This is a fun philosophical discussion too, because we're straddling some questions of humanity—for millennia, we've relied on our gut feelings and intuition, and much less on precise measurement.
Along comes computation, and in a few short decades many people now have access to a gargantuan amount of computing power (few of these people maximize that potential). Now here you and I are, discussing hanging up most of that gutfeel and intuition and replacing it with a deep dataset of measurement. And we're not just riffing, we're having the conversation on a platform that is made of the tech that would theoretically support our ideas.
I'm mostly curious (versus for or against) about how we achieve harmony with a deeply measured existence. Once we get into it, can we get out? Will those who are uncomfortable with it be able to thrive without it?
Intense stuff. :)
Indeed. So there will always be those people who will choose the "gut feel" over data and analytics, especially from a computer.
Those algorithms are generally based on someone's expertise and this has directly led to other humans making remarkable advancements in many fields.
It goes along with the premise of not reinventing the wheel. The microbiologist does not create and invent his own microscopes, nor does he test and verify biochemistry experiments when conducting his breakthrough in study. He must work off the shoulders of others.
Thus we already do live in that kind of society, its just not digital yet and there are no quantifiable links to one part of the experiment or task and the other, yet.
Failure or perception of success in laboratories often are influenced by a multitude of factors no matter how hard we try eliminate them.
It takes time and repetition to prove or disprove something.
Finally some people still need to use their intuition to decide on whose shoulders to stand and what factors to remove, add or alter when an experiment fails.
In a different context we could align it to a baker or chef that follows a receipe. He may decide, like I do, to make an alteration. But he hardly begins my grinding his own flour. Or growing his own wheat.
So coming back to that question: Once we delve into this, can we come out?
If my above statement is true then we never really come out of it unless we are self sufficient gurus that do everything ourselves and become perfect hermits... then we do not have a society that needs other people at all.
You are right. This is fun. 😁😄
On the path to the singularity, it would seem. 😉
I also wonder if this digitization-of-all-the-things will have a short term impact on the general population's mental health (for good or for ill). We are now seeing some of the repercussions of web2 social media starting to air out on downside of that idea.
I can envision a future where more granular, quantitative insight helps, and also one where it hurts. As long as our brains have not yet evolved to rely on machine input, we will be old-school pattern seeking creatures that oversimplify and see stories everywhere. I feel like a data-driven reality will need to work hard to put up guardrails.
Reigning this discussion back on topic though... perhaps a big role of web3 education can start with a more pointed global curriculum in understanding the machines that underpin our digital existence.
There should be a global indication to help understand the context of the internet and group psychology as well.
I find that individuals are often both clever and kind and that masses of people are often neither.
We all want to be treated as humans but often lack the insight to treat people as human once we have no clue who they are, which happens when you move and react as a group.