People have for many decades worked to create automated tools where users express their preferences and then get decision recommendations. There are even a number of such sites for political recommendations. In general these are not popular, and they are mostly just not good. Most useful decision recommendation tools, like Google or Auto GPSs, don't vary much at all with the person, and so don't bother to collect personal preferences. The useful tools that do vary more by person tend to base their recommendations on a dataset of prior decisions by that person, instead of on explicit abstract expressions of preference.

If our tools are this weak for concrete problems where we have a lot of data and feedback, I don't see much hope for them giving much assistance anytime soon on the big hard problems of how we can each help humanity's future. Datasets of previous decisions by a person aren't very useful, most people don't much understand the relevant abstract concepts, the decision problems are very hard, and there are far more reasons to be concerned that claimed sources of advice are really pushing some agenda.

Really, this isn't a problem that is ready to be handed off to smart robots. We'll have to actually *think* about it ourselves.

    Dear Sabine;

    You wrote : "some think that quantum computers will solve our problems" and you mention that they will not be able to do so.

    My proposition is that quantum computers are not limited by the "black OR white" solution but can also reach all the tones of grey in between the black and white. Once we will have created a quantum computer with 1,000 qubits and control its "decoherence" there will be 10^300 possible configurations, which is more as all the atoms in our visible universe, so we have stocked 10^300 solutions for problems that can occur. Of course this does not mean that any question can be answered, but maybe every question is already answered the moment we achieved this quantum state, even putting on the "power" may not be nececerry...

    When we will be able to couple this quantum "computer" to the brain microtubules and so create an entanglement between the available solutions in the "machine" and the quantum coherence in our brain in these microtubules we will have "available" all the answers and maybe able to steer our causal "future".

    see [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1991]my essay :"STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS ?"[:link] Thnak you for putting it on your reading list, maybe you will leave a comment on my thread and rate it in conformity with your appreciation.

    best regards

    Wilhelmus

    I agree, Robin. I think Sabine is right to argue that better decision-making tools would help. We could certainly improve the tools we have now. But it's not clear humans actually have the stable, well-defined sets of preferences we like to imagine we do. Nor is it clear any set of decision-making tools can really be neutral. How we make decisions inevitably becomes the source of political and ideological conflict.

    Dear Sabine Hossenfelder,

    Thanks for your excellent essay, appreciated by many judging from your score and the number of comments. You acknowledge "inborn knowledge", a topic James Putnam's essay deals with.

    You also note that our political, economic, and social systems that govern our lives are presently adaptive by trial and error, concluding that this is too slow to solve current problems we face. John C Hodge addresses this in his essay, and is somewhat at odds with this. The key is to partition the system finely -- many instances of local trial and error. Our Internet and existing communication systems will tell us which work and which fail, just as the state of major cities in the US tells us which policies work and which don't work very well. This is essentially parallel processing! Of course, if you are referring to a global system operating by trial and error, then the result is likely catastrophic.

    I certainly agree that "quantum computing" will not solve our problems. My favorite line in your essay is:

    "The point here is not to manipulate people into changing their ways because I or you or some supercomputer thinks it would be better... The point is to help people make decisions."

    I quote you in my essay and suggest change I think would be very helpful.

    Your "politics by looks" is shocking but not surprising. That's partly why Washington DC is called "Hollywood for ugly people" (relatively speaking). Also, your example of the mortgage housing crisis was hardly unrecognized. But the politicians who benefited by forcing banks to provide bad loans to their constituents actively opposed efforts to rein things in -- part of the problem I address. I also quibble a little with your distinction between science in the academy and "for-profit" science. Much science today has been politicized, and is essentially "for-profit", whether labeled so or not.

    Anyway, thanks again for your fine essay and well thought out approach, and I hope you will find my essay, the Thermodynamics of Freedom, interesting and compatible with your ideas. I look forward to any comments you might make.

    My best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Edwin,

      Thanks for your comment. I agree with what you say. I see that my sentence about trial and error can be misunderstood. You need a system that provides feedback which tells people whether a decision was working towards or against their goals. I think that is what you mean with 'many local trial and errors' though I think the word 'local' is misleading here. I would call that a small variation and learning. With 'error' I basically mean complete failure that may lead to a breakdown, which is what you want to avoid. Example: You want a feedback that stabilizes the financial system (reaction to small variations) rather than one which only kicks in if things have gone dramatically wrong (error). I can see though that I didn't make this very clear.

      In any case, I will have a look at your essay which sounds very interesting. Best,

      Sabine

      Robin,

      You are right that these tools exist. I see this as a beginning of a development that we just have to push to its conclusion.

      You are also right on your other points. People's preferences aren't stable over time and they are in addition contradictory. That doesn't matter though, the priority maps can be adjusted and that preferences are contradictory just means there is no decision that works towards all.

      Regarding the information sources pushing agendas. That is true, but look, this problem is self-correcting once the system is set up properly. So some information provider pushes some agenda. Do you like this agenda? Do you share their values? Are you skeptic about their motives? Do you care about what other people think about them? Which sources do you trust? What do other people think? What is the track record of these information providers?

      People aren't stupid. They are influenced by sources 'pushing their agenda' because these sources make their information cheap and because this is allowed in the present system. Now I believe that this is a failure of democracy because people don't want to be influenced this way but don't have the means to express this. If that is so, then giving them the means to express this should address the problem. Best,

      Sabine

      Sabine,

      Yours is an extraordinary, beautifully written essay, whose philosophy and proposal I readily support. Towards the end of your essay, you appeal to the goodness of all humans, without which, as you say, making information inexpensive will by itself not be of help. Unfortunately, as we know, in the current scenario, conflict of interest often makes powerful individuals act in a manner which is more suited to fulfilling personal / nationalistic ambitions, not keeping in mind the good of humanity at large [war for instance being an ugly consequence]. Such individuals could be classified as `not good humans' and are a serious bottleneck. I do not wish to use this space to advertise my essay, but I have tried to make a case that humans can be `trained' to be `good'. I cannot prove that this will work, for this too requires goodness of political will, but perhaps if we build from grassroots [catch them young] there is some hope that future leaders might begin to act differently, and collectively think of the planet, and not just of nations. One hopes.

      Best,

      Tejinder

        Hi Sabine,

        And thank you for your nice essay! Your ideas would be the silver bullet in the ideal world. Problems arise when we are trying to find out the right actions and priorities. We can't be even sure if our every (major) selected priority or goal does any good in a long run (poor data, poor theories, biases, fabricated data, manipulation, lobbying etc). Anyway, your ideas would be a big leap forward if ever implemented!

        So, big hand from me :-) I bet that you don't buy my ideas on antimatter. But let's pretend that I'm right, how would you handle the situation with your suggestions? I'm listening.

          Kimmo,

          It is not the case that every particle can be its own antiparticle. I really do not think it is a problem that we have to worry about. Having said that, it is true of course that every new technology brings risks and that these risks have to be properly studied and assessed, preferably before the technology spreads. This is a difficult problem because the question what risk is acceptable is not a scientific one. This risk assessment also must take into account the question of how likely the theory is to be correct, and I am afraid that your theory is almost certainly incorrect, so the risk seems to me very small. In this context however, I recently read about the origin of the word 'megadeath', maybe your worries are worth some gigadeaths then. Best,

          Sabine

          Tejinder,

          I am philosophically very much with Leibnitz who was ridiculed for his argument that we live in the 'best of all possible worlds'. I tend to think it is tautologically true that people are 'good' and try to do the 'best', it's just that they disagree on exactly what that entails. Another way to say this is to notice that the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the US constitution is entirely meaningless. Happiness is pretty much by definition that what people pursue. If somebody wanted to pursue unhappiness who are we to decline him his wish if that makes him happy? Or wait, does not make him happy. See the issue? Same thing with being 'good'. Everything everybody does is 'good' for something or somebody. Maybe they are good at being bad? Maybe they just don't care about the 'good for humanity at large' and who are you to tell them they should? Would that make you bad? Would that be good if it made you bad? And what does any of that mean anyway?

          Having said that, I don't want to get hung up on a word too much as I think I can extract the essence of what you are saying and I like the sentiment. Best,

          Sabine

          Sabine,

          Beautifully argued analysis and ideas. I just can't help thinking; a) They can't be effectively implemented (and who draws prejudice free maps!?) And; b) If implemented they'll fail due to how brains work. I agree about attention span, but feedback to a database (lobes) has scant connection to the front cerebral cortex which takes the fast intuitive decisions, often wrong despite 'knowledge'. Once those lessons of youth are imprinted we're indoctrinated. Too late for non surgical cure. But focussed on the young you refer to, then perhaps!

          The problem is that we're now beyond Planck's solution, the indoctrinated are cloning the young. The SM you laud is near death in practice. Information overload (your 'reading time' problem) means retrenchment, stifling advancement in understanding. You wrote; "There MUST be more to find than we have found so far" and; "We know the theory MUST exist". Fine and true words, but now just words. When put before our eyes the truth is now only ignored or denied. Read my essay and falsify that statement.

          I should explain my view is that of an implementer. Scientist and theorist perhaps but largely exo-academia and Architect trained. I was lead consultant for a North Sea petro-chem consortium bringing home the largest UK project, then recently on the largest UK windafarm (Vestas). All fast-track from blank sheets of paper. Good decision taking methods and feedback are implicit.

          Advising on appointing other consultants we've learned to avoid academics as most can't cope with rapid (or any!) advancement. That's what I see really needs to change. Academic theoretical inertia. I've watched it steadily worsen!

          I almost wrote the essay on that, and the poor use most make of the brilliant quantum computer in our heads. We need to be trained when young how to use it properly, not just as a database! I decided implementing unified physics is a far more important advancement for science and mankind, thus my essay (and previous).

          But while I can make things happen elsewhere, in academia I'm entirely powerless. Many see it as an ego led 'closed shop' but I see the fear, confusion and poor rewards. Whatever the problem it need major surgery! I do like your ideas but they look like darts to me not arrows, and getting close to the target, but not hitting it. I'd love to work with you to help focus and develop your ideas, but of course there's probably no time.

          I think if anyone can prove part of the solution not part of the problem it may be you Sabine, but it may need courage and wider vision to see it.

          Best of luck. You're my favourite for top spot.

          Peter

            T'was I. Why do we let computers lie to us? Let's ban all deception.

            I omitted an intended comment on gamification. I agree entirely, and it's an excellent way to inspire and motivate, essential components for implementation.

            I also note your comment; "the academic system too isn't able to learn". Indeed the root of the problem, from Infant age upwards. We do have the means, but so few seem to have the ability.

            Best

            Peter Jackson (just in case it's lying about login again!

            Hi Sabine,

            You are right, I think, that distribution and application of available information is often a greater problem than acquisition of additional information. I also agree that providing people with better means to achieve their goals will be more productive than trying to persuade people to change their goals. As I understand the requirements of the question, we were asked to make suggestions for concrete action, and you have done that very well. It is a natural question, then, whether some group or institution will start implementing your five-step plan. I would think that a good start would be to set up a step-one process for a group of scientists. They might be in a particular geographical area, or they might work in a particular field. This would be a substep of step 1. We might think of it as step 1.1. After that, it would be possible to implement further substeps of step 1. Before completing all of step 1, we could begin with the appropriate substeps of step 2. At least this seems to me a reasonable approach.

            Laurence Hitterdale

            Sabine,

            We are in agreement that "science matters for steering the future of humanity" and that "we just have to make it easier for them to convert caring into action." We also agree that the primary initiative lies with scientists.

            Where, I believe, we differ is in what we can ask or force individual people to do. Your approach and mine differ (in your five step approach) in step 3. I contend that converting "caring into action" is a very personal and individual thing. While scientists, or others, can rank and prioritize from a BIG picture perspective, the BIG picture is generally not meaningful for the general public or even many countries and institutions. e.g. China and India give lip service to global warming because they see it ranking below economic development.

            Please read my essay here and tell me if you agree with our only real difference in thinking.

            - Ajay

            Dear Sabine,

            You operate the thesis that "Only then, when we can make informed decisions by feeling rather than thinking, will we be able to act and respond to the challenges we face."

            I see the possibility that someone instead invents a technology by which we may "feel" (or ask questions of) ourselves and cumulatively of our collective consciousness. That thing will then represent a kind of oracle/real life virtual community. You call it "systems that are able to learn and in return help let us learn about the system. "

            I foresee in my own approach that this technology may even replace governments! Don't think it is too farfetched. Once we can properly read/calibrate the individual human (so it represents an individual computer/ip address i.e. a "personal priority map" ) then the de facto "government", "god" or collective us would be same as what we call now the internet (the individual being an "intranet").

            This situation seems to me sure to come by but it may not be entirely rosy as you imagine. Remember how we used to be all proud of an "industrial revolution" that saved us from servitude to nature? Many years down the line we are now faced with environmental concerns.

            Of course in your essay you expressly do not pretend to tell humanity WHERE to steer to but rather HOW to steer. Now I ask you what of that possibility of the "how" getting in the way of the "where" (replacing it) and creating a system of zombie humans?

            This is because our intuitive/free will abilities must be like our muscular abilities (I suppose); the less you actually use your muscles, the more you lose them. What do you say about us loosing that critical "liberty" that also makes us human?

            Regards,

            Chidi Idika

            Sabine,

            Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, not Leibnitz, was born two years after the end of a war that lasted for thirty years and decimated the population in the sense that just about every tenth survived. Leibniz died in 1716 before in 1756 a war begun that lasted for seven years. Parts of Germany were occupied by France and Sweden. The chance for a peaceful period, the best of all possible ones, was about the same as for Germany after WWII. I don't like using sentiment when dealing with basic questions of science.

            I explained to Mohammed Khali what I meant when I wrote: "Neither Philip Gibbs nor Sabine Hossenfelder will save the world."

            Any objection by anyone?

            Sabine, please don't take my bluntness amiss. I nonetheless very much acknowledge your absolutely best intentions.

            Regards,

            Eckard

            Dear Sabine,

            Tommaso Bolognesi suggested we read your essay since he saw many similarities between yours and ours. In a standard cop-out that you obviously will recognize, we only wish we had the time to devote to our essay to make it is clear as yours, although, we still are likely to have fallen short of your compelling and passionate (and at times very funny!) proposal.

            We agree that there are clear parallels in our summaries of current problems, although our proposed solutions are quite different. You doubt human abilities to derive meaning from large data sets and to think about long-distance and long-term consequences of our actions, and you say "what little grasp we have is prone to cognitive biases and statistical errors." And then you crystallize these issues thusly: "These cognitive shortcomings are not only obstacles to solving our problems, they are the problem". We couldn't agree more or have stated the problem more clearly.

            We also are in complete agreement with your analysis of education: "It is time to wake up. We've tried long enough to educate them. It doesn't work. The idea of the educated and well - informed citizen is a[n] utopia. It doesn't work because education doesn't please people. They don't like to think. It is too costly and it's not the information they want." But, then it appears your solution is to provide training and feedback frameworks, and education on how to implement them. You state very clearly that technology is not an integral piece of the solution: "We have a social problem, not a technological one."

            The primary differences between your proposal and ours are as follows:

            - We believe the solution to our problems is partly priority and partly technology, i.e. first deciding that we need better brains and other thinking machines, and then creating the technologies to implement the solutions. You appear to agree on the first part, but not the second.

            - You believe that training will work this time if we just do it a certain way.

            - To guide long-term decisions, your proposal places trust in current human priorities, and thus current levels of rationality. Substantial research by Kahneman and Tversky, Keith Stanovich, Tom Gilovich, Dan Ariely, and many others convince us that people are neither rational nor good forecasters, even when they are focused on the future. You clearly understand these issues, but this doubts about bias and irrationality seem to be overwhelmed by the apparent practicality of your proposal.

            After saying the problem is not technological, your essay appears to acknowledge that an engineering solution is preferred: "In the future, information about matches with personal priorities may be delivered wirelessly to brain implants, constituting an upgrade of humanity for global interactions." But given current limitations, you rely on a less reliable but practical solution "With presently existing technology we have to settle for visualizing a match or mismatch rather than feeling it." But this is what education has been doing for centuries: translating data into an intuitive graph, or a problem into another kind of problem, using analogies and other abstractions.

            Here is the key question for you: why not simply commit to fixing the intrinsic problems you identify, rather than playing tricks of substitution of a long-term goal for a short-term one, or making someone believe they are eating ice cream when they are actually eating vegetables? Why not instead engineer the brain to be better at understanding data (or to like vegetables more than ice cream)? Without question these are challenging undertakings, but why continue to apply band-aids on top of dozens of previously applied band-aids?

            We think our proposal is the only truly efficient (albeit, long-term) approach and, while our proposed solution is not as specific as yours, we want people to engage in a serious conversation about the issues we raise and how to create better brains and other thinking machines - especially the best scientists and engineers who typically have little motivation to consider these issues because they are comfortable with their own intellects. However, we think that this is another illusion of spacetime proximity (close), which is why our essay asks the reader to consider an imaginary being with god-like powers to do science and engineering (distant). The most rational and intelligent people only feel satisfied with their present mental status because human perceptions are selected to be relativistic about abilities, but the problems highlighted by both of our essays apply to everyone.

            I hope your essay does well since the parallels of our two essays are striking and it is important that these issues take center stage. I also hope that you read our essay and that we persuade you to some degree of the soundness of our proposal. Whatever the outcome, we're glad to have made your acquaintance through this competition.

            All the best,

            Preston Estep (and Alex Hoekstra)