1,178 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2023
    1. "My mask of sanity is about to slip." In our current context, services like NutriDrip might just be what keeps that mask in place for those who can afford it.

      Yes, socio-economic status. I think being seen to afford it is the coping strategy here, not so much doing the thing as the thing itself is highly unlikely to be something else than a placebo. It's all curtain, no wizard. The French youth fishing urban waters may be much more real in effect than the high end stuff. One is escapist, the other is pretending to be. Also the assumption that sanity is a mask to maintain above a roiling sea of insanity is an odd comparison here wrt urban life. It makes the individual insane (or probably driven there) vs the insanity of systems.

    2. The extent to which we're willing to go to mitigate the impacts of our lifestyle choices is astonishing.

      This one makes sense to me. Mitigating symptoms of life style choices, rather than addressing those choices. At the lower socio-economic end because you don't have many options (smoking as only affordable relaxation e.g.), and at the higher end because the choices are what yields the higher socio-economic status, and the mitigation signals that status, and adds to it, helps define it, an aesthetic choice in Bourdieu's fashion (distinction theory / [[Goede smaak is klassebewustzijn 20220212075212]]. Still individual coping rather than facing the systemic factors causing them or organising [[Networked Agency 20160818213155]] in the face of it.

    3. Reflecting on this, I'm reminded of a pattern that has been evident since my days co-running Third Wave with Johannes: the adoption of Uncertainty Coping Strategies. Broadly speaking, these are various behaviors, products, and practices people employ to manage the strains of everyday reality. Our work has consistently identified a spectrum ranging from technological interventions like neuroimplants to the rise in mindfulness services.The staggering contrasts in how different socioeconomic groups address these pressures are well illustrated by the recent New York Times article.

      'uncertainty coping strategies' equal living your life I suppose, in the face of the 'strains of everyday reality' since the groups in caves. What is different here wrt Igor and Johannes' work experience and patterns. Just Urbanism (then how is this diff from 18th century?) The complexity of those strains? The inability to withdraw from strains created by others through industrial work practices / social media algo inducement? The sense of looming doom wrt ecocollapse, financial crash etc, systemic threats iw and no agency to individually address some of that? Or is it merely the high end market catering to it, exploiting the stress rather than solving the stressors? What is Igo saying here?

    1. The first set of copyright licenses was released in December 2002

      https://web.archive.org/web/20231108101926/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

      The first set of CC licenses was released on #2002/12/16 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20030207225048/http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/3476 ) a month after I started my blog. I adopted the cc license in my blog the next month #2003/01/23 https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2003/01/creative_common/ even though then they were not congruent with EU/Dutch jurisdiction. Used a by nc sa license at first. Later changed to by sa, which is an open license rather than closed (because of nd).

    1. Creative Commons can be relied upon to take a generally pro-ownership and libertarian stance regarding rules and regulation

      This is bothersome seen from my perspective of both a CC advocate and European national chapter and as a CC using maker. In my experience makers using CC use CC because they want to limit the ownership current international copyright laws and treaties bestow on them, as they see them as obstacle and greedy, and generally not serving the maker but later exploiters of artefacts. Also the perspective of contributing to the common good / pool of culture is frequent, and counter libertarian angles. I need to check but I think it might also be a ways off from Lessig's original idea for CC as expressed in [[Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig]].

    2. https://web.archive.org/web/20231108095251/https://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=75761

      [[Stephen Downes]] on CC and their answers to US copyright questions wrt generative algo's.

    1. There are many stories about the compute footprint (and thus energy footprint) of AI. This is an interesting example: Microsoft doesn't have the capacity to run its own.

      (this is mostly a test to see if the changes I made to the h. template in Obsidian work as intended.)

    1. Powerful men today — the Silicon Valley set — subscribe to their interpretation of this ancient philosophy as a way of positioning themselves as its rightful cultural successors; the lineage of thought from “the greats” leads directly to them and their approach to business and life. It becomes ipso facto justification for their choices: if they are living according to the precepts of the Western canon, how could anyone question a philosophy derived from such venerable roots? The philosophy itself is ultimately inconsequential, but the permission it grants through borrowed respectability is priceless.

      oh yes.

    2. I feel there’s a mantle of importance laid upon ancient Roman and Greek philosophy simply because it’s old — if it lasted this long, it must be smart, right? It must be right. This… overlooks the conditions that led these works, written by generally wealthy and powerful men, to be the ones preserved and carried forward.

      There likely were no works written by poor powerless people to preserve. Having the leisure to be literate and to write books required the wealth and power that also increased the likelihood of preservation, I rather suppose.

      Then again there is a bias here, in terms of that what is preserved being seen as the entire record. Compare the start-up graveyard, where too we only see the survivors and those that 'exited' and never the ones that dropped by the wayside.

    3. Ancient Romans had (a lot of) slaves. Ancient Romans only allowed a tiny number of men, specifically, to vote. Ancient Romans imposed a violently enforced extractive empire around the Mediterranean and beyond. A philosophy that arose from those conditions might give me pause to emulate in a modern setting — at least, as someone who believes imperialism to be evil, slavery in all forms to be unacceptable, sexism to be harmful to all, and actual one-person-one-vote democracy to be the most reliable way of allowing some measure of self-governance by the people.

      While true, I don't think the underlying evil as such played a role in whether a philosophy arose from ancient Rome, but having a large enough layer of society that can afford spending time musing and thinking or be an audience for that thinking. The source of that wealth isn't a cause even though the wealth is a prerequisite to free up time and energy. The extraction made that possible of course, and it is not much different now. BigTech probably feels resonance because it's a global extractive industry too. I remember from my Latin at school how we would read texts by certain authors where they made some nuanced ethical point, while in the same text never bothering to question slavery. Or even in the same paragraph along the lines of "you need to treat slaves as human beings", except for the keeping them enslaved part ofcourse.

      There's something here about cultural appropriation across eras. The Renaissance did, claiming the mantle of the Roman civiliisation as its predecessor, and thus we in the West tend to see that as our cultural lineage. Cherry picked of course, not wholesale, as we tend to with more immediate own history too (Dutch Golden Age and the role of slave trade and colonial extraction e.g. unacknowledged but being a safe haven for religious refugees from elsewhere in Europe such as the Sefardim or Hugenots clearly embraced)

    1. Knorr-Cetina also received her Habilitation in sociology at the University of Bielefeld in 1981, and served as Professor of Sociology at Bielefeld from 1983 to 2001. Her work in the social studies of science during these years culminated in her widely-cited book Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, published in 1999.

      This period coincides w Luhmann's. Hadn't realised that objects of sociality had originated there too at U Bielefeld.

      The wikipedia page also links to Latour ([[Latours Actor Network Theory ANT 20201129164732]]) and the paper mentioned below also cites Latour once.

    2. The first suggestion of this new field site was in the article "Sociality with objects: Social relations in postsocial knowledge societies" (1997)

      This was Jyri's trigger, as per his 2005 Reboot talk. Note the diff between [[Object van socialiteit 20050628064223]] and sociality with objects.

      Paper:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/026327697014004001 PDF in Zotero

    1. If there is any hope for our ability to understand what really happens on social media next year, it may come from the European Union, where the Digital Services Act demands transparency from platforms operating on the continent. But enforcement actions are slow, and wars and elections are fast by comparison. The surge of disinformation around Israel and Gaza may point to a future in which what happens online is literally unknowable.

      Zuckerman mentions the DSA as his single hope, the only surprisal in this piece. Although the DMA is important wrt the silos too, as is the GDPR, it is the DSA that has the transparency reqs, plus actually describes the outside research access Zuckerman sees frustrated as mandatory. Says enforcement is slow however. Yes, at the same time it's not just reactive enforcement. It's about EU market access, pro-active disclosures are mandatory.

    2. https://web.archive.org/web/20231102055201/https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/technology/63752/when-internet-becomes-unknowable-social-media-tools

      Ethan Zuckerman on socmed research.

      Odd piece equating social media silos, or even Twitter alone, with 'the internet', in a complaint against silos-be-siloing by shutting APIs. As FB always has, this is mostly about X-Twitter. Plus US lawasuits being used by social media billionaires or lawmakers with disinfo as election strategy to frustrate researchers.

    1. that minds are constructed out of cooperating (and occasionally competing) “agents.”

      Vgl how I discussed an application this morning that deployed multiple AI agents as a interconnected network, with each its own role. [[Rolf Aldo Common Ground AI consensus]]

    2. These sort of studies always remind me of an issue in consciousness research called the binding problem. You experience a single stream of consciousness, one in which everything, your percepts and sensations and emotions, are bound together, and the “problem” is that we don’t know how this works. It’s difficult to figure out because this binding is fractal, all the way down; you don’t experience colors and shapes separately, you experience a colored shape. But how do the contents get affixed together in consciousness in all the complex ways they’re supposed to? Via what rule does it work? One popular answer in the neuroscientific literature is that binding occurs via a process best described as “information transmission plus synchronization.” Neurons fire at a particular frequency in one region of the brain, which then synchronize with another region’s firing. In other words, parts of the brain dance.

      Vgl Donald Hebb 1949 fire together = wire together, which seems different. Vgl [[Leren dansen met het systeem 20181112154254]] Donella Meadows 2001 dancing w systems

    3. https://web.archive.org/web/20231101055209/https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/the-planetary-egregore-passes-you by Erik Hoel (Wikipedia: Erik Hoel is an American neuroscientist, neurophilosopher, and fiction writer. His main areas of research are the study and philosophy of consciousness, cognition, biological function of dreams, and mathematical theories of emergence. He is noted for using information theory and causal analysis to develop mathematical models to explore and understand the basis of consciousness and dreams) Seems an intriguing mix/approach.

    1. [[Rolf Kleef]] [[Aldo de Moor]]

      OpenAI call "democratic inputs for AI" 10 projects, 100k, 3 months

      [[Rolf Aldo Common Ground AI consensus]] #2023/11/01

    2. Firstly, we must continually question the underlying assumptions, potential pitfalls, risks, and possible unintended adverse effects of introducing AI into democratic processes. Not the least by always checking and refining LLM outputs with real people, or we risk falling into the fallacies and risks of democracy in silica.

      Where here is the role of AI? And does it matter as much in each of its roles? - moderation of conversation - synthesising new statements (this one particularly?) - transcripts - summarising opinions - determine statistically more supported statements - the import of minority statements? (e.g. all may have an opinion, maybe not all opinions matter the same way in a case (democratically built bridges may fall, in comparison one built by engineering teams) --> this points to curating the issues to discuss. And ensuring all voices are indeed weighed, not just outvoted, such that groups aren't marginalised.

    3. Secondly, our process is inherently and somewhat intimately social. While this is by design, we observe that a significant portion of the population self selects out of such explicitly social interactions with strangers. These are similar issues faced by in-person citizens assemblies, where a small portion of the participants may need repeated encouragement before they share their opinions and gain confidence. While human facilitators were on call to help during the experiment, looking into active facilitation, coaching and aftercare for more sensitive participants may be crucial when deploying Common Ground.

      or mix with solitary interaction like in pol.is?

    4. Common Ground can be conceptualised as a multi-player variant of Pol.is. Instead of voting on Statements in isolation, we match participants into small groups of three people where they are encouraged to deliberate over the Statements they vote on, and where an AI moderator powered by GPT4 synthesises new Statements from the content of their discussion.
      • The new statements synthesizing is interesting. Are these checked with the group of 3?
      • Is the voting like in pol.is where you have an increasing 'cost' of voting / spreading attention?
    1. https://web.archive.org/web/20231101060550/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem

      binding problem: how do we get integrated single experiences from elements addressed in very different parts of our brain. How do we get feature integration and consciousness from it?

  2. Oct 2023
    1. Bought this as epub directly from Verso publishers. [[Own This by R. Trebor Scholz]] in antilib. Vgl kritiek in [[You can’t win without a fight Why worker cooperatives are a bad strategy 20210201064440]] Vgl plan for TGL

    1. In Council, Member States’ representatives (Coreper) reached a common position on 19 July 2023, allowing the Council to enter in negotiations with the European Parliament. Council notably removed the notion of "critical" from products with digital elements  and deleted a substantial number of the products listed in the Annex III. Council introduced three categories of products, critical for essential entities as defined by the NIS2, that would fall under mandatory European cybersecurity certification by means of a delegated act. The Council moved the reporting of cybersecurity incidents and actively exploitable vulnerabilities from ENISA to the national Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) in a two-step process of an initial notification after 24 hours and a second one after 72 hours. Council proposes to postpone the application of the regulation to 36 months.

      EP remarks on the changes made by Council in their proposal. Also note link to NIS2 and CSA.

    2. EP position of CRA, although their own actual position paper seems absent from this page.

    1. CSA d.d. #2019/04/17 ter vergelijking in scope en werkingsgebied met CRA. Hoe past de kritiek uit FOSS hoek ook op CSA en blijkt daar in de praktijk al iets van?

    1. NL rijksoverheid over CSA, is er verbinding met CRA en wat dan?

    1. NL rijksoverheid kondigt de overeenstemming in Raad mbt CRA aan. Kijk naar welke punten ze 'vieren' en de aannames tav impact op SME/FOSS en evt eigen info-huishouding.

    1. DigitalEurope (commercial company club wrt EU digital legal frameworks) position on the CRA trilogue. Kijk waar ze aan willen knabbelen, en wat ze toejuichen. Hoe verhoudt zich dat tot de kritiek uit de SME / FOSS hoek op same?

    1. Antwoorden op kamervragen mbt CRA. PDF zegt paar boeiende dingen over SaaS die niet onder CRA wel onder NIS2 valt bijv. Maar ook dat het onderscheid niet helder is. Van nov 2022, dus in de voorstelfase.

    1. Rijksoverheid beoordelingsfiche CRA, leesbare en heldere PDF erbij. Dit is v okt 2022 en input geweest voor kabinetspositie in de Raad. PDF doorlopen op of er iets staat over de gevolgen voor de overheid zelf anders dan de gemoeide markthandhaving.

    1. German cybersec company on the CRA, some useful graphs (by the EC that I haven't seen elsewhere)

    1. To be clear, global open source software projects will be unable to strictly comply with provisions contained in current drafts of the CRA. Much of the world's open source software will likely soon be either 1) blocked for distribution in the EU or 2) publicly accessible with caveats similar to “this software is not appropriate or approved for use or distribution in the European Union market.”

      Linux foundation's fear of the CRA is not so much the requirements made wrt software, but the requirements of demonstrating/documenting compliance. #openvraag what are the carve outs in current texts? What do the pre-ambles say wrt who specific admin reqs apply to. Isn't OS by definition compliant in the sense that the rationale of OS party is increasing its security?

    1. Over drinks in Tallinn, I had the chance to briefly reflect with Alex Howard on OGP Summits past. One notable feature of early summits were the national or regional sessions. Slots on the agenda to share what had made it onto the open government National Action Plans of different states, and, crucially, where governments and civil society shared the room and stage in talking about them. These have dropped from the agenda in recent years. And with that, a critical moment around which to structure other conversations in the run up to, and follow up from, a summit

      [[Tim Davies]] and [[Alex Howard]] notice the absence of space for civil society orgs and govs to interact during OGP summit, which also means there's no interaction before or after. This reduces the relationships and connections.

    2. https://web.archive.org/web/20231024050406/https://www.timdavies.org.uk/2023/09/10/reflections-on-two-reunions/

      Tim on the OGP Summit in Tallinn. Seems to echo the absence of civil society orgs here too. Like what I see in the EU context of the creation of data spaces.

    1. Concern whether market regulators will be capable enough for the AI act, in a post market access perspective. Vgl in NL NMA en AP worden de AI autoriteit, maar beiden kunnen dit niet.

    1. https://web.archive.org/web/20231019053547/https://www.careful.industries/a-thousand-cassandras

      "Despite being written 18 months ago, it lays out many of the patterns and behaviours that have led to industry capture of "AI Safety"", co-author Rachel Coldicutt ( et Anna Williams, and Mallory Knodel for Open Society Foundations. )

      For Open Society Foundations by 'careful industries' which is a research/consultancy, founded 2019, all UK based. Subscribed 2 authors on M, and blog.

      A Thousand Cassandras in Zotero.

    1. Because it connects the information landscape and the geographical landscape much more intimately.

      and now we have IoT sensing etc.

    2. to be able to leave as well as pick up many traces that lead to emergent patterns relevant to the geographical spot I happen to be in.

      #openvraag If I would try to phrase what such traces would be now, what would my list be? And what channels/tools would one be able to share them in?

    3. be aware of the presence of others geographically nearby for possible chance encounters. In other words to be able to leave as well as pick up many traces that lead to emergent patterns relevant to the geographical spot I happen to be in.

      This still very much so. Although with ubiquity of sharing now, as I hoped for then, I think the probability of chance encounters has actually diminished paradoxically. It's hard to find the right signals in endless algo timelines. I'm more likely to find out someone was in the same spot as me after the fact, than during. Beforehand is mostly impossible these days imo.

    4. That also means that when I am on the road (the hard surfaced ones in the geographical landscape) I don’t want to be cut off from my information landscape in the net. I want to immediately share pictures, get and share info and opinions about the restaurant I am standing in front of wondering whether to have lunch there

      We def got that since this '06 post, but did we get it in the way I intended here? In my 2012 talk https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2012/07/the-power-of-maps-beyond-the-map/ and in slide 31 of https://tonz.nl/foss4gnl/ 2018 I point to a much more socially annotated hyperlocal awareness. Not the generic ratings of coffee places we now get, but the ratings of people known relevant to me. (which doesn't scale, I know: would I rather have specific or no hyperlocal info than generic 'wisdom of crowds" opinions?)

      In https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2012/07/the-power-of-maps-beyond-the-map/ I also mention the different relationship digital 'nomads' are forming to geolocations.

    5. nfoscape is Faster but Catalyst for Geoscape In geographical space I meet people face to face, have drinks, which is great. But my mobility there is limited and time-constrained, slow, and resource-intensive. On the net, I don’t meet people face to face but through digitally mediated channels. But there my mobility is global and instantaneous, and the speed of interaction and change matches much more closely the speed I need to be able to do all the stuff I find relevant. Through the net I arrange the face to face meetings, through the net I decide where to spend my limited time and resources for geographical mobility

      lift out catalyst and infoscape as means towards intentionality (as opposed to timesink and endless scroll that #socmed became) from [[Physical and Information Landscape 20060302150900]]

    6. Information Landscape and Geographical Landscape

      right, already covered this in my notions [[Physical and Information Landscape 20060302150900]]

      I don't mention here the infoscape as overlay, too early I suppose, although Plazes was a start (webprofiles attached to locations). Layer is from 2009?

    7. as I could in 1989 when I first got on-line on a daily basis

      '06 mention of being online since '89.

    8. good guys from Plazes.com

      An example of contactivity itself, my phrasing showing here how I thought of the Plazes team. Felix was at the first BlogWalk I organised spring '04, and showed me early Plazes, then 2005 I met Peter through it in Copenhagen. In 2006 here it's an established part of my 'long list of distributed self' https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2007/10/the_long_list_o/

    9. I’d say more than 80% of my working as well as social life uses internet-channels at some point.

      March 2006, this is pre-FB (oct 06) and pre-Twitter (I used Jaiku at the time, T from dec 06).

      That 80% now easily is 100%m but it sounds right. I think KB/KM Europe (00-02) BlogTalk (03, 04, 06) and Reboot (from 05) made it so, as those contacts were online first. Previous online interaction from '89-'99 was centered on pre-existing contacts and information more I think. From '00 is when [[Contactivity 20051105150458]] rather than connectivity kicked in for me.

    10. For me as travelling consultant, but also as a private citizen, having ubiquitous access to my on-line material is crucial. It is my premier gateway to my social networks as well as my work. When during the move last month we were thrown back to using a 52k dial-in phoneline for a week I felt both blind, deaf and mute.

      I wrote this March 2006, a year before the announcement of the iPhone, and more than two years before the iPhone3G, and it became available first in the Netherlands. When I mention access here, it's not about mobile data (smartphones didn't exist yet), but about internet access in general and wifi in particular.

    1. Saw Chris Aldrich annotate this. The blurb stands out to me: Der angesagteste Denker der Gegenwart erklärt in rasenden Ultimativinterviews, was Liebe, was Kunst, was Politik ist. **Der reinst Anti-Habermas“ (Tempo, Die hundert besten Bücher der 80er Jahre)

    1. It could be that suddenly, more people understood what Michael Polanyi realized back in the 1950

      Also Sveiby on corporate KM starts out from professional's PKM, and tacit K is about half of what Nonaka's about.

      Polyani as pdf in Zotero: zotero://select/library/items/FGEACIKL a 1964 edition of his 1958 text.

    2. reuse of an existing structure for a new function is another thing in common between biological and technological evolution. It is called exaptation

      Also in organisational change, and social learning landscapes. The route to it is often narrative work in the #sc sense I intuit. Detecting the opportunities for it is macroscopic in essence I intuit. [[Macroscope 20090702120700]]

    3. surge in 2020-2022. This would not be the first such jump in the history of PKM tools. Another one occurred during the Renaissance.

      This is an odd jump, ignoring the early digital era (1980s-1990s) which also saw many different tools from Apple cards to Brain, wikis and Tinderbox, Xanadu even before that.

    4. this phenomenon is not reserved for biological species only but also for technological ones

      Technology development may also be described in terms of punctuated equilibria. #openvraag Are S-curves to be seen as punctuated equilibra? Explore * 1997 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227447190_A_Punctuated-Equilibrium_Model_of_Technology_Diffusion * 1990 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006599

    5. bserved, for example, in the evolution of programming languages

      A 2015 paper See zotero://select/library/items/AMCSEP75

    6. The so-called “punctuated equilibrium”, as coined in Eldredge and Gould’s paper of 1972, attracted a lot of research not only by evolutionary biologists but also by complexity scientists

      Seems to be 1977 http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/philbio/readings/gould.eldridge.punceq.1977.pdf

      Punctuated equilibria is a term from paleontology, also reasearched as a concept in complexity science.

      See zotero://select/library/items/AMCSEP75

      Vgl [[Complexiteitsmodel 20031119150531]]

    1. You don’t connect notes as the pinnacle achievement in dealing with knowledge (or at least should not, because it is an insult to your potential). You should go way deeper. To make sure that you go as deep as you can, you should try to actually create something. Create (knowledge) tools you want to use. If you process a book, an article or whatever, ask yourself what tools you (or perhaps your clients) need. Then you marry the two concepts, Depth of Processing and Value Creation, properly. The depth is the necessary condition to create something valuable. You notice if you hit the threshold of proper depth of processing when you have created something of value.

      List/explore this in [[Maak machientjes in je PKM 20230304092406]]

    1. Perhaps it’s not a force for good at all. Alex Shephard @alex_shephard

      The irony of still signing with your Twitter handle a piece about the demise of it. The entire thing in a nutshell. I have stopped mentioning my single remaining Twitter account as contact details on anything. My site, mail and Mastodon in that order I always mention.

    2. It’s likely that some facsimile of Twitter will exist, far into the future. But a seismic shift in how the platform is perceived has occurred. If it isn’t good for breaking news, then what good is it? Perhaps it’s not a force for good at all.

      This is the cycle that made Twitter. Real time developments, and another was the interaction/access dynamic between politicians and journalists. A very visible sign of that cycle breaking, the utility in a developing crisis/event nullified, is I think a good canary. Because in practice the amount of non-human content, trollfarming on top of the actually low user numbers mean that its heyday reputation was already no longer rightfully worn. I wonder how long the public perception of that cycle existing will lag behind the actuality of it no longer being there.

    1. Nieuwe Europese wetgeving verplicht organisaties om periodiek te rapporteren over de loonkloof. De bewijslast voor gelijk loon komt bij de werkgever te liggen. Het loongeheim wordt verboden en werkgevers mogen niet meer naar het laatste salaris vragen.

      Welke wet is dit? Richtlijn of verordening? Richtlijn: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023L0970 aangenomen mei 2023, 7 juni 2026 moet het in NL wetgeving zijn omgezet. NL zal hier ook wel traag mee zijn. - rapportage over loonkloof - gelijk loon bewijslast bij werkgever - loongeheim verboden, dwz loon transparant - bij sollicitatie vorig loon geen orientatiepunt

      Bij ons is dit al, behalve de rapportage.

    1. Meta reported to switch payments for tracking in EU, as a way around GDPR issues w tracking. Based on EUCJ verdict in which it was mentioned as an aside. NOYB says this has been previously allowed at media-sites. Imo it was backward then, because it retains the fiction that advertising is only possible with tracking, which is false.

  3. Sep 2023
    1. https://web.archive.org/web/20230930153114/https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act

      ia writer and their positive take on the EU DMA from their business perspective. Then again, they actually read the thing which most others don't seem to have done. No mention though of the connection to the DSA, AIR or GDPR who all 4 together mean a lot more than each individually.

    1. "I had to stand up and create the sub-category for my work because others could not get it right. Creating a space is better than trying to fit into a space that was never made for you. I don't do erasure. #Africanfuturism #Africanjujuism " says author Nnedi Okorafor. Here 5 authors who coined their own subgenres https://bookriot.com/authors-who-coined-their-own-sub-genres/ e.g. hopepunk, silkpunk, barrio noir, quozy mystery and Okorafor's two.

      Creating a space has harmonics with [[It’s More Logical to Host an Event Than Attend One – Interdependent Thoughts 20210309093335]] and esp Rorty's [[Is het nieuwe uit te leggen in taal van het oude 20031104104340]], labeling your own thing / making a space / creating new language as an act of agency

    1. Toch lijkt het enthousiasme van Nederland voor OGP beperkt. Waar andere landen delegaties van tientallen leden stuurden en sommige landen ministers afvaardigden, stak Nederland mager af met een officiële delegatie van drie mensen (inclusief Open State Foundation).

      Al zal ook de demissionaire status meebepaald hebben.

    1. https://www.filosofieinactie.nl/blog/2023/9/5/open-source-large-language-models-an-ethical-reflection (archive version not working) Follow-up wrt openness of LLMs, after the publication of the inteprovincial ethics committee on ChatGPT usage within provincial public sector in NL. At the end mentions the work by Radboud Uni I pointed them to. What are their conclusions / propositions?

  4. Aug 2023
    1. Energiehaven wil netbeheerders beter informeren met Data Safe House

      Vraag is wat link is met dataspaces. En welke? Energy? GD? Link met DA/DGA

    2. Het is een afsprakenstelsel, inclusief een platform waarop industriële bedrijven uit het Rotterdamse havengebied datasets over energiedragers uit hun vertrouwelijke investeringsplannen veilig met netbeheerders kunnen delen,

      afsprakenstelsel leidend kennelijk, dan technisch platform.

    3. Daarom is het Data Safe House een stichting, zonder winstoogmerk, waarmee deelnemende partijen overeenkomsten aangaan’.

      Link met data-altruisme te maken?

    1. Marco over Tiago's boek. Vind de vele nieuwe acroniemen voor methoden en taktiekjes die al heel oud zijn onnodig, en mis het historisch besef bij Forte (en Milo et al). Vgl [[Transcript digitale fitheid Tiago Forte]]. en [[BASB Building a second brain 20200929164524]]

    1. After running the tests, I ended up with six profiles (three cached, three uncached). I’ve made those public, and you can find links to them below. First up, here’s a TL;DR of the key findings:Across all tests, loading the WebP page had the lowest energy consumption.Across all tests, loading the AVIF page had the highest energy consumption.JPEG was close to WebP in most tests.The uncached tests are fairly consistent. Testing when images are cached, however, has some wild variability. More testing is probably needed there.

      Fershad Irani looked at power consumption of images in websites. WebP came out on top (to his surprise) and JPG close. By the looks of it this is power consumption on the browser side. I suppose on the server side, power correlates with file size. The files used has JPG at 3.5 times WebP and 6 times Avif. Is webp / avif optimised for file compression (faster transmission) and less for rendering time? Does that explain the diff between Avif and Webp? All in all no biggie to stick with jpg it seems, except for choosing lowest suitable filesizes (percentwise webp would then achieve less optimisation on the transmission side)

      via Heinz .h feed.

    1. The more I learn about her recent activities, however, the less I am able to accept the premise of these questions. They imply that when she went over the edge, she crashed to the ground. A more accurate description is that Wolf marched over the edge and was promptly caught in the arms of millions of people who agree with every one of her extraordinary theories without question, and who appear to adore her. So, while she clearly has lost what I may define as “it”, she has found a great deal more – she has found a whole new world, one I have come to think of as the Mirror World.

      Down the rabbithole there's Mirror World, with its own rewards and sense of community and being welcomed. Vgl conspiracy fantasy as giving you a better position above your environment (I know more, how it really is) and how that gives you standing amongst conspiracy peers.

    2. Conspiracies have always swirled in times of crisis – but never before have they been a booming industry in their own right.

      conspiracy fantasies as genre, as business model and industry (the conpiracy industrial complex as moniker to describe the graph of media outlets, media personalities and network of grifters around them?)

    3. In practice, this squared virality meant that if you put out the right kind of pandemic-themed content – flagged with the right mix-and-match of keywords and hashtags (“Great Reset”, “WEF”, “Bill Gates”, “Fascism”, “Fauci”, “Pfizer”) and headlined with tabloid-style teasers (“The Leaders Colluding to Make Us Powerless”, “What They Don’t Want You to Know About”, “Shocking Details Revealed”, “Bill Gates Said WHAT?!?”) – you could catch a digital magic-carpet ride that would make all previous experiences of virality seem leaden in comparison.

      The global attention to Covid meant an easy way to clout by attaching other stuff.

    4. And nothing had ever been nearly so hot, so potentially clout-rich, as Covid-19. We all know why. It was global. It was synchronous. We were digitally connected, talking about the same thing for weeks, months, years, and on the same global platforms. As Steven W Thrasher writes in The Viral Underclass, Covid-19 marked “the first viral pandemic also to be experienced via viral stories on social media”, creating “a kind of squared virality”.

      Reminds of when tv shows were the talk of the town the next morning: everyone had seen it. You knew others had seen it, because there was just the two channels. It was a communally binding thing this talking about it. Media splintered, our interaction splintered, became diffuse. Covid centered everyones attention on a single thing. Globally, synchronous, on specific platforms, not just in the abstract but with individual's stories through our digital connections. Vgl [[Schaal van aandacht splitst 20210222161155]] wrt attention diffusion, Covid undid the diffusion.

    5. Because what Wolf turned into over the past decade is something very specific to our time: a clout chaser. Clout is the values-free currency of the always-online age – both a substitute for hard cash as well as a conduit to it. Clout is a calculus not of what you do, but of how much bulk you-ness there is in the world. You get clout by playing the victim. You get clout by victimizing others. This is something that is understood by the left and the right. If influence sways, clout squats, taking up space for its own sake.

      'clout chaser' nice parallel to cloud chaser. Clout as volume of your online engagement, and is a thing in itself, clout is the aim of the work. Conspiracy fantasies a means towards clout.

    6. The big misinformation players may be chasing clout, but plenty of people believe their terrifying stories

      clout as metric/currency. Klein's assumption seems to be that the arsonists don't believe their own stuff just see it as business. Those on the outside are always wondering though if that is the case? Maybe they know they are embellishing but perhaps also gradually falling for their own stuff as it seems to follow a predictable path further down the rabbithole. Do they catch up with their own BS over time? Or is it full on cynicism as on display w Bannon and the school shootings in the defamation case?

    7. Wolf is getting everything she once had and lost – attention, respect, money, power. Just through a warped mirror

      Lost in the early 2010s, refound a decade later indeed. Vindication, like she was always right all along.

    8. At the extreme end, diagonal movements share a conviction that all power is conspiracy.

      The sad thing is that isn't even extremely wrong. All power should be viewed with suspicion and have actively enforced limits. All organisations, initially merely a tool for structuring and collaboration, begin to work to perpetuate themselves (leading to vgl [[Corporations as Slow AI 20180201210258]]), all power seeks to sustain if not extend itself.

    9. If the claims are coming from the far right, the covert plan is for a green/socialist/no-borders/Soros/forced-vaccine dictatorship, while the new agers warn of a big pharma/GMO/biometric-implant/5G/robot-dog/forced-vaccine dictatorship. With the exception of the Covid-related refresh, the conspiracies that are part of this political convergence are not new – most have been around for decades, and some are ancient blood libels. What’s new is the force of the magnetic pull with which they are finding one another, self-assembling into what the Vice reporter Anna Merlan has termed a “conspiracy singularity”.

      "Conspiracy singularity", ha! Note the two groupings of far right and 'new age' elements, and how they mix, with 'forced vaccine' the linking pin.

    10. couple of months earlier, Wolf had released a video claiming that those vaccine-verification apps so many of us downloaded represented a plot to institute “slavery for ever”. The apps would usher in a “CCP-style social credit score system” in “the West”, she said

      Same here in NL All temporary instruments would be permanent they said. None of them ever talks about that that didn't happen. They moved on to the rear-guard fight of how all deaths were not Covid but the vaccines or Ukraine biolabs or climate hoax etc. None also notice the pattern of how very different topics end up at the same side of the rabbithole divide.

    11. https://web.archive.org/web/20230827073249/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/aug/26/naomi-klein-naomi-wolf-conspiracy-theories

      Also fully downloaded to [[The Other Naomi 20230827093013]]

      I at some point during the pandemic mistook Wolf for Klein too (same first name, fuzzy notion of last name other than it being short) and remember mentioning it to E as a sad shift (which in both cases is/would be true). Note that Wolf according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf landed in the rabbithole a decade before the pandemic. Difference as Klein points out is that it in the mean time became an industry Wolf could be successful in where a decade ago it meant her dropping from previous high reputation.

    1. Brander and Joel started building Subconscious, a local-first decentralized note-taking app. They began with the protocol that would power the app - Noosphere. Noosphere is permissionless and open source, like HTTP or IMAP; anyone can build on top of it

      If this is a 'return to the web' as stated then why a new protocol? The web already has its protocols. Creating your own for your app and saying well if the app goes the protocol is still there for you to build your own is exactly what silo's like Evernote also did (there's always our own xml-based export format, you're not locked in, and they actually are not wrong).

    2. Furthermore, since these centralized apps are walled gardens, your friends and connections are left behind, leaving you missing out on the social aspect of shared note-taking.But the web wasn't always this way.

      Non sequitur: centralised apps <> the web. Evernote isn't on the 'web', Notes idem, Obsidian idem. The step to 'friends and connections' is a sudden thing thrown in. It's not a given you would want 'social' affordances for your notes.

    1. Sortes Vergilianae: taking random quotes from Vergilius and interpret their meaning either as prediction or as advice. The latter as a trigger for self reflection makes it a #leeswijze #reading manner that is non-linear

      Vgl. [[Skillful reading is generally non-linear 20210303154148]]

      St. Antonius (of Egypt, 3rd century) is said to have read the bible this way (sortes sanctorum it's called if you use it for divination), and Augustinus followed that thus picking up Paul's letter to the Romans and getting converted in the 4th century.

      Is this ripping up of the text into isolated paragraphs to access and read a text an early input into commonplace books and florilegia? As a gathering of such things?

      Mentioned in [[Information edited by Ann Blair]] in lemma 'Readers' p730.

    1. Roland Barthes (1915-1980, France, literary critic/theorist) declared the death of the author (in English in 1967 and in French a year later). An author's intentions and biography are not the means to explain definitively what the meaning of a (fictional I think) text is. [[Observator geeft betekenis 20210417124703]] dwz de lezer bepaalt.

      Barthes reduceert auteur to de scribent, die niet verder bestaat dan m.b.t. de voortbrenging van de tekst. Het werk staat geheel los van de maker. Kwam het tegen in [[Information edited by Ann Blair]] in lemma over de Reader.

      Don't disagree with the notion that readers glean meaning in layers from a text that the author not intended. But thinking about the author's intent is one of those layers. Separating the author from their work entirely is cutting yourself of from one source of potential meaning.

      In [[Generative AI detectie doe je met context 20230407085245]] I posit that seeing the author through the text is a neccesity as proof of human creation, not #algogen My point there is that there's only a scriptor and no author who's own meaning, intention and existence becomes visible in a text.

    1. https://www.agconnect.nl/tech-en-toekomst/artificial-intelligence/liquid-neural-networks-in-ai-is-groter-niet-altijd-beter Liquid Neural Networks (liquid i.e. the nodes in a neuronal network remain flexible and adaptable after training (different from deep learning and LL models). They are also smaller. This improves explainability of its working. This reduces energy consumption (#openvraag is the energy consumption of usage a concern or rather the training? here it reduces the usage energy)

      Number of nodes reduction can be orders of magnitude. Autonomous steering example talks about 4 orders of magnitude (19 versus 100k nodes)

      Mainly useful for data streams like audio/video, real time data from meteo / mobility sensors. Applications in areas with limited energy (battery usage) and real time data inputs.

    1. https://web.archive.org/web/20230822131150/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02600-x I wondered about this EU brain modelling project, as I came across it in a book from the 2010s announcing it. A quick google didn't give me much. Also see paper refs at end.

    1. Project that is the EU part of iBOL, the international barcode of life consortium. A DNA base of life forms. Asked them if they are in touch w any citizen science groups in NL.

    1. Dr Christina Lynggaard, Molecular Ecology and Evolution. Does eDNA Profile lists a number of additional publications on this topic.

    1. We provide evidence for the spatial movement and temporal patterns of airborne eDNA and for the influence of weather conditions on vertebrate detections. This study demonstrates airborne eDNA for high-resolution biomonitoring of vertebrates in terrestrial systems and elucidates its potential to guide global nature management and conservation efforts in the ongoing biodiversity crisis.

      eDNA not just useful for presence detection but also for movement across space and time.

    1. https://ecoevo.social/@biodiversity/110790626800847007

      Dr Christina Lynggaard, University of Copenhagen, shows an air sampler for DNA. eDNA as a way to do species observation.

    1. eDNA sampling is dna sampled from the environment, not from organisms. Can be sampled from air. Do I know of eDNA citizen science projects?

    1. [[Information edited by Ann Blair]] bought #2023/08/19 in Groningen at Godert Walter

    1. It should be trivially easy to create a new Activity, and it ought to be possible to create such a workspace even when you’re part-way into already doing the thing. This is a common, frequent need: While working on something (or playing games, reading news,…) I get an email/call from a contact wherein they ask me for some insight into how I might be able to help them. My context has switched, though my PC doesn’t know it yet. I send them an email, some links, documents and so on, some to-and-fro happens via several channels, and suddenly I find myself in the midst of a new Acivity that already has some history. I need a way to hotkey a new Project and say to it, “And include these existing artefacts, the links between them, and their history and provenance.”

      One is usually not aware of a new project (as a set of activities) starting, only some time after you have started do you realise it is a project. Meaning that 'starting' a project in your (pkm) system, always includes a bit of existing history. Starting templates / sequences (like making folder structures etc) should incorporate that existing brief history.

      I recognise this, but this description also seems to assume that a project starts in a sort-of vacuum without pre-existing context and notes, until you creat the first few steps before realising it is indeed a project. Having an established note making routine (day logs, etc whatever) means projects are emergent out of ongoing activity, out of an existing ratcheting effect. Vgl [[Vastklik notes als ratchet zonder terugval 20220302102702]] Meaning you can always point back to existing notes, tracing the evolution of something into a project. That can be covered by a few pointers/fields/tags in a new project's template.

    1. The original accident is een concept van de Franse filosoof Paul Virilio, waarmee hij waarschuwt voor de onbedoelde gevolgen van technologische ontwikkeling. Uiteindelijk stuit elke technologie op een grens waardoor er een ongeval zal ontstaan, zo stelt hij. Daarmee leren we wat er verbeterd moet worden. Tegelijkertijd maakte hij zich steeds meer zorgen over de onbeheersbaarheid van technologische vooruitgang. Stevenen we af op een doomsday?

      Original accident: elke tech heeft een onbedoeld gevolg, en dat leidt uiteindelijk tot een 'ongeval'. zo leer je meer over het wezen van die tech, en wat er verbeterd moet worden. Virilio vreest kennelijk dat huidige tech dev tempo te hard is om dat proces beheersbaar te laten verlopen.

      https://anarch.cc/uploads/paul-virilio/the-original-accident.pdf

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Virilio

      "Accidents reveal the substance"

    1. “historical method” laid out by Ernst Bernheim and later Seignobos/Langlois in the late 1800s.

      [[Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie by Ernst Bernheim]] 1889 https://archive.org/details/lehrbuchderhist03berngoog/mode/1up (1908)

      See also https://philarchive.org/archive/ASSSOH-2 Arthur Alfaix Assis, Schemes of Historical Method in the Late 19th Century pp105-125 in Contributions to Theory and Comparative History of Histiography, German and Brazilian perspectives, by eds Luiz Estevam de Oilveira Fernandes, Luísa Rauter Pereira and Sérgio da Mata

    1. Thomas Stoffregen and his team

      The virtual reality head-mounted display Oculus Rift induces motion sickness and is sexist in its effects https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27915367/ Downloaded to Zotero

    2. I tracked down military reports about gender bias in simulator sickness, much of which dated back to the 1960s

      in the 1960s the US military had reports on gender bias wrt simulator sickness. (Such simulators would likely have been more of the physical (rotation, speeds etc.) than virtual (screens / vr))

    3. This led me to run a series of psych experiments where my data suggested that people’s ability to be able to navigate 3D VR seems to be correlated with the dominance of certain sex hormones in their system. Folks with high levels of estrogen and low levels of testosterone – many of whom would identify as women – were more likely to get nauseous navigating VR than those who have high levels of testosterone streaming through their body. What was even stranger was that changes to hormonal levels appeared to shape how people respond to these environments.

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

    4. 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]]

    1. Unlike 20 years ago, the people poised to be early adopters today are those who are most toxic, those who get pleasure from making others miserable. This means that the rollout has to be carefully nurtured

      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.

    2. I should note that blitzscaling is not the only approach we’re seeing right now. The other (and I would argue wiser) approach to managing dense network formation is through invitation-based mechanisms. Heighten the desire, the FOMO, make participating feel special. Actively nurture the network. When done well, this can get people to go deeper in their participation, to form community.

      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]]

    3. context collapse, a term that Alice Marwick and I coined long ago

      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?

    4. Cuz that’s the thing about social media. For people to devote their time and energy to helping enable vibrancy, they have to gain something from it. Something that makes them feel enriched and whole, something that gives them pleasure (even if at someone else’s pain). Social media doesn’t come to life through military tactics. It comes to life because people devote their energies into making it vibrant for those that are around them. And this ripples through networks.

      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)

  5. Jul 2023
    1. 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.

    1. I work in marketing, for my sins. This is mostly why I’m so entirely down on the marketing industry and many of the people who work in it. I also happen to have an MSc in psychology – actual psychology! – with a focus on behaviour change. On day 1 of your class about behaviour change in a science course, you learn that behaviour change is not a simple matter of information in, behaviour out. Human behaviour, and changing it, is big and complex. Meanwhile, on your marketing courses, which I have had the misfortune to attend, the model of changing behaviour is pretty much this: information in, behaviour out.

      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.

  6. Jun 2023
    1. 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?

    1. 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.

    1. Social software tools are all smaller than us, we control them individually

      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]]

    1. 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

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. In an ever more unequal world, it is perhaps not surprising that we are splitting into news haves and have-nots. Those who can afford and are motivated to pay for subscriptions to access high-quality news have a wealth of choices: newspapers such as The Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times compete for their business, along with magazines such as The New Yorker and The Atlantic. Niche subscription news products serving elite audiences are also thriving and attracting investment — publications like Punchbowl News, Puck and Air Mail. The people who subscribe to these publications tend to be affluent and educated.It bodes ill for our democracy that those who cannot pay — or choose not to — are left with whatever our broken information ecosystem manages to serve up, a crazy quilt that includes television news of diminishing ambition, social media, aggregation sites, partisan news and talk radio. Yes, a few ambitious nonprofit journalism outlets and quality digital news organizations remain, but they are hanging on by their fingernails. Some news organizations are experimenting with A.I.-generated news, which could make articles reported and written by actual human beings another bauble for the Air Mail set, along with Loro Piana loafers and silk coats from the Row.

      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?

    1. 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

    1. I don’t think we have them, except piecemeal and by chance, or through the grace of socially gifted moderators and community leads who patch bad product design with their own EQ

      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]]

    2. All this unmobilized love

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

    3. But we also need new generations of user-accountable institutions to realize the potential of new tech tools—which loops back to what I think Holgren was writing toward on Bluesky. I think it’s at the institutional and constitutional levels that healthier and more life-enhancing big-world tools and places for community and sociability will emerge—and are already emerging

      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.

    4. I’ll be speaking with and writing about people working on some of the tools and communities that I think help point ways forward—and with people who’ve built fruitful, immediately useful theories and practices

      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?

    5. The big promise of federated social tools is neither Mastodon (or Calckey or any of the other things I’ve seen yet) nor the single-server Bluesky beta—it’s new things built in new ways that use protocols like AT and ActivityPub to interact with the big world.

      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.

    6. we’ve seen weirdly little experimentation with social forms at scale

      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.

    7. Where are the networks that deeply in their bones understand hospitality vs. performance, safe-to vs. safe-from, double-edged visibility, thresholds vs. hearths, gifts vs. barter, bystanders vs. safety-builders, even something as foundational as power differentials?

      yes!

    8. Even most of the emergent gestures in our interfaces are tweaks on tech-first features—@ symbols push Twitter to implement threading, hyperlinks eventually get automated into retweets, quote-tweets go on TikTok and become duets. “Swipe left to discard a person” is one of a handful of new gestures, and it’s ten years old.

      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]]

    9. 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

    1. 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

    2. As the EU heads toward significant AI regulation, Altman recently suggested such regulation might force his company to pull out of Europe. The proposed EU regulation, of course, is focused on copyright protection, privacy rights, and suggests a ban on certain uses of AI, particularly in policing — all concerns of the present day. That reality turns out to be much harder for AI proponents to confront than some speculative future

      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.

    3. In 2010, Paul Dourish and Genevieve Bell wrote a book about tech innovation that described the way technologists fixate on the “proximate future” — a future that exists “just around the corner.” The authors, one a computer scientist, and the other a tech industry veteran, were examining emerging tech developments in “ubiquitous computing,” which promised that the sensors, mobile devices, and tiny computers embedded in our surroundings would lead to ease, efficiency, and general quality of life. Dourish and Bell argue that this future focus distracts us from the present while also absolving technologists of responsibility for the here and now.

      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.

    4. Looking to the “proximate future,” even one as dark and worrying as AI’s imagined existential threat, has some strategic value to those with interests and investments in the AI business: It creates urgency, but is ultimately unfalsifiable.

      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.

    5. Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.

      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.

    1. 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.

    1. [[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.

    1. We are nowhere near having a self-driving cars on our roads, which confirms that we are nowhere near AGI.

      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]]

  7. May 2023
    1. 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

    1. 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)

    1. 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?

    1. Chatti notes that Connectivism misses some concepts, which are crucial for learning, such as reflection, learning from failures, error detection and correction, and inquiry. He introduces the Learning as a Network (LaaN) theory which builds upon connectivism, complexity theory, and double-loop learning. LaaN starts from the learner and views learning as the continuous creation of a personal knowledge network (PKN).[18]

      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)

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. This simple approach to avoiding bad decisions is an example of second-level thinking. Instead of going for the most immediate, obvious, comfortable decision, using your future regrets as a tool for thought is a way to ensure you consider the potential negative outcomes.

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

    2. This visualisation technique can be used for small and big decisions alike. Thinking of eating that extra piece of cake? Walk yourself through the likely thoughts of your future self. Want to spend a large sum of money on a piece of tech you’re not sure yet how you will use? Think about how your future self will feel about the decision

      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).

    3. Instead of letting your present self make the decision on their own, ignoring the experience of your future self who will need to deal with the consequences later, turn the one-way decision process into a conversation between your present and future self.

      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.

    4. Bring your future self in the decision-making process

      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.

    5. In-the-moment decisions have a compound effect: while each of them doesn’t feel like a big deal, they add up overtime.

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

    6. temporal discounting. The further in the future the consequences, the least we pay attention to them

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

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

    1. 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.

    1. 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 .....

    1. Where are the thinkers who always have “a living community before their eyes”?

      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?

    2. For intellectuals of this sort, even when they were writing learned tomes in the solitude of their studies, there was always a living community before their eyes

      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/

    1. Another downside to using Gutenberg’s sidebar panels is that, as long as I want to keep supporting the classic editor, I’ve basically got to maintain two copies of the same code, one in PHP and another in JavaScript.

      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.

    1. 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

    1. 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?

    1. 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).

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

    1. 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?)

    1. 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)

    1. I have decided that the most efficient way to develop a note taking system isn’t to start at the beginning, but to start at the end. What this means, is simply to think about what the notes are going to be used for

      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.

    2. seriously considering moving my research into a different app, or vault to keep it segregated from the slip box

      ? 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.

    1. Kate Darling wrote a great book called The New Breed where she argues we should think of robots as animals – as a companion species who compliments our skills. I think this approach easily extends to language models.

      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]]

    2. Language models are very good at some things humans are not good at, such as search and discovery, role-playing identities/characters, rapidly organising and synthesising huge amounts of data, and turning fuzzy natural language inputs into structured computational outputs.And humans are good at many things models are bad at, such as checking claims against physical reality, long-term memory and coherence, embodied knowledge, understanding social contexts, and having emotional intelligence.So we should use models to do things we can’t do, not things we’re quite good at and happy doing. We should leverage the best of both kinds of “minds.”

      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!

    3. Making these models smaller and more specialised would also allow us to run them on local devices instead of relying on access via large corporations.

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

    4. They're just interim artefacts in our thinking and research process.

      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]]

    5. One alternate approach is to start with our own curated datasets we trust. These could be repositories of published scientific papers, our own personal notes, or public databases like Wikipedia.We can then run many small specialised model tasks over them.

      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.

    6. The question I want everyone to leave with is which of these possible futures would you like to make happen? Or not make happen?
      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)

    7. A more ideal form of this is the human and the AI agent are collaborative partners doing things together. These are often called human-in-the-loop systems.

      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.

    8. I’m on Twitter @mappletonsI’m sure lots of people think I’ve said at least one utterly sacrilegious and misguided thing in this talk.You can go try to main character me while Twitter is still a thing.

      Ha! :D

    9. I tried to come up with three snappy principles for building products with language models. I expect these to evolve over time, but this is my first passFirst, protect human agency. Second, treat models as reasoning engines, not sources of truth And third, augment cognitive abilities rather than replace them.

      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)

    10. At this point I should make clear generative AI is not the destructive force here. The way we’re choosing to deploy it in the world is. The product decisions that expand the dark forestness of the web are the problem.So if you are working on a tool that enables people to churn out large volumes of text without fact-checking, reflection, and critical thinking. And then publish it to every platform in parallel... please god, stop.So what should you be building instead?

      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?

    11. We will eventually find it absurd that anyone would browse the “raw web” without their personal model filtering it.

      yes, it already is that way in effect.

    12. In the same way, very few of us would voluntarily browse the dark web. We’re quite sure we don’t want to know what’s on it.

      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.

    13. We will have to design this very carefully, or it'll give a whole new meaning to filter bubbles.

      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]]

    14. I expect these to be baked into browsers or at the OS level.These specialised models will help us identify generated content (if possible), debunk claims, flag misinformation, hunt down sources for us, curate and suggest content, and ideally solve our discovery and search problems.

      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]]

    15. Those were all a bit negative but there is some hope in this future.We can certainly fight fire with fire.I think it’s reasonable to assume we’ll each have a set of personal language models helping us filter and manage information on the web

      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]]

    16. People will move back to cities and densely populated areas. In-person events will become preferable.

      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.

    17. Once two people, they can confirm the humanity of everyone else they've met IRL. Two people who know each of these people can confirm each other's humanity because of this trust network.

      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)

    18. As we start to doubt all “people” online, the only way to confirm humanity is to meet offline over coffee or a drink.

      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.

    19. Next, we have the meatspace premium.We will begin to preference offline-first interactions. Or as I like to call them, meatspace interactions.

      meat-space premium, chuckle.

    20. study done this past December to get a sense of how possible this is: Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers" – Catherine Gao, et al. (2022)Blinded human reviewers were given a mix of real paper abstracts and ChatGPT-generated abstracts for submission to 5 of the highest-impact medical journals.

      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.

    21. Takes the replication crisis to a whole new level.Just because words are published in journals does not make them true.

      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.