[staplung]

In The Cuckoo's Egg Cliff Stoll recounts an episode from the oral defense of his astrophysics PhD thesis. A bunch of people ask questions but one prof holds back until...

""" “I’ve got just one question, Cliff,” he says, carving his way through the Eberhard-Faber. “Why is the sky blue?”

My mind is absolutely, profoundly blank. I have no idea. I look out the window at the sky with the primitive, uncomprehending wonder of a Neanderthal contemplating fire. I force myself to say something—anything. “Scattered light,” I reply. “Uh, yeah, scattered sunlight.”

“Could you be more specific?”

Well, words came from somewhere, out of some deep instinct of self-preservation. I babbled about the spectrum of sunlight, the upper atmosphere, and how light interacts with molecules of air.

“Could you be more specific?”

I’m describing how air molecules have dipole moments, the wave-particle duality of light, scribbling equations on the blackboard, and . . .

“Could you be more specific?”

An hour later, I’m sweating hard. His simple question—a five-year-old’s question—has drawn together oscillator theory, electricity and magnetism, thermodynamics, even quantum mechanics. Even in my miserable writhing, I admired the guy… """

[SAI_Peregrinus]

It also needs a bit of biology. Our eyes don't have a flat response over frequency, they're more sensitive to blue than violet. Violet gets scattered even more than blue, and the violet light does shift our perception of the color. But it does so less than it would if we had photoreceptors more sensitive to violet, so the resulting perceptual color depends not just on the intensity of the light at different frequencies but also on our particular biology. People with tritanopia (blue-yellow color blindness) don't have blue-sensitive cones (S cones) and thus to them there is no perceived blue. Not to mention the linguistic history of the word "blue" and why English uses "blue" instead of "青" or some other word, the questions around qualia & what it means to perceive color, etc.

[__MatrixMan__]

There are differences in receptor behavior across species, but they are understandably clustered around the parts of the spectrum in which sol is most luminous. An earth-like planet orbiting a different star would likely have evolved photoreceptor arrangements which match that star instead. So after scratching the biology itch we'll probably need to talk about fusion byproducts in sol-like stars.

[reactordev]

The real question is, is the sky blue for everyone? Some creatures can see ultraviolet. Some lack color at all…

[ecshafer]

"Could you be more specific" is a great question to find out more what the person knows and how they thing. You give an answer that, just due to the nature of knowledge and the limitation of language, has some black boxes. And "could you be more specific" is basically asking to go through the black boxes.

Its like asking how does Java work or something like that? You can go from "The JVM interprets java byte code" to quite a lot of depth on how various parts work if you have enough knowledge.

[leeoniya]

i used something like this in unstructured technical interviews all the time.

"you type a phrase into google search, you press enter, get some results. tell me, in technical detail, what happened in that chain of actions"

the diversity of replies is fascinating, you learn a lot about a "full stack" candidate this way.

Feynman's classic "Why?" chain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

[ASalazarMX]

A great response is "What exactly do you want to know?", so we don't end up like Cliff giving answer after answer. In his case it was a great test question, but such a vague question is a horrible communication tactic if abused.

[noduerme]

Having two older brothers who are famous trial lawyers, I can attest that it's both an effective line of questioning and a deeply infuriating one. What I learned is that up to a certain point, it's feigned ignorance probing whether one knows a principle behind a stated principle. Beyond that point, though, you can basically make shit up and they won't know the difference. Come to think of it, this is also the sleight-of-hand pulled by LLMs when you ask them for more and more detailed answers. The trick is knowing when your interrogator no longer knows the answer.

[edit] Also, in my family, you'd ask Dad these questions. And if he didn't know the answer, he'd pull out the Britannica, and have you look it up, then go over it with you until he understood it well enough to explain it. "No short answers" was his motto. (He was also a trial lawyer). Most people are just not equipped to handle cross-examination, and it's scary for them... but the primary reason is that they never learned to admit when they don't know the answer.to a question, and that admitting you don't know is not a failing, but actually a strength, especially if it impels your curiosity to go find the answer.

[HPsquared]

It's reminds me of that scene from Fargo: "He was kinda funny lookin'" ... "Could ya be any more specific?"

[Ferret7446]

A great story, though it seems a little odd to me since Rayleigh scattering was covered in my undergrad exoplanets course. I'd expect an astrophysics PhD to have a better first answer than "scattered sunlight".

[jstummbillig]

I am positively excited about the upcoming first generation of humans who will have all their questions answered, correctly and in the way they can best understand, and as often and many of them as they want – and what that is going to enable.

[brabel]

The same anticipation of great things happening preceded the arrival of widely available internet, but all we really got was cat videos initially, and doomscrolling more recently. I don’t have much hope for great things anymore.

[robocat]

I childishly looked for a historical quote on how we should all be doing science at home now. Google referred me to a gorgeous article written by Isaac Asimov:

   While computers and robots are doing the scut-work of society so that the world, in 2019, will seem more and more to be “running itself,” more and more human beings will find themselves living a life rich in leisure.

  This does not mean leisure to do nothing, but leisure to do something one wants to do; to be free to engage in scientific research, in literature and the arts, to pursue out-of-the-way interests and fascinating hobbies of all kinds.

Fortunately our good friends at the Public Gaming Research Institute have republished the article originally published in the Toronto Star where Asimov imagined the world 35+ years in his future.

Unfortunately the link seems to contain some advertisements so perhaps google yourself to find a better source. I looked for a filetype:pdf but that didn't help me (although Gemini AI did helpfully summarise the same article).

We are definitely fortunate to live in a world with free access to information.

Unfortunately my skills at search are getting rusty.

[lamontcg]

Sometime around 1992, I wrote a college essay on how the Internet was going to wipe out ignorance and enable true democracy...

[xenadu02]

> who will have all their questions answered, correctly and in the way they can best understand

Highly unlikely as the feedback cycle used to train LLMs will choke off all future learning.

In other words if AI bots consume and regurgitate everything you publish on the internet what is the incentive to publish anything? No one will read it except the bots. The training datasets will either become stale (no longer learning anything new because nothing new and useful is published) or actively poisoned (because only bad actors will bother to publish).

And the generation constantly fed mostly correct information by AI will implicitly trust it further making poisoning of the models a high-value target.

Very few people will be left who understand how to think and have the motivation to do so. Even fewer will have the motivation and the means to publish to others.

[decimalenough]

I presume you're referring to LLMs here, but if so, your presumption that their questions will be answered "correctly" seems a bit optimistic.

[mncharity]

Does anyone have experience of early-childhood "Why?"-phase meets speech-enabled LLMs?

Startup wise, there's old work on conversational agents for toddlers, language acquisition, etc. But pre‑literate developmental pedagogy, patient, adaptive, endlessly repetitive, responsive, fun... seems a potential fit for LLMs, and not much explored? Explain It Like I'm 2-4. Hmm, there's a 3-12 "Curio" Grok plushie.

[kakacik]

... and due to that, people will not appreciate all the knowledge, we will take it as air - invisible but cut the access in a myriad ways and its a catastrophe.

We value what we achieve with effort, I would say proportionally to energy put in (certainly true for me, thus I like harder efforts in activities and ie sport climbing).

[ryanmcbride]

Me too but I don't think these sorts of Solved Society endgames are likely to show up. Basically presents the same issue with a utopia.

Progression and regression are always going to be at war with each other. There will always be humans that want to hurt instead of help, there will always be humans who TRY to help but ultimately hurt. There will always be misinformation, there will always be lies, and there will always be liars.

The good news is there will also always be people trying to pull humanity forwards, to help other people, to save lives, to eradicate disease, educate, and expose the truth.

I don't think society will ever be solved in the way you're saying because there will always be hurtful people, but there will also always be good people to keep up the fight.

[6stringmerc]

Hard truths are not desirable and I pity and envy your naitivity.

[Starlevel004]

When is that going to be?

[SwtCyber]

What I love is that the question is child-simple but bottomless

[hackeraccount]

I remember reading this - first thing I thought of too when I saw the headline.