Asimov 3 rules as the final policy when making decisions should sort this problem out. This assumes that the rules cannot be changed by the AI.
878 karma · joined June 10, 2008
War (Noun) " - a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
- a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end
- a struggle to achieve a goal: War (Verb): " - to be in active or vigorous conflict
- to carry on active hostility or contention
"
The point still stands. War is an isomorphism for competition, conflict and tension between parties. One could probably use something like category theory and prove it.
References:
“Facebook is the most powerful private entity on the earth right now, far more powerful than most nation states”
Op did not clarify his reasoning. Though I have thought about this and here are mine.
If strip down a “nation state” to its bare essence, it is an idea. Lines drawn on a map, and symbols(flags, anthems etc). Add in the government directing education, and we end up with masses that can be influenced to behave in specific ways. i.e socialisation and sense of identity.
Now, we know that government plays a significant part in the country and in the world.
Now let’s consider FB. FB has by far the largest network of people that are connected in one massive network. I suspect Information (memes) could spread much faster on Fb, Whatsapp and insta than they could prior to these. Even email was never as fast. Since FB has control of the network without over sight on the algorithms and filtering, they wield significant power to shape global conversations. Shaping global conversations fundamentally can lead to over throwing of leaders with out ever a bullet being shot, it could lead to genocide, nationalism etc etc.
It’s no surprise that the EU is on high alert.
Edit: I think this requires more exploring. This is fundamentally a war against a new form of influence & control of masses of people.
See previous wars: religion vs state, state vs monarchy etc etc.
Has anyone considered this perspective before? Would appreciate any links
“This is hyperbole at best. Facebook does not have an army”
Op was pointing out that power != war with guns
“Facebook is the most powerful private entity on the earth right now”
The comment was how power could be achieved via other methods of warfare-including the ability to shape conversations.
Another word for this would be competition. He has a point.
1. Diverse views 2. Confidence to speak 3. candor and honesty 4. agency
Having said that there needs to be a minimum amount of agreement on some values/principles/philosophy.
Without agreement on this you end up in chaos. What you want is to keep culture at the “edge of chaos” [0]. Also have a look at the adaptive cycle [1] and diversity in perspectives.
I had a long debate with an accountant, regarding what I should primarily manage. Being bootstrapped I mostly manage cash-flow and made the mistake of saying “profit is made up”. That got him real worked up.
My point was we derive profit. The actual transactions are in the cash-flow statement which does not lie.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19835208
I have a much larger set of resources. If others would be keen i could structure and categorize it and post it.
What you actually want is a network graph of concepts and notes. This will let you see relationships.
1. Figure out people’s political leanings via their data
2. Figure out target networks to influence
3. Plant influencers
Have watched the videos. I had not realised the media in the USA was that localised and co-ordinated. Initially thought it was some kind of prank/joke between the stations. With this level of co-ordination and functioning a specific (untrue) narrative could be spun. One could even a/b test and see what has the most desired effects.
Chilling. The question then becomes: What narrative is being spun? Who does it benefit? Who does it disadvantage?
It went something like this:
“We are now ‘agile’
Ok what are all the cool agile dev ops companies using?
Aha Jira&Slack. Ok let’s use that”
From there it gets even more crazy. The tools get included as a standard question for evaluating vendors on RFP’s. Vendors that use a similar toolset are rated more highly.
When you question why. The response is along the lines of:
“Oh if they are using Jira/slack/other tool, it must be an agile/dev ops/chat ops shop”
Put another way sometimes these tools end up being used as a “signal” to others rather than intrinsic value. The value is in the signalling, driven by social proof.
If one can pull this of when marketing your product you have a win. Effectively you have associated a movement (I.e agile) with your product (I.e Jira). So the buy decision is driven by the need to show they are doing {x}.
There must be some basis Of this and reading on how this is done? The broad topic would be marketing but what specifically?
Notes:
* This is merely an observation. I am not judging the accuracy of the statement that using a specific product = demonstrating some property.
These associations may not be applicable in all markets and I have seen them change over time.
Interestingly some believe this focus on goals vs just being, is a function of our schooling system. Kids who grow up without formal schooling , function more in “being” orientation vs “doing” orientation.
Personally I Design my life to balance between being and doing. I use a model [0] to map out the important things to me, and review it regularly.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8q5bhuawv1ox101/Balance-template.j...
Do we need AI engineers passing laws or training courses for politicians?
Can the AI be treated like a black box [0] and the regulation still be effective?
I think in some cases the answer would be yes. A simple thought experiment demonstrates this.
Example: Consider regulation for AI in relation to job losses. Does one need to know the details of AI tech to develop regulation effectively? I would argue not.
The economic impacts can be analysed. At some tipping point, job losses Lead to a cycle of:
reduced demand -> reduced Revenue in companies -> reductions in jobs -> reduced demand and so on and on.
To regulate this, one would have to model the economic impacts as best as one could. Understand what jobs are most likely to be lost, in which industries. Understand the key things to monitor (I.e replacement job rate. Assuming jobs are created in other industries). And pass regulation to mitigate some of the risks or make sure the number of Job losses never hit the tipping point. None of these items leads me to believe the person passing the regulation requires knowledge of AI at an engineers level.
There is the Conant-Ashby Theorem or good regulator theory [1]. This states “Every good regulator of the system must be a model of the system” [2]
In this instance the regulation is to deal with ECONOMIC impacts. Therefore an economic model is needed, while impacted by the tech the tech does not need to be modelled. Thus my conclusion.
This poses an interesting question, could all eventualities be catered for in the regulation? There is other theories that could help us answer this question.
Happy to hear different or contradictory views.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box#Other_theories
Still searching for a better solution for annotations + referencing. I use zotero and the highlights app at the moment.
"No reflection, no relevant context, no mirror provided by an intimate knowledge of history or literature ... just nothing." These are things important to you, and it is perfectly fine to make this choice on who to associate with. Realise it is a choice, and this does not mean other values are less "important"
2. Realise, that it is impossible for each person to have complete knowledge. We are limited in what we can know and do. Therefore knowledge is distributed. If knowledge is distributed, every single person could have some gift to provide the world (and you) based on their own unique circumstance and history.
The question then becomes: are you paying attention? and is it relevant?
"The use of knowledge in society" written in 1945, makes a compelling case for the distribution of knowledge in society:
some of the comments I have read below are about “what to do” to increase confidence.
While these are super useful, they are most likely a bandaid, with a scar that never heals. I have come to learn this lesson myself.
There is the “generic” advice that you will find all over the blogospheres “exercise, meditate, take up a sport etc. ” I tried it all. It works up to an extent. But does not really help you generate true self confidence (IMHO).
What I am going to discuss below is not generic(I.e exercise). It is a process you could use that will answer some key questions and is fully customised to you.
Some warnings/tips first:
- This process is super difficult.
- Effectively you have to confront or re-live some of your most difficult memories
- You will initially feel like you aren’t making progress Stick with it
- do not do this if you believe you have serious psychological issues
- have someone you can talk to about this, a friend or confident who could help you make sense of it
- speak to your family(Brothers, sisters, parents ) as well. They could help you Clarify details and lend support .
-This Process has worked for me as mentioned above
- Also note this is a never ending journey. You will always discover ways to improve.
- It’s the first time I am actually writing it down. I use this process as more of a heuristic rather than an algorithm. Take what you need and modify as needed.
So the main question is, based on yours is:
how does one develop a sense of true-self confidence?
The process:
1. Start with a question, as you have.
2. Then reframe the question: ask Why am I.... x
I.e why am I not confident?
3. Start journaling, log and reflect on the times you feel like this. The “why am I...” questions to ask: who, what, where, when, how?
4. Pay attention to your thoughts at these times. Pay attention to your body and how your fee in it. Jot them down. Do this for a few weeks.
5. This is critical: Reflect on your history as far back as you can go. Note down major life incidents, good, bad, Conflicts etc. I prefer to do this visually creating a timeline. Then mapping events, what i thought at the time, who was involved etc. Similar to the questions in your journal.
6. Review your journals/notes and timeline. Look for a link between your history and your triggers/thoughts/feelings/fears
7. Speak to others involved in key incidents. What was going on, how did they see the situation? Is it similar to how you have seen it. What do they remember? Note these down. How did you feel?
8. The key question you want answers for when reviewing your timeline and journals is: What in my past is influencing my behaviour and actions today?
In other words review your timeline and then link to your notes, journal.
I am almost certain you will find it in this process.
If anyone has questions ping Me on email. If this is useful and you get value. Let me know once you have been through it.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/31590496-ismail-dhorat...
Thought as a system by David Bhom
An Introduction to General Systems Thinking by Gerald M. Weinberg
Below are some of the resources i have been using/used:
A brilliant introduction to systems thinking by John Sterman who is a legend in the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnTwZVviXyY
Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows is a classic and a great introduction to some of the concepts.
https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Growth-Donella-H-Meadows/dp/19...
My review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2231577740
Books focused on Application of the theory, with various approaches to systems thinking that can be applied to solve challenges. There is some overlap between the two books below as they both have a catalogue of methods. They are categorized differently. I would read the introductory chapters of both of these and then review the chapter layout and see which of the two i prefer.
Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers by Michael C. Jackson
https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Thinking-Creative-Holism-Mana...
And
Systems Concepts In Action by Bob Williams and Richard Hummelbrunner
https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Concepts-Action-Practitioners...
Research Papers/Book Extracts:
A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach by Ross D. Arnold, Jon P. Wade
Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective by Peter Checkland
Guidelines for Drawing Causal Loop Diagrams By: Daniel H. Kim The Systems Thinker, Vol 3, No 1, pp5-6 (Feb 1992)
More at: https://thesystemsthinker.com/
A brief guide to interactive planning and idealized design by Russel Ackoff
Application of soft systems methodology to the real world process of teaching and learning by Nandish V. Patel
An Application of Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology to the Development of a Military Information Operations Capability for the Australian Defence Force by R. J. Staker
Defining innovation: Using soft systems methodology to approach the complexity of innovation in educational technology by Glenda Cox
The viable system model: A briefing about organisational structure by Raul Espejo
Complex Adaptive Systems by JASON BROWNLEE
Sustainability, complexity and learning: insights from complex systems approaches by A. Espinosa, T. Porter
Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model An Interpretation By Trevor Hilder
Principles of the self-organizing system by W. Ross Ashby
Guidance on applying the viable system model by Sandra Hildbrand Shamim Bodhanya
Embracing Human Experience in Applied Systems-Thinking by José-Rodrigo Córdoba-Pachón
The Need for a Systemic Approach to Change Management—A Case Study by Guangming Cao, Steve Clarke and Brian Lehaney
I have just included titles and authors, not direct download links to the PDF as unsure about copyrights. Some of my copies of the PDF are stamped with the date-time i downloaded. My email is in my profile if you want more.
Starting of with a general theory of systems all the way to the present. The practical use cases are immense. Complex adaptive systems is just one of the many perspectives.
Reading the post it seems the assumption is “the system” can be controlled with the “requisite variety”. This is very much a hard systems stance. Useful when people are not involved, and to keep variables within an acceptable range.
The soft systems perspective is very different, rather than viewing the system as out there in the world it begins with the assumption that the system is actually a construction in our heads.
With different people operating from different mental models of the system. Differences and tensions stem from this.
Rather than being a negative this diversity is actually a positive as one can see a More holistic picture of “the system”, the tensions between perspectives on the system are opportunities for creativity and innovation.
Put another way. In the soft systems view, the system is actually the process of inquiry. The inquiry process defines the system in our minds. Thus, it is a process of learning that is recursive.
Consider the case of Howard Thurman, not nearly as famous as Martin Luther king Jr[0], or Nelson Mandela[1]. Yet highly influential on them, and they went on to catalyse massive change.
So his impact if we consider social change, was massive and far outpaced his actual fame.
[0] he mentored Martin Luther King and otherS [1] Mandela came out of prison with a completely different philosophy to when he went in.Mandela appears to have been highly influenced by by his writing while in prison.
If purposeful I would be concerned and ask why.
If not, he is not very good at communicating. So. The next time he says that ask him:
“what do you mean by talk like a leader not an engineer, because every engineer and leader I know talks with their own distinct style”
As you grow older and “wiser” you realise that your time is precious. So you understand the opportunity cost of reading a book. You should then choose books that are foundational that are often the sources used by other books. You see more deeply into the meta meanings in the books, drawing many more links to other concepts hence you understand them better. This also means you could probably read much more deep/technical or difficult books.
Here is what I have figured out regarding this topic.
1) most times what really matters to you is impossible to measure. When you drill down to core motivation/drives.
E.g how does one measure “happiness”, relationship quality, friendship, quality of life, learning etc.
2) Due to 1. we measure a proxy for the outcome we seek.
3) if we get this proxy wrong, and we optimise/improve it we have no effect on the outcome. Maybe we even have the opposite effect.
4) We often import/take-on other peoples definitions/proxy metrics for the outcome. Not our own.
Think it was Russel Ackoff who said “rather do the right things wrong then the wrong things right”
In other words. Start with what you actually value/want and make sure the metric will get you there.
Is that actually true? Yes that may be necessary in society Today. But does that = quality of life ?
Tried zoetro but prefer using highlights app ad It saves the highlights on the PDF. And you can then export to markdown etc.
Not sure how zoetro saves highlights but I am never going to take that risk again. A years worth of research down the drain.