Author posits ZK is for writing, Milo's type of stuff not aimed at output but at 'progressing' in multiple ways. I'd assumed that would be clear to all. Any (p)km is geared towards action, or at least towards increased ability to act. It's rarely the aimed for ability is just academic written output. My pkm has always contained a 'get stuff done' component as well as a 'conceptual stuff' component. My ZK so you will is a trio (Notions, Notes, Ideas) of folders of networked elements inside a more hierarchically oriented larger set of folders (GTD like) to keep moving forward on everything I'm involved in. I've at times wondered what Luhmann did to manage his academic work, in terms of notes. Is there another kartei somewhere? It's one thing to write a lot, another to get it published / organise academic life.

Content addressing is when a piece of content has its own permanent address, a URI. Many copies may exist of the content, hosted by many in the network, all copies have the same address. Whoever is best situated to serve you a copy, does so. It makes the servers interchangeable. My blogposts have a canonical fixed address, but it's tied to a specific domain and only found on 1 server (except when using a CDN).

IPFS starts from content addressing.

Content addressing, assuming the intention 'protocol for thought' here, does match with atomic notes type of pkm systems. All my notes have unique names that could as human readable names map to CIDs. CIDs do change when the content changes, so there's a mismatch with the concept of 'permanent notes' that are permanent in name/location yet have slowly evolving content.

This does not make sense to me. If everything is CIDs you can't take anything with you at all ever, like you can't take the space that you take up with you. Things are only trapped in silos because there's only one copy of it, and you don't have control over that single copy. That's why credible exit is important. You could do that by only creating/using apps that have proper data export, and let that be known to all your vendors (or wait for the EU-DSA and DA to kick in and get exported to enforce that for you) With CIDS there's nothing to take because it wasn't ever on 'a' server.

Makes no sense to me, CIDs with interchangeable servers make ownership meaningless when it comes to the creator of some content. It means holders of servers the stuff passed through are the ones 'owning' it in the sense of perhaps retaining a copy. You've put it in the attic remember? Except it's someonelse's attic. Unless all this stuff is encrypted and you need my key in your addressbook to see it, and I can revoke a key. But then there's no attic and no noosphere. It's either ownership or it's the attic, they're exlcusionary in this set-up afaict.

I get the keys and trust part, but not how that is going to help the noosphere. Trust now anchored to domains, yes, not just technically but socially as well. Anything that has FB as its domain e.g. goes into the 'untrustworthy' bin. UCN removes trust from a domain to the person signing. That's fine if I know someone well enough to have a pet name for it on my phone/network. But not if it's some random person on the internet. I assume someone's access and participation in the noosphere isn't meant to be limited to people I have in my pet name list in my phone book, and that I can see stuff by many other people outside my network (if not I can tell you where the next centralisation will be with certainty) Then 'this was properly signed by -random person-' is meaningless, Unless I can trace back what else that random person has shared, what people thought about it, the persons general reputation etc. Meaning we're back at the social level where this tech doesn't help us.

How's this reasoning different from the complaints about all the crap being kept alive in data centers to the detriment of the environment. Just to increase the probability that something of value might be found and recognised over time? The noosphere is here reduced to finding a Picasso or some silver bullet for a global issue in an attic / on some dusty hard disk with content addressing? The point of attics in homes is not to aid future discovery of interesting artefacts, although every now and then it may occur, the point of attics is as a holding space for crap you can't quite get yourself to throw away yet because you're still emotionally somehow attached (or remember what you paid for it and feel shame in the wast of money you now think it was), so you let your children/grand children throw it out. Let's not build more attics for digital residue, let's do away with attics. /rant

Yes, centralisation again. Compare to Mastodon where there's no long tail, most of everybody on 2 or 3 servers. So all of this infra effort and content addressing, and then people will only keep the dross alive they watch on media now. "Incentives will be important" I thought the entire infra was meant to create that effect. This is I think the core of my hesitation: proposing a tech fix for something, i.e. content curation, that already plays out on an entirely different plane than said tech, and thus will be ineffective.

this distinction between K-selected and r-selected esp those images make sense to me. Weeds and trees both depend on their roots and surrounding ecosystem. Chop down a tree the ecosystem goes, cut down a weed it wil grow another shoot. Back to mycelium with mushrooms on top).

That link talks about an r-type space for software dev, which reminds me of a SF book I can't now find back, where some org has a lab where AI runs science dev experiments building ever on top of each other, with frequent patented releases of the result allowing open and free use, and uses this to outcompete corporate efforts while creating an enormous boost in innovation where all build on that.

Brander says same-origin makes centralisation mandatory. Because 1) trust, data trapped in services, and infra are tied to domains, 2) SOP makes those domains points of centralisation. I don't understand the necessity of that outcome Brander posits. Ad 1) Yes, domains are nodes of coalescence. They're not scarce though, maybe not everyone can get their preferred one, and there's a theoretical limit, but not scarce. Harder to arrange, because registering presupposes things like banking/credit cards, and it isn't permissionless in many places. So we put our stuff on someone else's domain, a silo. So are we talking about the hurdle of getting a domain really? Same is true for infra, running your own hosting is doable, and it is more permissionless than getting a domain. Again it may be too high a threshold for many. So it's a [[Technologie kleiner dan ons 20160818122905]] issue rather than centralisation, the centralisation is not unavoidable but a likely outcome because of that tech threshold.

Ad 2) SOP is something enforced in browsers/apps, it's not controlled by the domains you visit, right? There's an attack surface of course if you disable (parts of) it. I disable SOP to make this annotation for instance. It moves the trust question though when you disable SOP selectively.

This reduces the hazard rate for content loss. (See Lindy effect above) It also however erodes data ownership/control doesn't it? As long as there's a copy of something I said out there, I have no power of retraction as such. Not that I practically have it now, but more at least. Most thoughts in the noosphere will be incomplete, half formed, wrong, temporarily of interest and highly contextual, and not unique. Most of my notes are explratory and vulnerable. How does that match with content in the noosphere 'forever' floating around.

credible exit is used to describe that data export / leaving an app provides you with smooth enough ways to do so. Usable exports, that can be updated as you keep using an app e.g. Author talks about Lindy-formats, useful term , vgl [[The Lindy Effect 20201228194100]] en [[Lindy effect buiten tijdsdimensie 20201229115037]]

Systems will centralise one step up from where it's decentralised. Interesting. My intuition is a bit 'softer' it's a rule of thumb for coalescence. Things might coalesce out of different needs/circumstances. The type of centralisation intended here, if it's about the silo's there's a external driver, that the easiest business models are found in centralisation as it creates asymmetric power for the centraliser. It's not a necessary outcome of the underlying distributedness, but something that others might need using that distributedness. If centrliasation isn't possible or allowed at some layer, it may well force external drivers for centralisation one layer up. Organisations as well as CoPs are mushrooms on the mycelium of human networks. Now that capital, location and finding colleagues can be done distributedly those mushrooms aren't always needed, and we see other types of mushrooms coalesce alongside classic organisations. Something like that?

We grab our phones when tired or bored at work. But it seems to make us more tired and more bored. Does the same apply for internetbrowsing before mobile?

Noosphere was presented at the Render conf on tools for thought. There's overlap with Boris' work on IPFS, judging by his tweets he's involved in this effort too.

This Noosphere Explainer explains the tech used, not the 'massive-multiplayer knowledge graph' it is posited to be, how that would come about with this tech, or what that is meant to be for.

it's about 1% of a day, not a person's perceived day.

Anno is a public benefit corporation to house the hypothes.is mission set up to allow investment. Anno attracted 14M including 2M5 from JSTOR. JSTOR imo is of dubious moral nature wrt OA, public domain, and particularly ending the chokehold of publishers on distribution of scholalry works, inverting their centuries old mission of making distribution possible. Source of funding impacts the course of what is funded towards the character of the funders.

h. in 2022 has over 1 million users, who made nearly 40 million annotations. Early this year 2 million annotated articles/sites was reached (2175298 is the number the API rerurns today). This sounds like a lot but on its face works out to an average of 40 annotations on 2 articles per user. This suggests to me the mode is 1 annotation on 1 article per user. How many of those 1 million were active last week / month?

Dave Rogers makes the points that 1) focusing on tools is often a distraction. 2) behaviour such as walk,shower, rest are also 'tools' to aid thinking.

Miriam Rasch over waarnemen met aandacht. Vgl [[Aandacht Probes 2020112514553]] [[Je staat centraal in eigen narratief 20210428202924]] Hele tekst uit FTM opgenomen in [[Wie luistert, is nooit alleen 20220818153436]]

2003 article. The ca.1550-1700 at the end caught me off guard at first. See my 2004/2003 remark we've been offloading info to our environment since always, and similarly complaining about the amount of it. This paper case in point.

Annotating this in Chrome, my firefox add-on does not load the sidebar for this paper. I hate Chrome, had to install it. Will de-install soon again. Probably better to learn to use the API properly to share annotations, or run my own instance and push from there?

Doug Engelbart used acronym HLAMT wrt augmenting human intelligence: Humans using Language, Artifacts, Methodology, Training. Our artifacts are much more powerful now, language, methodology and training still need to catch up. Rheingold says we're on the verge of that.

Second thought: the A and M roughly map to tech and methods in my networked agency image as design aid. Think about netag in context of Engelbart's basic vision to elicit some more thoughts.

Rheingold in the context of this interview really doesn't say anything forward looking wrt internet in this section. The interviewer doesn't go after it, seems to hurry on. Maybe because they spent too much time on the previous sections of the interview? If Rheingold is working on something, this doesn't sound like it. He says he thinks his Net Smart solution of teaching fell flat. General literacy took generations, so 10 yrs too short? Concerned we all are.

What can one do complexity-style stimulating desired capabilities, attenuating the undesirable ones? More like this, less like that stuff. At a personal level that may be clear (if one pays attention to it personally, see above), at group level, society level? Btw esp adtech platforms are not symmetrical in their amplification. They lift the mentioned pirate boats, but not the hospital boats. By design. Control over parameters for amplification in ones own info may be one.

Eno talked about music and arts mostly. Here Rheingold connects it to tech wrt Xerox PARC in 70s. Also see Kevin Kelly in [[Scenius, or Communal Genius 20211022180225]] I see this as networkd creativity related to networked agency [[Scenius als networked creativiteit 20211023145641]] Reboot conferences fed into this [[Het Reboot gevoel vaker hebben 20161023145654]] Salons maybe proto-stages of scenius / cells in them [[Salons organiseren 20201216205547]].

again I miss the notion of self-hosted wikis (Tiddly e.g., I used wakka/wikkawiki as pkm tool 2004-2008 as well as on my website. (I now see wikkawiki was discontinued in 2020)

This was my main desktop interface from 1997-2004. Like my current PKM set-up is now the way I start interfacing with my laptop each day.

hypertext pkm systems, and then not mentioning personal wikis?

Also Tinderbox has been around since 2002 (I first encountered it at BlogTalk 2004 where Mark Bernstein attended, used it since 2007 when I switched to Mac when I went independent and ditched corporate laptop). Tinderbox is its own PKM tool and aimed at creating hypertexts itself. Named my PKM set-up after one of the early (1987) hypertext novels published by Bernstein).

Just mentioned in passing. To me this is a key one, especially as networks is where the human and digital fully overlap / become the same. Humans are intuitively good at networks of humans, digital networks present the same structures over which those people interact with their human networks. [[Menselijk en digitaal netwerk zijn gelijksoortig 20200810142551]] It's where the potential of distributedness is at, as well as the unit of agency, human digital networks. Should better detail this, as it is key in my [[Networked Agency 20160818213155]]

The networked bit can strengthen the other 4 literacies, if projected onto them. E.g. my infostrats, based on social filtering, help determine signal, show what's going on in different areas, help decide what warrants attention etc.

and then those same people went on to create silos and actively work to de-emancipate the edges.

Howard et al keep a running list of 'crap detection tools' at https://docs.google.com/document/d/163G79vq-mFWjIqMb9AzYGbr5Y8YMGcpbSzJRutO8tpw/edit ref'd in [[Crap detection is civic duty 2018010073052]]

Wineburg Standford University, educational and cognitive psychologist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Wineburg https://twitter.com/samwineburg https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Sam-Wineburg-72892550

attention as mindfulness, and as a muscle to train.

Reminds me of my 2008/2010 projects in primary schools on this. I find myself explaining marketing ploys to our 6yo in response to material she sees in print, on billboards, and online. Perhaps I should be doing that more consistently

There's little training on reflecting and shaping how you wield your attention. Are there resources to be found, wrt workflows / choices / being mindfull of one's attention? Beyond the 'indistractable' material of Nir?

The exclusionary aspect of attention makes it a scarce resource [[Aandacht is het schaarst 20201013163120]] implying the need to wield it with intent [[Stuur aandacht met intentie 20220213080032]] or it becomes distraction again. It's a moral choice [[Aandacht is een morele keuze 20201217074345]] even. Making such training/understanding important.

This is, like some of his Stanford in-class attention experiments, a bit geared towards switching on/offline it seems. There's much to be said also about wielding attention within the digital space (see Pegrum/Palalas digital disarray above), and attention as it plays out in the interweaving of the digital and physical (like having information resources available within a conversation).

Aandacht als fundament onder zowel denken als communiceren.

Pegrum/Palalas 2021 talk about attention literacy as needed to counteract 'digital disarray'. They also call it a macro-literacy, encompassing a long list of 'digital literacies' which are more skills than literacy in the Rheingoldia sense. Bit of term inflation? Does put attention at the top of the heap of digital 'literacies' though. They also do incorporate relationships to others and the informational environment within scope of it a la Rheingold.

Rheingold perceives literacy as skill within community. A skill that comes into its own if there's a community of skilled people, a social practice. He may have adopted it from Paulo Freire who put reading/writing skills interwoven with reading/writing the world (mentioned in Kalir/Garcia's Annotation too). Do I see that community aspect, the social practice aspects in the 5 literacies he lists from Net Smart?

1. Attention [[Aandacht als geletterdheid 20201117203910]]
2. Participation
3. Collaboration
4. Network awareness
5. Crap detection, or 'Critical consumption' in polite company (I have it as : [[Crap detection is civic duty 2018010073052]]

skill vs social practice leading to increase of the quality of the commons. Personal relative advancement in current sitrep and/or lifting the entire floor.

Bias towards researching tangible things needs time to be overcome, it's also a gear shift to higher level of complexity in viewpoint. Compare to my searches in my fav topics list, where does this apply / potential hardening of focus?

Ideas ahead of their time in the mainstream (not in the niches). Compare to Lernout and Hauspie wrt early natural language processing 1987-1998 and GPT-3 now.

The hardware development path was visible, but at the time still limiting potential spread/adoption.

1968 calling. Chemicals as blunt tool, electronics as potential finer tool. Reminds me of a dinnerconversation with Howard and Judy where someone else, much younger, praised LSD as potential mind expanding tool. J said "You wouldn't say that if like me you'd had spent the late 60s puking your guts out in the bathroom all the time". Bluntness of the chemical tool explained :D

Not just a category these days, also a 1985 book title by Howard. (html version of that book http://www.rheingold.com/texts/tft/ )

Web archive url https://web.archive.org/web/20220815051435/https://theinformed.life/2022/08/14/episode-94-howard-rheingold/

'History of stuff' not being seen is a recurring pattern. e.g. wrt Luhmann vs commonplacing, in the Roam/Obsidian wave e.g. wrt open data around 2010 when there was little realisation of efforts by re-users to get to the PSI Directive, only the new wave of coders using the fact it existed.

It's also a repeating pattern in generations. Open Space and unconferencing e.g. needs to be retaught with every new wave of people. The open web of two decades ago needs to be explained to those now starting their professional work using online tools.

Spaced repetition for groups/society?

In order to expand understanding what one is actually doing / building on.

Doet me denken aan die '90s exchange student die me ooit vroeg of ik geschiedenis studeerde ipv elektro: ik legde bij alles ook het ontwikkelingspad uit.

Mutational meltdown happens in a population of animals if their number is so low that negative mutations and deletions in their DNA accumulate.

Rule of thumb: 500 minimum viable population, 1k minimum to prevent negative genetic trends (inbreeding).

Is a similar rule of thumb thinkable for communities of practice in terms of maintaining the community itself, and in terms of keeping it varied / valuable enough on all [[Community building 20100210214508]] aspects Wenger et al list?

Body and environment are commonly ignored in modeling of the brain to understand its working. Example of sub-system / system / supra-system perception levels not being taken into account simultaneously, compare [[Triz denken in systeemniveaus 20200826114731]], and the corresponding switches wrt where the complexity is [[De locus van Complexiteit 20040513173600]]. Similar to [[Disruption Theory is Real, but Wrong 20191014111801]] where the disruption can manifest on a different level than the players in the scene being disrupted and causing the disruption.

Greedy reductionism, beyond the point where it still provides new agency or insight, is a consistent risk. Consciousness, economics. Perhpas make a list of examples where this happened in different fields and the impact of it? Should be a bunch in my notes.

I am moving away from content types altogether, making them all just regular posts. I style them all the same anyway. Their type is apparent from their content and the microformats in them. Author had content categories to represent content types, which produces no navigational or discovery value imo.

Itineraries as content type. I have some check-ins on my site (dubbed Plazes after that early app), and deeply miss Dopplr (even as travel stalled early 2020 due to the pandemic, and I don't know if travel will return in the same way to my life, given climate impact and surge in online collab). Can I envision Itineraries on my site as content type? Dopplr kept that within a trusted network, how do I do that on my site? Where would the type of coincidental meet-ups come from that made Dopplr so immensely valuable.

not the entire internet I think? The playground provides only English answers, the examples I've asked the script of certain things had a singular focus on US examples. And when discussing a popular book that is only available in Dutch it clearly has no actual information to work with, despite the script first boasting that it studied Dutch literature in Amsterdam in the 2000's :D GPT-3's Playground is anglo-centric at least.

did that. Playing with it is highly fascinating. Saving some conversations as examples.

that sounds like a useful analogy. Prompting like you are the algo's improv partner. The flipside seems to be the impact the author himself is after: being prompted along new lines of inquiry, making the script your improv partner in return.

The need to be aware that GPT-3 is a text generation tool, not an accurate search engine. However being factually correct is not a prerequisite of experiencing surprisal. The author uses the tool to open up new lines of thought, so his prompt engineering in a way is aimed at being prompted himself. This is reminiscent of how Luhmann talks about communicating with his index cards: the need for factuality does not reside with the card, meaning is (re)constructed in the act of communication. The locus of meaning is the conversation, the impact it has on oneself, less the content, it seems.

The essay gives various examples of usage: legal advice medical diagnosis nanny to talk to your kid a research assistant, prompting it for surprisal basically to come up with lines of inquiry an questions let the algo impersonate someone and run ideas by that impersonation let the algo impersonate opposing debate partners list possible counterarguments draw analogies between knowledge domains

Doug Engelbart overtones

GPT-3 is a way to approach the information on the internet, an interface for the internet. This I associate with the aspects of distributedness: apps are dataviewers (like Obsidian.md is), interfaces are queries on that data.

This phrasing imo instrumentalises those fascinating people you find. Interesting stuff is a byproduct of interacting with those fascinating people, a result from fascinating conversation, a residue of the construct you've built together in conversation.

I take to the term prompt engineering. Designing prompts is important in narrative research, just as much as in AI, and in e.g. workshop settings. It's definitely a skill. Conversational prompts describes blog posts too.

The author took time over a period of 5 months to put this essay together. That's impressive, in terms of effort put in and in terms of tenacity. How much of this time is to 'hold questions' as Johnnie Moore would say, to develop your thoughts iteratively. Could it have been done in index cards, under the radar, with the essay then a smaller effort, reduced to collating those index cards?

This is intriguing, seeing a similar return on prompting GPT-3 as from blogging. After reading this essay the first time, I played with GPT-3 myself, and even from a first attempt it is clear what he means. It feels like a similar process, prompting GPT-3 and pushing a notion, bookmark or question into my blog's feed. The first reactions on both types bring similar levels of surprial. What is however missing from GPT-3 in comparison with my blog is that blog networks are more than a 1-on-1 prompt and respons. They form larger feedback loops, which in turn lifts signals above the noise.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220810205211/https://escapingflatland.substack.com/p/gpt-3

Blogged a few first associations at https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/08/communicating-with-gpt-3/ . Prompt design for narrative research may be a useful experience here. 'Interviewing' GPT-3 a Luhmann-style conversation with a system? Can we ditch our notes for GPT-3? GPT-3 as interface to the internet. Fascinatiing essay, need to explore.

Ruben is quoting Geoff Marshall in a video here. I recognise what Ruben says about his mental health, the melancholic funk, both from myself and E. Sometimes the current months are harder than when the pandemic first hit. Things seem normal, except they aren't. Geoff suggests adding new experiences now, so they become part of his future nostalgia, as a counterbalance to the past two years. Not pushing stuff away but balancing it. Reminds me a bit of what I used to say about 'hiding' unwanted Google results: publish more online so that it balances out and the unwanted things aren't the dominant search results.

does this still hold up? the wikipedia lemma points to several more recent sources that seem to offer counter information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis#Free_oxygen_may_be_neither_rare_nor_a_prerequisite_for_multicellular_life The source of the claim seems to be the book itself, so would need to look it up in Ward Brownlee 2000, page 217

Ward in the context of Rare Earth hypothesis says this. An intriguing notion seeing thinking as a form of (deliberate) movement. How is this meant / to be understood? Chemically, in terms of what it requires in an animal (ie us)? The remark is made in the context of the need for oxygen for complex life to be possible. (based on David Catling Univ of Washington) after all. Or environmentally/contextually, as both deliberate physical movement and brain activity are response to outside impulses?

when will the other parts be published?

moet het boek Data Mesh nog lezen (https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/data-mesh/9781492092384/) maar lijkt goed aan te sluiten bij de gedachten achter de EU Dataspaces.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220805183650/https://www.thoughtworks.com/en-de/insights/articles/privacy-first-data-via-data-mesh (trying to be consistent in storing the archived link here.)

I say this, but there's a nuance to consider. I read a post by someone creating their company logo with Dall-E by repeatedly changing and tweaking their prompt to get to a usable output. That is definitely above the creativity threshold, with the AI as a tool, not as the creator. Similarly, NLP AI tools can help authors to get to e.g. a first draft, then shaped, rewritten, changed, edited etc., which crosses the human creativity threshold for copyright to kick in. Compare with how I sometimes use machine translation of my own text and then clean it up, to be able to write faster in e.g. German of French, where the algo is a lever to turn my higher passive language skills into active language use. (Btw comment added to see if that updates my original hypothesis annotations of this article in my Obsidian notes, or if it happens only once when first annotated. The latter would mean forcing annotation and thus break my workflow)

https://web.archive.org/web/20220704195527/https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/06/dall-e-mini-siso-stereotype-in-stereotype-out/

Alan pointed to the same notion elsewhere. Blogging should be more about open ended curiosity and holding questionsm than about explaining or sharing ones coherent worldview or current truth about something. This with an eye to the former being a better prompt for conversations. I agree that conversations (distributed ones, taking place over multiple blogs) are a key thing in blogging. I also believe in the 'obligation to explain' as ruk.ca says: if you have figured something out, created something, you have a civic duty to explain it so others may find their way to their solution faster. (this annotation is also meant as a test to see how it ends up in hypothes.is and gets sync'd or not to my notes locally.

I recognise the statistic, but the conclusion that companies lives are getting shorter doesn't follow without further evidence. There are def many more companies than before (more population plus increased digitisation and mobilithy = more companies), so the bulk of existing companies is younger than before. Some will be successful enough to be a Fortune 500 faster than before, driving down the average age of companies in that list. It doesn't mean that every company dropping out of the Fortune 500 ceases to exist. It may continue to exist in the exact same way as the longest living companies mentioned elsewhere in the article. In other words, they may be doing what the article is counseling to do, turning this factoid into the opposite of the argument it is now used as. In short: you can't say this unless you have data about the discontinued companies, both 'nowadays' and in previous 2-3 centures.