Social media alignment test

Epistemic Status: Probably not necessary, certainly not sufficient.

Think you have a good AI alignment plan? Prove it!

Build some lower stakes mass influence system, like a social media platform, which implements your plan. If it is more engaging and more pro-social, then your plan will be worth looking at. No powerful AI should be deployed until the alignment plan can pass this basic test.

Alignment plans need to deal with the fundamental divide between machines doing what we tell them to do and machines doing what we want them to do. Any proposal that can address this problem can not be limited to a particular machine architecture. Thus, it should be able to be translated into social media.

The aligned social media system would connect people who might do good together, facilitate cooperation, and promote ideas and messages that encourage the public good. The meta-debate about what counts as the public good seem likely to be a particularly important conversation to promote and referee. 

Perhaps establish a moral parliament to facilitate the role of referee. There may need to be a moral landscape to allow multiple different ways of flourishing. All of this should probably be transparent.

Should the system create text of its own? Probably not.

If your proposal can not make social media less toxic and more pro-social it is not ready for primetime.

Ontology, Epistemology, Axiology: The Foundational Philosophical Trilemma

Epistemic status: Similar to guess vs ask vs tell cultures, or different love languages, I think this may be a useful model for explaining some inferential gulfs. YMMV. But finding out if this is actually how people operate would be an in-depth psychology that I am not equipped to undertake.

In order to escape solipsism it seems necessary to make some sort of foundational assumption about the external world. It seems plausible that most people will prioritize one of: 

  • Ontology- What is?
  • Epistemology – What can we know?  
  • Axiology – What is valuable?

It does not seem to be the case that one of these “ought” to come first. I do not think it is possible to justify the claim that one of these (ex. ontology) ought to have priority in terms of the others (ex epistemology and axiology). I further do not think it is possible to keep all three in equal balance (but I am very uncertain about this!).

  • Axiology as primary: You need to value the world or knowledge first
  • Ontology as primary: The world constrains what is possible to value or know
  • Epistemology as primary: You need to have justified knowledge of the world or values first

It does not seem like there is any way to side-step just choosing one of these. Since different people will have different rank orderings this can create (sometimes vast) inferential gaps.

Possible rank-orders (not likely to be stable, or even consciously recognized), and example articulations there of, as well as candidate schools of thought or thinkers representing those rank-orderings (wild guess on those, I beg forgiveness if I failed to capture a sufficiently nuanced understanding ).

Ontology Ontology EpistemologyEpistemologyAxiology Axiology 
EpistemologyAxiology Ontology Axiology EpistemologyOntology 
Axiology EpistemologyAxiology Ontology Ontology Epistemology
There is an external World and our senses are sometimes somewhat accurate. Our map should reflect that territory. And then we should use that understanding to do goodThe only source of value that exists are beings and their experiences. Right and wrong are not embedded in the fabric of the universe, they are functions of the preferences of conscious minds“Epistemology provides us knowledge and then Ontology checks if it exists or not then Axiology checks its moral values if that is wrong or right.”We must know ourselves, then we must know right from wrong. Only then can we know the worldRight and wrong are fundamental. It is our job to know this, and to act accordingly in the worldPower relations are foundational, they define the world. All knowledge is constructed within societies.
Less Wrong?Sam Harris? Descartes? Buddhism?Christianity?Foucault?

There may be a correlation to preferred ethical theories: Consequentialism (ontology), deontology (epistemology), virtue ethics (axiology). But this is even more of a speculation.

What can we do about this? If we know another person’s rank-ordering of the trilemma, we might be better able to put our ideas in their terms. Similarly, we might be able to translate their ideas into our own frame more easily.

Unfortunately, it might also be the case that some positions only make sense with-in some rank-orderings. If that is true, that might be a good thing to know.

The Many Stories of Science

Epistemic Status: Not exhaustively researched, dates and particular events are selected based on my incomplete and biased memory. My point in this post also rest on me not having seen particular versions of the story of science in the wild as well as repeated encounters with people seeming uncomfortable with the more abstract components of science. YMMV.

When the story of science is relayed it is often in terms of the development of that body of knowledge. We celebrate milestones of understanding like Galileo and Heliocentrism, Newton and Universal Gravitation, and Darwin and Evolution by Natural Selection. 

An alternative story that is sometimes told is that of science as social activity and the role of power: The influence of funders politics and societal values on the direction of research and technology. The idea of progress vs stagnation. How the actions of individual scientists ripples outwards affecting generations. Science as part of the wider cultural fabric.

But I think it is worth reflecting on how science as a method has also changed over time. This development is fairly well documented but it is not presented as a narrative nearly as often in my experience. My guess is that the triumphs of such a story are too abstract to be as immediately compelling and were often unrecognized at the time as separate accomplishments from their associated advancements in the scientific body of knowledge. 

Presented here is a chronological list of the major conceptual milestones in the development of the scientific method. This is not a list of scientific discoveries or theories, this is a list of the conceptual tools that enabled such discoveries. Not all of these were recognized for what they were at the time, but most have since become integral to the method of scientific investigation and inquiry. 

Conceptual ToolDatePeople Involved
Materialism 600 BCancient Greek philosophers, Thales, Heraclitus, Democritus
Theoretic models of the world 400 BCPlato, Aristotle, Galen 
Observation, Notice regularities100 ADPtolemy
Scholastic tradition (move away from apprenticeships and mystery cults)1200 ADDuns Scotus, Roger Bacon
Parsimony1300 ADWilliam of Ockham
Mathematical models1610 ADKepler
Observational experiments 1620 ADFrancis Bacon
Revolutionary ideas (overturning the old) 1630 ADGalileo, Bruno
Peer review and scholarly community 1660 ADRoyal Society 
Unification of models1690 ADNewton
Instruments for observation and measurement 1700 ADHuygen, Leeuwenhoek
Statistical methods and probability1800 ADGauss, Bayes 
Fieldwork 1830 ADLyell
Methodological Naturalism 1850 ADDarwin
Non-intuitionism 1920 ADGodel, Einstein 
Falsificationism 1930 ADPopper
Paradigm Shifts1960 ADKuhn 

This list forms a sort of narrative. And like all stories much is left out. The hundred schools era in ancient China and the Islamic Golden age are fascinating periods of intellectual development that are valuable to consider, but I am unequipped to include them in simplified story such as this.

One of the insights that this list might provide, is that what counts as the scientific method has changed over time. This is suggestive that perhaps science has not reached its final form. Indeed, some more recent developments might be candidates for becoming part of ‘just how science is done.’ For example, interdisciplinary collaboration, open source knowledge sharing, and big data projects can rely on a foundation of consilience. 

Consilience2000 ADE.O. Wilson

Connor Leahy has made the suggestion that developing a robust theory of intelligence and AI safety might require what he calls science-2. Based off of the list above I think that might be more like science-20. Specifically Leahy is calling for a new form of predictive science to simulate how advanced AI systems will behave before they are invented. In light of all that has come before, I do not think this is very unreasonable.

A Taxonomy of Digital Literacy

Epistemic Status: All models are wrong, some are useful. This seems potentially useful to me.

I was teaching a class on the Digital Divide recently and a student suggested that many of the challenges we were discussing actually existed at very different stages. (Apologies for forgetting which student, I would be happy to replace this aside with a citation). From this observation we as a class took a few minutes to construct a simple taxonomy of the levels of abstraction of digital literacy. This is only a first draft, so more work is needed.

A brief search only revealed the mapping of digital literacy onto Bloom’s taxonomy. I think this effort is a bit different.

Level of AbstractionDigital LiteracyClassic LiteracyNumeracy
5: Social ImplicationsAlgorithmic mass influence, deep fakes, privacy and anonymity, AIShared cultural references and understandingEffects of societal understanding of probability and statistics
4: Goal-oriented OperationCooperative (social media, multiplayer, etiquette), programmingNarrative comprehensionAlgorithms, probability, statistics
3: Advanced OperationDigital creation (write a document/email)Sentence construction Equations (a2 + b2 = c2)
2: Regular OperationUse of programs or apps (play a game/music/video)Word recognition Operations (BEDMAS)
1: Basic OperationUse of operating system (turn on/off, point, click, drag) Character recognition (ABCs)Character recognition (123s)
0: AccessAccess to digital tools (computers, phones)Access to literature (books)Access to math texts
An over-simplified taxonomy of a selection of literacies

Each level of abstraction relies on the lower stages. When designing digital literacy programming, having a clear idea of which level of abstraction is being targeted. Beyond the various levels, there are likely different streams content could be organized into.

NB. This may be the first time I have written something directly applicable to librarianship.

AlphaFold for Molecular Spectra

Epistemic Status: Something of a random idea and I am not a physicist

Two news items have stuck in my mind:

  1. Recently AlphaFold has released the structures of a huge number of proteins.
  2. The phosphine detection in Venus was done but searching for one particular spectral line that phosphine was calculated to have.

The number of spectral lines molecules have seems to be vastly larger than the number of lines atoms have. It seems, from my ignorant perspective, that the protein structure problem and the molecular spectra problem may be similar enough that the basic tech of AlphaFold may apply to molecular spectra.

Having a database of hundreds of common molecules would be useful beyond astronomy. Imagine being able to determine a unique set of spectral lines of carbon monoxide. We might be able to create carbon monoxide detectors that do not use nuclear material (polonium maybe?) and thus do not expire in the same way.

One of the purposes of this blog is to get ideas out of my head so I can think about other things.

Aging Parable

When discussing the possibility of medically intervening in the aging process,  I often get the impression that people imagine a different future than the one that comes to my mind. What seems to be imagined is some sort of prolongation of years of infirmity and loss of agency, people stretching out their years while just barely living. 

This is indeed a horrifying vision of the future, and not one that I would spend any energy to promote. It’s true that many people find such a prospect better than death, and I might agree, but it’s not the fate I really want for people. As such, I need to ask: is that really what rejuvenation detractors really think rejuvenation supporters are aiming for? It seems more likely that detractors have not really given it much thought, and simply adopted the first vision of the future their brains supplied them. 

Allow me to provide another possible vision of a future, as a story in three parts. A story of the future that imagines life-extension via biological rejuvenation:


Sometime in the present day, you find yourself sitting in a cafe with an old acquaintance. Your grandfather had died recently, and it was a long time coming. The funeral was a few days ago and you have been left in a melancholy mood.

“It feels like we had lost him a long time ago, you know? The person he had been just… died by inches over years. At least he didn’t realize it anymore by the end.” 

Your acquaintance nods with sympathy. “Kinda makes you wish for a clean death, none of this dragging life out, just for the sake of life.” Frowning in consideration for a moment, your acquaintance continues, “I’m sorry, that was insensitive of me. It’s a hard enough situation without needing to entertain such thoughts.”

“No, it’s okay, nothing I haven’t thought of before. Still, it makes me feel better that I‘m not the only one to think that sometimes.”

Shortly after that the conversation turns to more mundane topics, and eventually you both depart the cafe, the obligations of life calling. 


A few years later you find yourself back at that same cafe with that same old acquaintance. Your father had died recently, an unexpected heart attack at a relatively young age.

“It came out of nowhere you know?” you muse, “Still maybe it’s better this way. Coming here reminded me of the conversation we had last time we were here. Thinking about how my grandfather went, I don’t know, makes me think my father got lucky, in a way.”

Your acquaintance leans back, brow furrowed. “How so?’

“A quick death a bit sooner than you might like versus stretching out your days in misery? I think I know what I’d choose.”

“Those aren’t the only two possibilities. Some people are in pretty good shape, even past a hundred.” your acquaintance points out.

“Some people are luckier than others I guess, but even then: ‘pretty good shape’ for their age. I think most of the time it really is somewhere between those two choices. And one of them just seems less terrible for everyone involved. Less greedy too.”

“I think I get your point, but it’s all pretty fresh right now. It’s easy to feel a bit morbid.”

“Morbid, maybe. But I think I’d rather be dead than have to live past a hundred.”

“So if you somehow made it to a hundred, and I gave you a gun, you’d point it at your head and pull the trigger?” your acquaintance responds with a challenging look.

“Ha! Now who’s morbid?” A moment’s reflection on that recent experience brings a small frown to your face. “But, yeah. I can’t imagine that life confined to some bed waiting to die is worth living. Like, maybe for a few extra years if I’m super lucky, but it’s not likely. Best for everyone if I can just end it.”

Your acquaintance is a bit surprised, and chuckles a bit. “Well, I’m nothing if not a friend, when the time comes, I’ll hand you the gun.”

You laugh at your acquaintance’s promise, and odd sense of humor, and the conversation moves on to happier topics. 


Many decades passed since that conversation with your acquaintance after the death of your father. A lot has happened: you have lost much and gained much. You have lost family and friends to time, and entropy, and death. But you have gained so much as well, grandchildren for one. Being there for your grandchildren’s lives has been an amazing experience!

Even more amazing has been their great-grandmother’s experience. You lost your father many years ago to a heart attack, but your mother has been far more lucky. About twenty years ago she had been selected for one of the first generation rejuvenation treatments, she was about 80 at the time. Her health was starting to fail and was steadily losing mobility. But she had always wanted to see her great-grandchildren, and she was willing to try something new. 

And it worked! Not perfectly, but according to the doctors she was biologically the same age as you after the treatment, so roughly in her biological 60s. Oh it was a pain to get there, months in the hospital, drug and gene therapy treatments, daily physio practice, and she still wasn’t completely as healthy as a 60 year old. She still had a bit of arthritis in her knuckles, not as bad as before the treatment, but not as good as when she was 60 the first time.

But she was able to move freely again. She could keep up with the great-grandkids, as well as any adult can keep up with any child. Somewhat surprisingly she actually went through the trouble of getting her driving licence back. 

So when the team responsible approached her ten years later with an improved version of the therapy, she jumped at the chance. Literally! Well, it was a small hop, but not bad for some chronologically 90. Even biologically 70 it was impressive.

The treatments didn’t take quite as long this time, and they weren’t quite as stressful. Still took quite a long time of course, but their administration did seem to be improving. But the results were improving even faster. 

The doctors said that she was biologically 40 now! Your mother was younger than you, and looked it! You weren’t really sure how to feel about some of the glances she was receiving in those days. You were even less sure how to feel about the looks she was giving other people!

Soon after your mother was released from the hospital the rejuvenation treatment was finally made available to the public. Your mother had planned to ask you to join the waitlist, but she need not have bothered. You could see the improved quality of life in the people who took it. True, it still wasn’t entirely without risks, medicine never was, but it was ready for the public, and that meant you. And truth be told, you were in your 70s now, and you were starting to feel some of the expected pains more acutely now.

It took some time for your turn to come up. A lot of time actually. The rejuvenation therapies improved through three more generations and your mom actually got treated once more before you got your chance. As one of the original test patients she had some priority access, which makes sense. She was now also one of the oldest people in the world, chronologically 120, while biologically she looked, and felt, somewhere in her 30s. 

And so do you. After being released from a mercifully short hospital stay of only a month you felt better than you have felt in decades. A few weeks after you were released you took up swimming for the first time in your life. You had retired a long time ago, but the prospect of a new career some year soon started to seem more and more appealing. And now you have great-grandchildren of your own. It’s not a perfect life, but it is life. And a whole lot of it! And today is your 100th birthday.

Inspired by your new hobby you asked your family for a large beach party for everyone to enjoy. One of your grandchildren had asked you to help teach your great-grandchild how to swim. 

Now you find yourself walking with your great-grandchild on the path to the beach, trailing behind the rest of the family. They were telling you all about their first day of school. In the distance you see your mother chatting with your children, smiles and laughter on everyone’s faces. 

Along the path to the beach you notice an odd old man in a dark cloak to shield himself from the sun. You feel you recognize him somehow. For a moment the sight of a still old man reminds you of all the people who didn’t make it to this day. Curious, you tell your great-grandchild to run on ahead, you’ll catch up.

Walking over to the old man, you see that it is your old acquaintance from the cafe. You haven’t seen him in many, many years. Time has not been kind to him. He is thin with wisps of bone white hair. 

Before you can speak he notices you and gives you a skeletal smile before speaking.

“I always keep my promises.”

He slowly withdraws something from his cloak. In his boney palm sits a small handgun. He extends his arm a bit, presenting it to you. 

You turn your head away for a moment and see your great-grandchild beckoning you to join the rest of your family. You turn back to see the gun still on offer.

What do you do?

Critique of the Copernican Principle

The Copernican Principle is a rule of thumb, much like Occam’s Razor, or Popper’s Falsificationism: Not always a useful guide to truth, but often. The Copernican Principle suggests that we ought to refrain from considering ourselves as privileged observers. 

Historically, Copernicus noted that there were other rocky bodies in the solar system besides the Earth, and thus we might not be justified in positing a geocentric solar system. Later, when other stars were being studied, the Copernican Principle suggested that they might not be as devoid of planets as they seemed at the time. 

And so we see life on our planet, and the Copernican Principle nudges us to take seriously the possibility of life on other planets. Evidence of phosphine on Venus and water and methane on Mars pull us farther in that direction. Under ice oceans on Europa and the exotic surface of Titan tempt us to apply the Copernican Principle to the very notion of a ‘habitable zone’ around a star. 

One question we would very much like to know the answer to is: are we alone? If we apply the Copernican Principle to our existence as a technological species, might we take seriously the possibility of others out there in the universe?  Might we extend the Copernican Principle to our entire universe? A multiverse could be a serious result. 

As a tool for guiding our thinking about which possibilities to take seriously, the Copernican Principle does admirable work. When it comes to guessing the probabilities of various possibilities, the Copernican Principle is only one of many factors in our calculations.

The utility of the Copernican Principle in determining probabilities may be even more tenuous than merely being one factor amongst many though. If we can show that we are, in fact, privileged observers with respect to one question or another, that should change our mental calculus regarding related questions. 

Our Place In History

Consider for the moment our place in human history. We exist at a time when there have been approximately 100 billion humans who have ever lived, over a period of time of approximately 100 thousand years. There seems to be two most likely paths for the future of our species: We will either kill ourselves off relatively soon, or we will make it to the stars and go on to live for billions of years with possibly trillions or quadrillions of people. In the perfectly average case, our species should live another 100 thousand years with another 100 billion humans. This is a low probability outcome. Even changing those numbers by an order of magnitude, either way, are still low probability outcomes. 

In a certain sense we are within a rounding error of either being at the end of human history, or the beginning of it. Either way, we are violating the Copernican Principle: we are privileged observers existing at a special time. 

This may well imply that events that are occurring in the present day are unusually important in human history. The creation of atomic and biological weapons seems important for the extinction outcome. What events might be important for the flourishing outcome? The fact that this question is more difficult to answer is disheartening, but important to realize if we wish to do anything about it. 

Humans May Be Unlikely

Are we privileged observers compared to other potential technological species? We can point to many unusual features of our path to existence. If the Earth was much larger it could have been an ocean world and the tyranny of the rocket equation would keep us surface bound. Any smaller and the Earth could easily lack an atmosphere, and oceans, and plate tectonics, and a magnetic field. Our planet has an unusually large moon, the result of a highly unlikely bouncing impact. This moon produces both tides and a stable axial tilt to the Earth, both of which could have been important to the evolution of life. Later the moon provided a very handy target for our early space program. 

The evolution of life on Earth has a number of important milestones. Life emerged quite soon after the planet’s formation, so soon in fact that it is likely that life emerged basically as soon as it was at all possible. This suggests that microbes at least may be common in the universe. But not all microbes.

As far as can be determined, eukaryotic life only evolved once. Perhaps it was inevitable once photosynthesis and the resulting oxygen catastrophe took place. But the fact that it seems to have only occurred once, and even then, only after several billion years, seems to indicate that mitochondria may be rare in the universe. 

However, once you have eukaryotes, other traits seem to be so useful that they evolved many times, like multicellularity and eyes. But once it comes to particular combinations of traits, humanity stands out as an odd duck once again. 

Most apex predators come equipped with their own weapons: talons, claws, beaks, and sharp teeth. They ambush or stalk their prey with bursts of speed and power. Humans share the forward facing eyes of most predators, but that is where the similarities end. We are endurance hunters. We plan ahead. We must create our own weapons. We are bipedal in a way that frees up our opposable thumbs. We are savanna dwelling hunters and gatherers descended from arboreal herbivores. This is not a common occurrence. 

At this point we might think of all the peculiarities of the english language. All the oddities and historical happenstance that must have happened for it to evolve the way it did. Then we remember that all languages are like that, and we just happen to know more about english and so it seems special. So we should be cautious when considering that humans have a particularly unique evolutionary history. 

Nonetheless, humanity created a technological civilization, and our power is only increasing. Perhaps this is not due to our evolutionary heritage, but a more plausible candidate explanation has not yet been offered. And that heritage does seem uncommon. 

We could imagine re-running the history of the Earth many times. We might expect analogs to velociraptors, wolves, and sharks to appear. Their strategies have been adopted many times. Their evolutionary niches would be relatively common. The number of steps a species would need to take to fill that niche would be relatively few. That does not seem as likely with something like humans. 

Taken in aggregate all these peculiarities of human existence may add up to a challenge to the Copernican Principle, or they might not. Just because our geological and fossil record suggests humanity is an unlikely outcome, doesn’t mean that technological civilizations are rare. 

Expansionist And Competitive

The first thing to note is that while humanity’s path to technology may be the only one we know can be successful, that doesn’t mean there couldn’t be others. Large habitat altering herbivores like elephants might be a contender, or perhaps tool users like crows and other birds. Aquatic species like dolphins and squid seem somewhat less likely due to not having fire, which could be an irreplaceable step on the road to technology, but it seems too early to rule them out for certain. Whatever the route though, our evolutionary record does seem to suggest that it will be an uncommon one. 

So what characteristics might these civilizations share, beyond technology use? Evolution favours survival and reproduction. These goals have the instrumentally convergent proximate goals of control of resources. And, controlling resources favours being expansionist and competitive.

Not necessarily every time, but it seems a likely enough outcome that we can probably rely on the Copernican Principle here: If there are other technological civilizations then we are probably not unique in our behaviour, and at least some of the others will be expansionist and competitive. 

Now consider that the universe is 15 billion years old, the Sun 5 billion, and the Earth 4.5 billion. The universe took a few generations of stars to be born and die to create enough heavier elements for the later stars to form with rocky planets, but that should have been possible for at least a couple billion years before our own. 

Let us apply the Copernican Principle again and posit many civilizations existing before ours, some for potentially billions of years. What would the universe look like? The ones that were expansionist and competitive would likely have been driven to colonize the universe as much as they could. 

Current estimates suggest that colonizing the Milky Way would take several million years with reasonably attainable technology. While this is indeed a vast amount of time, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of time some civilizations could have had at their disposal. And yet we are not colonized. The sky is not full of signals. The stars are not going dark as they are encased by Dyson Spheres and Matroska Brains. 

Either we are a violation of the Copernican Principle again, and are unusually expansionist and competitive, or there are no others who came before us. 

Deep Time

The future of the universe also provides clues that may be relevant to our violation of the  Copernican Principle. While it was mentioned before that there has been perhaps billions of years of opportunity for other civilizations to emerge, it should be noted that there is vastly more time ahead of us for future civilizations to emerge. The stelliferous period of the universe will last another trillion years at least. To a first approximation, we exist at the beginning of time. 

Once again, if we invoked the  Copernican Principle, and we imagine a sort of normal distribution of civilizations emerging across the history of the universe, it would seem at first glance that we should have expected to evolve some hundreds of billions of years from now. Instead, we are privileged observers at the beginning of time. 

But perhaps we are not so improbable after all. Consider the possibility of galactic colonization once again. Now let’s make a further assumption, that once a world has been colonized it prevents the emergence of civilization in the way we experienced it. 

This would mean that period of time for the natural emergence of civilization, as opposed to uplift or similar, would be fairly short by deep time standards. Since a couple millions years difference would likely render an expansionist and competitive civilization easily detectable at interstellar distances, and none have been detected, the balance of probability is that we are the first within our light cone. Considering the vastness of space, that further implies we might be the only. 

Talk about being a privileged observer.

Conclusion

Noticing when the Copernican Principle does not apply can be just as useful in guiding our thinking and attention as making use of it can be. 

Web Design and Architecture

This summer I join many of my cohort in taking a Web Design and Architecture class. It is my hope that we will all gain knowledge and skills that will serve us well in the future, both in our professional careers and in our personal appreciation of the topic.

My personal experience has so far mostly been limited to the Python coding language, a flexible and fairly user friendly language. However, it is not the simplest for creating  enjoyable user experiences.

I hope this course allows me the opportunity to grow my HTML knowledge, especially considering HTML’s widespread use.