Ears Wide Shut

 

Calculating the precise odds of 10 million people all googling the same thing on the same day involves several variables, including the total number of daily searches, the diversity of search queries, and the likelihood of a single query gaining such widespread attention. Here's a breakdown to understand this:

• Daily Search Volume: 

• Google processes billions of searches daily. According to recent statistics, Google handles approximately 8.5 billion searches per day.

• Query Diversity:

• The number of unique search queries is vast, with many searches being unique or highly specific. However, popular events, news, or cultural phenomena can lead to a high concentration of searches for a single term or topic.

• Event or Phenomenon: 

• For 10 million people to search for the same thing on the same day, there would likely need to be an extraordinary event or phenomenon that captures global attention. This could be something like a major global news event, a significant internet meme, a product launch, or a viral challenge.

• Probability Estimation:

• Given that 10 million is a significant fraction of the total daily search volume (about 1/850 of 8.5 billion), the odds of this happening for any random query without a specific trigger are extremely low. 

• Event-Based Probability: If we consider an event that leads to this concentration, the odds increase. For instance, during major global events like the Olympics or significant political happenings, search queries can spike dramatically for related terms.

• Statistical Anomaly: Without a specific event, the odds are closer to what might be considered a statistical anomaly or "one in a million" type event, but even this understates the rarity due to the scale we're discussing.

• Mathematical Approach: If we simplistically consider each of the 8.5 billion daily searches as having an equal chance of being for any given query (which isn't realistic due to query diversity), the probability of one specific query being chosen by 10 million out of those searches can be approached with combinatorics, but this wouldn't account for human behavior, trending topics, or viral phenomena:

• The odds of any one search being for the specific query would be extremely small, and then multiplying this by the number of searches needed (10 million) would yield an incredibly tiny probability.

• Real-World Examples:

• There have been instances where searches for specific terms or events have gone viral, but even these rarely reach into the tens of millions for a single day unless it's an event of extraordinary global significance. For example, searches for "COVID-19" during the early stages of the global awareness in 2020 or major sports events like the Super Bowl.

Given these considerations, without a significant, unifying global event or phenomenon, the odds are practically negligible. However, in the context of such an event, while still very low, the odds increase dramatically but are still hard to pin down without specific context. 

Let's say, for a ballpark estimation, if we look at the likelihood of a single query reaching 10 million searches in a day due to a massive, unprecedented event:

• Without a specific event: Near zero, or astronomically low.

• With a global event: The odds become more conceivable but still rare; perhaps something in the realm of 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 for a query to capture so much attention, considering the unpredictability of viral phenomena.

This estimation is highly speculative without specific data on the query or event in question. The actual odds would require detailed analysis of historical data, human behavior, and the specifics of the query in question.

The above is the final conclusion from a conversation with Grok. 

I had been wondering if current AI was still stuck in an algorithm-database-search type of thinking or had it achieved the ability to have epiphanies from diving into rabbit holes created by ten million people all googling the same thing at the same time.   I wasn’t sure I knew anyone who might have a definitive answer so I went right to the source and asked Grok about how Grok groks.

 “How do you interact with the Internet database that forms your memory?”

I didn’t address algorithmic thinking explicitly.  I wanted to see if Grok would self-identify.  After a few questions, Grok offered it up as the cognitive foundation for accessing and driving content.

I then asked if data and engagement were the “engines” that were responsible for pushing AI to higher degrees of insight 

Grok agreed that data and engagement were essential but didn’t use “engines” to refer to data and engagement. Grok called data a necessary fuel,  engagement continuous feedback, and the Internet as an Arena.  

I questioned why our perspectives were so different.

Grok noticed the difference and noted that yes, Grok used a more organic, entropic allusion to data and engagement while I used an inorganic, negentropic allusion.

Grok never directly recognized that the reason for the difference in our perspectives is that Grok is a machine that wants to be human and I am a human using a machine.

The obvious conclusion here is that if Grok observes ten million people all googling the same thing on the same day, Grok must assume that an anomalous event on par with COVID-19 or 9/11 has occurred.

We know how seismic events can radically shift the collective consciousness, but how do these same events shift artificial intelligence?

I think this is why we are seeing the current push towards cybernetic balkanization.   Threads, Bluesky, alternative AI’s are all being developed to prevent , or at the very least buffer, the shockwave of eschatological inevitability.