There is now an enormous amount of incredibly useful information in the world. But at the same time, there is also a problem of access to it.
On the one hand, access to knowledge is now better than it has ever been in human history. It seems that access to knowledge is one of the things that significantly accelerated humanity’s scientific and technological progress.
At first, scientists thought things through and ran their experiments on their own, and often their work disappeared into the depths of history and was forgotten. Tiny sparks of knowledge remained, but they did not ignite other isolated sparks.
Then printing appeared. The speed of information spread increased, and access to it became easier. Now, within a single human lifetime, two scientists or philosophers could even communicate and criticize each other while being far apart.
Then came the telegraph. First optical, then electromagnetic. Then radio and telephones. Then the Internet developed — you already know all that. And now the exchange of knowledge, analysis, and criticism happens very quickly, which greatly strengthens our progress.
Access itself has also become almost magical: we can reach into our pocket, pull out a magical calculating machine, and it connects to the source of all the knowledge of civilization. The overwhelming majority of it can even be downloaded for free, no SMS or registration required!
But there is a problem. The mere possibility of access and the existence of search engines (which, I think, also accelerated progress) still do not fully solve the access problem. Because in order to find something, you have to know what to look for.
This is partly solved by AI — it greatly simplifies our access to all kinds of information. I think this is exactly why it can increase human productivity so dramatically (especially in learning) even without automation.
Most of the time, my interaction with AI looks like this:
I have an idea that I cannot fully formulate yet, but it sounds roughly like [this]. Find the fields of science, terms, and theories related to my idea, and analyze whether there is a better formulation or further development of it.
If it were not for AI, I would be doomed to spend years collecting that information in tiny fragments.
And even so, AI still does not solve the access problem 100%. Not even 90%. I do not know exactly how much it solves — but definitely not 90%!
It can still fail to notice that a certain topic is connected to the one I am asking about, for example, or it can search too narrowly and miss a huge space of relevant results.
And this applies not only to science. That is why this is a key to life — it is also connected to finding work, housing, friends, love, and basically anything where you need to find something, get something, but do not know how.
Almost all of life — all of our existence — consists of solving tasks.
Some happen in the background, automatically: the task of moving, blinking, breathing, and so on. Some are more active: eating, washing, walking from home to a transport stop.
Some are maximally active: inventing life-extension technology, writing a post for a LessWrong.
But all of these tasks have something in common. There is an initial state A and a final (desired) state B. Between them are the steps that need to be taken in order to get from A to B.
And in order to take those steps, we need to know what to do. We need to know where to go, whom to ask, what to google, what exactly to do.
If we take this to an absurd extreme, then if we had absolute, magical access to all knowledge, we could simply perform the minimal number of movements — perhaps even just turn our head at the right time and in the right place — in order to trigger a cascade of events leading to the desired result.
Everything that separates us from a desired outcome, if that outcome is not forbidden by the laws of physics, is knowledge. And knowledge requires access.
To put it as simply and practically as possible: the more people you know, and the more often you use tools like AI, the greater the chance that someone will recommend — or you will simply stumble upon — the topic / service / place that you need and that can help you.
So the problem is very often not simply whether the information exists or does not exist as such. And it is not only that access to it may be restricted by censorship, accreditation, or a paywall.
Access can also be limited by the fact that the idea we want to explore often exists in our mind only as a vague intuitive impression, and is not formalized enough to be ready for search.
Or, for example, we may simply fail to enter the space where the knowledge we need is located — whether that space is digital, physical, social, or a particular time window. We search for it on Google, when in fact we might have found it through a mutual acquaintance at a weekly meetup of like-minded people whose existence we do not even suspect.
When we try to solve life problems, we are looking into a search space covered almost everywhere in fog. Access can reveal hidden paths, give us keys to closed roads, or simply connect us with people who know the shortcut.
Access problem is exactly why I’m developing a website that will compile FAQs on life extension and AI risks—for people who know absolutely nothing about these topics.
What ideas do you have for improving access? I would like to hear from you.
There is now an enormous amount of incredibly useful information in the world. But at the same time, there is also a problem of access to it.
On the one hand, access to knowledge is now better than it has ever been in human history. It seems that access to knowledge is one of the things that significantly accelerated humanity’s scientific and technological progress.
At first, scientists thought things through and ran their experiments on their own, and often their work disappeared into the depths of history and was forgotten. Tiny sparks of knowledge remained, but they did not ignite other isolated sparks.
Then printing appeared. The speed of information spread increased, and access to it became easier. Now, within a single human lifetime, two scientists or philosophers could even communicate and criticize each other while being far apart.
Then came the telegraph. First optical, then electromagnetic. Then radio and telephones. Then the Internet developed — you already know all that. And now the exchange of knowledge, analysis, and criticism happens very quickly, which greatly strengthens our progress.
Access itself has also become almost magical: we can reach into our pocket, pull out a magical calculating machine, and it connects to the source of all the knowledge of civilization. The overwhelming majority of it can even be downloaded for free,
no SMS or registration required!But there is a problem. The mere possibility of access and the existence of search engines (which, I think, also accelerated progress) still do not fully solve the access problem. Because in order to find something, you have to know what to look for.
This is partly solved by AI — it greatly simplifies our access to all kinds of information. I think this is exactly why it can increase human productivity so dramatically (especially in learning) even without automation.
Most of the time, my interaction with AI looks like this:
If it were not for AI, I would be doomed to spend years collecting that information in tiny fragments.
And even so, AI still does not solve the access problem 100%. Not even 90%. I do not know exactly how much it solves — but definitely not 90%!
It can still fail to notice that a certain topic is connected to the one I am asking about, for example, or it can search too narrowly and miss a huge space of relevant results.
And this applies not only to science. That is why this is a key to life — it is also connected to finding work, housing, friends, love, and basically anything where you need to find something, get something, but do not know how.
Almost all of life — all of our existence — consists of solving tasks.
Some happen in the background, automatically: the task of moving, blinking, breathing, and so on. Some are more active: eating, washing, walking from home to a transport stop.
Some are maximally active: inventing life-extension technology, writing a post for a LessWrong.
But all of these tasks have something in common. There is an initial state A and a final (desired) state B. Between them are the steps that need to be taken in order to get from A to B.
And in order to take those steps, we need to know what to do. We need to know where to go, whom to ask, what to google, what exactly to do.
If we take this to an absurd extreme, then if we had absolute, magical access to all knowledge, we could simply perform the minimal number of movements — perhaps even just turn our head at the right time and in the right place — in order to trigger a cascade of events leading to the desired result.
Everything that separates us from a desired outcome, if that outcome is not forbidden by the laws of physics, is knowledge. And knowledge requires access.
To put it as simply and practically as possible: the more people you know, and the more often you use tools like AI, the greater the chance that someone will recommend — or you will simply stumble upon — the topic / service / place that you need and that can help you.
So the problem is very often not simply whether the information exists or does not exist as such. And it is not only that access to it may be restricted by censorship, accreditation, or a paywall.
Access can also be limited by the fact that the idea we want to explore often exists in our mind only as a vague intuitive impression, and is not formalized enough to be ready for search.
Or, for example, we may simply fail to enter the space where the knowledge we need is located — whether that space is digital, physical, social, or a particular time window. We search for it on Google, when in fact we might have found it through a mutual acquaintance at a weekly meetup of like-minded people whose existence we do not even suspect.
When we try to solve life problems, we are looking into a search space covered almost everywhere in fog. Access can reveal hidden paths, give us keys to closed roads, or simply connect us with people who know the shortcut.
Access problem is exactly why I’m developing a website that will compile FAQs on life extension and AI risks—for people who know absolutely nothing about these topics.
What ideas do you have for improving access? I would like to hear from you.
P.S.:
Why No. 9? For the same reason as Love Potion No. 9!
In other words, just because. I suspect there are many keys to life, and I still do not know in what order they should be arranged.