Why we shouldn't make Climate Change about Nature

In today's world, there are very few topics which are uncontroversial enough that a person can freely write about. Luckily, climate change and its media coverage seems to be one of them.

When it comes to climate change, media has taken a stance where mitigating the ill effects of human-induced climate change is portrayed as "helping nature." While any attempt to mitigate ill effects is commendable, I feel that portraying climate change in a "digestible" fashion focusing on the narrative rather than the hard truth is trying to manipulate people into doing the "right" thing.

The biggest threats of climate change are shrinkage of land area, worsening of weather phenomenon, changing of crops and crop cycles, and acceleration of carbon absorption. Each of these results reduces the long-term survival chances of human beings. Mitigating these effects must be our primary concern -- whether it's by curbing industries, or planting more trees.

While I may not be well versed or agree with the short-term prediction made by climate science, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that some changes could lead to irreparable effects. To some extent, I do empathise with the challenges faced by the climate scientists, who have to work with unreliable data and unrealistic models to predict a relentlessly chaotic phenomenon. It may be that the current predictions turn out to be wrong, but historic evidence and potential irreversibility of a few phenomena urge us to be cautious.

Most general public cannot fathom the idea that the smartest of the people, the scientists, actually make progress stumbling over at every step, just like babies learn to walk. To the general public, scientists cannot be wrong; and if the scientists are wrong even once, they lose credibility. But this phenomenon is completely at odds with the way scientific progress works. And to explain to the general public that science is mostly wrong but is still worthwhile is a tremendously tough task. So, it is no wonder that most scientists and journalists take shortcuts to avoid burdening the public with "unnecessary details." Such a view has some merits.

However, when it comes to climate change, the media portrayal of the problem currently is so far removed from reality, that today, the general public associates climate change with something completely different. Planting trees, being one with nature, going eco and bio, and carbon taxes are probably beneficial, but these are not what climate change is about. It's about a possible long-term threat to human survival on timescales that are so ridiculously large that no human mind can easily grasp. So much so, that sometimes, simple solutions to climate change can actually have the opposite effect! -- e.g., replacing a plastic bag with a cotton one is a bad idea unless the cotton bag is reused to replace plastic ones for more than about a 1000 times. What such altered media portrayal allows for is the commercial exploitation of general public by appealing to their emotional side about climate change.

Hence, from a long time, I'm a proponent of the idea that climate change should be portrayed to be about long-term survival. It may be difficult to grasp at first, and may not be commercially attractive, but may lead to broad policy decisions that may have a chance to mitigate ill effects, rather than individual decisions driven by commercial propaganda, which likely will have no or the opposite effects.

First draft: 30.08.2020

Minor edits: 05.04.2021, 19.05.2021

Rants on AI and ML - 2

Essay: One Example Where Intuitive Learning Does Not Work And What It Might Mean

Since last year, Google AlphaZero's clone chess engine, the Leela Chess Zero (Lc0) has held a consistent spot in the top ten positions of Top Chess Engine Championship (TCEC). Strangely, Lc0 is a neural network (NN) based chess engine which DID NOT make use of the human knowledgebank of chess. Since early 2019, SugarNN, based on Lc0, has held the top spot in TCEC defeating traditial (commercial) engines like Komodo and Houdini, which draw heavily from human chess knowledge and experience.

When one learns chess, he's taught many "strategic rules": bishops are best placed on long diagonals, pawn pushes have to be carefully planned (they cannot be taken back), and intuitions: queen is strong in the endgame, two minor pieces roughly equal a rook and a pawn, etc. Furthermore, there's a consistent story running in the mind of a chess player consisting of events, plans, and tactics. Every move has a "meaning." This is why chess commentators can present a good overview of the possible thoughts on a player's mind -- a story for the game.

But when it comes to games by Lc0, most commentators are just dumbfolded and struggle to explain the rationale behind its moves. It is as though the game has no story -- it seems completely random. Yet, miraculously, Lc0 always manages to win! (Of course there's a predictable algorithm behind Lc0, but it's perhaps too complex to be woven into a story.)

This might shed some light on the human quest for knowledge. Even in a concrete field like engineering (my field), we do not operate in the "real world." Instead, all our research, theories, and explanations are in an "idealised world" with "good properties." In this idealised world, a piece of theory is like a story -- it builds on existing stories and extends them in a meaningful and intuitive way. Luckily, when applied to the real world, the idealised theories work well. But they're mere approximations -- they're only roughly correct.

Similar to chessplay by Lc0, things in the real world appear random and haphazard to us. When we try to weave a story behind them, it turns out to be a non-story because it's so convoluted. Hence, it is not surprising that "learning based systems" such a NNs, with no intuition and biases and no need for stories, perform much better than our techniques based on our idealised theories. Nevertheless, presently, when we build NNs, we incorporate our biases into them -- in the form of structure and data. Today, without them, NNs don't work well. But, one might intuit, risking failure, that the haphazard approach of NNs is probably better suited to handle the complexity of the real world than organized storytelling offered by idealised theories.

Could it be that we are better off designing systems that lack intuition (because of their complexity) but work in the real world? Such systems, presently based on NNs, have no stories to them. But objectively, they seem to work well compared to the systems that are built based on idealised theories. If so, perhaps in the future this gives us very little room for consistent stories and a lot of room for trial and error and data-crunching based research.

Rants on AI and ML - 1

Essay: Are we right in requiring neural network explanations?

One day many centuries ago, a man looked up at the sky and thought to himself -- "what if" the stars, sun, and the moon didn't control his life and fate (horoscopes)... what if stars and planets were beings with their own laws and lifecycle independent of humankind. This person, ladies and gentlemen, brought about a revolution in thinking -- he wanted to "know" the world he is living in. He wanted to "understand" it. And not merely be a part of it.

It is not surprising that a famous scientists when asked "Imagine the whole human civilization collapses and you could only transmit ONE message into the future, what would this message be?" said the message would be "The Universe is knowable," meaning that Universal laws can be found. That Universe does not run on magic.

Human curiosity and the hunger for knowledge is of immense importance in the saga of humankind. Scientific "explanations" have been a driving force behind engineering and sciences.

But, does it seem like our pet topic -- machine learning -- betrays explanations? At first, it seems so. It seems as though something "magical" is happening within these "black boxes" of neural networks (NNs). But imagine this -- if there were an algorithm which chose a "best-fit function," from an arbitrary list of functions, between inputs and outputs, would we ask this algorithm to explain its choice? No. We know how it works. Surprisingly, this is the case for NN as well.

However, the problem, it seems, is that we associate very personally with NNs. We think of NNs as a model of our brains rather than mathematical entities. Therefore, we require "explanations" from them as we would desire from our fellow human beings. In fact, NNs emerged from brain research and initial NN models were heavily inspired from brain structure. Hence, it is not strange that we associate personally so with them.

Furthermore, it is not even clear why such explanations for the operation of NNs, which are made to solve problems that are extremely complex to be solved using our current thinking tools, should even be possible.

I feel our energies are better spent in understanding NNs rather than require them to behave like us. Perhaps by asking for explanations we fall into the same trap as our ancestors did -- associating special meanings to stars and constellations rather than seeking to understand them.

Perhaps we do justice to our human endeavour by trying to understand these crucial aspects rather than trying to make NNs behave like human beings.

Essays on Policymaking: Rationality and Superstition

It is widely regarded that superstition, an excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural (OED, 1*), is bad, especially when alternatives exist. However, superstition in the society is not diminishing despite this widespread knowledge. On the contrary, education and scientific knowledge, which are the biggest opposition to superstitious beliefs, have had minimal effect in eradicating superstition in the society. In this short write-up I explore possible reasons for such a trend without being judgmental about correctness or benefits of superstitious beliefs themselves.

Let's begin by looking at a world without superstition. When we take away the special meaning we attribute to our world, via traditions, rituals, and superstitions, we are left with a scientifically amenable world but one which is dry and inconsiderate -- a completely rational universe. In a rational universe, a human is negligible and purposeless.

Hope
 

However, no human would be satisfied in such a world. Each one of us wants there to be more -- a God, a watchful eye, a spiritual being who connects the dots and ensures fair play. In short, each of us wishes for something magical beyond the rational universe. It is with the hope of something magical that we engage in superstitious behaviour. And once we start start to entertain unexplainable magic, we are down a slippery slope -- one where we have no choice but to entertain more magic, thereby increasing and reinforcing our superstitious behaviour.

Especially vulnerable are those who are going through hard times. These would like to cling-on to the smallest possibility of upliftment. They would rather take a chance on magic than face a cruel rational world -- to be fair, not just them but all of us would make the same choice.

But why would rational people want to even entertain the notion of unexplainable magic? One could not have summarised the answer better than late Prof. Marvin Minsky who speculated that we do this in an attempt to fill a void from our childhood when we had a God-like figure -- a parent, caretaker, or a nurse. The need is so strong that it causes us to see patterns where none exist and attribute these pseudo-patterns to unexplainable or divine magic.

Hence, in summary, hope sets up the stage in our mind. And once we start believing in one irrationality, we are led to believe in many.

Complexity

Let's consider a person who has managed to avoid the pitfalls of hope. Is he immune to irrational and superstitious behaviour? Unfortunately, the enormous complexity of the world eventually causes even the most steadfast to submit.

I would like to believe that we evolved irrationality -- in the form of emotions -- in order to tackle the overwhelming complexity of the world around us. Emotions are very useful in situations where "no decision" is far worse than "a decision." It's a way we humans navigate insurmountable and incalculable complexity.

Even things we take for granted -- relationships (complex interactions amongst independent entities), life (environmental interaction, procreation, etc.) -- even the trivial ones -- recognizing faces, predicting movement -- are so complex that our current conceptual tools fall short in a bid to understand them. Global warming and weather prediction have been controversial mainly because of the complexity involved.

Hence, in summary, even the most rational amongst us are eventually overwhelmed by the complexity of nature. They have no choice but to turn to irrationality in order to make decisions. And once they start embracing irrationality, they're down the slippery slope again.

THIS BRINGS us to two important realizations: First, that it might not be possible to eradicate superstitions and irrational behaviours after all! And second, that even if we do so, we might not like living in such a rational world!

So, instead of focusing on eliminating superstitions completely, we must rather focus on removing only those that are detrimental to our current values -- those that deny us a dignified life. Are superstition and irrationality on a diminishing trend? I don't know. But I'd wager that they will never go away. They're a part of being a human. It might be better to evaluate our current beliefs and practices and make tiny corrections than aiming for a complete overhaul.

ARK

 (1*) OED: Oxford English Dictionary.

On Today's Homeopathy - Q&A

You're scientific, atheist, etc. Is Homeopathy OK for your parents, relatives, and friends who INSIST on taking them? How do you best safeguard them despite Homeopathy? Read on for my view.

Q1. Does Homeopathy work?

Yes and no. So drop your completely negative attitude. Homeopathy and other non-scientific medicines work on a principle called "placebo" [1] where the change (or effect) is due to body's response to the whole process rather than medicine itself. In some cases, placebo can be beneficial. That being said, it has been demonstrated scientifically that high potency versions of homeopathic medicines (the ones usually prescribed) are nothing but sugar water. Therefore, homeopathic medicine surely does not work, but the whole consultation process might work due to the placebo effect.

Q2. When is it OK to take Homeopathic medicine?

If one insists, homeopathic medicine might not be a problem or might even be beneficial under these circumstances:

1. If one is taking homeopathic medicine alongside modern medicine with knowledge of both the doctor (i.e. MBBS/MD) and the homeopath.

2. When the doctor has not prescribed any medication -- e.g. as in common cold.

3. When the doctor has deferred the medication for later or has advised against it -- e.g. surgery in very young or old people.

In any case, it is best to keep the doctor informed about the homeopathic medicine.

Q3. When is it NOT OK to take Homeopathic medicine?

Clearly, it is NOT OK if the conditions in the answer to question Q2 are not satisfied. Furthermore, it is also NOT OK when the prescribed homeopathic medicine is not truly homeopathic. "True" homeopathic medicines are just sugar water. But some homeopaths (the bad ones) might prescribe other non-homeopathic drugs and other unrelated (baby) products! One has to be careful and check the details of the prescription on the Web before beginning with the medication.

Q4. Is it OK to go to a Doctor with both MBBS/MD and Homeopathy degrees?

No, for two reasons. First, it is unlikely that the doctor prescribes both modern medicine and homeopathic medicine together (see answer to Q2 above). And second, a person truly invested in modern medicine is unlikely to endorse Homeopathy.

Q5. As Homeopathy has placebo benefits, shouldn't it be encouraged?

While it appears to be beneficial to encourage it, this would be the wrong direction. Conducting scientific research into understanding the placebo effect would be far better than cheating one into placebo like how Homeopathy does. So in the long term, Homeopathy does not seem to be a good idea. Hopefully scientific research on placebo catches up before it is too late (for us).

Q6. Should I recommend Homeopathy to others?

Definitely no. The people who lose the most are the ones who are poor and cannot avail or have no access to modern medicine. When assessed that the conditions in the answer to question Q2 cannot be satisfied, recommending Homeopathy is a very bad idea to the extent that it should be (but isn't) considered an offence as it could result in life threatening conditions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Art - 1 (abridged)

Art is a form of expression: of the thoughts and feelings of an artist. It is a medium by which an artist communicates with his audience; and to the audience art is what liberates him: causes him to lose himself in the same bliss as the artist. Art ties their thought-streams together. A primary ingredient of any artwork is an intricate and congruent thought structure. A good thought framework expressed as art clarifies the many questions that rise in the mind of the audience, and manifests itself in the artwork as: clarity, details, highlights, expressions, and so on. A thorough thought process is born out of a desire to express an idea. Hence, a clear intent is very essential: it is important for the artist to have a need and reason to produce the artwork. His intent, willingly or unwillingly, is manifested in his artwork. If his intent is shallow, the artwork turns out to be shallow, if deep, the artwork turns out to be a masterpiece. In my recent visit to Chitra Kala Parishad I found an increasing number of "modern artworks," a trend that greatly disturbed me. These modern artworks made no sense without their caption, burdened me to think for the artist to fill the gaping voids in the artwork, and were with no discernible intent. Art, a "form of expression" was stunted to the physical expression on canvas -- not beyond; it did not pierce the canvas into the heart of the audience. These artworks made me sad.

Judgement and Parody of Techno-predictions

Life as an example to others Whilst returning home from an inconsequential place, I chanced upon Magan -- it is rarely that I find myself face to face with Magan of late. A dialogue was inevitable: A: I wonder if I will ever understand the meaning of life. M: Will triviality do as a reason ? Atleast your life can be useful to an observer. A: I hate to believe that 'guinea pig' can even be considered. Who will judge you M: Perhaps. You'll have to satisfy the ultimate judgement. A: If I've understood something from life thus far, it is that there's only one person capable of making the ultimate judgement and that is oneself. Future of technology I've deciphered the future of human beings, the era that's going to succeed and supercede the era of technology. I've seen the future ladies and gentlemen, hear and be enlightened. The next age is the age of Magic and Socery; and no, it's not the latest flick that's introduced this thought in me, but deep meditation, crystal gazing and statistical analysis. Wizadry and Magic will make useless all the technological innovations - who needs a petrol car when a broomstick can do ? - Will make useless physics - need an atom, poof, here it is - and will provide entertainment and a new culture. Wait for the dawn of the next era, and behold it's king, I.

Traffic Inspector Sir, when can I curl my hair again ?

I have innocuous and innocent habit of playing with my hair during driving; twisting my black hair around my index finger, curling it up - I just love doing it (Better with "Ae Naazni Suno Na" kind of music playing in the background.)

Lately however, I cannot afford a moment's distraction in the Bangalore traffic, let alone play with my hair. Indifferent motorists: two wheels trying to get past busy traffic, call centre cabs trying to overtake - leave me a nonexistent chance of seeking pleasure during driving. With one hand on the gear stick, second on the steering wheel, eyes fixed on the road, and mind working hard to avoid accidents - I am even oblivious to my favorite songs playing on the radio.

Every time I spot a Traffic Inspector on the road, I cannot help but recollect this question, for of late, I yearn for a pleasant drive.