In quantum mechanics, the concept of “locality” and “realism” are often discussed in the context of the EPR paradox and Bell’s theorem. In a “locally real” theory, the properties of particles are well-defined independently of measurement (realism), and no influences can propagate faster than the speed of light (locality).
-
Realism: In a “realistic” theory, the properties of a system exist independently of observation. For example, if you have an electron, the idea is that it has a definite spin direction whether or not you measure it.
-
Locality: The principle of “locality” holds that physical processes occurring at one place do not depend on the properties of objects at another place that is spacelike separated, which would require information or influence to travel faster than the speed of light.
However, quantum mechanics challenges these intuitive notions. Experiments with entangled particles suggest that the properties of one particle can instantaneously affect the properties of another distant particle, seemingly violating locality. Meanwhile, the superposition principle suggests that particles don’t have definite properties until measured, challenging realism.
In my opinion, the breakdown of “local realism” is one of the most unsettling and fascinating aspects of quantum mechanics. It forces us to reconsider our intuitive understanding of reality and has implications for fields like quantum computing and quantum cryptography.
— ChatGPT4
As physicists, I can confirm, this is not bad explanation.
I watched Blade Runner 2049 about half year after its release, and about 15 years after I watched the firs movie. My reaction was “I do not understand all the criticism of 2049 - it is a good movie”. And then I decided to rewatch the first movie. And then I understood. And that’s despite of the fact that the first movie is really old.
Every large aggregate report contains errors. As long as the errors are small and do not impact conclusions, there is no “business critical” element. And of course, they are going to check the accuracy with real human beings, constantly. But I have no doubt that AI is capable to do this kind of work as good or even better than human beings. So yes, some radiologists will be remained employed, but you need like what? 20% of them? Less, as time goes?
I will give you just one example. Pharmaceutical companies often create aggregate reports where they have to process a large number of cases. Say, 5000. Such processing sometimes includes analysis of x-Ray or other images. Very specialized and highly paid people (radiologists) do this. It is expensive and is part of the reason why medicine prices are high. One company recently had a trial - if AI can do that job. Turns out it can. Huge savings for the company. And the radiologist lost their job. This is just one example of good and bad things that will and already are happening in our society due to AI.
Yes, until you do something about your neighbors.
In case of (classical) socialism, since it is tried in many countries, I will argue it will fail again, unless something is changed. And I am arguing that that something is human nature. So, while we are the same humans, this will not work as effective as capitalism.
Ironically, I think Karl Marx understood this. This is why he was arguing for world-wide revolution. But Lenin changed this into “building communism in a single country”. Since half of the developed world continued to be capitalistic, it become quite obvious that people in capitalist countries live better (on average), and the soviet empire disintegrated.
May sound good on paper, but everywhere where it was tried, nothing good happened. There is something in human nature that makes it inefficient and have tendency to become dictatorial state. Socialism (in classical sense) is just worse system in practice, as many countries in 20th century demonstrated.
Everything is toxic in sufficient amounts. Even water.