Reading has always been a source of pleasure and disappointment for me. Recently, AI lit an even larger “what for for” (spoiler: there is a good answer)
Read: Arrudent stupid pursuit?
I've always been an avid reader. My parents had a Library of the Ceiling (what they read). My elementary school and my hometown libraries were real places we went. In the 20s, I shifted from excitement and Sci-Fi to classics, modernists and later non-literature. I read about a book about a month.
In a smart 2017 study, Emily Temple analyzed reading trends in the US and divided the results into three categories: average reader (about 12 books a year), The Voracious Reader (50 books a year) and Super Reader (80 books a year). He was interested in how many books a person reads during his lifetime, but as I soon claim – I think he asked the wrong question.
The distribution of my “Emily Temple” reader groups changed when lonely sports activities began to consume longer hours in my 30s. I discovered the audible and later Delphin and accelerated about 2-4 books a week (depending on the run/swimming passage).
The quick calculation now sets me between 1000 and 200,000 books and the reputable Bill Gates club (50 per year), Barack Obama (30-50/year) and Mark Zuckerberg (30 years), while Buffett, Munger and Roosevelt (hundreds of books a year) smiling at Olympus.
But here's the question: Why for the devil?
My often honest answer? A little traceable value. If you asked most of them, I will probably remember the key concept if it is. Detailed arguments, support evidence, even important points – most lost.
This is a worrying realization. How much of what we read is evaporating from memory, is reading worth the effort?
Is it different from the passing of the entertaining time on Instagram and Netflix, only if you have a high eyebrow activity? Steps further-if reading built a “world map” to better navigate life, does the new all-conscious AI make it as old as navigation using a map in the GPS era?
Irrelevant human activity turned into a madness
In terms of human history, reading is a last minute thing. Until about 1800, only one of ten people worldwide could be read (a better number in Europe) today in 9 out of ten (most growth in the 20th century).
Although the time spent on reading enjoyment (23 minutes to 16 minutes) has spent a decline in recent years, there is an increasing number of people who do not read these numbers at all. Those who do they hold it for more than an hour a day. Today, more books are printed than ever. This is one area where innovation is a slow introduction. Although e-books and audio books have been available for decades, a small part of the market is taken, each of which is about 10%. Their use and advantages are not required for the revolution.
As far as the content is concerned, from the introduction of Gutenberg's moving press and later corrections, new categories of books emerged from the original religious, scientific and bureaucratic works. Romance, thrill, science fiction, fantasy, children and, of course, non -literature. This latest category – which is most interested in us in the context of this article – is part of different markets in different cultures. Non-literature in the US accounts for almost 50% of book sales compared to the United Kingdom (10% worldwide).
From strategic forgetting to trained models
So many people, books, knowledge, reading and so much forgetting. Do we all mislead the entertainment of education?
Yes and no.
The truth about the theories, anecdotes and facts we consume is that they mostly fade from memory. Looking at Hermann Ebbinghaus forgotten curve, we see that most of what we come across (and consume) disappear. The good news is that this is not a mistake. This is a function. Forgetting improves our cognitive efficiency (release “processor”), maintains our emotional health (with the help of active forgetting), keeps our minds, allows creativity, and most importantly for our discussion – promotes priority setting and generalization.
Psychologists distinguish between explicit memory (the facts we can remember) and indirect memory (Knowledge that shapes our thinking without direct memorization). Even forgotten reading changes our cognitive structures. It builds spiritual models, strengthens associative thinking and expands our perspective.
If it sounds from a familiar recent article you read about AI, it may not be a coincidence. There are similarities between the “trained AI model” and “well-read person” (leaving “intelligence” because I think it has little to do). The more information you are feeding both – the better they become general to generalize the world. However, the similarities should not be stretched. The trained AI model “remembers” more details than the by -product of training true text, while the human brain does not. It only retains the “trains”.
AI reads overpowering people? Not so fast.
Hold on.
When reading AI improves its generalization (indirect memory), similar to people and at the same time as our knowledge of the opportunities (explicit memory), where does it leave us? Evolution trash?
Probably not.
Because the by -products of AI reading (generalizing, logic, facts) do not accompany motivation, curiosity, initiative, need and invention. AI may have answers, but it does not know what to ask.
Even if the details are fully forgotten or maybe it is well read in an interesting situation when a person comes to work with AI. People with congenital drives and a trained worldview are more effective in using an all -conscious logic machine. A trained person can get better results with Google Maps, as it is not the ability to read a map, use a compass, count steps, and remember road numbers. What matters is the will to go, knowing what you are looking for and can recognize a good location.
Not in the same book
There is another thing we so far ignored.
Ais does not read the same books that people do. The reason is that most books are patented. AIS is not allowed to read them for training (copyright for personal and non -commercial use). Suppose for a moment that this is the case. We have a new paradox. People train their spiritual models for books and then forget about the details, while AIS trains public data, creating a model that preserves different details. How can a person with a model and motivation be consulted with a tool he doesn't know?
This is the question that still has to be answered …
