Is Humanity a “one- or a two-marshmallow species”?
Daniel Kapusy
Business Development Adviser Vialto Consulting / Regional director Bonumstrat Consulting / Senior Consultant at ImEon Services Ltd.
Thinking about and tweaking the insights presented in a recent episode of the “Your Undivided Attention”
?
In this recent episode [1] of the “Your Undivided Attention” produced by the Center for Humane Technology and recorded live at the Commonwealth Club World Affairs of California, historian Yuval Noah Harari discusses with Aza Raskin, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, about the historical struggles that emerge from new technology, humanity’s AI mistakes so far, and the immediate steps lawmakers can take right now to steer us towards a non-dystopian future.
Covering a lot of ground, the guests of this fascinating conversation talked, among others about the historical struggles that emerge from the invention of new technology, Humanity's relationship to technology, or whether Humanity is a “one- or a two-marshmallow species” …
It was this idea and novel question that prompted me to argue a bit.
Bear with me.
When explaining what they mean by asking this question, the guests refer to the initial Stanford Marshmallow Experiment, conducted by psychologist Walter Mischel in the late 1960s and early 1970s, claiming to test children’s delayed gratification.
They argue that by this analogy, we (Humanity) are a “one-marshmallow species” (i.e. we do not delay the gratification arising from fast and broad implementation of AI) we're not going to make it.
Consequently, if we can be the “two-marshmallow species” (i.e. we can delay the gratification arising from fast and broad implementation of AI) we will be better off.
Continuing along this allegory the guests specify that in our case, behaving as the “one-marshmallow species” is even harder because the actual thing with AI is that there are a whole bunch of “kids sitting around” (i.e. local and global competitors in the AI development business). “It's not just one kid waiting for the marshmallow there are many kids sitting around the marshmallow and any one of them can grab it and then no one else gets marshmallows…” They argue that we, Humanity must figure out how to become the “two-marshmallow species” so that we can coordinate the AI revolution and make it through. They urge us all to create the right AI governance and even change our culture so that we can do the delayed gratification trust thing.
?
Given the newer findings of this Marshmallow Experiment that highlight the significant role of environmental and social factors (socioeconomic influence, environmental reliability, parental and other cultural factors – as described here [2]) I would like to reinterpret the above allegory of the two distinguished guests of this discussion.
?
By doing so, we need to consider the vast majority, the masses that are not only the main target for AI based manipulation, but (we) are also the ones historically having:
?
-????????? Lower socioeconomic backgrounds, with less stable environments and inconsistent access to resources, environments that do not particularly foster trust and the perceived value of waiting – an instability that can make delaying gratification a less rational choice for most of us
?
-????????? Experienced environmental unreliability and unpredictability that shape our expectations – for us, waiting has not yielded positive outcomes in the past, so we are less likely to delay gratification.
?
-????????? Had less educational opportunities that negatively impacted our development of self-control and decision-making strategies.
I argue that considering the significant role of such environmental and social factors highlighted by recent findings on the Marshmallow Experiment requires a deeper analysis of the "one-marshmallow vs. two-marshmallow species" allegory in the context of AI development.
?The following is GenAI content based on a series of prompts I drafted along these ideas.
I present them to you with the request to have them analysed and commented as you think necessary.
??
“Reinterpreting the Allegory:
The original allegory suggests that humanity's ability to delay gratification (waiting for the second marshmallow) is crucial for managing the AI revolution responsibly. However, the newer findings imply that an individual's—or by extension, a society's—capacity to delay gratification is not solely an innate trait but is significantly influenced by external factors such as socioeconomic status, environmental reliability, and educational opportunities.
1. Socioeconomic Influence and Global AI Development:
2. Environmental Reliability and Trust in Collective Action:
3. Educational Opportunities and Decision-Making:
领英推荐
Implications for the Allegory:
?
Moving Forward:
To reshape humanity into a "two-marshmallow species," it's essential to address the underlying environmental and social factors that influence our collective ability to delay gratification:
1. Building Global Trust and Reliability:
2. Reducing Socioeconomic Disparities:
3. Enhancing Educational Access:
Re-framing the Allegory:
The allegory should not merely focus on humanity's inherent ability to delay gratification but should consider the diverse contexts in which different groups operate. Recognizing that some "kids" have never benefited from waiting helps us understand why they might rush to seize the marshmallow.
Conclusion:
Expecting humanity to act uniformly as a "two-marshmallow species" overlooks the complex environmental and social factors influencing different groups. To navigate the AI revolution successfully, we must:
?
By reinterpreting the allegory with these considerations, we acknowledge that becoming a "two-marshmallow species" is less about innate self-control and more about creating conditions that make delayed gratification a reasonable and attainable choice for everyone involved.”
?
-----------------------------
1. The episode’s title is “A Turning Point in History': Yuval Noah Harari on AI’s Cultural Takeover” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pw0hDmGUkA&t=3302s ) and it was moderated by Shireen Gafari, the senior AI reporter at Bloomberg News. In this episode, Harari, the Author of a recent book “Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI”, argues that we are at a critical turning point. One in which AI’s ability to generate cultural artifacts threatens humanity’s role as the shapers of history. “History will still go on, but will it be the story of people or, as he calls them, ‘alien AI agents’?”
?
2. A Gen AI summary: “The Stanford Marshmallow Experiment, conducted by psychologist Walter Mischel in the late 1960s and early 1970s, originally suggested that a child's ability to delay gratification predicted better life outcomes, such as higher academic achievement and healthier lifestyles. However, recent research has re-examined these conclusions, offering alternative explanations that emphasize the influence of socioeconomic and environmental factors.
One pivotal study published in 2018 by Tyler W. Watts, Greg J. Duncan, and Haonan Quan replicated the marshmallow test with a larger and more diverse sample of over 900 children from varied socioeconomic backgrounds. Their findings indicated that once factors like family background, home environment, and early cognitive ability were accounted for, the correlation between a child's ability to delay gratification and later success diminished significantly. This suggests that the initial strong association observed in Mischel's study may have been confounded by socioeconomic status and related variables, rather than reflecting an innate capacity for self-control.
Additionally, research by Celeste Kidd and colleagues in 2013 introduced the concept of environmental reliability. In their study, children were placed in either a reliable or unreliable context before the marshmallow test. Those who experienced reliable interactions with adults were more likely to wait for the second marshmallow, while those in the unreliable condition were less inclined to delay gratification. This indicates that a child's decision to wait is heavily influenced by their trust in the environment and expectations based on prior experiences, rather than just self-control.
These newer findings present an alternative explanation to the initial conclusions of the marshmallow experiment by highlighting the significant role of environmental and social factors:
1.??????? Socioeconomic Influence: Children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds often have more stable environments and consistent access to resources, which can foster trust and the perceived value of waiting. This stability can make delaying gratification a more rational choice for them.
2.??????? Environmental Reliability: A child's previous experiences with reliability or unpredictability in their environment can shape their expectations. If waiting has not yielded positive outcomes in the past, a child may be less likely to delay gratification.
3.??????? Parental and Cultural Factors: Parenting styles, cultural norms, and educational opportunities can all impact a child's development of self-control and decision-making strategies.
In essence, the ability to delay gratification is not solely an individual trait predicting future success but is also significantly shaped by external factors. The initial conclusions of the marshmallow experiment may have overemphasized the role of innate self-control while underestimating the impact of a child's environment and experiences. Recognizing this complexity offers a more nuanced understanding of human behavior and development, suggesting that interventions aiming to improve life outcomes should consider broader social and economic contexts.”
?
?