Learn to fear…

Advertisements
Photo by Paul Cameron from Pexels

Computers can master some tasks—like playing a game of Go—through trial and error. But what works for a game doesn’t work for risky real-world tasks like driving a car, where “losing” might involve a high-speed collision. To drive safely, humans have an exquisite feedback system: our fight-or-flight response, in which physiological reactions like a rapid heart rate and sweaty palms signal “fear,” and so keep us vigilant and, theoretically, out of trouble. Now, researchers at Microsoft are giving artificial intelligence (AI) programs a rough analog of anxiety to help them sense when they’re pushing their luck.

The scientists placed sensors on people’s fingers to record pulse amplitude while they were in a driving simulator, as a measure of arousal. An algorithm used those recordings—80 minutes divided among four people—to learn to predict an average person’s pulse amplitude at each moment on the course. It then used those “fear” signals as a guide while learning to drive through the virtual world: If a human would be scared here, it might muse, “I’m doing something wrong.” AIs using this method still had to crash to learn safe driving skills, but they required 25% fewer crashes to reach the same level of performance as a nonfearful AI, the researchers reported this week at the International Conference on Learning Representations here. (1)

Fear guides men. (And soon, computers too)

Fear creates paths.

Fear pushes one forward (or backwards)

So stubborn are we.

Full of fear. And yet, moving!

Believing that we achieve something.

That we overcome our self.

(Can you overcome your self?)

Refusing to acknowledge that what we fear is not moving.

But standing still…

Look. You are walking…

Against ecology: How eco-friendly behavior can be harmful!

Advertisements
Photo by GEORGE DESIPRIS from Pexels

A new theory suggests that we think of our relationship with the environment like a social exchange, leading to the belief that ‘environmentally friendly’ behavior can compensate for ‘harmful’ behavior. And research reveals that thinking like this could have harmful effects on the environment after all.

This is because we may believe that ecological behavior cancels-out non-ecological behavior, while this is obviously not the case. In reality, all consumption causes permanent environmental harm, and green options are at best less harmful rather than restorative. And unfortunately studies show that when so-called ‘eco-friendly’ items are added to a set of ‘conventional’ items, people believe the environmental impact of the whole set is unchanged, or even reduced.

“For instance, some groups have found that people intuitively think the environmental burden of a hamburger and an organic apple in combination is lower than the environmental burden of the hamburger alone, or that the total emissions of a car pool remain the same when hybrid cars are added to the pool,” highlights Sörqvist, one of the researchers.

This leads us to pursue all sorts of misguided quick fixes to assuage our eco-guilt.

“People might purchase some extra groceries because they are ‘eco-labeled’; think that they can justify jetting abroad for vacation because they have been cycling to work; or take longer showers because they’ve reduced the water temperature. And companies – nations, even – claim to balance greenhouse gas emissions by planting trees or by paying for carbon offsets through the European Union Emission Trading Scheme.

“Meanwhile, the best thing for the environment would of course be for us to consume less overall,” stresses Sörqvist. (1)

A research stating nothing more than the obvious.

The solution to a problem is not a solution to the problem.

But the nullification of the problem itself.

There is no need to be eco-friendly.

Because there is no cosmos be friendly to.

You are that cosmos!

You are not part of anything.

You ARE everything!

Try to do good.

And you will end up doing something wrong.

Because the only way to be good is not through doing something.

But through doing nothing.

And letting the universe tell you what is good.

Stand by.

And let that sparrow die.

It will be the best thing you did for it…

Mimicking an insect. Mimicking nothingness.

Advertisements
Photo by lucas souza from Pexels

A novel insect-inspired flying robot, developed by TU Delft researchers from the Micro Air Vehicle Laboratory (MAVLab), is presented in Science. Experiments with this first autonomous, free-flying and agile flapping-wing robot – carried out in collaboration with Wageningen University & Research – improved our understanding of how fruit flies control aggressive escape maneuvers. Apart from its further potential in insect flight research, the robot’s exceptional flight qualities open up new drone applications. (1)

We believe that mimicking insects is easier than mimicking humans.

But it’s quite the opposite.

It takes a lot to mimic something which does nothing.

For especially because of that, it does everything…

Look beyond the thunders in the storm.

It is the calmness before it which is the source of its strength.

Look beyond the fragility of the butterfly.

It is because of that that its existence is so substantial.

Look beyond the chattering arrogance of humans.

It is only because he talks too much that he can’t listen to anything…

Look beyond that robot which does everything.

It is because of that that it cannot accept that it just Is…

Italy, coronavirus, saving the younger ones: Civilization dying.

Advertisements

In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, it is reported that in Italy there is a shortage in medical supplies and doctors are now making choices about who to save and who to leave unattended to die. There are reports that the selection doctors make are in favor of the younger ones. (Source)

If this is the case, then we are dealing with something worse than the death of some people. We are dealing with the death of civilization per se.

Because there is nothing worse than arrogance. Arrogance that man can ride at the level of God and play God’s role. Arrogance that someone can decide who lives and who dies.

It is such arrogance that made crimes as the Holocaust possible. Don’t be fooled. The devil always comes disguised as an angel.

Sure, there is logic in selecting the younger ones for survival. But a wrong logic altogether. What if that young person is someone terrible who commits crimes? What if the older person who is left to die is an honorable person who had devoted his life to saving others? What if that younger person you saved went on to rape children? What if that old person you killed was an experienced heart surgeon who was going to save the life of a prime minister who would in turn save the world from the next world war? What if that older person was you?

Any logic applied in selecting who lives and who dies, at the end, promotes death. Not life. Death of the ones not selected. Death of a civilization that once upon a time called for saving the weak not because they could survive, but especially because they couldn’t!

Look around.

And in the faces of the people you will not see men and women dying.

But a whole civilization crying…

PS 1. But what should we do? could someone still ask. Shouldn’t we decide something? The answer is simple and already given: we should do nothing! In the case of such life or death dilemmas men should not decide! We cannot play God. Treat people with a “first come first served” priority (and no, no two people arrive simultaneously, simultaneous events do not exist even in theoretical physics). So simple. So “irrational” with regards to our death-loving distorted logic. These dilemmas have been solved a long time ago in modern European law tradition. We are here not to play the role of fate. We are here to suffer it.

PS 2. Yes, you guessed correctly. There is no “trolley problem” as such. In such cases, one should not do anything, i.e. one should not try to play God. The solution to such infamous problems is that you try for the best, without playing the role of fate as we so much like to do these days…