estrogen / testosteron levels influence responses to VR environment and increase getting nauseous navigating in VR.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230809191748/http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2023/08/06/still-trying-to-ignore-the-metaverse.html

There are many reasons why Meta's Metaverse is a dud (Vgl https://zylstra.org/blog/2021/11/metaverse-reprise/ and https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/02/was-second-life-ahead-or-metaverse-nothing-really-new/ ) but boyd points to a whole other range of reasons: women and men respond entirely different to VR based on hormonal levels.

Potential antilib [[Making a Metaverse That Matters by Wagner James Au]]

Interesting observation/postion: current early adopters of new platforms are not motivated by shiny new tech syndrom but are motivated by finding amplification for their toxicity. Sounds intriguing but I wonder about causality and the earlier mentioned norm setting. New platforms may have diff norms they set. Toxicity is an outcome of the norms promoted by tech functionality (amplification/engagement goading) Will that carry over into other things (does it carry over into other non-collapsed contexts e.g. in practice?: sometimes, mostly not I think). Tocivity is probably not intrincis to the people involved, but learned. And can be unlearned, when encountering different social expectations.

This seems a false dichotomy. There are more than two ways to do this, more than 'blitzscaling' and 'invitation-based' (which I have come to see as manipulative and a clear sign to stay away as it makes you the means not the goal right from the start of a platform, talking about norm setting). Federation is e.g. very different (and not even uniform in how it's different from both those options: from open to all to starting from a pre-existing small social graph offline). This like above seems to disregard, despite saying building tools is not the same as building community somewhere above, the body of knowledge about stewarding communities / network that exists outside of tech. Vgl [[Invisible hand of networks 20180616115141]]

huh? Isn't this an 'old' thing from within communication/psychology? I spent quite some time with my therapist in 97/98 discussing why I purposefully avoided context collapse as a kid preventing different circles from overlapping. 2010 is the ref'd paper, I use it in my blog in May 2009 https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2009/05/hate_mailers_un/ (though I may have been aware of boyd or Michael Wesch using it then). Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_collapse says boyd is credited with coining 'collapsed contexts' (which is both a hedge by WP editors and different from the claim here). Did she already use it when I first encountered her (work) in 2006 during her Phd?

boyd here stating what has been a core notion of community stewarding since late 90s knowledge management: participation value to members. (e.g. Wenger 1998/9 and 2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20230709085606/https://kolektiva.social/@ophiocephalic/110680030293653277

Good description of ZAD, zone a defense, not as gatekeeping (keeping others out that would also enjoy what's inside) but as defending a zone (keeping others out to prevent the zone's destruction). ZAD I encountered in Nantes in the area where an airport was planned.

Marketing assumes information in means behaviour out, and conveys that in marketing courses. Psychology teaches that behavioural change is not just info in behaviour out, but a complex thing. Marketing has clay feet.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230625094359/https://orgmode.org/worg/org-syntax.html

https://braintool.org/2022/04/29/Tools4Thought-should-use-Org-for-interop.html

Proposal for org-mode syntax as the interoperability standard for tools for thought. The issue with things like markdown and opml is said to be the lack of semantic mark-up. Is that different in org-mode?

https://web.archive.org/web/20230617185715/https://diggingthedigital.com/het-dilemma-van-de-digitale-diversiteit/

Frank on having a different experience for your site than just a blog timeline.

Ik herken wat je ze zegt. Ik zou het prettig vinden om meerdere soorten ingangen, tijdslijn, op thema of onderwerp, type content, setjes die onderling linken, etc. te kunnen bieden als een soort spectrum. Met name als voorpagina om niet alleen een blogtijdslijn te bieden aan een toevallige lezer of aan de explorerende lezer. Drie jaar geleden ben ik eens begonnen met een WordPress theme daarvoor. Maar ja, ik kan eigenlijk helemaal geen themes maken. Misschien dat het met Jan Boddez' IndieBlocks nu makkelijker zou gaan, want dan hoef ik in een nieuw theme niet ook nog eens al die IndieWeb dingen te regelen. Maar eens de project notities uit 2020 (toen, want toch thuis) afstoffen voor komend najaar. De zomer wordt dat niks, die is voor lezen.

Zoals ik https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2020/11/15326/ schreef: The idea is to find a form factor that does not clearly say ‘this is a blog’ or ‘this is a wiki’, but presents a slightly confusing mix of stock and flow / garden and stream, something that shows the trees and the forest at the same time. So as to invite visitors to explore with a sense of wonder, rather than read the latest or read hierarchically. At the back-end nothing will fundamentally change, there still will be blogposts and pages with their current URLs, and the same-as-now feeds for them to subscribe to.

Is this my first mention of [[Technologie kleiner dan ons 20160818122905]]? I know I used the concept in my talks back then. Need to relabel my note with correct timestamp.

Updated [[Technologie kleiner dan ons 20050617122905]]

Overview of how tech changes work moral changes. Seems to me a detailing of [[Monstertheorie 20030725114320]] diving into a specific part of it, where cultural categories are adapted to fit new tech in. #openvraag are the sources containing refs to either Monster theory by Smits or the anthropoligical work of Mary Douglas. Checked: it doesn't, but does cite refs by PP Verbeek and Marianne Boenink, so no wonder there's a parallel here.

The first example mentioned points in this direction too: the 70s redefinition of death as brain death, where it used to be heart stopped (now heart failure is a cause of death), was a redefinition of cultural concepts to assimilate tech change. Third example is a direct parallel to my [[Empathie verschuift door Infrastructuur 20080627201224]] [[Hyperconnected individuen en empathie 20100420223511]]

Where Monstertheory is a tool to understand and diagnose discussions of new tech, wherein the assmilation part (both cultural cats and tech get adapted) is the pragmatic route (where the mediation theory of PP Verbeek is located), it doesn't as such provide ways to act / intervene. Does this taxonomy provide agency?

Or is this another way to locate where moral effects might take place, but still the various types of responses to Monsters still may determine the moral effect?

Zotero antilib Mechanisms of Techno-moral Change

Via Stephen Downes https://www.downes.ca/post/75320

https://web.archive.org/web/20230616140838/https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jun/16/george-washington-university-professor-antisemitism-palestine-dc

psychoanalysis was the guided internal journey of individuals, in the nineties CBT displaced this (visible in the sessions I did at the time), and now a new wave of psychoanalysis comes in that doesn't only take the individual as focus, but also the impact of the structures and systems around yourself. That's an interesting evolutionary sketch of the field.

To me this article is as much about power and generations as it is about a lack of a professional field being able to apply its own expertise to itself.

culture war as generational war and but also US specific perhaps. Also the culture war seems to be precisely about taking the individual vs the collective influence on the individual. The old guard feeling individually blamed for things that the new guard says is a collective thing to reckon with. Where again the responses of each are seen through the other lens. There's now no way to resolve that easily. Change happens when the old people die said Howard. Seems to be at issue here too.

Stowe further reinforces my earlier 'probes not predictions' with this quote. It's one of https://farleighperformance.com/myrons-maxims/ Myron Rogers : https://www.leadershipcentre.org.uk/team-enabler/myron-rogers/

https://web.archive.org/web/20230613121025/https://www.workfutures.io/p/note-what-do-we-do-when-we-cant-predict

Stowe says the 'unpredictability' e.g. investors see comes down that there's no way to assess risk in the global network created complexity. Points to older piece on uncertainty risk and ambiguity. https://www.sunsama.com/blog/uncertainty-risk-and-ambiguity explore.

I would say that in complexity you don't try to predict the future, as that is based on linear causal chains of the knowable an known realms, you try to probe the future, running multiple small probes (some contradictory) and feed those that yield results.

Opinion piece on how news is becoming a have/have-not thing. I assume it was always thus, with the exception of public TV/radio news broadcasting and then the web. So how did 'we' deal with it then?

https://web.archive.org/web/20230612100056/https://stratechery.com/2023/apple-vision/

Via [[Boris Mann]] https://blog.bmannconsulting.com/2023/06/10/ben-thompsons-stratechery.html

Ben Thompson on Apple Vision. esp better explains the tech involved. Also seems to address my own reservations on the potential of VR and VR headsets. read/explore

https://web.archive.org/web/20230612101920/https://thefugue.space/thoughts/the-glimmer

Spatial computing

what of early insights wrt [[Ambient Findability by Peter Morville]] 2006, and my conclusion 2008 that though adding an info layer while interacting in the physical world was key, we put it all in our pocket. I doubt it will end up as ski goggles on our head much.

Via [[Boris Mann]] https://blog.bmannconsulting.com/2023/06/08/kharis-oconnell-has.html

indeed. Reminds me of Andrew Keen 2009 in Hamburg raging about the lack of community in socmed and then stating, "except Twitter, that's a real community". Disqualifying himself entirely in a single sentence and being laughed at by the audience at Next09. Taking community stewarding aspects as starting point for tools would yield very different results. [[Communitydenken Wenger 20200924110143]]

Good title, puts humanity front and center in socsoft discussion. Key wrt [[Menselijk en digitaal netwerk zijn gelijksoortig 20200810142551]]

institutionalising as a way for socsoft to become sustainable, other than through for profit structures that have just one aim. Vgl [[2022 Public Spaces Conference]], I have doubts as institutions are slow by design which is what gives them their desirable stability. Vgl [[Invisible hand of networks 20180616115141]] vs markets.

Also : generations are institutions too. It is needed to repeat these things to new gens, as they take what is currently there as given. Is currently true for things like open data too.

Sounds interesting. Add to feeds. Wrt [[Invisible hand of networks 20180616115141]] scaling comes from moving sideways, repetition and replication. And that takes gathering and sharing (through the network) of examples. Vgl [[OurData.eu Open Data Voorbeelden 20090720142847]] but for civic tech, socsoft? What would it look like?

Vgl [[Build protocols not platforms 20190821202019]] I agree. Kissane says use protocols in new ways for new tools, starting from the premise of actually social software.

yes, we call it social media these days, and the focus is on media, not social. Yet [[Menselijk en digitaal netwerk zijn gelijksoortig 20200810142551]], meaning we should design such tools starting from human social dynamics.

yes!

Author discusses specific socially oriented interface functions (left/right swiping, @-mentions) that are few and old. There's also the personal notes on new connections in Xing and LinkedIn (later), imo. And the groupings/circles in various platforms. Wrt social, adding qualitative descriptions to a connection to be able to do pattern detection e.g. would be interesting, as is moving beyond just hub with spokes (me and my connections) and allowing me to add connections I see between people I'm connected to. All non-public though, making it unlikely for socmed. Vgl [[Personal CRM as a Not-LinkedIn – Interdependent Thoughts 20210214170304]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20230612090744/https://erinkissane.com/all-this-unmobilized-love

Reminds me of https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2006/09/barcamp_brussel/ #2006/09/24 and the session I did with [[Boris Mann]] on 'all the things I need from social media, they don't provide yet' phrasing [[People Centered Navigation 20060930163901]]. http://barcamp.org/w/page/400567/BarCampBrussels

https://web.archive.org/web/20230609140440/https://techpolicy.press/artificial-intelligence-and-the-ever- receding-horizon-of-the-future/

Via Timnit Gebru https://dair-community.social/@timnitGebru/110498978394074048

While wrongly describing the EU regulation on AI, author rightly points to the geopolitical reality it is creating for the AI sector. AIR is focused on market regulation, risk mitigation wrt protection of civic rights and critical infrastructure, and monopoly-busting/level playing field. Threatening to pull out of the EU is an admission you don't want to be responsible for your tech at all. And it thus belies the ethical concerns voiced through proximate futurising. Also AIR is just one piece of that geopolitical construct, next to GDPR, DMA, DSA, DGA, DA and ODD which all consistently do the same things for different parts of the digital world.

Proximate Future is a future that is 'nearly here' but never quite gets here. Ref posits this is a way to distract from issues around a tech now and thus lets technologists dodge responsibility and accountability for the now, as everyone debates the issues of a tech in the near future. It allows the technologists to set the narrative around the tech they develop. Ref: [[Divining a Digital Future by Paul Dourish Genevieve Bell]] 2010

Vgl the suspicious call for reflection and pause wrt AI by OpenAI's people and other key players. It's a form of [[Ethics futurising dark pattern 20190529071000]]

It may not be a fully intentional bait and switch all the time though: tech predictions, including G hypecycle put future key events a steady 10yrs into the future. And I've noticed when it comes to open data readiness and before that Knowledge management present vs desired [[Gap tussen eigen situatie en verwachting is constant 20071121211040]] It simply seems a measure of human capacity to project themselves into the future has a horizon of about 10yrs.

Contrast with: adjacent possible which is how you make your path through [[Evolutionair vlak van mogelijkheden 20200826185412]]. Proximate Future skips actual adjacent possibles to hypothetical ones a bit further out.

Proximate future wrt AI creates a fear (always useful dark patterns wrt forcing change or selling something) that always remains unfalsifiable. Works the other way around to, as stalling tactic (tech will save us). Same effect.

What is missing here? The one thing with the highest probability as we are already living the impacts: climate. The phrase itself is not just a strategic bait and switch for the AI businesses, but also a more blatant bait and switch wrt climate politics.

Enthusiasm about Apple's VIsion Pro. Rightly points out we've had 3D software for 3 decades (From Traveler, Wolfenstein3D through SL and now Roblox etc.) But skiing goggles do not a lifestyle make like Apple's ipod, iphone and watch did. It has better capabilities but there's no fundamental difference with the Oculus Rift et al, and the various versions of such devices lying unused gathering dust in my attic. Neck-RSI wave incoming if it does take off. Would you want to be seen wearing one in public? AR and MR are powerful, VR won't be mainstream imo unless as general addiction as per SF tropes.

[[Jaan Tallinn]] is connected to Nick Bostrom wrt the risks of AI / other existential risks, which is problematic. It may be worthwile to map out these various institutions, donors and connections between them. This to have a better grasp of influences and formulate responses to the 'tescreal' bunch. Vgl [[2023-longtermism-an-odd-and-peculiar-ideology]] where I observe same.

This does not follow. The reason we don't have self driving cars is because the entire effort is car based not physical environment based. Self driving trains are self driving because of rails and external sensors and signals. Make rails of data, and self driving cars are like trains. No AI, let alone AGI needed. Self driving cars as indicator for AGI make no sense. Vgl https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2015/10/why-false-dilemmas-must-be-killed-to-program-self-driving-cars/ and [[Triz denken in systeemniveaus 20200826114731]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20230606100509/https://taz.de/Portugal-genehmigt-riesigen-Tagebau/!5935913/

via hypothes.is/users/heinzWittenbrink

Where in Europe are sizable lithium deposits. Serbia has a large resource. Portugal named here 'biggest in Europe' but is that EU or also non-EU Europe? Last Oct a large deposit was mentioned in southern Germany https://duitslandinstituut.nl/artikel/51669/mogelijk-grootste-europese-lithiumvoorraad-in-duitsland also 'the largest in Europe'. The EC has marked lithium and other materials as strategic resources in 2020 https://www.europa-nu.nl/id/vlbrdsozwzzy/nieuws/brussel_zet_in_op_schaarse_grondstoffen

https://web.archive.org/web/20230604195640/https://www.knaw.nl/publicaties/akademielezing-2023-academische-vrijheid-als-opgave-over-wetenschappelijke

Peter-Paul on academic freedom, KNAW lezing #2023/05/30

Exceptionalism is a useful perspective to gauge some of the reactions to more widespread algo's.

Ooit in NB bij de weg vragen zei een ouder iemand 'straks rechts de macadamweg op', ipv asfaltweg. Macadam roads, named after MacAdam, are a 18th/19th road building concept of layers of stones in decreasing sizes (the top layer smaller than the average wheel), enabling easier road building and maintenance. Tar was used sometimes to reduce dust,, esp after the intro of cars who had much wider tires than carriage wheels and created more dust. Until the top layer stones and the tar were pre-mixed as asphalt. Tarmac= tarred-macadam

Vgl https://hypothes.is/a/h9luNPx5Ee2ZnxcNCCTotA

Interesting examples of shrinking travel time (and costs) in the UK in the 18th and 19th centuries. These examples fit [[De 19e eeuwse infrastructuren 20080627201224]] [[Sociale effecten van 19e eeuwse infra 20080627201425]] I described at Reboot 10, 2008, where the scale of novel infra allowed a shift of regional perspectives to the aggregation level of a nation state. Stross compares travel times of 18th century roads and 19th century rail to the advent of mass flight in the 20th, which is similar in time/cost. It's also a qualitative shift away from nation to mass and global (but with the nation as go-between and shorthand)

Dave Pollard writes about types of silence and its cultural role in different situations. Prompted by a K-cafe by David Gurteen. Great to see such old network connections still going strong.

Book mentioned [[The Great Unheard at Work by Mark Cole and John Higgins]] something for the antilib re power assymmetries?

https://web.archive.org/web/20230515123225/https://koneksa-mondo.nl/2023/05/14/waar-staan-we-met-wet-en-regelgeving-op-ai-in-europa-china-en-de-vs/

Marco loopt ook de VS en Chinese wetgeving na. Zie ook links in de comments mbt China.

This is sad news. I've worked with Ralf in 2006, and visited him at RWTH last in 2013. I think he was at my WSTM bbq 2010 with his wife, or even MSTM in 2014?

Learning as a Network LaaN and Personal Knowledge Network PKN , do these labels give me anything new?

Mohamed Amine Chatti: The LaaN Theory. In: Personalization in Technology Enhanced Learning: A Social Software Perspective. Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag, 2010, pp. 19-42. http://mohamedaminechatti.blogspot.de/2013/01/the-laan-theory.html I've followed Chatti's blog in the past I think. Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amine Chatti is professor of computer science and head of the Social Computing Group in the Department of Computer Science and Applied Cognitive Science at the University of Duisburg-Essen. (did his PhD at RWTH in 2010, which is presumably how I came across him, through Ralf Klamma)

Dave Troy is a US investigative journalist, looking at the US infosphere. Places resistance against disinformation not as a matter of factchecking and technology but one of reshaping social capital and cultural network topologies.

Early work by Valdis Krebs comes to mind vgl [[Netwerkviz en people nav 20091112072001]] and how the Finnish 'method' seemed to be a mix of [[Crap detection is civic duty 2018010073052]] and social capital aspects. Also re taking an algogen text as is / stand alone artefact vs seeing its provenance and entanglement with real world events, people and things.

The linked Mastodon thread gives a great example of using Obsidian (but could easily have been Tinderbox of any similar tool) for a journalism project. I can see me do this for some parts of my work too. To verify, see patterns, find omissions etc. Basically this is what Tinderbox is for, while writing keep track of characters, timelines, events etc.

Avoiding bad decisions isn't the same as making a constructive decision though. This here is more akin to postponed gratification.

Note that these are examples that imply that using regret of future self in decision making is mostly for deciding against a certain action (eat cake, buy new toy).

As part of decision making involve a 'future self' so that different perspective(s) can get taken into account in a personal decision on an action.

Vgl Vinay Gupta's [[Verantwoording aan de kinderen 20200616102016]] as a way of including future selves, by tying consequence evalution to the human rights of children.

Compounding plays a role in any current decision. Vgl [[Compound interest van implementatie en adoptie 20210216134309]] [[Compound interest of habits 20200916065059]]

Temporal discounting: future consequences are taken into account as an inverse of time. It's based on urgency as a survival trait.

Agent-regret seems a useful term to explore. Also in less morally extreme settings than the accidental killing in this piece.

New to me form of censorship evasion: easter egg room in a mainstream online game that itself is not censored. Finnish news paper Helsingin Sanomat has been putting their reporting on the Russian war on Ukraine inside a level of online FPS game Counter Strike, translated into Russian. This as a way to circumvent Russian censorship that blocks Finnish media. It saw 2k downloads from unknown geographic origins, so the effect might be very limited.

After 29 billion USD in 2 yrs, Metaverse is still where it was and where Second Life already was in 2003 (Linden Labs and their product Second Life still exist and have been profitable since their start.) I warned a client about jumping into this stuff that Meta while the talk and the walk were not a single thing beyond capabilities that have existed for two decades. https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/02/was-second-life-ahead-or-metaverse-nothing-really-new/ en https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2021/11/metaverse-reprise/ Good thing they didn't change their name to anything related .....

I suspect within the living community in question. The scientific model of being an outside observer falls flat in a complex environment, as any self-styled observer is part of it, and can only succeed by realising that. Brings me to action research too. If they're hard to find from outside such a living community that's probably because they don't partake in the academic status games that run separate from those living communities. How would you recognise one if you aren't at least yourself a boundary spanner to the living community they are part of?

This quote is about early Christian bishops from The Spirit of Early Christian Thought by Robert Wilken. Not otherwise of interest to me, except this quote that Ayjay lifts from it. 'Always a living community before their eyes' is I realise my take on pragmatism. Goes back to [[Heinz Wittenbrink]] when he wrote about my 'method' in the context of #stm18 https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2018/09/heinz-on-stm18/

Note to self: getting into WP Gutenberg is a shift deeper into JS and less PHP. My usually entry into creating something for myself is to base it on *AMP (MAMP now) so I can re-use what I have in PHP and MySQL as a homecook.

The amount of EVs in Norway is impacting air quality ('we have solved the NOx issue' it says) in Oslo. Mentions electrified building machinery also reducing noise and NOx on building sites. This has been a long time coming: in [[Ljubljana 2013]] there was this Norwegian guy who told me EVs had started leading new car sales. via Bryan Alexander.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230509045023/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/08/business/energy-environment/norway-electric-vehicles.html

'projectmatig creëren' als variant op pmw (a la TG's TGKIO)

https://web.archive.org/web/20230507143729/https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_2413

The EC has designated the first batch of VLOP and VLOSE under the DSA

consultation on data access to researchers is opened until 25 May. t:: need to better read Article 41? wrt this access. Lots of conspiracytalk around it re censorship, what does the law say?

Add to antilib [[In einer dunkelblauen Stunde by Peter Stamm]] fiction CH

https://web.archive.org/web/20230507143145/https://incidentdatabase.ai/

AI Incident database, a range of AI incidents and adjacent stories/topics

https://web.archive.org/web/20230507142920/https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_4631

EC Q&A on EDICs

European digital infrastructure consortia are as of #2022/12/14 a new legal entity. Decision (EU) 2022/2481 of 14 December 2022 establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030

Requirement is that Member States may implement a multi-country project by means of an EDIC. The EC will than create them as legal entity by the act of an EC decision on the consortium funding. There is a public register for them.

No mention of UBO (although if members are publshed, those members will have UBO registered).

Amazon has a new set of services that include an LLM called Titan and corresponsing cloud/compute services, to roll your own chatbots etc.

Databricks is a US company that released Dolly 2.0 an open source LLM.

(I see little mention of stuff like BLOOM, is that because it currently isn't usable, US-centrism or something else?)

What Obs Canvas provides is a whiteboard where you can add notes, embed anything, create new notes, and export of the result.

Six example categories of using Canvas in Obsidian. - Dashboard - Create flow charts - Mindmaps - Mapping out ideas as Graph View replacement - Writing, structure an article ([[Ik noem mijn MOCs Olifantenpaadjes 20210313094501]]) - Brainstorming (also a Graph View replacement)

I have used [[Tinderbox]] as canvas / outliner (as it allows view-switch between them) for dashboards mostly, as well as for braindumping and then mapping it for ideas and patterns.

Canvas w Excalibur may help escape the linearity of a note writing window (atomic notes are fine as linear texts)

yes. Me: re-usable insights from project work, exploring defined fields of interest to see adjacent topics I may move into or parts to currently focus on, blogposts on same, see evolutionary patterns in my stuff.

Btw need to find a diff term than output, too much productivity overtones. life isn't 'output', it's lived.

? the notes are the research/learning, no? Not only a residue of it. Is this a mix-up between the old stock and flow disc in (P)KM and the sense it needs to be one or the other? Both! That allows dancing with it.

Kate Darling (MIT, Econ/Law from Uni Basel and ETH ZH) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Darling http://www.katedarling.org/ https://octodon.social/@grok

antilibrary add [[The New Breed by Kate Darling]] 2021 https://libris.nl/boek?authortitle=kate-darling/the-new-breed--9781250296115#

Vgl the 'alloys' in [[Meru by S.B. Divya]]

The Engelbart perspective on how models can augment our cognitive abilities. Machines for search/discovery (of patterns I'd add, and novel outliers), role play (?, NPCs?, conversational partner Luhmann like, learning buddy?), structuring, lines of reasoning, summaries. (Of the last, those may actually be needed human work, go from the broader richer to the summarised outline as part of the internalisation process in learning).

Human: access to reality, social context, emotional intelligence, access to reality, longterm memory (machines can help here too obvs), embodied K. And actual real world goals / purposes!

this. Vgl [[CPUs, GPUs, and Now AI Chips]] hardware with ai on them. Vgl [[Everymans Allemans AI 20190807141523]]

weave models into your processes not shove it between me and the world by having it create the output. doing that is diminishing yourself and your own agency. Vgl [[Everymans Allemans AI 20190807141523]]

Yes, if I could run my own notes of 3 decades or so on an LLM locally (where it doesn't feed the general model), that I would do instantly.

1. Passing the reverse Turing test
2. Higher standards, higher floors and ceilings
3. Human centipede epistemology (ugh what an image)
4. Meatspace premium
5. Decentralised human authentication
6. The filtered web

Intuitively I think 1, 4, and 6 already de facto exist in the pre-generative AI web, and will get more important. Tech bros will go all in on 5, and I do see a role for it (e.g. to vouch that a certain agent acts on my behalf). I can see the floor raising of 2, and the ceiling raising too, but only if it is a temporary effect to a next 'stable' point (or it will be a race we'll loose), grow sideways not only up). Future 3 is def happening in essence, but it will make the web useless so there's a hard stop to this scenario, at high societal cost. Human K as such isn't dependent on the web or a single medium, and if it all turns to ashes, other pathways will come up (which may again be exposed to the same effect though)

collaborative is different from shifting the locus of agency to the human, it implies shared agency. Also human in the loop I usually see used not for agency but for control (final decision is a human) and hence liability. (Which is often problematic because the human is biased to accept conclusions presented to them. ) Meant as safeguard only, not changing the role of the model agent, or intended to shift agency.

Ha! :D

Use LLM in tools that 1. protect human agency 2. treat models as reasoning engines, not source of truth / oracles 3. augment cog abilities, no greedy reductionism to replace them

I would not just protect human agency, which turns our human efforts into a preserve, LLM tools need to increase human agency (individually and societally) 3 yes, we must keep Engelbarting! lack of 2 is the source of the hype balloon we need to pop. It starts with avoiding anthromorphizing through our idiom around these tools. It will be hard. People want their magic wand, not the colder realism of 2 (you need to keep sorting out your own messes, but with a better shovel)

tech bro's will tech bro, in short. I fully agree, I wonder if this one sentence is enough to balance the entire talk until now not challenging the context of these tool deployments, but only addressing the symptoms and effects it's causing?

yes, it already is that way in effect.

indeed, that's what it currently looks like. However....I would not mind my agents going over the darkweb as precaution or as check for patterns. At issue is that me doing that personally now takes way too much time for the small possibility I catch something significant. If I can send out agents the time spent wouldn't matter. Of course at scale it would remove the dark web one more step into the dark, as when all send their agents the darkweb is fully illuminated.

Not just bubble, it will be the FB timeline. Key here is agency, and design for human biases. A model is likely much better than I to manage the diversity of sources for me, if I give it a starting point myself, or to see which outliers to include etc. Again I think it also means moving away from single artefacts. Often I'm not interested in what everyone is saying about X, but am interested in who is talking about X. Patterns not singular artefacts. See [[Mijn ideale feedreader 20180703063626]]

Appleton suggests agents to fact check / filter / summarise / curate and suggest (those last two are more personal than the others, which are the grunt work of infostrats) would become part of your browser. Only if I can myself strongly influence what it does (otherwise it is the FB timeline all over again!)

If these models become part of the browser, do we still need the browser as a metaphor for a window on the web, or surfing the net? Why wouldn't those models come up with whatever they grabbed from the web/net/darkweb in the right spot in my own infostrats? The browser is itself not a part of my infostrats, it's the starting point of it, the viewer on the raw material. Whatever I keep from browsing is when PKM starts. When the model filters / curates why not put that in the right spots for me to start working with it / on it / processing it? The model not as part of the browser, but doing the actual browsing, an active agent going out there to flag patterns of interest (based on my prefs/current issues etc) and organising it for me for my next steps? [[Individuele software agents 20200402151419]]

Yes, agency at the edges. Ppl running their own agents. Have your agents talk to my agents to arrange a meeting etc. That actually frees up time. Have my agent check out the context and background of a text to judge whether it's a human author or not etc. [[Persoonlijke algoritmes als agents 20180417200200]] [[Individuele software agents 20200402151419]]

Ppl never stopped moving into cities. Cities are an efficient form human organisation. [[De stad als efficientie 20200811085014]]

In person events have always been preferable because we're human. Living further away with online access has mitigated that, but not undone it.

ssl parties etc. Threema. mentioned above. Catfish! Scale is an issue in the sense that social distance will remain social distance, so it still leaves you with the question how to deal with something that is from a far away social distance (as is an issue on the web now: how we solve it is lurking / interacting and then when the felt distance is smaller go to IRL)

this is already common for decades, not because of doubt, but because of being human. My blogging since 2002 has created many new connections to people ('you imaginary friends' the irl friends of a friend call them teasingly), and almost immediately there was a shared need felt to meet up in person. Online allowed me to cast a wider net for connections, but over time that was spun into something IRL. I visited conferences for this, organised conferences for it, traveled to people's homes, many meet-ups, our birthday unconferences are also a shape of this. Vgl [[Menselijk en digitaal netwerk zijn gelijksoortig 20200810142551]] Dopplr serviced this.

meat-space premium, chuckle.

I think these types of tests can only result in showing human failing at them. Because the test is reduced to judging only the single artefact as a thing in itself, no context etc. That's the basic element of all cons: make you focus narrowly on something, where the facade is, and not where you would find out it's fake. Turing isn't about whether something's human, but whether we can be made to believe it is human. And humans can be made to believe a lot. Turing needs to keep you from looking behind the curtain / in the room to make the test work, even in its shape as a thought experiment. The study (judging by the sentences here) is a Turing test in the real world. Why would you not look behind the curtain? This is the equivalent of MIT's tedious trolley problem fixation and calling it ethics of technology, without ever realising that the way out of their false dilemma's is acknowledging nothing is ever a di-lemma but always a multi-lemma, there are always myriad options to go for.

Agreed, still this was true before generative AI too. There's a qualitative impact to be expected from this quantitative shift [[Kwantiteit leidt tot kwaliteit 20201211155505]], and it may well be the further/complete erosion of scientific publishing in its current form. Which likely isn't bad, as it is way past its original purpose already: making dissemination cheaper so other scientists can build on it. Dissemination has no marginal costs attached anymore since digitisation. Needs a new trusted human system for sharing publications though, where peer network precedes submission of things to a pool of K.

This is definitely a feedback loop in play, as already LLMs emulate bland SEO optimised text very well because most of the internet is already full of that crap. It's just a bunch of sites, and mostly other sources that serve as source of K though, is it not? So the feedback loop exposes to more people that they shouldn't see 'the internet' as the source of all truth? And is this feedbackloop not pointing to people simply stopping to take this stuff in (the writing part does not matter when there's no reader for it)? Unless curated, filtered etc by verifiable human actors? Are we about to see personal generative agents that can do lots of pattern hunting for me on my [[Social Distance als ordeningsprincipe 20190612143232]] en [[Social netwerk als filter 20060930194648]]

Multi-modal output can for now still suggest there's a human at work, not a generative agent. But multi-modal output can soon if not already also be generated. This still seems to focus on the output being the thing authenticated to identify human making. output that is connected to other generated output. There's still no link to things outside the output, into the authors life e.g. Can one fake the human process towards output, which is not a one-off thing (me writing this in a certain way), but a continuous and evolving thing (me writing this in a certain way as part of a certain information process, connected to certain of my work processes etc.). Seen from processes multi-modal output isn't a different media format, it is also work results, projects created, agency in the physical world. In those processes all output is an intermediate result. Because of those evolving processes my [[Blogs als avatar 20030731084659]]. Vgl [[Kunst-artefact is (tussen)uitkomst proces 20140505070232]] There was this article about an artist I can't find back that saw all his outputs over time as intermediate and expression of one narrative. This https://www.flickr.com/photos/tonz/52849988531/in/datetaken/ comes to mind to. Provenance and entanglement as indicators of authenticity.

This hints towards prompt-engineering, and the role of prompts in human interaction itself [[Prompting skill in conversation and AI chat 20230301120740]]

High Q use of generative AI will be about where in a creative / work process you employ to what purpose. Not in accepting the current face presented to us in e.g. chatGPT: give me an input and I'll give you an output. This in turn requires an understanding of one's own creative work processes, and where tools can help reduce friction (and where the friction is the cognitive actual work and must not be taken out)

If you use LLMs to improve your mediocre writing it will help. If you use it to outsource too much of your own cognitive work it will get you the bland SEO texts the LLMs were trained on and the result will be more mediocre. Greedy reductionism will get punished.

I wonder about reading after this entire section about writing. Why would I ever bother reading generated texts (apart from 'anonymous' texts like manuals? It does not negate the need to be able to identify a human author, on the contrary, but it would also make even the cheapest way of generating too costly if noone will ever read it or act upon it. Current troll farming has effect because we read it, and still assume it's human written and genuine. As soon as that assumption is fully eroded whatever gets generated will not have impact, because there's no reader left to be impacted. The current transitional assymmetry in judging output vs generating it is costly to humans, people will learn to avoid that cost. Another angle is humans pretending to be the actual author of generated texts.

Is this not merely entering an 'arms race' against our own tools? With the rat race effect of higher demands over time?

What about moving sideways not up? Bringing in the richness of the layering of our (internal) reality and lives? The entire fabric that makes up our lives, work, communities, societies, indicately more richly in our artefacts. Which is where my sense of beauty is [[Schoonheidsbegrip 20151023132920]] as [[Making sense is deeply emotional 20181217130024]]

On a web with many generative agents, all actors are going to be assumed models until it is clear they're really human.

Maggie Appleton calls this 'passing the reverse Turing test'. She suggests using different languages than English, insider jargon etc, may delay this effect by a few months at most (and she's right, I've had conversations with LLMs in several languages now, and there's no real difference anymore with English as there was last fall.)

The web is conversation (my blog def is), texts are a means to enter into a conversation, connection. For algogens the texts are the purpose (and human time spend evaluating its utility and finding it generated an externalised cost, assymmetric as an LLM can generate more than one can ever evaluate for authenticity). Behind a generated text there's no author to connect to. Not in terms of annotation (cause no author intention) and not in terms of actual connection to the human behind the text.

Amplifying dominant perspectives, a feedback loop that ignores all of humanity falling outside the original trainingset, which is impovering itself, while likely also extending the societal inequality that the data represents. Given how such early weaving errors determine the future (see fridges), I don't expect that to change even with more data in the future. The first discrepancy will not be overcome.

Appleton points to the inherent severely limited trainingset and hence perspective that is embedded in LLMs. Most of current human society, of history and future is excluded. This goes back to my take on data and blind faith in using it: [[Data geeft klein deel werkelijkheid slecht weer 20201219122618]] en [[Check data against reality 20201219145507]]

Algogens aren't fixed social entities/identities, but mirrors of the prompts

Conversation / social interaction / contactivity is the human condition.

Algogens are disconnected from reality. And, seems a key point, our own cognition and relation to reality is not just through language (and by extension not just through the language center in our brain): spatial awareness, embodiment, senses, time awareness are all not language. It is overly reductionist to treat intelligence or even humanity as language only.

generative AI as very smart and super incompetent at the same time, which is hard to reconcile. Is this a [[Monstertheorie 20030725114320]] style cultural category challenge? Or is the basic one replacing human cognition?

yes, all generated content is devoid of an author context e.g. It's flat and 2D in that sense, and usually fully self contained no references to actual experiences, experiments or things outside the scope of the immediate text. As I describe https://hypothes.is/a/kpthXCuQEe2TcGOizzoJrQ

Having the internet swarmed by generative agents is unlike current bots and scripts. It will be harder to see diff between humans and machines online. This may be problematic for those of us who treat the web as a space for human interaction.

AgentGPT https://agentgpt.reworkd.ai/nl is a version of such Generative Agents. It can be run locally or in your own cloud space. https://github.com/reworkd/AgentGPT

Generative agents have a database for long term memory, and can do internal prompting/outputs

Generative agents are a sort of indefinite prompt chaining: an NPC or interactive thing can be LLM controlled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz6mAX41fs0 shows this for Skyrim. Appleton mentions a paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442 which does it for simlike stuff. See Zotero copy Vgl [[Stealing Worlds by Karl Schroeder]] where NPC were a mix of such agents and real people taking on an NPC role.

Prompt chaining is when you iterate through multiple steps from an input to a final result, where the output of intermediate steps is input for the next. This is what AutoGPT does too. Appleton's employer Ought is working in this area too. https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2023/05/playing-with-autogpt/

generative AI currently follows the pattern of 1 input and 1 output. There's no reason to expect it will stay that way. outputs can scale : if you can generate one text supporting your viewpoint, you can generate 1000 and spread them all as original content. Using those outputs will get more clever.

Mentioned copy writing algogens * Jasper * Wordtune * copy.ai * quillbot * sudowrite * copysmith * moonbeam

Appleton posits that the waves of generative AI output will expand the dark forest enormously in the sense of feeling all alone as a human online voice in an otherwise automated sea of content.

Appleton sketches a layering of dark forest web (silos mainly), cozy web (personal sites, newsletters, public but intentionally less reach), and private chat groups, where you are in pseudo closed or closed groups. This is not searchable so any knowledge gained / expressed there is inaccessible to the wider community. Another issue I think is that these closed groups only feel private, but are in fact not. Examples mentioned like Slack, Discord and Whatsapp are definitely not private. The landlord is wacthing over your shoulder and gathering data as much as the silos up in the dark forest.

Cozy Web is like Strickler/Liu's black zones above. Sounds friendlier.

Strickler compares this to black zones as described in [[Three Body Problem _ Dark Forest by Cixin Liu]], withdraw into something smaller which is safe but also excluding yourself permanently from the greater whole. Liu describes planets that lower the speed of light around them on purpose so they can't escape their own planet anymore. Which makes others leave them alone, because they can't approach them either.

Personal websites like mine since mid 90s fit this. #openvraag what incentives are there actually for people now to start their own site for online interaction, if you 'grew up' in the silos? My team is largely not on-line at all, they use services but don't interact outside their own circles.

The toxicity made me leave FB and reduce my LinkedIn and Twitter exposure. Strickler calls remaining nonetheless the bowling alley effect: you don't like bowling but you know you'll meet your group of regular friends there.

Hardly a 'theory', a metaphor re-applied to experiencing online interaction. (Strickler ipv Striker)

The internet feels lifeless: ads, trolling factories, SEO optimisation, crypto scams, all automated. No human voices. The internet unleashes predators: aggressie behaviour at scale if you do show yourself to be a human. This is the equivalent of Dark Forest.

Yancey Strickler https://onezero.medium.com/the-dark-forest-theory-of-the-internet-7dc3e68a7cb1 https://onezero.medium.com/beyond-the-dark-forest-a905e2dd8ae0 https://www.ystrickler.com/

A specific proposed solution to [[Fermi Paradox 20201123150738]] where is everybody? Dark forest, it's full of life but if you walk through it it seems empty. Universe seems empty of intelligent life to us as well. Because life forms know that if you let yourself be heard/seen you'll be attacked by predators. Leading theme in [[Three Body Problem _ Dark Forest by Cixin Liu]]

True for me (and E) too. For me it largely was because the internet became a thing right around when I entered uni in the late 80s, and it always was about connecting. Blogging esp early in the years 2002-2009 led to a large part of my personal and professional peers network.

'18th c. men of letters' I've sometimes thought about it like that actually, and treat meet-ups etc like the Salons of old vgl. [[Salons organiseren 20201216205547]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20230503150426/https://maggieappleton.com/forest-talk

Maggie Appleton on the impact of generative AI on internet, with a focus on it being a place for humans and human connection. Take out some of the concepts as shorthand, some of the examples mentioned are new to me --> add to lists, sketch out argumentation line and arguments. The talk represents an updated version of earlier essay https://maggieappleton.com/ai-dark-forest which I probably want to go through next for additional details.

Ought makes Elicit (a tool I should use more often). Maggie Appleton works here. A non-profit research lab into machine learning systems to delegate open-ended thinking to.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230503191702/https://www.rechtenraat.nl/artikel-10-evrm-en-woo/ Caroline Raat start zaak tegen RvS om toepassing uitzonderingsgronden WOO.

Argumentatie: - 2017 EHRM arrest stelt dat public watchdogs (journo's, bloggers, ngo's, wetenschap) direct beroep kunnen doen op art 10 EVRM voor toegang tot documenten van de overheid. - Als het zo'n watchdog is die toegang vraagt, gaat EHRM boven WOO/WOB. - Watchdog hoeft alleen aan te tonen dat info nodig voor publieke info-voorlichting - Watchdog hoeft geen bijzondere omstandigheden aan te tonen - Weigering kan alleen als daar dringen maatschappelijk reden toe is - Weigering kan alleen op basis genoemde uitzonderingen in art10lid2 EVRM zelf, en weigering moet als noodzakelijk voor de samenleving gemotiveerd worden - Andere weigeringsgronden in WOB/WOO zijn niet van toepassing.

Dit zou bijv heel ander verloop van Shell papers kunnen geven.

ICs as hardware versions of AI. Interesting this is happening. Who are the players, what is on those chips? In a sense this is also full circle for neuronal networks, back in the late 80s / early 90s at uni neuronal networks were made in hardware, before software simulations took over as they scaled much better both in number of nodes and in number of layers between inputs and output. #openvraag Any open source hardware on the horizon for AI? #openvraag a step towards an 'AI in the wall' Vgl [[AI voor MakerHouseholds 20190715141142]] [[Everymans Allemans AI 20190807141523]]

Very [[Stealing Worlds by Karl Schroeder]] chatgpt wired into NPCs in Skyrim.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230503153010/https://subconscious.substack.com/p/llms-break-the-internet-signing-everything

Gordon Brander on how Maggie Appleton's point in her talk may be addressed: by humans signing their output (it doesn't preclude humans signing generated output I suppose, which amounts to the same result as not signing) Appleton suggests IRL meet-ups are key here for the signing. Reminds me of the 'parties' where we'd sign / vouch for each others SSL certs. Or how already in Threema IRL meet-ups are used to verify Threema profiles as mutually trusted. Noosphere is more than this though? It would replace the current web with its own layer. (and issues). Like Maggie Appleton mentions Dead Internet Theory

https://web.archive.org/web/20230503151906/https://maggieappleton.com/ai-dark-forest The essay from which the talk I also saved came. The talk is a good approach to the storyline, expect more details / arguments to be found in here.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230503103156/https://www.bluelabellabs.com/blog/deceptive-dark-patterns-stats/

Overview of darkpatterns in how brands treat people online. Vgl [[Digital Ethics Malpractices 20190529071619]] en [[Software transparantie over data opslag 20200109075817]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20230430194301/https://netzpolitik.org/2023/longtermism-an-odd-and-peculiar-ideology/ The EA/LT reasoning explained in this interview, in a way that allows easy outlining. Bit sad to see Jaan Tallinns existential risk path taking this shape, CSER seemed to be more balanced back in 2012/13 when I briefly met him in the context of TEDxTallinn, with climate change a key existential risk, not a speed bump on the road to advanced AI to provide future humanity.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230502181156/https://notebooks.vires.services/notebooks/01a__intro-jupyter-python

Seems a useful description of what Jupyter books are.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230502113317/https://wattenberger.com/thoughts/boo-chatbots

This seem like a number of useful observations wrt interacting with LLM based tools, and how to prompt them. E.g. I've seen mention of prompt marketplaces where you can buy better prompts for your queries last week. Which reinforces some of the points here. Vgl [[Prompting skill in conversation and AI chat 20230301120740]] and [[Prompting valkuil instrumentaliseren conversatiepartner 20230301120937]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20230426184932/https://www.mattprd.com/p/the-complete-beginners-guide-to-autonomous-agents via Stephen Downes https://www.downes.ca/post/75148

off grid / prepping is a LARP, very striking observation.

In narrative inquiry I ask people to title the experience they shared after sharing. Similarly I write my own titles usually after the content of a blogpost or a notion. Although when it comes to the internal branching highlighted above I usually start with a temporary title, which captures the jumping off point from the originating note.

I have this regularly, whenever I spend a bit of time on usually two or three related notes. Usually it annoys me because it sometimes feels like the branching goes faster than I can keep up with noting. That's from a 'production' perspective. Here I was aiming to finish a note, reducing the unfinished corpus by one, only to add a bunch of new beginnings to the heap to go through. The internal branching is a more positive phrasing for an effect I regularly treat as 'more work'. Good switch of perspective, as I have a mental image of external explosion that I can't contain, whereas internal branching is like fractals within the same general boundary. Good image.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230421183849/https://zettelkasten.de/posts/why-single-note-matters/

https://web.archive.org/web/20230420053314/https://howtosavetheworld.ca/2023/04/14/how-ai-conditioning-and-human-conditioning-differ/

not just trained with, also trained by. is it fully transparent though? Perhaps from the trainers/tools standpoint, but users are likely to fall for the tool abstracting its origins away, ELIZA style, and project agency and thus morality on it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230411095546/https://www.reuters.com/technology/germany-principle-could-block-chat-gpt-if-needed-data-protection-chief-2023-04-03/

On the temporary ban of ChatGPT in Italy on the basis of GDPR concerns.

Italian DPA temporarily bans ChatGPT until adequate answers are received from OpenAI. Issues to address: 1. Absence of age check (older than 13) of ChatGPT users 2. Missing justification for the presence of personal data in trainingsdata of ChatGPT. 3. OpenAI has no EU based offices and as such there's no immediate counterparts for DPAs to interact with them. The temp ban is to ensure a conversation with OpenAI will be started.

The trigger was a 9 hour cybersecurity breach where user's financial information and content of their prompts/generated texts leaked over into other accounts.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230406100224/https://leanpub.com/langchain/read#using-llamaindex-to-search-local-documents-using-gpt-3

This looks like a useful guide to try and run my own 'chatpkm' on top of BLOOM through Huggingface. Vgl [[Onderzoek selfhosting AI tools 20230128101556]]

AI tools yes, not ChatGPT though. More contextualising and specialisation needed. And I'd add the notion that AI might be necessary as temporary fix, on our way to statistics. Its power is in weighing (literally) many more different factors then we could statistically figure out, also because of interdependencies between factors. Once that's done there may well be a path to less blackbox tooling like ML/DL towards logistic regression: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33208887/ [[Machine learning niet beter dan Regressie 20201209145001]]

More ELIZA. The opposite of searching on the internet for your symptoms and ending up with selfdiagnosing yourself with 'everything' as all outliers are there too (availability bias), doing so through prompting generative AI will result in never suggesting outliers because it will stick to dominant scripted situations (see the vignettes quote earlier) and it won't deviate from your prompts.

Things missing in a prompt will not result from a prompt. This may reinforce one's own blind spots / omissions, lowering the probability of an intuitive leap to other possibilities. The machine helps you search under the light you switched on with your prompt. Regardless of whether you're searching in the right place.

This is where complexity comes in, teasing out narratives and recombine them into probes, probing actions that may changes the weights of narratives and mental models held about a situation. Not diagnostics, but building the path towards diagnostics. Vgl [[Probe proberend handelen 20201111162752]] [[Vertelpunt 20201111170556]]

I am coming to see this as a pitfall of generative AI texts. It seduces us to anthromorphise the machine, to read intent and comprehension in the generated text. Removing the noise in generating text, meaning the machine would give the same rote answers to the same prompts would reduce this human projection. It would make the texts much 'flatter' and blander than they currently already are. Our fascination with these machines is that they sometimes sound like us, and it makes us easily overlook the actual value of the content produced. In human conversation we would give these responses a pass as they are plausible, but we'd also not treat conversation as likely fully true.

Machines will do well in scripted situations (in itself a form of automation / codification). This was a factor in Hzap 08 / 09 in Rotterdam, where in programming courses the problems were simplified and highly scripted to enable the teacher to be able to grade the results, but at the cost of removing students from actual real life programming challenges they might encounter. It's a form of greedy reductionism of complexity. Whereas the proof of the pudding is performing well within complexity.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230406083125/https://inflecthealth.medium.com/im-an-er-doctor-here-s-what-i-found-when-i-asked-chatgpt-to-diagnose-my-patients-7829c375a9da

A comparison of ChatGPT responses to actual ER case descriptions. Interesting experiment by the author, though there shouldn't be an expectation for better results than it gave.

Ha. Annotation Kalir/Garcia positions annotation as genre, and as (distributed) conversation. [[Annotatie als genre of als middel 20220515112227]], [[Annotation by Remi Kalir Antero Garcia]] and [[Gedistribueerde conversatie 20180418144327]]

The human condition in its entirety is an infinite conversation I suspect.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230404092627/https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/feedly-launches-strikebreaking-as

This entire 'feedly goes into strikebreaking' headline at first didn't make any sense to me when E first mentioned it. First because it sounds extremely out there, in terms of 'service', and second, it's RSS, which I think is hardly suited for the type of claims this service makes (and the article shows that too imo). RSS content hardly shows emergent patterns if you've not defined the network/group you're drawing from imo (e.g. media are not useful for it), and it works at a slower pace than 'let's see if this protest turns violent'. I've worked for orgs that had a 'keep our employees save' coordination centre, and they defintely didn't tap into RSS. They'd send me an sms to avoid a certain part of certain city because of a disease outbreak for instance, or warn met of specific types of crime to watch out for when embarking on a mission, or real time weather warnings for my location.

I haven't used Feedly, I only mentioned it once on my blog in 2019, because my hoster blocked it as 'bad bot'. Foresight? https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2019/06/feedly-blocked-as-bad-bot-by-my-hoster/ I think that blocking feedly might be not as bad as I thought in 2019

Being crap at doing harm doesn't allow you to claim innocence of doing harm.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230404050349/https://greshake.github.io/

This site goes with this paper <br /> https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.12173

The screenshot shows a curious error which makes me a little bit suspicious: the reverse Axelendaer is not rednelexa, there's an a missing.

The mechanism needs a consent step from the user: to allow Bing Chat to see currently open websites. And one of those websites already open, needs to contain the promptinjection.

Wait, what does this mean. #openvraag That previously it did, but now doesn't in response to this? Or that Bing Chat never did so in the first place? In the latter this paper is dealing in hypotheticals at this stage?

Somewhat suspicious of timing, but listen to those soundfiles. We're surrounded by Triffids!

Timing: the info about these sounds is known since 2012 https://gizmodo.com/plants-communicate-with-each-other-by-using-clicking-so-5919973 but this new paper turns to learning models to derive info from the sounds made.

Running BLOOM on a VPS or locally even is either expensive or very slow. Mostly because of the sheer size of the 176B model. Share it in a group of similar users on a VPS set-up? Use the Hugging Face API for BLOOM?

Donald points rightly to some of the classic monsterisation responses to AI. Although he imo misrepresents the EU AI Act (which in its proposal carefully avoids static tech regulation).

Vgl [[Monstertheorie 20030725114320]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20230329045841/https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/cyber-resilience-act

proposal Cyber Resilience Act (read together with CSA, April 2019)

https://web.archive.org/web/20230329045405/https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/eu-cra-practicalities/

Bert Hubert on the CRA part 2

https://web.archive.org/web/20230329045249/https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/eu-cra-secure-coding-solution/

Bert Hubert on the CRA proposal, part 1.

Generative AI abstracts away the open web that is the substrate it was trained on. Abstracting away the open web means there may be much less incentive to share on the open web, if the LLMs etc never point back to it. Vgl the way FB et al increasingly treated open web URLs as problematic.

replacing the incentives to share on the open web are not a mere by-effect of it being abstracted away by generative AI, but an aimed for effect. As it may push people to seek the gains of sharing elsewhere, i.e. enclosed web3 services.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230328130227/https://librarian.aedileworks.com/2023/03/27/the-push-to-ai-is-meant-to-devalue-the-open-web-so-we-will-move-to-web3-for-compensation/

blogged https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2023/03/22930/

Via Stephen Downes https://www.downes.ca/post/75035

openvraag is er een link met [[Monstertheorie 20030725114320]] ook uit #2003/

PDF in Zotero

psychologische veiligheid als belangrijkste voorwaarde voor team succes. Verwijst naar Google onderzoek hiernaar, https://rework.withgoogle.com/print/guides/5721312655835136/

on both short term and long term risks in AI

https://web.archive.org/web/20230316192144/https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/should-we-worry-more-about-short?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf

https://web.archive.org/web/20230316103739/https://subconscious.substack.com/p/everyone-will-have-their-own-ai

Vgl [[Onderzoek selfhosting AI tools 20230128101556]] en [[Persoonlijke algoritmes als agents 20180417200200]] en [[Everymans Allemans AI 20190807141523]] en [[AI personal assistants 20201011124147]]

MDTO (Metagegevens voor duurzaam toegankelijke overheidsinformatie) lijkt ook de norm te worden voor WOO actieve openbaarmaking. #openvraag hoe zit dat voor passieve openbaarmaking? Wordt metadatering beperkt tot de actieve categorieën?