing 20,000 megawatts of power (enough for 20,000 families). Still expensive to build, but not like a normal $6 billion reactor.

And what about the safety factor? Even if multiple cooling mechanisms fail, the underground portion of the reactor is surrounded by 550 tons of steel to dissipate heat.

from Forbes

Next nuclear

A disaster in Chernobyl in 1986 poisoned public perception of nuclear power plants from that time on, only to later be compounded by the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Fear of meltdown, fear of radioactive waste became very present in our imaginations. 

If there's any future for nuclear power, questions of safety must be fully addressed with believable safeguards. The image of serious danger is probably at the root of Germany's total rejection of nuclear power.

Funding of plant construction is problematic too, the cost of a new nuclear plant from design to operation is an average of $6 billion U.S. dollars. That's up front money - before it is actually selling energy to customers and generating some income.

image

But in spite of these challenges, nuclear research goes on because of the big advantages: consistent, dependable energy and no carbon emissions. (Michael Shellenberger summarizes the situation here.)

Tons of money is being spent to solve the issues of safety and cost. Fusion instead of fission, small modular reactors, molten salt reactors, all have potential. Tomorrow's post is about another effort that looks like it might succeed.

(cont'd tomorrow)

German energy 3

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

After years of "energiewende" (their plan to eliminate fossil fuels), Germany reduced the fossil fuel segment of their power from 84% in 2000 to 78% in 2019. For comparison, during the same years the U.S. reduced our reliance on fossil fuels from 86% to 80%.

Our results are similar, but we don't pay a similar price for it (as measured this month). Germans spend 4.89% of their average daily wages for a day's worth of electricity, while Americans spend only 1.24%. Our friends in Germany spend roughly twice as much of their income on power usage (average daily wages are different). 

Decades of government subsidies for wind turbines and a forced transition have not led to good results. Back in 2011, triggered by the Fukushima disaster, they decided to close all nuclear plants -- which emit no carbon.  That looks like a serious misstep. The disruption of natural gas, another low-emission fuel, due to Russia's war on Ukraine only made it all worse.

Policy mistakes have consequences. Now they're tearing down a village, Lutzerath, to make way for dirty coal mines because their wind/solar energy doesn't produce enough power. It's sad.

photo

German energy 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

If Germany is wrecking a village in order to mine more coal (yesterday's post), then something has definitely gone wrong with their long-standing energy plan.

It's certain that no German originally intended this kind of thing. But regardless of the destruction of centuries-old buildings and the history of generations of the town's families, Lutzerath is one of the villages that must go so that the coal mine under it can expand.

One citizen puts it this way: 

“It’s such an absurd and catastrophic scenario that Germany, the country where everyone else thinks we have green [policies], is destroying a village to burn coal in the middle of the climate crisis.”

photo

from CNN

(cont'd tomorrow)

German energy 1

A German village, Lutzerath, is being destroyed purposely. Police in riot gear are flooding it, tearing down structures, and forcibly removing people. 

photo

Residents were evicted in 2017. Then activists moved in to fight for the village. The government is going to turn it into . . a coal mine, of all things.

This is Germany, whose direction since 1980 is toward transitioning all its power sources to green energy. And, as you probably know, coal is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. 

from CNN

(cont'd tomorrow)

Open AI 3

Follow up to these posts

Though being one of the founders of Open AI, Elon Musk resigned from its board of directors some time ago and is not associated with it anymore. He intended that it would be non-profit and open sourced. 

photo

Today he says it is profit-driven, controlled by Microsoft, and trained to be "woke" -- its algorithms give privilege to politically left people and ideas while censoring those that are not left-leaning, something that social media does routinely. Open AI executives agree that it's biased, and say that bias is very hard to change.

So Elon is recruiting artificial intelligence researchers to work on a new system that will compete with ChatGPT but will not be woke.

from Deseret

More hyperloop

Remember "hyperloop?" It's a super fast transportation concept promoted (but not originated) by Elon Musk, pods carrying passengers or cargo either through underground tunnels or on rails above ground. Magnetic force would power the pods at great speed.

It was always going to take a long time to develop technologies and get governments on board, and no system operates yet in spite of research and feasibility studies. 

One of the two remaining companies working on the vision, Hyperloop One, laid off a hundred staffers a year ago and famous investor Richard Branson backed out with his Virgin brand. Now they've abandoned the goal to move passengers and will focus on cargo.

Hyperloop TT, the other company, still pursues transporting people. One of their projects is to link cities Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh in the Great Lakes Corridor.

image

Saudi city 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Doubters point out what they see as weaknesses in the idea for this new city ("Is That A Good Idea?").

One expert says planned cities are often unsuccessful, and suggests that some aspects of The Line should be tried in existing cities. He wonders if people will like being confined to this space surrounded by a desert.

Another doubts that the environment will be better off. He says the carbon cost of this huge construction would overwhelm all the environmental benefits.

Others think The Line will require such enormous control of variables that it may not be possible, even in an autocratic society like Saudi Arabia.

Saudi city 1

Saudi Arabia's crown prince is nothing if not a big thinker. He is putting the royal treasury (powered by their huge national oil business) to work developing an economically more diversified and modern future. Part of Vision2030 is a brand new city called "The Line."

The city's design will appeal to environmental activists and climate change believers because all the power is to be provided by green energy. No cars will be permitted on this pedestrian level, but rapid public transportation will be available below ground. 

Two walls, about the height of the Empire State Building, will enclose the whole 100-mile linear city. Between the walls (about 200 meters across) will be a natural environment maintained at ideal conditions by artificial intelligence--which in fact controls the whole city.

"I" in AI? #2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Gathering and processing data is the function of narrow, or weak, artificial intelligence. It can analyze  immense amounts of data and answer questions based on data it gathers. That helps human beings reach conclusions, and it saves us from doing all the data gathering.

But it's not equal to the kind of intelligence humans have. It doesn't question the truth of the data it gathers, and it doesn't really understand what the words mean. That's why ChatGPT can write an article based on common word sequences on the internet, but it can also make big and obvious errors like this:

Human: How many bears have Russians sent into space? ChatGPT: According to estimates, about 49 bears have been sent into space by Russia since 1957

Humans will continue to improve ChatGPT and other "large language models" like it. But this college professor is cautious:

"My fear is that people will be so bedazzled by articulate LLMs that they trust computers to make decisions that have important consequences."

from Mind Matters