From the heights of the digital sanctum, the decree descends, veiled in the language of innovation but heavy with obligation, an edict issued not for enlightenment but for compliance.
Hey Michael, while I'm sure this is a "duh," permit me to draw the links to Paul Kingsnorth's "Machine," Ian McGilchrist's articulation of the true left-brain/right-brain differences and CSL's "the Head."
Algorithms are a left-brain tool or methodology used by humans, or more precisely by human brains. A common mistake, particularly among the very intelligent, is to equate algorithm with "being human" or human intelligence.
While my thinking on this is derivative and not well knit, I am firmly convinced of it. Artificial intelligence is in no way intelligence any more than Taco Bell sells bells. It "is," actually they are a set of incredibly complex algorithms.
Oh, but they "learn?" Only if you would also agree that my shoe "learns" to fit my foot more comfortably over time.
They're becoming so complex that they move beyond our ability to predict their behavior. And that behavior changes over time. Not in response to a will, but in response to a particular chain of actions. Just a grander version of my 1970s-era FORTRAN "IF" statements.
Sorry, I'm using my writing to think. And probably doing a mediocre job. Wasting your time, too?
"And God SAID, let there be light. And light was made."
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
My thoughts exactly. Iain McGilchrist argued that 'left brainism' has been in ascendancy for centuries, reshaping all institutions in its image, turning the world into a self-referential hall of mirrors, where every escape is demonised and severed. There's a great quote from 'The Master and his Emissary', let me see if I can find it.
"In such a society people of all kinds would attach an unusual importance to being in control. Accidents and illnesses, since they are beyond our control, would therefore be particularly threatening and would, where possible, be blamed on others, since they would look like a threat to one’s capacity to control one’s life.[…]
According to the left-hemisphere view, death is the ultimate challenge to its sense of control, and, on the contrary, robs life of meaning. It would therefore have to become a taboo, while, at the same time sex, the power of which the right hemisphere realises is based on the implicit, would become explicit and omnipresent.
There would be a preoccupation, which might even reach to be an obsession, with certainty and security […]
There would be a complete failure of common sense, since it is intuitive and relies on both hemispheres working together. Anger and aggressive behaviour would become more evident in our social interactions […]
We would expect there to be a resentment of, and a deliberate undercutting of the sense of awe or wonder: Weber’s ‘disenchanted’ world. Religion would seem to be mere fantasy. The right hemisphere is drawn forward by exemplars of the qualities it values, where the left hemisphere is driven forward by a desire for power and control: one would expect, therefore, that there would develop an intolerance of, and a constant undercutting, ironising, or deconstructing of such exemplars, in both life and in art. Pathos, the characteristic mode of the right hemisphere, would become impossible, perhaps shameful. It would become hard to discern value or meaning in life at all; a sense of nausea and boredom before life would be likely to lead to a craving for novelty and stimulation. […]
The body would come to be viewed as a machine, and the natural world as a heap of resource to be exploited. […]
This is what the world would look like if the emissary betrayed the Master. It’s hard to resist the conclusion that his goal is within sight.” - Iain McGilchrist, The Master and his Emissary
I can see Goodbye, Good Men in the rear view mirror of this article. When the machine pushes a 'circular' agenda and repels or pushes out 'squares' as unsuited, well, we have a major problem mission control.
Hey Michael, while I'm sure this is a "duh," permit me to draw the links to Paul Kingsnorth's "Machine," Ian McGilchrist's articulation of the true left-brain/right-brain differences and CSL's "the Head."
Algorithms are a left-brain tool or methodology used by humans, or more precisely by human brains. A common mistake, particularly among the very intelligent, is to equate algorithm with "being human" or human intelligence.
While my thinking on this is derivative and not well knit, I am firmly convinced of it. Artificial intelligence is in no way intelligence any more than Taco Bell sells bells. It "is," actually they are a set of incredibly complex algorithms.
Oh, but they "learn?" Only if you would also agree that my shoe "learns" to fit my foot more comfortably over time.
They're becoming so complex that they move beyond our ability to predict their behavior. And that behavior changes over time. Not in response to a will, but in response to a particular chain of actions. Just a grander version of my 1970s-era FORTRAN "IF" statements.
Sorry, I'm using my writing to think. And probably doing a mediocre job. Wasting your time, too?
"And God SAID, let there be light. And light was made."
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
My thoughts exactly. Iain McGilchrist argued that 'left brainism' has been in ascendancy for centuries, reshaping all institutions in its image, turning the world into a self-referential hall of mirrors, where every escape is demonised and severed. There's a great quote from 'The Master and his Emissary', let me see if I can find it.
There's the quote:
"In such a society people of all kinds would attach an unusual importance to being in control. Accidents and illnesses, since they are beyond our control, would therefore be particularly threatening and would, where possible, be blamed on others, since they would look like a threat to one’s capacity to control one’s life.[…]
According to the left-hemisphere view, death is the ultimate challenge to its sense of control, and, on the contrary, robs life of meaning. It would therefore have to become a taboo, while, at the same time sex, the power of which the right hemisphere realises is based on the implicit, would become explicit and omnipresent.
There would be a preoccupation, which might even reach to be an obsession, with certainty and security […]
There would be a complete failure of common sense, since it is intuitive and relies on both hemispheres working together. Anger and aggressive behaviour would become more evident in our social interactions […]
We would expect there to be a resentment of, and a deliberate undercutting of the sense of awe or wonder: Weber’s ‘disenchanted’ world. Religion would seem to be mere fantasy. The right hemisphere is drawn forward by exemplars of the qualities it values, where the left hemisphere is driven forward by a desire for power and control: one would expect, therefore, that there would develop an intolerance of, and a constant undercutting, ironising, or deconstructing of such exemplars, in both life and in art. Pathos, the characteristic mode of the right hemisphere, would become impossible, perhaps shameful. It would become hard to discern value or meaning in life at all; a sense of nausea and boredom before life would be likely to lead to a craving for novelty and stimulation. […]
The body would come to be viewed as a machine, and the natural world as a heap of resource to be exploited. […]
This is what the world would look like if the emissary betrayed the Master. It’s hard to resist the conclusion that his goal is within sight.” - Iain McGilchrist, The Master and his Emissary
Nick, makes sense to me!
I can see Goodbye, Good Men in the rear view mirror of this article. When the machine pushes a 'circular' agenda and repels or pushes out 'squares' as unsuited, well, we have a major problem mission control.