4 Comments

Loved the part on variation in rationality (something my wife and I talk about occasionally) as it seems so spot on. There's a great Freakonomics podcast about this (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-do-broken-hearted-knitters-urinating-goalkeepers-and-the-cia-have-in-common/) that captures the power of superstition in our society which was pretty good. I think the key is to leave enough "outs" that something is bound to cross the border into believability so that it is as much a law of large numbers issue so that something will appear to be true even if it isn't.

Expand full comment
author

Ha! That's quite the episode title: "What Do Broken-Hearted Knitters, Urinating Goalkeepers, and the C.I.A. Have in Common?"

And I think I had long, crazy ones!

Thanks for the comments, love getting feedback. Have a good weekend, Kevin 💚 🥃

Expand full comment
Apr 1, 2022Liked by Liberty

Quite interesting on the robo pharmacists, I feel the big issue here is how do you have quality control and legal control. I know there are a lot of human errors in dispensing medication, but that has its own legal trail responsibility, where would it be for robot pharmacists (even though I think this will probably have many fewer errors and be more efficient there will still be errors).

Expand full comment
author

Excellent question. Like with any automation, I feel like you can have a bunch of controls to show how reliable they are, and over time the trust accumulates in the system.

I wonder how long, when they first came out, until pilots trusted autopilot systems in flight..?

It'll be similar with self-driving cars.

But good question! 💚 🥃

Expand full comment