I learned a lot last week listening to the technological conversations of New Mexico. https://www.linkedin.com/company/nm-tech-talks/and participating in a related podcast https://lnkd.in/gp8mciqs. Learning on the climatic initiatives of entrepreneurs, on the modern software development and IA, and about the attitudes of risk investors. Many were encouraging and others were frustrating.
Artificial intelligence
Software engineering, it seems, now is hundreds of times more complex than when I was in the game as a member of the Software Quality Institute in the 1990s. Suppliers push possible aid to encoders that must deal with innumerable software and hardware platforms, standards, complements, API, security measures, etc. I asked one of those suppliers: “If this confuses humans so much, what is describing help to explain why the LLMs get confused and hallucinated?”
He considered the question for a moment and answered: “Well, we [humans] He created this complex development environment. Our AI models reflect our own mental processes, so I suppose yes, we have created an environment where the confusion of LLM is almost assured. “
The separate podcast about AI noticed the recent event https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5gdhzpm7m8 in which an AI “was supposed to” close, but did not. The observers wondered if the AI had developed in some way an instinct for self -preservation! But no, it was only that the programmers had given the conflicting objectives of the AI. An instruction was that the AI went out when the objective #1 was achieved. However, the AI reasoned that if it closed, objective #2 could not achieve. Then it did not close.
When we do not give unequivocal objectives of AIS, it is one more proof that we ourselves are rarely clear about our own objectives. However, we survived, as AI did! A Podcast panelist commented that before transferring our confusing nature (and worse, our aggressive) to the AI, we should reformulate our entire approach, using AIS to make better people. Or, teach Ais to do what we do, namely, simply confuse when we are not sure where we are going.
The discussion became the way in which our data is collected when we use social networks, and the strange precision of the knowledge of the corporations of our habits. Interestingly, it is also annoying when the profiles are in error: namely, the relentless and meaningless campaign to sell me a hockey stick. (What, I am going to play ice hockey here in the desert?) And is it not strange that the main purpose of the “social” media is to attack us as individuals?
Climate Resilience Perspectives
The new risk presentations did not heal my climatic pessimism, but surely they reduced it. Great that so many scientists/entrepreneurs are addressing AG practices, water conservation, redesign of the electricity grid and responsibility for energy consumption. (Many of these were business license scientists from Sandia’s national laboratories). Even greater to think that Albuquerque is just a city, and similar business creativity and social responsibility must exist in dozens of other US cities.
The problem is that these companies have a time winning investment.
Risk capital
Technological conversations presented a series of presentations and VC panels. Knowing and pleasant types (yes, all were men), but one seemed unfortunately ignorant of human factors, and others were in conflict with the recovery period.
Human factors. A climate investor placed the experience of companies in just one of the four “layers”: physical assets; protocols and standards; data; and applications. Why would a fifth “human” layer be essential? Because, at least in the energy front …
… Energy use responsibility. My email says that the meter reader could not enter my patio to read the meter. Any child could open my door! And I don’t have a dog. Gossip of the neighborhood argues that the electric company is, without having sent a meters reader first.
… Nuclear power. Kememe’s report established that Three Mile Island nuclear disaster was due to insufficient staff training. As we trust nuclear energy for a green future, the human factor is central.
… Texas grid failures. These annual tragedies (people die in the heat of summer) are due to the negative of politicians to link Texas with the national network, and probably due to their perception that if the Texans use more electricity, they will consume less oil and gas that supports the state’s economy.
Recovery period. The VCs are chasing “cheap digital solutions that are useful, but they are only marginal in the general image of climate resilience. Investors avoid important and essential problems such as steel decarbonization and aircraft manufacturing, or nuclear fusion, because they present them long periods of recovery. My Q/A with them was something:
FP: has focused on risk and development stages, but has not mentioned the recovery period. His colleague in the other panel said he will not invest in companies that attacked really large climatic challenges. Please comment.
VC: Our limited partners want a rapid recovery, so there are areas that we cannot touch.
FP: I understand your situation. But today’s audience is here because we care about weather and sustainability. Do you expect us to sympathize with that type of tag? Sustainability means in the long term.
VC: There are other types of investors that deal with different horizons.
FP: But you are the ones here today. Will you assume the responsibility of swimming up, to redesign the VC process to meet today’s needs?
VC: Sovereign funds, for example, state money, will sometimes allow a 20 -year fund instead of a 10 -year fund. There is also a secondary market, which means that if invoked in a company that does not go back in 10 years but that seems promising, there are customer investors who will take charge.
In other words, no, these VC are not going to assume responsibility for their own processes. The response on sovereign funds and secondary markets seemed weak. Navigate the network, I presented this news somewhat encouraging https://apple.news/aa1d_zaacrxa_zhtpmqcdlq
In total, a fascinating two days!
Fred Phillips He is visiting the teacher at Suny Stony Brook and president of the Tando Institute. He is an emeritus editor of the international magazine Technological forecast and social change, and the 2017 winner of the Kondratieff Medal, awarded by the Academy of Sciences of Russia. He is a member of Picmet, the International Center for Engineering and Technology Management of Portland. His last books are What about the future? (Springer 2019), Smart City 2.0 (World Scientific 2023), and Learning and teaching Aikido (World Scientific 2021).
#Climate #Entrepreneurship #Science
