I think this is a fascinating point, Jaron. From my personal experience, acoustic memory seems to have interesting connections to general memory. For example, I can associate certain songs with distinct periods in my life during which I listened to those certain songs. Drawing from that, I would add to your question a query about whether there are interesting crossover dynamics between the memories of the different senses. As a medical condition, this is often called synesthesia—a synesthete might remember a certain color when they hear a certain sound, for example. I would be fascinated to learn more about these dynamics.

I think this is a super fascinating question, Jaida. As someone who was also amazed by the potential of the mobile health technology discussed by Susan Murphy, this strikes me as the perfect follow-up question. Judging by her explanation of the technology and methodology, it seems that the question may have a somewhat counter-intuitive answer: that the predictions may not be tied to time at all. As described by Murphy, some factors—while obviously derived from quantitative measurements of stress levels—are more qualitative. Specifically, Murphy mentioned that stress levels are sometimes associated with certain relationships, so the mobile health technology could qualitatively predict to a user that time spent with that individual increases their stress.

After reading Profs. Goodman and de Vivo's article titled "Uncertain Risks," I believe that paragraph six (beginning with "The fraction scientists seek") is the most effective section of the piece at developing understanding of risk and uncertainty for non-quantitatively inclined readers. Primarily, it conveys very clearly the different methods of quantitatively communicating risk and uncertainty. Although it may be obvious to some, parsing out the quantitative synonyms—like "1-in-a-hundred" and "1%"—and commonly misunderstand concepts—like "5% uncertainty"—is incredibly valuable.

I think this a fascinating point Ben. From my perspective, this dynamic shifts depending on the circumstances of first contact with an extraterrestrial civilization. If the extraterrestrial civilization has the capability to travel across space, they are clearly extremely technologically advanced. Even if they took a different technological path than the one we're currently on, they will have had to solve significant barriers to space travel, like the infinite production of energy. If that is the case, Tarter's question is extremely valuable.

I think this is a fascinating question, Grace. The field of psychology in particular has a long and complicated relationship with objective truth. In the post-war period, psychological studies made sweeping conclusions about human psychology, proposing numerous objective systematic behaviors. However, despite the contemporary belief that these conclusions were supported by mountains of evidence, later evaluation found rampant flaws in research design and implementation. For example, the bystander effect was a much touted psychological phenomenon, but recent research suggests that the original bystander effect study left out major details of bystanders actually trying to help. As such, we should perhaps err on the side of humility when it comes to the objectivity of our psychological conclusions. However, as neuroscience advances, perhaps we can become more and more confident. https://futurism.com/28-classic-psychology-experiments-failed-replicate

I thought this was a very insightful post, Pedro. Your discussion of the semantics and linguistics underpinning our perception of AI was incredibly compelling, and inspired me to connect Schneiderman's talk with George Church's talk on personal genomics. In personal genomics, as in AI, the linguistic semantics are incredibly important because communication relating to personal genomic findings can greatly influence an individual's psychology. As Church notes, individuals can be anxious or even fearful when faced by the results of genetic testing. If we conduct a deeper study of how our language can shift those psychological effects, perhaps we could change the future of personal genomics.

Vincent, I think your discussion of McCarthy's argument for truth vs. action in climate science is compelling—I would generally agree with McCarthy's message. However, I think this discussion can be furthered by considering the potential philosophical frameworks of either side of the debate. McCarthy seems to make a utilitarian plea for truth—she argues that the consequences of telling the truth are far outweighed by the long term benefits to society's understanding and appreciation for statistics and science. Her side of the debate could also benefit from a deontological perspective: as autonomous human beings, we deserve to know the truth and act for ourselves regardless of the consequences. On the flip side, important utilitarian arguments can be made for hiding the truth. Because humans are subject to many cognitive biases, appealing to fear of extreme disasters may be the only way to spur action. If that is the case, would McCarthy support hiding or distorting the truth?