Category / responsibility

by Nathan Coumbe

Experts can’t breach trust

The true expert knows more than you do.

The dentist knows whether you need a filling. You can’t possibly know what the shadow she’s showing you on the X-ray means. Not without years of specialized training, anyway.

But when the expert acts in bad faith—when the dentist gives you unnecessary dental work that breaks things enough another dentist has to fix it—that trust is broken. And it’s difficult to rebuild.

For many, it destroys trust in all experts. And we see where that gets us: conspiracy theories, denialism, and heterodoxy.

We must have faith in our experts, but they can’t exploit it. Not without serious social consequences.

by Nathan Coumbe

Bringing about our own extinction

David Meerman Scott published a fascinating article a few days ago. It compares modern AI companies to Enron and that company’s financial scandal that broke in 2001. 

But one paragraph in particular stood out to me that warrants quoting in full:

Altman says there’s a chance that so-called Artificial General Intelligence (which is still years or decades away) has the possibility of turning against humans. “I think that whether the chance of existential calamity is 0.5 percent or 50 percent, we should still take it seriously,” Altman says. “I don’t have an exact number, but I’m closer to the 0.5 than the 50.” (Source)

Terrifying, right?

I would argue that if you are creating something that has anything other than a 0% chance of wiping out humanity, you probably shouldn’t do it. 

For example: marketing Pepsi to be consumed in massive amounts, while definitely bad for humans, doesn’t run the risk of causing mass extinction.

On the other hand, bringing Tyrannosaurus rex back to life definitely has a greater than 0% chance of doing just that.

Now, I’m not a doomsday prepper by any stretch of the imagination… But when someone tells me there’s even a small chance that what they’re making could turn out like The Matrix, I start to worry. 

It’s as if they never watched I, Robot or read Jurassic Park (which is actually about runaway technology, not dinosaurs). 

These companies have a responsibility to guarantee that this doesn’t happen. We already made this mistake with nuclear weapons. And that threat still looms large over our heads, especially right now during the Russo-Ukraine War. 

We have enough threats to deal with. Let’s not create more of our own volition.

I’ll leave you with my favorite quote from Jurassic Park:

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

For more daily musings like this, subscribe below:

by Nathan Coumbe

Freedom from consequences

Trevor Noah recently said something I feel very strongly about. I’m paraphrasing a bit:

“People who are pro-free speech [at all costs]…are only really pro-free speech about their speech that might offend other people.”

Or, I might add, that may be despicably untrue…then an algorithm picks it up and spreads it to gullible or ill-informed victims…

But here’s the thing: freedom of speech protects you against government intervention.

It doesn’t give you the right to be an asshole (or evil) without consequences.

It also doesn’t protect you from businesses, corporations, or individuals limiting what you say.

You can’t say “bomb” in an airport without being tackled by TSA agents.

You can’t tell a restaurant owner to “eat shit and die”—then expect to be allowed back in to eat.

You also can’t say terrible things to a person and force them to stick around and listen… At least not in the real world (but apparently we expect others to do just that online).

That’s not free speech.

Somehow we’ve conflated (incorrectly) the idea of “I can say whatever I want no matter what,” with part of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

But:

Everything you say or do has consequences.

They might be good OR bad, but consequences of some sort will ensue regardless. That’s a natural law of the universe. And it’s immature to say or do something awful, then get upset when it has negative consequences for you.

This argument we’re having about what’s “allowed” to be said on the internet—it isn’t an argument about free speech.

Rather, it’s a conversation about actions and their consequences.

Our desire to avoid taking responsibility for those actions…and who determines what those consequences are.

You can do whatever you want…

You just can’t control the outcome of whatever you do.

“When you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other.”

—Stephen R. Covey
by Nathan Coumbe

Good for the hive

There’s a Chinese proverb folks seem to have forgotten:

“What is good for the hive is good for the bee.”

Yet a lot of Americans today seem to be focused on the the bees…

“What’s best for me? I don’t care how it affects anyone else.”

“How can I maximize my short-term pleasure?” (Implied in this is, “And increase my long-term pain?”)

“This new policy is good for me, so what else matters?”

If the bees acted that way, the hive would die. And we’d have no honey. 

But we’d also have no crops. People would starve. We’d lose access to essential medications—even fibers for clothing.

Maximizing individual short-term interests rarely leads to anything good for most people.

It’s because we live in a world of systems. And systems are greater than the sum of their individual parts. They also have 2nd-, 3rd-, and even 4th-order effects. 

Ask yourself, the next time you’re voting, writing a new policy, or drafting a law:

“Is this good for the hive?”

by Nathan Coumbe

Freedom, self-discipline, and responsibility

Contrary to what some people believe, freedom doesn’t mean you’re allowed to do whatever you want, whenever you want. 

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s philosophy was that freedom is the opportunity for self-discipline. 

Give a child total freedom and what happens? They live on ice cream and candy bars, set fire to the yard, and traumatize the pets and neighbors. In short, they become the quintessential “hooligan” so many suburbanites fear.

That’s why we have to instill external discipline in them at first and help them internalize it. That’s the only way they can become free without our oversight.

The same is true for adults, especially in our roles as citizens of a state or nation. They must learn how to use their freedom responsibly before they can truly call themselves “free citizens.”

Viktor Frankl said the United States should have set up a Statue of Responsibility on the west coast to compliment our Statue of Liberty on the east coast. He knew you couldn’t really have the latter without the former. 

And to paraphrase Uncle Ben from Spider-Man: “With great FREEDOM comes great responsibility.” We seem to forget that because we’re free, we are responsible for using that freedom in a disciplined manner. 

The late, great motivational speaker Zig Ziglar had a saying:

“Take a train off the tracks, and it’s totally free… But it can’t go anywhere.”

Take whatever meaning from this you will. But I know what it means to me. 

by Nathan Coumbe

Monopoly jail

Think about how the “going to jail” feature works in Monopoly. 

You’re sent directly to jail if you draw a bad card or land on the wrong space. 

And you’re stuck there. You can roll doubles with the dice and get out quickly—sort of a “parole” option.

Or you sit and serve out your sentence. And with that comes numerous additional punishments we often don’t consider. 

You don’t collect $200 dollars from moving around the board, so you’re worth less with each successive turn. 

And you can’t keep up with the other players. They quickly get ahead of you in terms of cash, properties, rent, and overall wealth.

When you finally get out, you’re just expected to pick up the game as if nothing ever happened. But in reality, you’re starting from a severe disadvantage compared to the rest. 

It’s not unlike what real former inmates face when they’re finally released. They spend years or decades isolated from the rest of the world, and when they finally get out, they’re expected to “figure it out.”

Get a job, even though no one will hire them. 

Find a place to live even though they’ve gone years without the ability to produce income. 

Sometimes, the games we play give a glimpse into real life.

Get new posts delivered directly to your inbox:

by Nathan Coumbe

Voting for others’ needs

How would you vote differently if you took your wants and desires out of the equation?

What if—instead of voting based on the promises politicians make that make your life better—you considered how those promises would affect others? 

The people who are different from you…

Those that have less than you (or more)…

Would you still believe that those policies were the best for everyone? Or do they just help you?

And do they actually help you? More importantly, do you believe they’ll follow through with them when so many don’t? Most of it’s just rhetoric after all.

Would you demand more, and better, from your elected officials?

Something to consider when the time comes.