Dear Reader,
Welcome to our weekly mailbag edition of The Bleeding Edge. All week, you submitted your questions about the biggest trends in tech and biotech. Today, I’ll do my best to answer them.
If you have a question you’d like answered next week, be sure you submit it right here. I always enjoy hearing from you.
Dear Jeff Brown,
I read your Bleeding Edge and Near Future Report avidly every day (or week) when they arrive. You have the newsletter market cornered on high-tech development!
Your remarkable reports today on AI being positioned to be competent doctors, lawyers, and judges leads me to wonder if AI could be turned loose on some of the largest issues of the day: social and environmental sustainability. Would AI be able to guide us to less pollution and less war and conflict?
Thank you for your thoughts on such matters!
Sincerely,
– Richard S.
Hi, Richard. Thanks for being a reader and writing in with your question. It’s a good one.
Let’s tackle the topic of environmental sustainability and reduction in pollution first. This is an area where the use of artificial intelligence (AI) can have a very near term, positive impact on environmental policy and the development of technologies to reduce environmental impact.
In a perfect world, we’d feed an AI trained on a body of knowledge related to the entire supply chain of developing a product, like a wind turbine or electric vehicle, in an effort to reduce carbon emissions. The AI would objectively analyze all data and optimize for the lowest carbon emissions solution.
As much as I would like this to happen, it probably won’t.
These “environmental policies” are more political than environmental. They are a way to stimulate economic activity, spend hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars, from which a small number of people are large beneficiaries. That’s precisely what is happening now.
But with that said, there are some specific applications of AI that will have a net positive impact on reducing pollution. A simple example is nuclear fusion.
Forms of AI will be used to control the magnetic fields that contain and sustain a fusion plasma for extended periods of time. Just imagine if our entire electricity production infrastructure was powered by 100% clean, limitless, fusion energy? No carbon emissions, no pollution whatsoever.
AI is also being used to develop new materials and new molecular compounds that can also be used to reduce pollution and develop new technologies from which the environment will benefit.
AI is also being used to develop new battery chemistries that could potentially replace the standard lithium-ion batteries. The production of these is very damaging to the environment due to the mining of needed metals.
The issue of war and conflict is a more complex issue.
You and I might think that we could train an AI to be completely objective concerning a conflict, with complete understanding of historical and societal context, and it could be used to propose a settlement to avoid further conflict.
That’s very rational, reasonable, and an intelligent approach to conflict resolution. Using an AI further removes human emotion and presents a truly independent voice. But I doubt that will work in these kinds of conflicts.
War and conflict, like what we’re witnessing between Ukraine and Russia, involve huge egos, corruption, secret nation state initiatives and objectives, natural resources, and a lot of human emotion.
Many parties that are involved in a conflict don’t want a rational, peaceful outcome. And not all involved parties are in a rational state of mind. These complexities are very challenging for an AI to “understand.”
Where AI will have a far better chance of reducing war and conflict is acting as a catalyst for a world of abundance.
If we imagine a world where nuclear fusion can produce limitless clean energy that is almost free – cheaper than any existing form of electricity production – we remove the need for conflict over natural resources like oil and natural gas.
That alone would be transformational.
When we apply AI to robotics, we get an immensely useful labor force that can perform dangerous or laborious jobs that are generally less desirable for a human labor force. Robotic assistants also will transform both businesses, as well as homes with a very high-tech version of assisted living.
AI is already being used for medicine, developing the compounds and drugs. This is revolutionized therapeutic development.
Not only will it accelerate drug development to improve health outcomes, it will drive personalized medicine, tailoring therapeutic programs at the individual level.
This is a long way of saying that AI can be used to create a world full of abundance. And when populations have an improved quality of life, and are not in desperate need of something, they are far less likely to create war and conflict.
That is of course the outcome that we are all hoping for.
Hi Jeff,
I came across and enjoyed reading your “What does a Taiwan “invasion” mean for markets?” However, as someone who has been closely following this issue, I respectfully disagree.
A devastating war between China, Taiwan, and the U.S. is the most likely scenario. Some may not consider it “rational” to fight this war, but all signs point towards its eventuality. I live in the U.S., so this is an unsettling conclusion, but nevertheless one that the evidence supports.
All sides are willing to fight. Foreign policy elites, the so-called “blob”, that advise presidents and congress have decided that an independent Taiwan is vital to U.S. national security.
Similarly, Xi has repeatedly committed to “reunification”. Taiwanese public opinion has grown increasingly hostile to “one country, two systems” precisely because China violated the deal it had with Hong Kong. A majority of Taiwanese are willing to fight to maintain their independence.
All sides are preparing for war. China has optimized its military to both invade Taiwan and to counter a U.S. intervention.
They have fielded the first anti-ship ballistic missile and tested it against a U.S. aircraft carrier targets in the desert. The PRC is the DOD’s pacing challenge and a Taiwan contingency is the pacing scenario. Taiwan is buying anti-ship missiles and just extended its mandatory military service from 4 months to 1 year.
The disruption to trade between China and the U.S. both during/after the war and the gutting of the worlds chip production capacity (regardless of who wins) will cause markets and economies to collapse.
Despite the geographic diversification of chip production, the most advanced nodes will remain concentrated in Taiwan. Anticipating this is about all that matters from an investment perspective. I look forward to your response.
– Nicholas K.
Hi, Nicholas. I appreciate you being a reader and writing in with your thoughts. And I’d like to take your theory one step further and argue that we are already at war. It may not be a military conflict, but we are absolutely in the middle of an economic war right now.
And it is a delicate issue.
China, of course, still wants the economic benefit of the West purchasing its manufactured goods and having access to Western technology that it can appropriate for its own benefit; while at the same time working to weaken the United States however it can.
The U.S. and other western countries have been caught on the back foot and are now scrambling to rearchitect their supply chains and manufacturing base in order to reduce economic risk for critical goods.
Your note comes at a particularly interesting moment as there is a Chinese spy balloon floating over U.S. soil. In the picture below, we can see the balloon as it was over Montana.
Yet the current U.S. government has done nothing about it. Quite odd if you ask me. Can you imagine how China would react right now if the roles were reversed?
Suspected Chinese Spy Balloon
Source: NBC
You’re right that Xi has been very clear on his goal of “reunification.” In fact, I would argue that his commitment to reunification is what allowed him to get re-elected for a third term.
On the surface, the Taiwanese are preparing for the possibility of a “hard invasion.” I believe that this is more posturing than anything.
I’ve said before that China, and its representatives, have been actively building a presence in Taiwan now for the last twenty years. China is already there, it is just a matter of formalizing the “take over”. It is for that reason that I still view an all-out military conflict with China unlikely.
I agree with you that it is a possibility, I just think that it is an unlikely outcome. And I absolutely don’t see the current U.S. administration entering into such a conflict.
The United States is one of China’s largest trading partners. Chinese exports to the United States were valued at $581 billion last year. After that, it’s South Korea, which imported just $162 billion worth of Chinese goods last year.
In the event of an all-out conflict, that trade relationship would mostly disappear.
And for the United States, this country is still very dependent on China-manufactured goods for basic necessities. For instance, roughly 80% of antibiotics used in the U.S. are manufactured in China. This country can’t afford to lose access to that supply line.
It is worth mentioning that this is an economic policy issue. The U.S. government doesn’t want to permit new chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing plants on U.S. soil. It would rather outsource these “dirty” or “toxic” manufacturing processes to other countries, even if it means risk for acquiring critical drugs.
Xi is many things, but he’s not reckless, and he is very patient. And provoking the United States—and eventually, the world—into a global conflict is a reckless thing to do.
I still believe the most likely scenario is a “soft invasion,” more akin to what we saw in Hong Kong.
It won’t be a handover like Hong Kong, but I like to think of it more like an administrative takeover that initially has a light hand, like the way Hong Kong was treated for the first five to ten years.
In that scenario, Xi could “declare victory” to his people. And he’d also have the benefit of holding the island’s economic capabilities hostage to extract concessions from the West. And assuming Taiwanese industry is left to operate more or less as it was, I believe the United States would go along with it.
To be clear, I hope we’re both wrong. I’m not hoping for either scenario to play out. I’ve been to Taiwan more times that I can remember when I was working in high tech and lived in Japan.
Flying to Taiwan for me was equivalent to flying from Newark to Kansas City – I even did a few day trips over the years for meetings.
Taiwan is a beautiful place with wonderful people and a culture quite different from mainland China. It is a vibrant and prosperous society. I would absolutely hate to see it fall under the yolk of Beijing.
And an even more horrific outcome would be something like what China did to Tibet so many years ago. Just heartbreaking. The world just stood by and did nothing, just as it does nothing about the concentration camps for the Uyghur population in the northwestern region of Xinjiang.
Would the world’s response be any different if something similar happened in Taiwan? I doubt it. Let’s hope it never comes to that.
Either way, the economic war is real, and time is short. The West must re-architect and reduce risk and dependence for critical goods and services.
And as I’ve predicted, I don’t think we’re going to have to wait long to find out what will happen.
My best guess is within the next 12 – 18 months.
Hello Jeff,
I’ve been a follower of The Bleeding Edge now for some time and always appreciate your perspective and well thought out answers to readers’ questions.
Recently you published a video and commentary on the Boston Dynamics robot that was shown tossing a bag of tools to a construction worker. The display of skills was certainly impressive, but it brought additional questions to my mind about how far the technology would need to advance to have a truly adaptive helper robot on site. My question then is how much situational awareness does this robot have?
In order to see, identify and pick up a plank and then place it as a walkway it can use would require considerable skills, especially in making sense of the overall immediate surroundings.
In the video this was done seamlessly, but I’m wondering how much of this would have to be ‘programmed’ into the robot’s overall objective?
– John B.
Hi, John. Thanks for your question.
To catch readers up, last Tuesday we had a look at Boston Dynamic’s humanoid robot Atlas. Boston Dynamics showcased how Atlas could help with some real-world tasks. In this case, carrying a bag of tools up to a construction worker. Have a look:
As we can see, Atlas grabs the bag, shimmies up the scaffolding, and then throws the heavy bag to the worker. It’s an impressive feat to see from a robot.
To your point, obviously this was a staged demonstration of what Atlas can do now. Since I originally wrote about it, I’ve seen some additional footage of some of the previous fails before it got it right.
Let’s just say it was an iterative process.
With that said, it is still an accomplishment. Atlas had to “see” the environment and “decide” on the best series of movements to accomplish the goal.
Robotics in an industrial setting is not a new phenomenon. But to date, most of the robots used were pre-programmed to perform one or two simple, monotonous tasks. What’s interesting about Atlas—and Tesla’s Optimus—is that these robots will be asked to perform dynamic tasks that require some “thinking.”
Here’s a simple example. We can imagine Atlas is delivering packages for UPS. It hops out of the back of the truck with a package in hand. But what’s the best way to get to the front door?
Obviously, the optimal route for the robot to take can’t be pre-programmed for each location. Atlas will be left to “figure it out.” From there, it will rely on its data set to make decisions on how to navigate the world around it.
For instance, Atlas might “know” from training that an object of a certain height can be easily stepped over. Encountering a similar object in the real world, it would “decide” to perform that action.
This is what makes these next generation humanoid robots so interesting. The ability to perceive the world, consider actions, and make decisions is what will allow them to replace much of the menial or labor-intensive work that humans aren’t well suited for.
With all that said, the company for us to watch isn’t Boston Dynamics, its Tesla. In just eight months, Tesla when from a design on paper and a human dressed up in a robot suit, to a functional prototype late last year.
Just imagine where Tesla will be by the end of this year.
Tesla has a unique advantage. It has already developed the most advanced autonomous driving AI in the world.
That same technology can be used with its bipedal robot – Optimus – for navigation and movement. The same is true for Tesla’s use of various sensor technologies that can also be incorporated into the robot.
And it happens to be one of the most advanced and efficient manufacturing companies on the planet.
With all these things combined, I believe that the world will be very surprised with what Tesla develops in the next twelve months with Optimus.
Optimus will be given a task and have the intelligence to figure out the best way to get the task done. There will be no need to pre-program every move and step.
The significance of this is obvious. Technological adoption can scale very quickly without the need to micromanage each and every task.
Regards,
Jeff Brown
Editor, The Bleeding Edge
The Bleeding Edge is the only free newsletter that delivers daily insights and information from the high-tech world as well as topics and trends relevant to investments.
The Bleeding Edge is the only free newsletter that delivers daily insights and information from the high-tech world as well as topics and trends relevant to investments.
