Thoughts

Google's Quantum computer

Google's quantum computer, Sycamore, achieved quantum supremacy. Sycamore performed a calculation in 200 seconds that would take the world's most powerful supercomputer, Frontier, 47 years to complete [00:08]. This is an improvement on Google's 2019 achievement, with Sycamore now using 70 qubits compared to the previous 53 [00:15]. The video explains that qubits, the quantum version of classical bits, can be a one, a zero, or both at the same time, which allows for potentially much faster calculations [00:24]. While quantum computers are still in their early stages, Google's progress with Sycamore is a significant step, indicating that these machines are becoming more powerful and could soon be applied to solve real-world problems [00:31, 00:45].

Enriching team decisions with check agents

Common problems with teams: Groupthink

" Where they lead, we will follow...well I guess that's just the way it goes..."

- The Offspring, Something to Believe In

Teams often fall into bias, unchallenged assumptions, and predictable thinking. We can refine team discussions by adopting different roles within the group to challenge and strengthen ideas into logical conclusions.

Characters & sample argumentS

Sample Statement: AI Will Take Over Our Jobs.

Strong statement. Needs validation.

When discussing this statement, each Check Character pushes the conversation deeper, refining the argument and exploring new angles.

The Contrarian

Always challenges (disagrees) with what is being discussed.
What if AI actually creates more jobs than it replaces?
Are we assuming AI will replace entire jobs, rather than tasks within jobs?
What industries have historically feared automation, only to see new roles emerge?
Effect: Forces the team to question assumptions, strengthen arguments, and consider counter-evidence.

The First Principle Analyst

Breaks down ideas into fundamental truths to rebuild stronger arguments.
What does "a job" actually mean? Are we talking about routine tasks, decision-making, or human creativity?
If AI fully replaces certain jobs, what core skills will still be needed?
Can we redefine work itself in an AI-driven world, rather than assuming it disappears?
Effect: Pushes the team to move beyond surface-level thinking and analyze problems at their core.

The Critical Friend

Supports but refines, strengthening weak points constructively.
If AI is replacing jobs, what policies or education systems should we build to adapt?
What parts of human work are hardest for AI to replicate, and how can we emphasize those?
Are we preparing people for new job opportunities AI will create, or just reacting to change?
Effect: Ensures discussions move from fear to actionable solutions, improving the practicality of ideas.

The Unconventional Strategist

Pushes radical, out-of-the-box thinking to find unexpected solutions.
What if AI doesn’t take jobs but instead allows everyone to work fewer hours while earning the same?
Can we create a new economic model where humans focus on creativity while AI handles repetitive tasks?
What if AI-generated jobs become the new norm—what skills would be valuable in an AI-first economy?
Effect: Encourages the team to rethink work itself, exploring radical but potentially groundbreaking solutions.

Result: A Well-Balanced Assessment of the Statement

The fear that "AI will take over our jobs" is a common narrative, but history has shown that technology often transforms work rather than eliminates it. To move beyond surface-level arguments, we need to challenge assumptions, analyze fundamental truths, refine weak points, and explore radical solutions. These positions / roles help shape a more nuanced, productive discussion about AI’s impact on jobs.

The Contrarian immediately pushes back against the assumption that AI will cause widespread job losses. Looking at past technological revolutions, such as the rise of automation in manufacturing, we see that new industries emerged alongside job displacement. The real question is not "Will AI take jobs?" but "Which jobs will evolve, and how do we prepare?" The Contrarian forces the team to consider job creation through AI, shifts in labor demand, and whether we are overestimating AI’s capabilities.

The First Principles Analyst breaks the problem down to its core: What is a job? Are we talking about tasks, entire professions, or economic roles? AI may automate repetitive, data-driven tasks, but human work is more than just execution—it involves judgment, ethics, emotional intelligence, and adaptability. By stripping away assumptions, this character helps the team differentiate between what AI can realistically do and what remains uniquely human.

The Critical Friend ensures we don’t just debate AI’s impact but actually prepare for it. Instead of focusing on what will be lost, it asks how to prepare workers for AI-driven industries. It pushes for education reform, upskilling programs, and policies that help workers transition into new roles. Without proactive measures, AI’s impact could be disruptive—but with the right planning, it could enhance human work rather than replace it.

The Unconventional Strategist challenges the way we define work itself. What if AI’s efficiency allows for shorter workweeks with no income loss? Could AI force a new economic model where humans focus on creativity, innovation, and problem-solving while AI handles routine labor? Rather than just assuming job displacement, this character encourages the team to explore radical but potentially transformative solutions, making AI a tool for societal progress rather than a threat to employment.

By applying these diverse perspectives, we move beyond fear-driven narratives and into a space where AI’s role in the workforce is seen as an opportunity for adaptation and growth. The real challenge isn’t AI itself—it’s how we think about it, prepare for it, and use it to redefine work for the better.

Logical Fallacies

Ad Hominem

Description: Instead of addressing the actual argument, this fallacy focuses on attacking the person making the argument. It’s like saying, "Your idea is wrong because you’re bad."

Example: "Don’t listen to Sarah’s ideas about the economy—she’s just a high school dropout."

Countermeasure: Focus on the argument, not the person. Politely redirect the discussion by saying, “Let’s address the actual points being made instead of discussing personal traits.

Strawman

Description: This involves twisting or exaggerating someone’s argument so it’s easier to attack. It’s like setting up a fake version of their argument and knocking that down instead of their actual point.

Example: "Tom thinks we should improve recycling programs. Clearly, he wants to ban all plastic products!"

Countermeasure: Clarify your position. Say, “That’s not what I said or meant. Let me restate my argument more clearly.”

Appeal to Authority

Description: This happens when someone says an idea is true just because an authority figure supports it, without providing evidence. Being an expert doesn’t automatically mean they’re always right.

Example: "A famous doctor said this supplement works, so it must be true."

Countermeasure: Ask for evidence. Say, “Can you provide data or reasoning to support their claim rather than relying on their status?”

False Dichotomy

Description: This presents an issue as if there are only two choices when, in reality, there are more options. It oversimplifies complex issues.

Example: "You either support my policy or you don’t care about this country."

Countermeasure: Point out additional options. Say, “This issue isn’t black and white. There are other possibilities we should consider.”

Slippery Slope

Description: Suggesting that one small action will lead to a series of extreme events without evidence to support that chain reaction. It’s like saying, "If A happens, then Z will happen for sure."

Example: "If we allow students to use calculators in exams, soon they won’t even know basic math."

Countermeasure: Ask for proof of the chain of events. Say, “What evidence do you have that A will lead to B, C, and so on? Can we assess each step logically?

Circular Reasoning

Description: This occurs when the argument goes in circles, with the conclusion being used as the reason itself. It doesn’t actually prove anything.

Example: "This law is important because it’s necessary."

Countermeasure: Ask for independent evidence. Say, “You’re assuming what you’re trying to prove. Can you provide separate evidence to support your conclusion?

Hasty Generalization

Description: Jumping to conclusions based on very little evidence. It’s like meeting two rude people in a city and deciding the whole city is rude.

Example: "I saw one bad review of this restaurant; it must be terrible."

Countermeasure: Request more evidence or examples. Say, “This seems based on limited information. Are there broader data to support this conclusion?

False Cause

Description: This assumes that if one thing happens after another, the first must have caused the second. Correlation isn’t the same as causation.

Example: "I started using this app, and my grades improved. The app must be why I did better."

Countermeasure: Highlight the difference between correlation and causation. Say, “Just because these events happened together doesn’t mean one caused the other. Is there proof of a causal link?”

Bandwagon Appeal

Description: Suggesting that something is true or good just because lots of people agree with it. Popularity doesn’t equal correctness.

Example: "Everyone’s buying this product, so it must be the best on the market."

Countermeasure: Challenge the assumption that popularity equals truth. Say, “Just because many people believe this doesn’t mean it’s correct. What’s the evidence?”

Appeal to Emotion

Description: Instead of using facts, this fallacy tries to manipulate people by making them feel emotions like fear, pity, or anger.

Example: "Donate now to save these poor, helpless puppies!"

Countermeasure: Redirect to facts and logic. Say, “I understand the emotional impact, but can we examine the data and reasoning behind this claim?

Red Herring

Description: Introducing an unrelated topic to distract from the main argument. It’s like throwing the discussion off track to avoid answering the real question.

Example: "Why should we focus on fixing healthcare when there’s so much crime in our cities?"

Countermeasure: Bring the discussion back to the original topic. Say, “That’s an interesting point, but let’s focus on the main issue at hand.”

Equivocation

Description: Using a word with more than one meaning to mislead or confuse people. It’s like playing word games instead of being clear.

Example: "Laws shouldn’t be broken, and since the speed limit is a law, you can’t go even 1 mph over it."

Countermeasure: Ask for clarification on terms. Say, “Can you define what you mean by [word]? It seems like you’re using it in different ways.

Appeal to Ignorance

Description: Claiming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false, or false because it hasn’t been proven true.

Example: "No one has ever proven that ghosts aren’t real, so they must exist."

Countermeasure: Emphasize the need for evidence. Say, “The absence of evidence isn’t proof of something. Can we find information to confirm or refute this claim?”

False Analogy

Description: Comparing two things that aren’t really alike in the way being argued. It’s like saying apples are the same as oranges because they’re both fruit.

Example: "Running a business is like coaching a football team; as long as everyone works together, you’ll succeed."

Countermeasure: Highlight the differences between the two things being compared. Say, “This comparison doesn’t hold because these situations are different in key ways.”

Begging the Question

Description: Assuming the truth of the argument’s conclusion in its premises. It’s like saying, "This is true because it’s true."

Example: "We know this policy is the best because it’s better than all the alternatives."

Countermeasure: Ask for foundational evidence. Say, “Your argument assumes the conclusion is true. Can you provide separate proof for this claim?”

Play the game!

what Game Theory tells us about life

Thought this was worth a share. The tit-for-tat strategy in the best in approaching social situations. Cheers! Here's how it works:

Start friendly: Initially approach all relationships with goodwill and cooperation
Mirror behavior: Then respond to others by matching their previous action
If someone is helpful, be helpful back
If someone is unfriendly, respond similarly in the next interaction
If they return to being cooperative, immediately return to being cooperative

Key characteristics:

Clear: Your responses are predictable and easy to understand
Fair: You don't escalate conflicts or exploit others
Forgiving: Quick to restore cooperation when others change their behavior
Memory-based: Only considers the most recent interaction, not ancient history

Example in practice

You help a colleague with their project (friendly start)
They refuse to help with yours later (they defect)
You decline their next request for help (mirror their behavior)
They apologize and offer assistance (they cooperate)
You return to helping them (mirror their new cooperative behavior)

This strategy tends to build stable, reciprocal relationships while protecting against exploitation. It encourages cooperation by making both rewards and consequences immediate and clear.

First Principles Analysis

First principles analysis is a problem-solving approach that breaks down complex issues into their most basic, foundational truths, bypassing assumptions and conventional thinking. It involves deconstructing a problem into its core elements, questioning why each component exists and how it functions, and then reconstructing solutions from the ground up based on these fundamental insights. By focusing on what is fundamentally true rather than relying on analogies or existing solutions, this method encourages innovative, efficient, and often groundbreaking approaches to challenges across disciplines.

To see how this method works, lets examine the problem of Designing a Cost-Effective EV Battery.

Step 1: Break Down the Problem into Fundamental Principles

What is the fundamental purpose of an EV battery?

To store electrical energy and deliver it to the motor efficiently over time.

What governs the energy storage capacity of a battery?

The energy density of the materials used, both by weight and volume.

What are the factors influencing the efficiency and cost of the battery?

Materials, manufacturing process, safety, recyclability, and lifespan.

What are the limitations of current lithium-ion batteries?

High cost, limited raw material availability (e.g., lithium, cobalt), long charging times, and safety risks (e.g., thermal runaway).

Step 2: Challenge Assumptions

Why do we assume lithium-ion is the best material?

It offers a good balance of energy density and longevity, but this is based on historical advancements rather than considering alternative chemistries.

Are there alternatives to rare and expensive materials like cobalt?

Yes, alternatives like sodium, silicon, or even graphene can be explored, as sodium is abundantly available and cheaper.

Step 3: Reconstruct the Solution

Energy Storage Redesign: Focus on sodium-ion batteries since sodium is cost-effective and abundant. Mitigate lower energy density by innovating better electrode designs.

Improved Manufacturing: Explore 3D printing of battery components to reduce waste and cost.

Safety Enhancements: Incorporate solid-state electrolytes to minimize the risk of thermal runaway.

Recyclability: Use fully recyclable materials (like aluminum for electrodes) to improve long-term sustainability.

Final Analysis

Using first principles, we shifted focus from incremental improvements in lithium-ion batteries to designing a fundamentally different battery system:

Sodium-ion technology, paired with solid-state electrolytes.

Lower cost due to abundant materials.

Enhanced safety and recyclability.

Interestingly, some companies are already focusing on this technology now.

Interesting Article

Knowing Yourself

Knowing Yourself: The Foundation of Success

Understanding oneself is a cornerstone of personal and professional growth. Whether navigating life's challenges or making career decisions, self-awareness lays the groundwork for success. Knowing your strengths, weaknesses, preferences, and values helps you align your choices with your true self. Tools like personality assessments and introspection provide valuable insights, enabling you to make informed decisions about your goals and interactions with others.

The Power of the 3Qs: IQ, EQ, and SQ

The trio of IQ (Intelligence Quotient, paid test), EQ (Emotional Quotient, free test), and SQ (Social Quotient, free test) offers a holistic approach to self-development. IQ measures cognitive abilities, such as problem-solving and critical thinking. EQ highlights emotional intelligence—your ability to manage emotions and build strong relationships. SQ emphasizes social intelligence, focusing on navigating relationships, understanding social dynamics, and fostering collaboration effectively. Together, these "3Qs" help you develop balanced decision-making skills, resilience, and a deeper connection to your aspirations.

Leveraging Personality Tools for Self-Discovery

Personality tests like the Myers-Briggs Personality Test (MBTI) and Ujian Personaliti Sidek are practical tools for gaining deeper self-understanding. The MBTI explores preferences in how individuals perceive the world and make decisions, providing insights into career paths and interpersonal dynamics. Meanwhile, Ujian Personaliti Sidek helps assess your traits and career inclinations, offering localized relevance. These tools, when combined with the 3Qs, empower you to craft a fulfilling personal and professional journey.

Self-Check & Peer-Check

A great way to evaluate your actions and decisions is through Self-Check and Peer-Check. For Self-Check, ask yourself honestly:

Are my intentions sincere?

Are my words truthful?

Are my actions correct?

Then, have a trusted friend critically debate with you, taking on a Contrarian and Devil's Advocate role, and challenge your perspective unemotionally until you reach a sound conclusion. Together, these roles foster critical thinking and sound decision-making.

Contrarian

This guy's job is to challenge whatever you say, offer alternative & unconventional perspectives, and always go against the crowd.

The role of a Contrarian is to question widely accepted beliefs, challenge assumptions, and explore alternative perspectives. This role is not about being negative for the sake of it but about critically examining ideas that may otherwise go unchallenged. A Contrarian’s value lies in uncovering blind spots, bringing fresh insights, and helping refine decisions by forcing you to consider aspects you may have overlooked. By encouraging you to think differently, a Contrarian fosters innovation and ensures your decisions are robust and not simply driven by groupthink or confirmation bias.

Devil’s Advocate

This guy's job is to disagree with everything you say.

The Devil’s Advocate, deliberately argues against your position or decision, even if they personally agree with it.

Their aim is to test the strength of your reasoning, identify weaknesses, and anticipate potential criticisms or problems. This role is particularly useful in stress-testing ideas and ensuring you are fully prepared to defend your choices.

By engaging unemotionally and focusing solely on the logic and evidence, the Devil’s Advocate helps you refine your arguments, making your final decision more informed, balanced, and resilient to opposition.

Narcissists

Toxic narcissists are bad news for any organization. They sabotage the organization from within, weakening it day by day if left undetected.

Observations on toxic people from my life experiences so far. Yours might differ.

They have a facade, and are exceedingly careful about their image and how they potray themselves to others.
They are not known for their technical expertise.
They need to leverage on others to succeed.
Takes pages from dirty politics playbook.
Needs to belittle others to appear grand.
Uses siege mentality as a strategy...its us vs. them.
Creates and/or uses drama as a strategy and manipulation tool.
Pathological liars. They have different versions of stories told to different groups. They ask questions like "What do you know?" and "Who did you know it from?". Strange questions for a normal conversation.
Seems to have a deep rooted insecurity if observed carefully.
Uses the "fake it till you make it" strategy.
Follows the win-lose mentality. Willing to sacrifice and manipulate others for personal gain.
Seems to use a high amount of time scheming.
Usually are cowards, never confronting to resolve issues. Instead, they leverage on issues to create rifts within the organization.
Always likes to play victim.
Seems to always want the spotlight. They want their fame, praise and adoration from the people.
They behave similarly yet strangely hate each other.
They tend to somehow find complex and convoluted ways to justify their actions or answer simple true/false questions.
Appears to have an inflated ego, wants to be known as the best at everything.

Will share more observations in the future insyaAllah.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse