The man who ran 71 miles while juggling
And what it tells us about our views on AI
Welcome back, sapiens! In a surprising turn of events for all involved, we are *still* waiting on baby here at Techno Sapiens HQ [thank you to all who reached out with well wishes last week!] The good news is that this has given me time to do essential pre-baby tasks like: organizing the snacks in my pantry closet, panic buying three different types of pacifiers, and, of course, contemplating the state of human-AI relationships (see below).
Thanks for being here, sapiens!
4 min read
In 2007, Michal Kapral ran a marathon in 2 hours, 50 minutes, and 12 seconds. This is, in itself, impressive—the fastest marathon ever recorded was 2 hours, 0 minutes, and 35 seconds. What made Kapral’s race even more impressive? He did it while juggling.
This is, apparently, a thing.1 It’s called “joggling”—juggling while jogging, obviously—and Kapral is one of the best in the world at it. He also holds the records for the fastest joggling half-marathon, and fastest “no-drop” joggling marathon (i.e., without dropping any balls).2 Recently, he set a new record for the longest distance run while juggling: 71.5 miles.
Of this latest feat, which took 17 hours, 22 minutes, and involved roughly 150,000 tosses and catches over the course of the race, he told Canadian Running: “I wanted to get to 100 miles joggling, but learned the hard way why no one has ever done it. I’m thrilled I even made it to 71.5 miles…As ridiculous as it is, I knew I was doing something no one had done before.”34
Of course, Kapral could have simply hopped in a taxi and juggled from the passenger seat for 71 miles. He could have used string, velcro, or other tools to make sure the balls did not drop. He could have outsourced the whole feat to a joggling robot.
But would we view it the same way? Would we feel that same mix of delight, awe, and confusion? I don’t think so. We are drawn to Kapral’s feats of joggling grandeur because we know the limits of human abilities, and we love to see someone push them to their edge.
We are impressed precisely because they occur within the bounds of human fallibility.
How joggling is (not) like AI
A few days ago, the Pew Research Center released new data on U.S. adults’ views of AI, and I found myself thinking about Kapral.
The survey presented people with a range of hypothetical scenarios and asked them how they would feel if they found out AI had been used in that scenario. For example:
Imagine you see a painting you really like. Later, you find out the painting was made by artificial intelligence. Would finding out that the painting was made by artificial intelligence make you like the painting more, like the painting less or not change your views?
The results are fascinating.
49% of adults said they would like the painting less if they found out it had been done by AI (vs. 48% who said their feelings would not change)
A few other scenarios show the range of opinions:
71% said they would like a political candidate less if they found out they’d used AI to help them write a speech (vs. 25% who said this would not change their views)
45% said they would feel worse about a promising treatment recommendation offered by a doctor if they found out it came from AI (vs. 41% who said it wouldn’t change their opinion, and 13% who said they’d actually feel better about what their doctor told them).
38% said they would like a song less if they found out it came from AI (vs. 58% who said it wouldn’t change their views.
Here’s the full chart:
Human versus machine
How do we evaluate the role of human versus machine in our everyday experiences? It’s a question that is becoming increasingly relevant as AI tools perform a larger array of tasks, and, in many cases, exceed the abilities of the humans who came before them.
To me, these data hint at some of the values underlying our views of AI. We care about authenticity, so a politician relying on AI for a speech feels wrong. Some of us are uneasy about AI, so finding out it’s been used for high-stakes tasks (loan approvals, treatment recommendations) can make us uncomfortable. At the same time, a growing number of us are hopeful about AI’s ability to enhance medicine, and feel better knowing it was consulted in a treatment recommendation.
When it comes to the painting, we are equally split. Half of us (48%) do not care much if it was AI generated—a good painting is a good painting. The other half (49%) like the painting less. For those people, maybe the painting is like Kapral’s joggling triumphs: without the human behind them, they are not the same.
Right now, I’m finding myself somewhere in the middle. I’m optimistic about AI’s role in navigating complex tasks that could make our lives better. In medicine, for example, this might include improving diagnostic accuracy, accelerating drug discovery, and finding new treatments.
At the same time, I can’t help but think there will always be a role for us humans on certain tasks—a beautiful painting, an impressive (if quirky) athletic feat, a nice piece of writing. Inherent in our appreciation of these achievements is our knowledge that a human produced them, with all their flaws and limits.
But who knows? Maybe I’m biased. After all, I’m only human.
Help Techno Sapiens grow!
❤️ If you liked this post, give it a ❤️ so others can find it, too
📧 If you know someone who might like Techno Sapiens, forward this email along
💬 Leave a comment and join the discussion!
A quick survey
What did you think of this week’s Techno Sapiens? Your feedback helps me make this better. Thank you!
The Best | Great | Good | Meh | The Worst
Another thing I did this week while waiting for baby: a (very) deep dive on joggling, because of course I did. According to Wikipedia, the rules are that a juggling pattern must be maintained while running and if an object is dropped, the joggler must return to the point they dropped and continue. There is also a “World Joggling Championships” held every year, but many jogglers (like Kapral) run in standard (non-juggling) races. Categories for record holders are based on distance run, and also number of balls juggled. Oh, and here’s a video of Kapral joggling from his Instagram page which I am, obviously, now following.
Not a single dropped ball for 26.2 miles! Can you even imagine the stress in that last mile?!
Oh, you thought we were done with the joggling facts? Sapiens, please. In 2015, controversy ensued when Kapral had to drop out of the New York City marathon because, in a last minute decision, the organizers forbade joggling. Reported the New York Times: “Marathon organizers banned joggling from the course, ruling that beanbags filled with millet seed, like Kapral’s, count as “Prohibited Items.”
Kapral also seems to have a good sense of humor about it all. In a 2015 interview, which I read in its entirety, he is asked how he realized joggling was his sport. He says, “Once I realized that I wasn’t going to make the NHL, I looked at my tattered copy of the Guinness Book of World Records and thought, “There are tens of thousands of records in there. Somewhere, there must be something that I can be the best at. I just need one thing.” One day I was flipping through the book, which was a sort of Bible to me at the time, and came across the record for the fastest “joggling” marathon, and all at once the angels flew down from above and advised me that joggling was my true calling. They told me that one day I would be the greatest joggler the world has ever seen. And at that moment, I knew my life’s calling was to run long distances while tossing objects in the air.”
Best of luck this week!