Episode 87
David Weinberger | Complex Systems, Inexplicable Models, and the Future of Prediction
Episode 87
David Weinberger
David Weinberger | Complex Systems, Inexplicable Models, and the Future of Prediction
summary
In this week’s episode of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with philosopher David Weinberger about the science of prediction, its evolution, and its future.
The two begin by exploring classical approaches developed by early philosophers and mathematicians in the ancient world and upon which advancements were later made by enlightenment thinkers and experimental scientists.
The models developed in this tradition have, until now, provided explanations for phenomena, which are used to make predictions about the future states or trajectories of these and other phenomena that adhere the same laws of action or motion.
What is new today is the evolution of what are known as “machine learning algorithms,” many of which provide superior predictions to those generated by conceptual or working models, but which often times cannot provide explanations for these predictions. They are, in this sense, block-box oracles.
This represents a fundamental break with the sort of epistemological approach taken by the ancient Athenian philosophers who demanded that beliefs be justified by reasoned arguments or those of empirical scientists who relied upon falsifiability of testable hypotheses. In other words, whereas traditional approaches to science have necessitated the development of theoretical models of the world that can be tested empirically through the act of making falsifiable predictions, these new approaches are capable of generating predictions without a means by which to understand the causes at play.
What are the implications of this new science? If predictions provided by highly intelligent machines become consistently more accurate across all domains of study, would we prefer to accept these inexplicable solutions over less accurate ones whose methodology we understand? At the limit, if we were to implement every prediction of every MLA, would we arrive at a fated, perfectly knowable world? If machines become the equivalent of Delphi’s Oracle, what will be the value of doing science? The scientific method, after all, is the means by which we have been able to navigate and understand the material world, in material terms. Does this re-open humanity’s door to the preoccupation with the mystery of conscious experience, which cannot be explained through the scientific method of objective, empirical analysis?
These are the questions we explore in this week’s episode with David Weinberger and Demetri Kofinas.
Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas
Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou
Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod
bio
David Weinberger is a philosopher by training. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Toronto and taught college from 1980-1986. He was a gag writer for the comic strip “Inside Woody Allen” from 1976-1983. David has been a pioneering thought leader about the Internet’s effect on our lives, on our businesses, and most of all, on our ideas, from the earliest days of the Web. He has contributed to fields ranging from marketing to libraries to politics to journalism and more as a strategic marketing VP and consultant; an Internet adviser to presidential campaigns; an early social networking entrepreneur; a writer-in-residence at Google; a senior researcher at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, a fellow at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, and a Franklin Fellow at the US State Department. His writing has appeared in publications from Wired to Harvard Business Review and his books include the bestselling The Cluetrain Manifesto.
transcript
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihil minus, contraque illa hereditate dives ob eamque rem laetus. Ratio quidem vestra sic cogit. Tum Piso: Quoniam igitur aliquid omnes, quid Lucius noster?
Ut enim consuetudo loquitur, id solum dicitur honestum, quod est populari fama gloriosum. Sed tamen intellego quid velit. Et quidem iure fortasse, sed tamen non gravissimum est testimonium multitudinis.
Duae sunt enim res quoque, ne tu verba solum putes. Num quid tale Democritus? Cetera illa adhibebat, quibus demptis negat se Epicurus intellegere quid sit bonum. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quis animo aequo videt eum, quem inpure ac flagitiose putet vivere? Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat.
Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Laboro autem non sine causa;
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis? Quis enim redargueret? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Comprehensum, quod cognitum non habet? Te ipsum, dignissimum maioribus tuis, voluptasne induxit, ut adolescentulus eriperes P. Innumerabilia dici possunt in hanc sententiam, sed non necesse est. Nam his libris eum malo quam reliquo ornatu villae delectari. Propter nos enim illam, non propter eam nosmet ipsos diligimus. Ut placet, inquit, etsi enim illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concedere.
Summus dolor plures dies manere non potest? Quis enim redargueret? Innumerabilia dici possunt in hanc sententiam, sed non necesse est. Respondent extrema primis, media utrisque, omnia omnibus. Ego vero isti, inquam, permitto. Sed haec quidem liberius ab eo dicuntur et saepius. De vacuitate doloris eadem sententia erit.
Res tota, Torquate, non doctorum hominum, velle post mortem epulis celebrari memoriam sui nominis. Propter nos enim illam, non propter eam nosmet ipsos diligimus. Hunc vos beatum; Nec vero sum nescius esse utilitatem in historia, non modo voluptatem. Somnum denique nobis, nisi requietem corporibus et is medicinam quandam laboris afferret, contra naturam putaremus datum; Sed nimis multa. Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum. Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam.
Non enim ipsa genuit hominem, sed accepit a natura inchoatum. Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Somnum denique nobis, nisi requietem corporibus et is medicinam quandam laboris afferret, contra naturam putaremus datum; Heri, inquam, ludis commissis ex urbe profectus veni ad vesperum. Tum, Quintus et Pomponius cum idem se velle dixissent, Piso exorsus est. Quae quo sunt excelsiores, eo dant clariora indicia naturae.
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Frater et T. An vero, inquit, quisquam potest probare, quod perceptfum, quod. Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. Utrum igitur tibi litteram videor an totas paginas commovere? Torquatus, is qui consul cum Cn. Si qua in iis corrigere voluit, deteriora fecit. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Restincta enim sitis stabilitatem voluptatis habet, inquit, illa autem voluptas ipsius restinctionis in motu est.
Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam; Si enim ita est, vide ne facinus facias, cum mori suadeas. Non quam nostram quidem, inquit Pomponius iocans; Praeterea sublata cognitione et scientia tollitur omnis ratio et vitae degendae et rerum gerendarum. Perturbationes autem nulla naturae vi commoventur, omniaque ea sunt opiniones ac iudicia levitatis. Quodcumque in mentem incideret, et quodcumque tamquam occurreret. Nam si propter voluptatem, quae est ista laus, quae possit e macello peti? Si autem id non concedatur, non continuo vita beata tollitur. Itaque nostrum est-quod nostrum dico, artis est-ad ea principia, quae accepimus. Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse;
Nunc reliqua videamus, nisi aut ad haec, Cato, dicere aliquid vis aut nos iam longiores sumus. Summum ením bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris; Theophrastus mediocriterne delectat, cum tractat locos ab Aristotele ante tractatos? Quid enim de amicitia statueris utilitatis causa expetenda vides. Theophrastum tamen adhibeamus ad pleraque, dum modo plus in virtute teneamus, quam ille tenuit, firmitatis et roboris. Atque ab isto capite fluere necesse est omnem rationem bonorum et malorum. At hoc in eo M. Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo. Rationis enim perfectio est virtus; Utinam quidem dicerent alium alio beatiorem! Iam ruinas videres.
Nummus in Croesi divitiis obscuratur, pars est tamen divitiarum. Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Hinc ceteri particulas arripere conati suam quisque videro voluit afferre sententiam. Nihil ad rem! Ne sit sane;
related episodes
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quae iam oratio non a philosopho aliquo, sed a censore opprimenda est. Incommoda autem et commoda-ita enim estmata et dustmata appello-communia esse voluerunt, paria noluerunt. Dolor ergo, id est summum malum, metuetur semper, etiamsi non aderit; Frater et T. Haec et tu ita posuisti, et verba vestra sunt. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed erat aequius Triarium aliquid de dissensione nostra iudicare. De vacuitate doloris eadem sententia erit. Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam.
Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem, quae ille diceret? Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo. Atque haec ita iustitiae propria sunt, ut sint virtutum reliquarum communia. Proclivi currit oratio. Nosti, credo, illud: Nemo pius est, qui pietatem-; In eo enim positum est id, quod dicimus esse expetendum. Quae qui non vident, nihil umquam magnum ac cognitione dignum amaverunt.
Illum mallem levares, quo optimum atque humanissimum virum, Cn. Consequens enim est et post oritur, ut dixi. Indicant pueri, in quibus ut in speculis natura cernitur. Idemque diviserunt naturam hominis in animum et corpus.
Iis igitur est difficilius satis facere, qui se Latina scripta dicunt contemnere. Iam illud quale tandem est, bona praeterita non effluere sapienti, mala meminisse non oportere? Hanc ergo intuens debet institutum illud quasi signum absolvere. Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas; Itaque a sapientia praecipitur se ipsam, si usus sit, sapiens ut relinquat. Sed venio ad inconstantiae crimen, ne saepius dicas me aberrare; Quacumque enim ingredimur, in aliqua historia vestigium ponimus. Quod ea non occurrentia fingunt, vincunt Aristonem;