Continuum

continuum

What The Collapse Of Our Ideas Of Space And Time Teaches Us Callum Wale on Unsplash The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise — Stephen Hawking There have been many developments in science and technology that have taken the world by storm. Understandably, the ones that make the most headlines include Artificial Intelligence (AI), gene editing techniques such as CRISPR and RNA interference, Blockchains and Quantum Computing. However, there are other developments that fly below the radar until they are publicized by the mainstream media. One such development has been our re-examination of the concepts of space and time in light of Einstein’s theory of relativity and our attempts at commercializing quantum physics. This article explains how our understanding of the fundamental concepts of space, time and the space time continuum have radically transformed. It also explains how similar concepts have been explored in ancient religious texts albeit in ancient languages and thereby attempts to bridge science and spirituality in another example of a continuum we are ceaselessly attempting to comprehend. It ends by questioning our rabid pursuit of things we so believe to be true that we are willing to sacrifice another humans’ life over what we believe is true. You see, the thing with science, is that no matter how advanced our body of knowledge becomes-when all else is done, only one thing remains and that is ‘doubt’. A gnawing feeling that there is something out there that we may have missed out- a small window to a whole new world out there if we are brave enough to have an open mind. Many ancient religious texts talk about universal and eternal (timeless) truths that we seek to understand. All of our collective pursuits which may follow different paths, call them science or spirituality, are then attempts to uncover these eternal truths from different vantage points. The world, then, becomes eternal and timeless and our concept of time just a very small crutch we rely on to understand what is truly timeless. Imagine a world where we are ‘ahistorical’ or unsullied by the memories of our mistakes and we only live in the present (The here and now) which in turn is based on non-violence, respect for plurality of thought and a love for all living beings. Doesn’t take much to realize what we are missing today. What Are Space and Time? In his new book ‘The Order Of Time’ Carlo Rovelli takes a hard look at our concept of time or what we think space and time are. Then, he goes on to reveal why what we think is not true at all. While I am not attempting to distill everything in the book, I am wholeheartedly recommending a reading of the book. I am using what I learnt from the book to connect the dots in my mind in the hope that the connection will help you in understanding the world as well. Before we understand the harder parts of space and time, we need to understand the basics. Classical physics helps us understand space and time on a very intuitive level. Space has three dimensions ie the directions of our motion. They are up/down , forward/backward and left/right. All other dimensions are derivative of these three just as every color is a derivative of the primary colors. Add a fourth dimension of time to the three vectors space and you get . Classical physics treated space as a three dimensional entity and time to be an entity independent of space. spacetime For a long time in the 20th century, science believed the universe was three dimensional. As per Wikipedia, its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions was independent of the dimension of time. It wasn’t until Einstein formulated his special theory of relativity that spacetime became a ‘four’ dimensional entity. In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects such as why different observers perceive where and when events occur. Now, let me ask you: ‘did you know time moves faster in the mountains than it does in the plains even if by a few milliseconds?’ When the earth revolves around the sun, it changes the ‘gap’ (also known as ‘spacetime’) between itself and the sun. The effect of this change is more pronounced in areas of the earth that are closer to the earths mass ie the plains or low lying areas than the mountains. This is because the mass of the Earths ‘bends’ and slows down time. Therefore, time passes slowly in the plains than in the mountains. So, expect your friend living in the mountain to age faster than a friend living in the plains. This simple example will illustrate how what we believe about time and space is all subject to unraveling and new explanations. The simple moral of the story is this : if physics and science are subject to self doubt and revision, can our behavior also toe the same line? So, the next time you become angry at someone or think what they believe in is wrong, just ask yourself this: is there a small sliver of doubt you could be completely wrong and that there is something out there that you don’t know? The power of saying ‘I don’t know’ is the power of opening up your mind to infinite possibilities. One such possibility is completely changing our view of the world just as Copernicus and Einstein helped us do. It requires guts to say I don’t know and unshakeable discipline to find out the truth. However, it surprises me that there is hardly anyone who happily says ‘ I don’t know’. This is our biggest weakness — a display of confidence without evidence or boasting to know something based on incomplete knowledge. Imagine a world full of such ‘feigned’ expertise. Let’s take another very similar example. , a physicist thinks you cannot apply concept of space as a dimension to time and say that time is also a dimension because time has intrinsic directionality ie it moves from the past to the future. In space however, top down and down to top are the same. Tim Maudlin Believe you me, it has helped me understand my own biases and mistakes and start respecting everyone more. I have come to respect and love plurality of thought. I have been gladly proven wrong many times over but I have won the love of my fellow humans. The other learning is that if we stick to our old ‘memory’ based on incorrect dogma, such as the sun revolves around the earth as opposed to what Copernicus taught us is the other way around, we risk being grossly blind about the world around us. The important thing is not only to learn how to learn but also to be selectively ‘ahistorical’ or unlearn the wrong things and wipe our slates clean about beliefs that have been clearly and widely proven to be false. This has important implications on designs of AI systems. The third learning which is about a higher purpose is slightly difficult to grasp. When Einstein and Oppenheimer created the atomic bomb and then used it, they realized what they had created. The bigger learning or the higher purpose was to then ‘tame’ the energy to help mankind instead of letting it run amok and assuring mutual destruction. This is where spirituality steps in. In fact, g: ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds’. This is a line from the 700 verse Hindu treatise ‘The Bhagvad Gita’ written in Sanskrit. The moral of the story here is this: Oppenheimer is quoted as sayin Just as space and time were considered separate entities until Einstein proved otherwise and introduced us to the spacetime continuum, science and spirituality in my mind are not different entities but a continuum. Spirituality has to guide scientific efforts towards a more humane outcome. The people creating new and exponential technologies have to think through their creations ‘relative’ to the weakest sections of humanity. The Concept Of Eternal Truths First, let me say I love, respect and try to practice the central tenets of all religions. To me, all religions are equal and are a code of conduct to being a good human first and then to live for a higher purpose call it salvation or liberation of the soul. I grew up in a country with more religions than you can count — India. I celebrate all the festivals from Christmas, Eid, Hanukkah to Diwali with my friends which were ‘born’ into these faiths. Second, the more I read the more I realize the deep similarities in all religions and cannot help but wonder if they are all following the same eternal truths of love for your fellow humans and dedication to a good way of life. Forget religion, it is universally understood using the commonest of senses that we classify deeds (Karma in hindi) as good and bad. You have to atone for your bad karma by doing good until the books balance and your soul is free. Its a very simple concept to grasp. Thirdly, I chose Jainism only for illustrative purposes of this article because it articulated the concepts of space, time, inertia millennia before modern science as we know it had defined these concepts. Therefore, it gives me a beautiful clue to think that science and spirituality are part of the same continuum or search towards eternal truths. Let me give you an example — Jain texts (approximately 4000 years ago) were written in a language called which is older than . At that time as it does today, Jainism asked its followers to not eat root vegetables or vegetables that grow below the ground (eg potatoes, onions etc.) because it would destroy the lives of microscopic organsims that live on these vegetables. The amazing thing is that it advocated this practice millennia before science had even invented the microscope and we even knew that life existed at a microscopic level. Of course, many, including modern day Jains would consider this an impossible diet to follow. I can see many of my readers smiling in agreement. Ardhamagadhi Sanskrit However, my personal takeaway is this: do all religions codify eternal truths that science is on a journey to uncover? Can science learn and include learnings from world religions. The answer I believe is a resounding yes. In my humble opinion, there are a couple of true challenge in front of designers of AI systems today: How can we design AI that thinks like humans do when we don’t yet understand how our OWN brain works? Even if we design AI capable of thinking exactly like we do, how do we imbibe them with an intellect unsullied by memory and narrow man made identities ie how do we make AI not just like us but like the best version of us that various religions are helping us become? The second question is a very profound question because it uncovers the steepness of our learning curve when it comes to designing AI algorithms. What The World Can Learn Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the Indian nation and a modern proponent of non-violence based his philosophy on the works of a Jain scholar - . Srimad Rajchandra _This is a file from the Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. Wikimedia Commons. Information from its…_en.m.wikipedia.org File:Srimad Rajcandra.jpg - Wikipedia Srimad (1867–1901) was a practitioner of Jainism. The ancient Indian religion and set of ideas called Jainism is based on the fundamental concepts of (non-attachment to material things), (a respect for all beliefs or plurality of thought) and (non-violence). Jainism believes that a respect for all beliefs and plurality of thought breeds love and non-violence because you respect everyone’s views and welcome one and all with open arms. These principles guided Gandhi and many of his disciples — Dr Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and many others to use non-violence as the bedrock of their struggle. To support my earlier thesis about eternal truths, Gandhi is also quoted as saying : Aparigraha anekantvada Ahimsa I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills. All I have done is to try experiments in both on as vast a scale as I could. Think about modern Artificial Intelligence algorithms today. You quickly realize that the eternal truths codified by ancient Jainism are never more important than today. Modern AI algorithms have to be unbiased or based on . They have to assimilate and respect plurality of thought which means they have to embrace or non-violence towards living beings. Finally, as they approach more awareness, robots need to treat humans as their partners if not masters as they do today. Otherwise, Singularity will lead to evil robots attempting to rule the world. In that sense, they have to detach themselves from the pursuit of absolute power ie they have to embrace or detachment from hedonistic pursuits and vices as outlined in Jainism. anekantavada Ahimsa aparigraha Many scientists and philosophers have embraced the unity of science and religion as the essence of progress. Albert Einstein in his most celebrated essay beautifully spelt out this belief. The following words come from Einstein’s essay “Science and religion,” published in 1954: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” At the time, humanity understood the Janus like quality of nuclear energy which could be a devastating weapon of mass destruction but if harnessed well, it could also be a source of limitless energy. Think nuclear fusion-creating energy out of heavy water using the process of the Sun ie fusing atoms instead of splitting them. Similarly, all disruptive technologies are double edged swords. The question that arises then is this: how to we mould technologies by including empathy, unbiased thought and hedonistic pursuits when we have not even perfected those ourselves? Think about this : we are building ‘intellect’ (buddhi in Sanskrit) in our algorithms. What we should be building is ‘intellect unburdened and therefore unbound by a narrow identity’ or totally unbiased way of thinking — a way of thinking we have not been able to achieve for centuries. Think about the magnitude of our endeavor here. The answer is deceptively simple to know but almost impossible to codify: we build algorithms using existing human logic because today-the best example of intelligent life form is humans but we mould the existing human logic. Otherwise, algorithms will simply recreate existing faults of humanity and perhaps magnify them. Instead, we use spirituality in our logic to take the bias out of the data and logic. We rely on ancient and eternal truths codified in our spiritual texts to guide the algorithms on how to behave. We can use data to train the algorithms to think like we do but then take the edge off when we spot bias. However, this means creating algorithms that are selectively ‘ahistorical’ ie which are without memory of our sins and foolish man made divisions but know how to think like we do. In doing so, in the words of Einstein, we help science become less ‘lame’ but more human. Of course, the time to do so is here and now. I am deeply indebted to these books which are excellent additional references for the curious: 1. Jainism by Jeffrey D Long 2. The Order Of Time by Carlo Rovelli

Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein is part of HackerNoon’s Book Blog Post series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . CHAPTER XXVII. THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS NOT EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM In the first part of this book we were able to make use of space-time co-ordinates which allowed of a simple and direct physical interpretation, and which, according to Section , can be regarded as four-dimensional Cartesian co-ordinates. This was possible on the basis of the law of the constancy of the velocity of light. But according to Section the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law. On the contrary, we arrived at the result that according to this latter theory the velocity of light must always depend on the co-ordinates when a gravitational field is present. In connection with a specific illustration in Section , we found that the presence of a gravitational field invalidates the definition of the coordinates and the time, which led us to our objective in the special theory of relativity. XXVI XXI XXIII In view of the results of these considerations we are led to the conviction that, according to the general principle of relativity, the space-time continuum cannot be regarded as a Euclidean one, but that here we have the general case, corresponding to the marble slab with local variations of temperature, and with which we made acquaintance as an example of a two-dimensional continuum. Just as it was there impossible to construct a Cartesian co-ordinate system from equal rods, so here it is impossible to build up a system (reference-body) from rigid bodies and clocks, which shall be of such a nature that measuring-rods and clocks, arranged rigidly with respect to one another, shall indicate position and time directly. Such was the essence of the difficulty with which we were confronted in Section . XXIII When we were describing the motion of a material point relative to a body of reference, we stated nothing more than the encounters of this point with particular points of the reference-body. We can also determine the corresponding values of the time by the observation of encounters of the body with clocks, in conjunction with the observation of the encounter of the hands of clocks with particular points on the dials. It is just the same in the case of space-measurements by means of measuring-rods, as a little consideration will show. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Einstein, Albert, 2004. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved May 2022 from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5001/5001-h/5001-h.htm#ch27 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org, located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html. Photo by Andrew George on Unsplash

The Space-Time Continuum of Relativity Is Not Euclidean Continuum

Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein is part of HackerNoon’s Book Blog Post series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . CHAPTER XXVI. THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY CONSIDERED AS A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM The validity of the Lorentz transformation follows from this condition. We can express this as follows: The magnitude is independent of the choice of the body of reference. We call the magnitude ds the “distance” apart of the two events or four-dimensional points. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Einstein, Albert, 2004. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved May 2022 from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5001/5001-h/5001-h.htm#ch26 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org, located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html. Photo by Andrew George on Unsplash

The Space-Time Continuum of the Special Theory of Relativity

Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein is part of HackerNoon’s Book Blog Post series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . CHAPTER XXIV. EUCLIDEAN AND NON-EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM The surface of a marble table is spread out in front of me. I can get from any one point on this table to any other point by passing continuously from one point to a “neighbouring” one, and repeating this process a (large) number of times, or, in other words, by going from point to point without executing “jumps.” I am sure the reader will appreciate with sufficient clearness what I mean here by “neighbouring” and by “jumps” (if he is not too pedantic). We express this property of the surface by describing the latter as a continuum. Let us now imagine that a large number of little rods of equal length have been made, their lengths being small compared with the dimensions of the marble slab. When I say they are of equal length, I mean that one can be laid on any other without the ends overlapping. We next lay four of these little rods on the marble slab so that they constitute a quadrilateral figure (a square), the diagonals of which are equally long. To ensure the equality of the diagonals, we make use of a little testing-rod. To this square we add similar ones, each of which has one rod in common with the first. We proceed in like manner with each of these squares until finally the whole marble slab is laid out with squares. The arrangement is such, that each side of a square belongs to two squares and each corner to four squares. It is a veritable wonder that we can carry out this business without getting into the greatest difficulties. We only need to think of the following. If at any moment three squares meet at a corner, then two sides of the fourth square are already laid, and, as a consequence, the arrangement of the remaining two sides of the square is already completely determined. But I am now no longer able to adjust the quadrilateral so that its diagonals may be equal. If they are equal of their own accord, then this is an especial favour of the marble slab and of the little rods, about which I can only be thankfully surprised. We must experience many such surprises if the construction is to be successful. If everything has really gone smoothly, then I say that the points of the marble slab constitute a Euclidean continuum with respect to the little rod, which has been used as a “distance” (line-interval). By choosing one corner of a square as “origin” I can characterise every other corner of a square with reference to this origin by means of two numbers. I only need state how many rods I must pass over when, starting from the origin, I proceed towards the “right” and then “upwards,” in order to arrive at the corner of the square under consideration. These two numbers are then the “Cartesian co-ordinates” of this corner with reference to the “Cartesian co-ordinate system” which is determined by the arrangement of little rods. By making use of the following modification of this abstract experiment, we recognise that there must also be cases in which the experiment would be unsuccessful. We shall suppose that the rods “expand” by an amount proportional to the increase of temperature. We heat the central part of the marble slab, but not the periphery, in which case two of our little rods can still be brought into coincidence at every position on the table. But our construction of squares must necessarily come into disorder during the heating, because the little rods on the central region of the table expand, whereas those on the outer part do not. With reference to our little rods—defined as unit lengths—the marble slab is no longer a Euclidean continuum, and we are also no longer in the position of defining Cartesian co-ordinates directly with their aid, since the above construction can no longer be carried out. But since there are other things which are not influenced in a similar manner to the little rods (or perhaps not at all) by the temperature of the table, it is possible quite naturally to maintain the point of view that the marble slab is a “Euclidean continuum.” This can be done in a satisfactory manner by making a more subtle stipulation about the measurement or the comparison of lengths. But if rods of every kind (i.e. of every material) were to behave in the same way as regards the influence of temperature when they are on the variably heated marble slab, and if we had no other means of detecting the effect of temperature than the geometrical behaviour of our rods in experiments analogous to the one described above, then our best plan would be to assign the distance one to two points on the slab, provided that the ends of one of our rods could be made to coincide with these two points; for how else should we define the distance without our proceeding being in the highest measure grossly arbitrary? The method of Cartesian coordinates must then be discarded, and replaced by another which does not assume the validity of Euclidean geometry for rigid bodies. The reader will notice that the situation depicted here corresponds to the one brought about by the general postulate of relativity (Section ). 1 XXIII Mathematicians have been confronted with our problem in the following form. If we are given a surface (e.g. an ellipsoid) in Euclidean three-dimensional space, then there exists for this surface a two-dimensional geometry, just as much as for a plane surface. Gauss undertook the task of treating this two-dimensional geometry from first principles, without making use of the fact that the surface belongs to a Euclidean continuum of three dimensions. If we imagine constructions to be made with rigid rods in the surface (similar to that above with the marble slab), we should find that different laws hold for these from those resulting on the basis of Euclidean plane geometry. The surface is not a Euclidean continuum with respect to the rods, and we cannot define Cartesian co-ordinates in the surface. Gauss indicated the principles according to which we can treat the geometrical relationships in the surface, and thus pointed out the way to the method of Riemann of treating multi-dimensional, non-Euclidean continuum. Thus it is that mathematicians long ago solved the formal problems to which we are led by the general postulate of relativity. 1 ↑ About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Einstein, Albert, 2004. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved May 2022 from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5001/5001-h/5001-h.htm#ch24 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org, located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html. Photo by Andrew George on Unsplash

Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Continuum

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have been around since 2015 but only reached widespread popularity last year. Today, they represent a multi-billion market that in the first six months of 2021 alone. generated $1.26 billion Owning an NFT can enhance the value of your portfolio and bring you significant ROI in the long term. However, it's tricky to say which NFT is the best to invest in, especially when countless new collections surface monthly. Above all, what's to say the NFT you just bought will maintain or increase its value over time? Like some traditional artworks, digital art pieces can become outdated, valueless, and forgettable investments. CNTNM, short for The Continuum, offers an alternative and a solution to these immutable, monotonous NFT collections. The platform provides a monthly-changing canvas connecting people worldwide and allowing them to contribute to the first infinite art project on the blockchain. Every NFT in this collection is a purchase that keeps on giving as long as its owner keeps contributing. Now, how's that for a chance of owning forever up-to-date and super rare NFTs? Read on to discover how CNTNM works! An NFT Artwork Forever in the Making is a collection of 7,999 NFT artworks on the . The project claims to be "the world's first infinite art project" and develops on top of new and intriguing technology. Above all, it brings together digital artists, non-artists, and NFT collectors, both experienced and newbies, in a brilliant and unprecedented way. Simply put, anyone with even the slightest interest in art and/or NFTs can use this stimulating environment to explore and create freely. But how does it work? The Continuum (CNTNM) Ethereum blockchain The CNTNM offers NFT owners a blank canvas with 8,000 slots, one per NFT. Every month, it encourages them to upload an image or logo in their allocated spots. This way, they can all contribute to a massive artwork showcasing their unique personalities and traits. Each monthly canvas will be a broad piece encompassing hundreds of different art styles and interpretations. The story behind every contribution will also be available because, in The Continuum project, every input counts. At the end of each month, the protocol freezes the completed canvas into a standalone NFT. It then puts it up for auction and randomly distributes the proceeds to previous contributors. Next, The CNTNM resets the canvas to blank and confirms the previous month’s canvas as the genesis block and the middle image of the new canvas. This process repeats forever with the same spaces and owners as in the image below. In time, it leads to a series of large and unique NFTs, each consisting of 7,999 former non-fungible tokens. Creators can have their pick between three NFT levels with different slot sizes on the canvas. For example, a Level One NFT occupies 1 slot. Meanwhile, a Level Two NFT occupies 4x the size of a Level One. Lastly, a Level Three NFT occupies one slot with the size of 16 Level One slots on the canvas. Every NFT displays its level on the artwork and its metadata, and Level Three NFTs come with a custom QR code. Users can upload multiple images only if they own several NFTs. Also, they can change the image within a slot infinitely until the canvas completion date. The auction proceeds incentivize NFT owners to add to the canvas every month. Moreover, once a creator contributes to this infinite artwork, they will be part of it permanently. Artwork Development and Release The Continuum has three release phases. The project will release the 7,999 NFTs in Phase 1, each representing a “contribution ticket” to the canvas. This is the core collection of the CNTNM platform and provides NFT holders with all ownership benefits. Interested buyers should keep an eye out for its release sometime in the Q2 of 2022. The collection will appear as two hands combining historical art with modern creations. Each finger will have five different traits, and their combinations will determine their rarity. Also, the level of each NFT will appear as thumb rings and chains. The five main traits include skins, nails, rings, levels, and accessories. Every trait has countless variations, which leads to unique art for each NFT, verifiable in the metadata. The CNTNM will showcase each monthly NFT in popular blockchain-based NFT galleries and in real-world NFT exhibitions. Furthermore, it will select random NFTs to promote extensively and enhance their value. The platform has already struck strategic partnerships with Metaverse galleries and other industry projects. Also, The Continuum plans to purchase its own Metaverse land, where it will host events and create a suitable environment for the community. For instance, community members will have the chance to influence the types of events and their restrictions, as well as where the project should buy Metaverse land. Soon, the developers will announce the remaining two release phases, which should include other collections and rewards. The last step of the Second Phase should see The CNTNM become a worldwide autonomous (DAO) platform fully dedicated to entertainment and contribution. The CNTNM allows the NFT community to work together on an infinite artwork while expressing their unique creative ideas. Every monthly canvas displays each NFT owner, its position, edition, and a space for caption or message, where the owner can add text. NFT holders will be able to track their contributions on the through an interactive display. The team intends to make the NFT canvas a standout emblem for NFT holders, where they can check if others are members of the same NFT community. That’s because, following a string of editions, some people may sell their NFTs, including their contributions, thus giving others the chance to do so, too. CNTNM website Lastly, the CNTNM team will provide means for NFT owners to be able to grant canvas collaboration privileges to other people at their own desired rate (free too) on any given canvas edition without the need of selling their nfts (allowing people worlwide to contribute on any given edition). For more information about The Continuum, please follow the links below: | | | | | Whitepaper Twitter Discord Instagram

The Continuum (CNTNM) Bands Together NFT Creators in Building the World’s First Infinite Art Project

is a Canadian clinical psychologist and psychology professor at the University of Toronto who became a controversial figure in late-2016 for his critiques of political correctness. Peterson’s most recent book, 12 Rules for Life, has sold over 3 million copies worldwide. Most recently, Peterson has suffered from health issues that necessitated a year-long reprieve from the public eye. Jordan B. Peterson 1. Success compounds, meaning those that win tend to continue to win Lobsters are interesting animals, but most people don’t think about them too often. , they never stop growing and can regenerate lost limbs. Unfortunately for them, they taste good with butter - but let’s circle back to lobsters here in a minute. While they may not be immortal as many like to think In the early 1900s, an Italian engineer, sociologist, economist, political scientist, and philosopher (but he was probably no fun at parties, so you got him there) named became fascinated by the ideas of wealth and power - namely, how is wealth distributed across society? (Interestingly, he did not start this work until his forties, .) Vilfredo Pareto so it is never too late to make a difference Ever diligent, he pulled data from the 1400s through his modern times and found the same pattern everywhere. Whereas people had previously assumed that wealth would be distributed in a flat, upward-sloping line from poor to rich, what Pareto found was in fact a hockey stick - a small percentage of the population holds a majority of the wealth. This kind of distribution - the most successful / most productive / largest “winners” continuously having a greater chunk of the pie - can be seen across many different fields. That same brutal principle of unequal distribution applies outside the financial domain—indeed, anywhere that creative production is required. The majority of scientific papers are published by a very small group of scientists. A tiny proportion of musicians produces almost all the recorded commercial music. Just a handful of authors sell all the books. A million and a half separately titled books (!) sell each year in the US. However, only five hundred of these sell more than a hundred thousand copies. Similarly, just four classical composers (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky) wrote almost all the music played by modern orchestras. Bach, for his part, composed so prolifically that it would take decades of work merely to hand-copy his scores, yet only a small fraction of this prodigious output is commonly performed... It also applies to the population of cities (a very small number have almost all the people), the mass of heavenly bodies (a very small number hoard all the matter), and the frequency of words in a language (90 percent of communication occurs using just 500 words), among many other things. Sometimes it is known as the Matthew Principle (Matthew 25:29), derived from what might be the harshest statement ever attributed to Christ: “to those who have everything, more will be given; from those who have nothing, everything will be taken.” This idea was further expanded in the mid-1900s when British physicist noticed that certain of his colleague were prolific publishers and others - well, not so much. In fact, Price could fit most domains of publication to a “law” stating that half of all papers are written by the square root of the number of all writers - if you had 100 papers written by 25 people, 50 papers would have been written by only 5 individuals. If it was 1,000 papers and 250 people, 500 papers were written by only 16 people. Thus, there was always an active minority generating the majority of the work. Derek Price These results can be understood as it relates to the compounding effects of resources - those that have previously “won” generally have access to the greatest resources and can more easily utilize those resources to achieve additional success. Those without resources cannot. Thus, resources beget additional resources while losing resources restricts your ability to gain resources in the future - . winners are more likely to win again, and losers more likely to lose However, there is also something going on in the brain that makes those that win more likely to pursue meaningful, productive activities again in the future. 2. Your brain is aware of where you are within the winner-loser continuum and makes plans based on where it thinks you sit Back to the lobsters. Lobsters live in a cold, brutal world where things such as ideal lobster nests (think “safe hiding places”) and access to food are both paramount and scarce. This scarcity can result in conflict. So how do you determine which lobsters lay claim to the best nests? As you might have guessed, they fight for them - and Peterson goes into detail on lobster confrontation rituals in his book. Important to this conversation is what happens in the brains of lobsters that win and lobsters that lose. A lobster loser’s brain chemistry differs importantly from that of a lobster winner. This is reflected in their relative postures. Whether a lobster is confident or cringing depends on the ratio of two chemicals that modulate communication between lobster neurons: serotonin and octopamine. Winning increases the ratio of the former to the latter. A lobster with high levels of serotonin and low levels of octopamine is a cocky, strutting sort of shellfish, much less likely to back down when challenged. This is because serotonin helps regulate postural flexion. A flexed lobster extends its appendages so that it can look tall and dangerous, like Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti Western… High serotonin/low octopamine characterizes the victor. The opposite neurochemical configuration, a high ratio of octopamine to serotonin, produces a defeated-looking, scrunched-up, inhibited, drooping, skulking sort of lobster, very likely to hang around street corners, and to vanish at the first hint of trouble. The lobster’s brain knows whether it just lost or won a fight. The victor confidently holds himself up high and the loser shirks from potential conflict. And this makes sense - it is advantageous to your survival to avoid conflict if you tend to lose because 1) you tend to lose and 2) having lost, you now have access to less advantageous resources (food and shelter). The winner is confident in his access to resources and knows, based on experience, that he can win future fights. These changes in how the lobster orients itself to the world start deep within its brain, with levels of serotonin driving physical changes in the external lobster. This brain infrastructure is very similar to what sits inside humans, who also take into account where they are in the “tend to win and have resources / tend to lose and don’t have resources” continuum. The part of our brain that keeps track of our position in the dominance hierarchy is therefore . It is a master control system, modulating our perceptions, values, emotions, thoughts and actions… exceptionally ancient and fundamental The ancient part of your brain specialized for assessing dominance watches how you are treated by other people. On that evidence, it renders a determination of your value and assigns you a status. If you are judged by your peers as of little worth, the counter restricts serotonin availability. That makes you much more physically and psychologically reactive to any circumstance or event that might produce emotion, particularly if it is negative. You need that reactivity. Emergencies are common at the bottom, and you must be ready to survive. If you are lower on the totem pole, being constantly prepared for emergencies eventually takes its toll on you given your orientation towards short-term survival at the expense of long-term success. It impacts everything, from the way your body allocates resources to its immune system (long-term investment) to your fight-or-flight response sensitivity (expensive short-term preparedness). But this all makes sense for the competitive world our ancestors grew up in. Unfortunately, that physical hyper-response, that constant alertness, burns up a lot of precious energy and physical resources. This response is really what everyone calls stress, and it is by no means only or even primarily psychological. It’s a reflection of the genuine constraints of unfortunate circumstances. When operating at the bottom, the ancient brain counter assumes that even the smallest unexpected impediment might produce an uncontrollable chain of negative events, which will have to be handled alone, as useful friends are rare indeed, on society’s fringes. You will therefore continually sacrifice what you could otherwise physically store for the future, using it up on heightened readiness and the possibility of immediate panicked action in the present… The physical demands of emergency preparedness will wear you down in every way. If you have a high status, on the other hand, the counter’s cold, pre-reptilian mechanics assume that your niche is secure, productive and safe, and that you are well buttressed with social support. It thinks the chance that something will damage you is low and can be safely discounted. Change might be opportunity, instead of disaster. The serotonin flows plentifully. This renders you confident and calm, standing tall and straight, and much less on constant alert. Because your position is secure, the future is likely to be good for you. It’s worthwhile to think in the long term and plan for a better tomorrow. 3. Feedback loops can both hurt you and help you This whole process is an example of an - a chemical reaction where one of the reaction products (in this case “losing”) acts as a catalyst for the reaction to start again (resets the brain chemistry with lower serotonin levels), which results in more reaction products (“more losing”) until the feed for the reaction is completely exhausted (in this case “you”). autocatalytic reaction This process can send you spiraling downward in an ever self-reinforcing loop of short-term focus and lack of belief in yourself. It is also the source of many mental illnesses and addiction behaviors. People that are spiraling downward are also less likely to have a strong social support group, and not having access to friends who can aid you in times of need results in your brain using resources to be prepared to face the world alone. Most people have been subject to the deafening howling of feedback at a concert, when the sound system squeals painfully. The microphone sends a signal to the speakers. The speakers emit the signal. The signal can be picked up by the microphone and sent through the system again, if it’s too loud or too close to the speakers. The sound rapidly amplifies to unbearable levels, sufficient to destroy the speakers, if it continues. The same destructive loop happens within people’s lives. Much of the time, when it happens, we label it mental illness, even though it’s not only or even at all occurring inside people’s psyches… The drinker wakes up, badly hungover. So far, this is just unfortunate. The real trouble starts when he discovers that his hangover can be “cured” with a few more drinks the morning after. Such a cure is, of course, temporary. It merely pushes the withdrawal symptoms a bit further into the future. But that might be what is required, in the short term, if the misery is sufficiently acute. So now he has learned to drink to cure his hangover. When the medication causes the disease, a positive feedback loop has been established. Alcoholism can quickly emerge under such conditions. But this kind of autocatalytic reaction is also what propels an individual to greater and greater success over time - a feedback loop can be positive. For the winners, winning (the reaction product) grants them a brain with additional serotonin and additional resources in the world, and both of these things increase the likelihood that they will win again in the future. And this ties back into Price’s law as discussed above - those that start to move ahead slightly have a higher likelihood of moving ahead even further given the way they are oriented towards the world and the way that the world (resources) is oriented towards them. 4. Stand up straight with your shoulders back Knowing all of this, it is important to make sure you are . This reinforces the negative feedback loop that will ensure you can be nothing but a loser or victim without access to resources or social connections. never acting like someone who has lost everything or is a victim However, if you act in a way that suggests to yourself and others that you are someone who can win, others will notice the confidence and start to treat you differently. Your brain will notice the changes in how others are orientated towards you, increasing the serotonin levels flowing through it. This starts off a reaction, where you are now ever-so-slightly more likely to make progress and receive access to resources. You are moving up the slope of Price’s law. So, keep your head high and or belittle you (especially in your own eyes). Eventually, your brain will kick itself into overdrive - it will get easier to hold your head up high as these will start to happen naturally. don’t do the things that you know lead to meaningless outcomes positive habits But first, you must make a little bit of effort yourself to start moving in a positive direction. So, attend carefully to your posture. Quit drooping and hunching around. Speak your mind. Put your desires forward, as if you had a right to them—at least the same right as others. Walk tall and gaze forthrightly ahead. Dare to be dangerous. Encourage the serotonin to flow plentifully through the neural pathways desperate for its calming influence. People, including yourself, will start to assume that you are competent and able (or at least they will not immediately conclude the reverse). Emboldened by the positive responses you are now receiving, you will begin to be less anxious. You will then find it easier to pay attention to the subtle social clues that people exchange when they are communicating. Your conversations will flow better, with fewer awkward pauses. This will make you more likely to meet people, interact with them, and impress them. Doing so will not only genuinely increase the probability that good things will happen to you—it will also make those good things feel better when they do happen. Also published here.

The Winner Loser Continuum; and 3 More Lessons from Jordan B. Peterson

I spent the past few years learning how to pull the levers and rotate the knobs that use your data to extract clicks from you online. I started to understand how these systems work, and I started to realize I was also addicted to these systems myself. To improve, I conducted research and made changes to my behavior over the course of two and a half years. Now that I am in control, I am trying to bring out the information that will help others understand and improve their digital lives. I wrote a book on digital addiction. Get a copy from Barnes and Noble or Kobo This post reveals one of my most important realizations, informed by my field research, that has most helped me better understand and correct my digital life. We have over time become addicted to a continuum of digital sexual stimulation, with continual production and reduction of digital sexual anxiety and stimulation, through use of both social media and porn. The first step is looking at content on social media, which is often sexualized because of our want to be sexually desirable. This creates sexual stimulation, and thus sexual anxiety, from not having an immediate channel for that stimulation. This leads us to porn to streamline the release of that sexual anxiety — through the same digital medium that created the anxiety. The access to endless novelty in porn leads to maximal use, and a heightened frequency of masturbation and orgasm. The high depletion of sexual energy causes young adults to go on social media the next day looking for sexual stimulation for more sexual energy: the energy we need to motivate ourselves and increase our receptivity to stimulation and engagement in life. But this artificial stimulation then leads to sexual anxiety that leads back to porn, draining us of energy, and fueling this cycle to social media to get sexual stimulation throughout the day, through intermittent profile and news feed browsing while working. It is only by abstaining from the consumption of digital sexual stimulation that we abstain from this vortex, thus warranting us to make changes to both sides: social media and porn. For social media we should avoid consuming digital sexual stimulation on the news feed or profile browsing, and on porn, well, we should completely abstain from porn, so that we are not excessively drained. We should use social media in a minimalistic way: simply to upload content and maintain a profile simply to not signal detachment from the community, allow oneself to be connected to others through Messenger, and to maximize visibility for dating and social opportunities. We should not use it to consume sexual stimulation on the news feed or profile browsing, and we should eliminate the consumption of notifications. There is another feedback loop driving this continuum, from machine learning that’s used to show you more and more appealing content. The more time spent on social networks like Instagram, the more data, based on what you’ve been looking at, that the algorithms have to predict what to show you. This increases the pleasure of consuming content on those services, leading to more use, which leads to more data, which leads to more desirable content. While this optimization makes use of these social networks more pleasureful, it makes it hard to resist the temptation to use them excessively throughout the day because of how easily they can — always — be accessed. Because people often use these services for sexual stimulation throughout the day, the algorithms show more and more sexually stimulating content. This is particularly true on Instagram, where the global feed has access to a wide array of people to curate depending on the sexual tastes you demonstrate. With that vortex, it becomes important to develop self-control. The self-learning algorithms of Facebook and Instagram make it continually easier to escalate to irrational, self-destructive use. To make matters worse, when trying to work on a device, having watched porn on that device creates a sexual, fetishized relationship with your device that rumbles in the back of your head, making it difficult to fully concentrate in front of a lit screen- and making it tempting to distract yourself. When trying to work on the same screen that we use to watch porn, the screen activates a pavlovian association with sex, perhaps sexually stimulating you, making it difficult to work and easier to use digital media to distract ourselves in sexualized ways, like viewing girls on Instagram. Devices that have become fetishized through use of porn make it hard for people to work. The mind is luring you to watch porn, because the screen light’s association with the pleasure of porn. This is part of the reason why it is tempting to view content on Instagram or Facebook when working on your computer: your mind is becoming subconsciously sexually stimulated by the interaction with the device, and your mind then tries to subconsciously direct you to a path of least resistance towards porn, to satisfy the subconscious sexual stimulation. But by bringing you to consuming content on social media, which is often sexualized, you can get sexual stimulation in public. The machine learning algorithms, in tandem with our fetishization of our devices, may explain the difficulty we have. What happens is as follows. The more and more you derive sexual stimulation through pornography through an electric screen, the greater the potency of the distractions to consume sexualized content on the same screen after ejaculation because of the Pavlovian sexual association and the desire to restore sexual energy. The greater potency of distraction results in greater difficulty resisting those temptations for distraction, resulting in greater use of distractions like Instagram, which then fuels the machine learning algorithms that cause Instagram in particular to become better and better at showing you what content you want to see based on inferences from your past behavior, which often results in a more and more custom tailored sexualized experience that produces more stimulation and makes it easier and easier to use Instagram more and more, which powers the machine learning algorithms even more, and as a result of the sexual stimulation, increases the temptation to watch pornography, increasing the Pavlovian association that increases the potency of the temptations to use social media, inflaming this addictive cycle. The machine learning algorithms of social media, paired with a fetishized relationship with a device, results in a feedback loop where the technology becomes more and more powerful while our ability to exert control and defend distraction becomes more and more weak. We become caught, between porn and social media, in the continuum of digital sexual stimulation.

The Continuum of Digital Sexual Stimulation

The Milgram Continuum at a glance In 1994 Paul Milgram conceived for the first time the , also called in a scientific paper where he (among with other colleagues) tried to describe all possible combinations of reality and computer-generated images in HUDs. Reality Virtuality Continuum Milgram’s Continuum At the far left, there is the , unmodified as our eyes see it. At the opposite side of the continuum, we can find the where all that wee see has been generated by a computer. This is the case for VR headsets like Oculus Rift, Samsung Gear VR, HTC Vive, etc. real environment virtual environment The area between the real environment and the virtual environment represents the , with various degrees of overlapping between reality and virtuality. mixed reality Devices like Vuzix, Epson Moverio or fall into the case, where the virutality the reality (i.e. the virtuality is less relevant than the reality), whereas the is represented by devices like Microsoft Hololens or Daqri helmets. Glassup F4 Augmented Reality augments Augmented Virtuality Now, imagine you are in a club and you see a very nice boy (or girl — hey, we embrace diversity here!) but you don’t know what is the perfect first approach: now you know the MIlgram’s Continuum. You are welcome.

Milgram’s Continuum: Best pick-up line ever

21 Cranium-Catching Bitcoin Marketing Ideas For Dummies & Savvyies

21 хващащи черепа биткойн маркетингови идеи за манекени и разбирачи

21 ideas de marketing de Bitcoin que harán que los principiantes y los entendidos se destaquen

21 idee di marketing Bitcoin da urlo per principianti e esperti

21 רעיונות שיווק ביטקוין תופסי גולגולת עבור בובות ומנוסות

初心者から上級者まで、ビットコインマーケティングの21の魅力的なアイデア

21 kaukolę užvaldanti Bitcoin rinkodaros idėja manekenams ir išminčiai

21 Cranium-Ifata Bitcoin Ibitekerezo byo Kwamamaza Dummies & Savvyies

21 ไอเดียการตลาด Bitcoin ที่น่าสนใจสำหรับคนโง่และคนฉลาด

21 Cranium-Catching Bitcoin Marketing Ideas Para sa Mga Dummies at Savvyies

Aptallar ve Bilgililer İçin 21 Kafatası Yakalayan Bitcoin Pazarlama Fikri

21 Cranium-Catching Bitcoin Miehleketo Ya Vuxavisi Bya Dummies & Savvyies

Dummies va Savvyies uchun 21 Boshsuyagi-ushlab bitcoin marketing g'oyalar

Authors:
(1) Timothy R. McIntosh;
(2) Teo Susnjak;
(3) Tong Liu;
(4) Paul Watters;
(5) Malka N. Halgamuge. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Background: Evolution of Generative AI The Current Generative AI Research Taxonomy Innovative Horizon of MOE Speculated Capabilities of Q* Projected Capabilities of AGI Impact Analysis on Generative AI Research Taxonomy Emergent Research Priorities in Generative AI Practical Implications and Limitations of Generative AI Technologies Impact of Generative AI on Preprints Across Disciplines Conclusions, Disclaimer, and References X. IMPACT OF GENERATIVE AI ON PREPRINTS ACROSS DISCIPLINES The challenges detailed in this section are not directly related to the knowledge domains within generative AI, but are fueled by the success of Generative AI, particularly the commercialization of ChatGPT. The proliferation of preprints in the field of AI (Fig. 7), especially in the cs.AI category on platforms like arXiv, has introduced a set of academic challenges that merit careful consideration and strategic response. The rapid commercialization and adoption of tools such as ChatGPT, as evidenced by over 55,700 entries on Google Scholar mentioning “ChatGPT” within just one year of its commercialization, exemplify the accelerated pace at which the field is advancing. This rapid development is not mirrored in the traditional peer-review process, which is considerably slower. The peer-review process now appears to be overwhelmed with manuscripts that are either generated with ChatGPT (or other LLMs), or whose writing processes have been significantly accelerated by such LLMs, contributing to a bottleneck in scholarly communication [325], [326]. This situation is further compounded by the fact that many journals in disciplines outside of computer science are also experiencing longer review times and higher rates of desk rejections. Additionally, the flourishing trend of manuscripts and preprints, either generated by or significantly expedited using tools like ChatGPT, extends beyond computer science into diverse academic disciplines. This trend presents a looming challenge, potentially overwhelming both the traditional peer review process and the flourishing preprint ecosystem with a volume of work that may not always adhere to established academic standards. The sheer volume of preprints has made the task of selecting and scrutinizing research exceedingly demanding. In the current research era, the exploration of scientific literature has become increasingly complex, as knowledge has continued to expand and disseminate exponentially, while concurrently, integrative research efforts attempting to distill these vast literature, attempt to identify and understand a smaller sets of core contributions [327]. Thus, the rapid expansion of academic literature across various fields presents a significant challenge for researchers seeking to perform evidence syntheses over the increasingly vast body of available knowledge [328]. Furthermore, this explosion in publication volume poses a distinct challenge for literature reviews and surveys, where the human capacity for manually selecting, understanding, and critically evaluating articles is increasingly strained, potentially leading to gaps in synthesizing comprehensive knowledge landscapes. Although reproduction of results is a theoretical possibility, practical constraints such as the lack of technical expertise, computational resources, or access to proprietary datasets hinder rigorous evaluation. This is concerning, as the inability to thoroughly assess preprint research undermines the foundation of scientific reliability and validity. Furthermore, the peerreview system, a cornerstone of academic rigour, is under the threat of being further overwhelmed [325], [329]. The potential consequences are significant, with unvetted preprints possibly perpetuating biases or errors within the scientific community and beyond. The absence of established retraction mechanisms for preprints, akin to those for published articles, exacerbates the risk of persistent dissemination of flawed research. The academic community is at a crossroads, necessitating an urgent and thoughtful discourse on navigating this emerging “mess” — a situation that risks spiraling out of control if left unaddressed. In this context, the role of peer review becomes increasingly crucial, as it serves as a critical checkpoint for quality and validity, ensuring that the rapid production of AI research is rigorously studied for scientific accuracy and relevance. However, the current modus operandi of traditional peer review does not appear to be sustainable, primarily due to its inability to keep pace with the exponential growth in AI-themed research and Generative-AI-accelerated research submissions, and the increasingly specialized nature of emerging AI topics [325], [326]. This situation is compounded by a finite pool of qualified reviewers, leading to delays, potential biases, and a burden on the scholarly community. This reality demands an exploration of new paradigms for peer review and dissemination of research that can keep pace with swift advancements in AI. Innovative models for community-driven vetting processes, enhanced reproducibility checks, and dynamic frameworks for post-publication scrutiny and correction may be necessary. Efforts to incorporate automated tools and AI-assisted review processes could also be explored to alleviate the strain on human reviewers. In this rapidly evolving landscape, envision a convergence between the traditional peer review system and the flourishing preprint ecosystem, which could involve creating hybrid models (Fig. 8), where preprints undergo a preliminary community-based review, harnessing the collective expertise and rapid feedback of the academic community, similar to product review websites and Twitter [330]. This approach could provide an initial layer of validation, offering additional insights on issues that may be overlooked by a limited number of peer reviewers. The Editors-in-Chief (EICs) could consider the major criticisms and suggestions of an article from the community-based review, ensuring a more thorough and diverse evaluation. Subsequent, more formal peer review processes could then refine and endorse these preprints for academic rigor and quality assurance. This hybrid model would require robust technological support, possibly leveraging AI and machine learning tools to assist in initial screening and identification of suitable reviewers. The aim would be to establish a seamless continuum from rapid dissemination to validated publication, ensuring both the speed of preprints and the credibility of peer-reviewed research. A balanced approach must be struck to harness the benefits of preprints—such as rapid dissemination of findings and open access—while mitigating their drawbacks. The development of new infrastructure and norms could be instrumental in steering the academic community towards a sustainable model that upholds the integrity and trustworthiness of scientific research in the age of Generative AI. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Timothy R. McIntosh; (2) Teo Susnjak; (3) Tong Liu; (4) Paul Watters; (5) Malka N. Halgamuge. Authors: Authors: (1) Timothy R. McIntosh; (2) Teo Susnjak; (3) Tong Liu; (4) Paul Watters; (5) Malka N. Halgamuge. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Background: Evolution of Generative AI Background: Evolution of Generative AI The Current Generative AI Research Taxonomy The Current Generative AI Research Taxonomy Innovative Horizon of MOE Innovative Horizon of MOE Speculated Capabilities of Q* Speculated Capabilities of Q* Projected Capabilities of AGI Projected Capabilities of AGI Impact Analysis on Generative AI Research Taxonomy Impact Analysis on Generative AI Research Taxonomy Emergent Research Priorities in Generative AI Emergent Research Priorities in Generative AI Practical Implications and Limitations of Generative AI Technologies Practical Implications and Limitations of Generative AI Technologies Impact of Generative AI on Preprints Across Disciplines Impact of Generative AI on Preprints Across Disciplines Conclusions, Disclaimer, and References Conclusions, Disclaimer, and References X. IMPACT OF GENERATIVE AI ON PREPRINTS ACROSS DISCIPLINES The challenges detailed in this section are not directly related to the knowledge domains within generative AI, but are fueled by the success of Generative AI, particularly the commercialization of ChatGPT. The proliferation of preprints in the field of AI (Fig. 7), especially in the cs.AI category on platforms like arXiv, has introduced a set of academic challenges that merit careful consideration and strategic response. The rapid commercialization and adoption of tools such as ChatGPT, as evidenced by over 55,700 entries on Google Scholar mentioning “ChatGPT” within just one year of its commercialization, exemplify the accelerated pace at which the field is advancing. This rapid development is not mirrored in the traditional peer-review process, which is considerably slower. The peer-review process now appears to be overwhelmed with manuscripts that are either generated with ChatGPT (or other LLMs), or whose writing processes have been significantly accelerated by such LLMs, contributing to a bottleneck in scholarly communication [325], [326]. This situation is further compounded by the fact that many journals in disciplines outside of computer science are also experiencing longer review times and higher rates of desk rejections. Additionally, the flourishing trend of manuscripts and preprints, either generated by or significantly expedited using tools like ChatGPT, extends beyond computer science into diverse academic disciplines. This trend presents a looming challenge, potentially overwhelming both the traditional peer review process and the flourishing preprint ecosystem with a volume of work that may not always adhere to established academic standards. The sheer volume of preprints has made the task of selecting and scrutinizing research exceedingly demanding. In the current research era, the exploration of scientific literature has become increasingly complex, as knowledge has continued to expand and disseminate exponentially, while concurrently, integrative research efforts attempting to distill these vast literature, attempt to identify and understand a smaller sets of core contributions [327]. Thus, the rapid expansion of academic literature across various fields presents a significant challenge for researchers seeking to perform evidence syntheses over the increasingly vast body of available knowledge [328]. Furthermore, this explosion in publication volume poses a distinct challenge for literature reviews and surveys, where the human capacity for manually selecting, understanding, and critically evaluating articles is increasingly strained, potentially leading to gaps in synthesizing comprehensive knowledge landscapes. Although reproduction of results is a theoretical possibility, practical constraints such as the lack of technical expertise, computational resources, or access to proprietary datasets hinder rigorous evaluation. This is concerning, as the inability to thoroughly assess preprint research undermines the foundation of scientific reliability and validity. Furthermore, the peerreview system, a cornerstone of academic rigour, is under the threat of being further overwhelmed [325], [329]. The potential consequences are significant, with unvetted preprints possibly perpetuating biases or errors within the scientific community and beyond. The absence of established retraction mechanisms for preprints, akin to those for published articles, exacerbates the risk of persistent dissemination of flawed research. The academic community is at a crossroads, necessitating an urgent and thoughtful discourse on navigating this emerging “mess” — a situation that risks spiraling out of control if left unaddressed. In this context, the role of peer review becomes increasingly crucial, as it serves as a critical checkpoint for quality and validity, ensuring that the rapid production of AI research is rigorously studied for scientific accuracy and relevance. However, the current modus operandi of traditional peer review does not appear to be sustainable, primarily due to its inability to keep pace with the exponential growth in AI-themed research and Generative-AI-accelerated research submissions, and the increasingly specialized nature of emerging AI topics [325], [326]. This situation is compounded by a finite pool of qualified reviewers, leading to delays, potential biases, and a burden on the scholarly community. This reality demands an exploration of new paradigms for peer review and dissemination of research that can keep pace with swift advancements in AI. Innovative models for community-driven vetting processes, enhanced reproducibility checks, and dynamic frameworks for post-publication scrutiny and correction may be necessary. Efforts to incorporate automated tools and AI-assisted review processes could also be explored to alleviate the strain on human reviewers. In this rapidly evolving landscape, envision a convergence between the traditional peer review system and the flourishing preprint ecosystem, which could involve creating hybrid models (Fig. 8), where preprints undergo a preliminary community-based review, harnessing the collective expertise and rapid feedback of the academic community, similar to product review websites and Twitter [330]. This approach could provide an initial layer of validation, offering additional insights on issues that may be overlooked by a limited number of peer reviewers. The Editors-in-Chief (EICs) could consider the major criticisms and suggestions of an article from the community-based review, ensuring a more thorough and diverse evaluation. Subsequent, more formal peer review processes could then refine and endorse these preprints for academic rigor and quality assurance. This hybrid model would require robust technological support, possibly leveraging AI and machine learning tools to assist in initial screening and identification of suitable reviewers. The aim would be to establish a seamless continuum from rapid dissemination to validated publication, ensuring both the speed of preprints and the credibility of peer-reviewed research. A balanced approach must be struck to harness the benefits of preprints—such as rapid dissemination of findings and open access—while mitigating their drawbacks. The development of new infrastructure and norms could be instrumental in steering the academic community towards a sustainable model that upholds the integrity and trustworthiness of scientific research in the age of Generative AI. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Stories, News & Mentions about CONTINUUM

Continuum’s Stories on HackerNoon