Warning:
the following might induce
undesired palpitations of heart and ego.

Is there a scientist out there?
Is there one out there
in the field of computer science or physics
and, yes, perhaps chemistry?
Is there, instead, perhaps a mathematician among you?

Is there an academic
who would prefer not to be treated with respect,
not with compassion, not with duty of care
nor with supportive discernment for their life?

Yes, note the “not.”

Just one,
one who prefers
not too be explained how they are being transcoded (into datasets),
treated and used
for the well-being of any unknown other,
who might, or might not, include themselves?

Just one, any one?

Is there one
that could transcode
these previously-mentioned processes
(for those who forgot: compassion, respect, duty-of-care, positive discernment for life)
into a complex of mathematical functions
that are narrated as being artificial mimicry of neural networks?

Is there just that one
who would claim to be able
or simply willing to do the previous
with or without a kiss-and-make-up with deductive logic
to be turned into symbolic artificiality,

creating a neuro-symbolic system
worthy of harmony, beauty, good and right among humans; amidst present-day biological life?

Any 1? Or would anyone rather wish to ask why and what need that would serve ?

—animasuri’22

Diffusion Models are a digital technology allowing for graphic output, triggered by (human) prompting of the tech, with a well-groomed (human-written) textual phrasing. This here is a verbal play on these models, back to human-struggled and confused text. It’s all hand made. If you are an engineer or scientist you might find it irritating or infantile. Yes, it is human play. Hence you are most invited reading it.

Please read with as much “wink” you wish to add, to make it digestible.  [ diffused translation: imagine a solid, colorful Polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride wink-diffusion slider on a meaning-making mix console]

as for the above visual: resist being mesmerized. (A diffused paraphrasing from an utterance by an actual human academic)

Welcome to the real of Referencing Technology (RefTech). [diffused translation: welcome to the extremely large models with billions of features and a referenced database, as part of a pattern recognizing technology]. There is meaning here, you do think to recognize something. Your brain is obsessively trying to place it.  

We trust the referencing automated by the RefTech to output a nonreferencable. In the nonreferencable we trust. [ diffused translation: imagine a visualization of an unreachable heavenly ivory tower, domesticated by a wizard behind a curtain telling you: “it’s all your creativity, kid!”]

Some might imagine that for thousands of years we have been preparing for our RefTech by creating narratives and spin-off institutions of that what should not be named (ie not referenced) and by diluting that what could have been named (ie observed, tested, deduced, inferred or otherwise transparently thought-exercised) with gradual, unveiling, and yes, humanly failing effort. [diffused translation: envision a visual of an organic, mysterious yet liberating RefTech as the 3D rendered misinformed cherry on a simulated cake, presented to celebrate humanity’s greatest achievement: your tweaking and prompting into the world]

The recipe is simple: forget roots and assign metaphysical magic to that what is no longer known, not yet known, or made to be kept unknown. [diffused translation: the unknown known of a photorealistic word to pixel, birthed by your hyperrealistic yet de-textured mind to smoothened hand]. 

What better augmentation to this non-linear development by creating not only that what should not be referenced and also cannot be referenced —by giving users a virtual slider or two to fiddle with— and out comes an uncanny close-enough. 

In a desert of the real can grow a beckoning flower that sirens ownership. Is this desert from, of or via Boudrillard?

Were his words diffused, resynthesized and co-opted by the first film in the Matrix series & then later taken by Žižek for a book title or did the imperial uber-randomness strike twice? 

Or trice: Boudrillard himself might have reformatted the idea of the desert from other authors who described “real virtuality,” hyperreality, “death of the real” or deserts as ideal places for forty days long visions of real proportions.

These (non)references could understandably be upsetting to some reader (eg if the ontology of one’s measurable and almost-tangible deductive logic becomes endangered or upset), or too hyped by yet others who “enjoy” the less measurable. [diffused translation: false dichotomies are such easy and low hanging fruits]. 

RefTech as a “wished for” technology to allow more anthropomorphization. This offered by tactile interaction, into the idealized & utopian “geniusness” of creative output easily diffusible by the click of a “button.” Buttons and diffusions allowing it and oneself to become as-if-one’s-own. The “beauty” of the paradox does not go unnoticed realizing the single spacetimed button leading to (entropic) diffusion; thermodynamically atomic.

This process is fashioned all the while we are allowed to mechanize, simplify or deny the human, and the humane of the creative relationships, weavable within the real of you and me, ever slightly touching indexes. (Yes, in metaphorical counterpoint, some might now be reminded of Bob Dylan and his diffusions of man across the fields upon which winds howl. No, no one would think of a chapel here. The latter is the elephant asked not to think about and this so not to slide toward yielding it with historic and spiritual meaning).

Granted, with the RefTech we are offering and answering unknown-needs in a metaworld of unknown-urgency: the (lesser/greater) geniuses among us do gain access to tools for diffused referencing, while the mean of the common among us gain and repurpose play and distractors 

RefTech doesn’t enable the creator and  “prompt engineer”to reference all the referenced works used to create “real” & more-than-human output, as much as any word written here was once in a past referencable to its ancient Creators, yet now diluted and lost in the diffusions of human-mounted noise.

Welcome to the real unreal engines where history is ravaged; welcome to the pixel of a word spread out as a dust spec(k) of ridiculed substance into an unlabeled future.

references.

Sohl-Dickstein, J. (2015). “Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics” https://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.03585.pdf

ImageGen by Google: https://imagen.research.google

Dall-E2 by OpenAI: https://openai.com/dall-e-2/

Huggingface: https://huggingface.co/blog/ and: https://huggingface.co/blog/stable_diffusion

crAIyon:https://www.craiyon.com/

StabilityAI： https://beta.dreamstudio.ai/home

midjourney: https://www.midjourney.com/home/

Automated prompt generation: https://typestitch.com

no I did not add all authors whom I diffused across and in between the above words.

—-•
questions:

• What could ‘RefTech’ be imagined to be(come)?
• What could “referencing humans” (be imagined to) mean to you?

source: (wink)

One might sense abstraction (e.g. a model, a stick figure, a pattern, yes, a word or… an axiom) as a form of ignorance. 

Before one explodes into an understandable offense, I invite you to bare-bear with this imagined linguistic equation and continue the read:

An abstraction might be understood as a type of metaphor, ignoring the complexity of the attributes of that what it refers to and of that what (at various times in various spaces) it is dynamically contextualized by. 


[1]

Firstly, yes, observed as inherently human, this narrative here is a media-massaged oversimplified abstraction of the idea of ‘abstraction’ as a form of ignorance. This text is what it describes.  It, as a conceit, had best never be confused with what it abstracts, & thus, with what it is a metaphor or and equation of.

Then again, the potential of confusion at times could lie at the basis of poetry, humor or rhetoric (in this text here, simplified to be, momentarily, irrespective of the perceived ethics of the assumed intent by its instigator and by its ‘translating’ interpreters ). In such manner the abstract could be denied its conceit (i.e. denied in at least its first and second denotations) in ‘favor’ of a construed 1:1 map of reality, or of a complex sub-system thereof. 

Softening the above statement one could actively maintain a mantra towards vigilance (and aid a learner, irrespective of age, in reminding):

they.are.not.the.same.things.

That stated, this neither must, at all times, imply the weighing of value of the metaphor versus that of the abstracted. This might occur while one continues wondering about the potential value of both (i.e. “so what, now what?”).

It might, additionally, be a good idea to continue realizing and maintaining, in one’s judging mindsets, that it, at times, is context-sensitive.

These realizations are potentially (metaphorically) liberating; or so this author here wants a reader to consider considering (yes,… layering). The realizations could offer access to the imagined (metaphorical / abstracted) yet also concrete relationship with humans, which includes oneself, and also, with acts driven by one’s ability in varying degrees of distinguishing a metaphor or an abstract, as an ‘ignorant’ construct.

This is imagined (by this author) to possibly occur, while paradoxically embracing both that ‘ignorance’ and the consideration that an abstraction or a model seems to reasonably, yet misused, tend toward shedding (too many a) complex contexts.

We tend to be perceived as (over)simplifying or making matters too complex. This process occurs irrespective of whether one would be doing so “objectively” and irrespective of the possibility that simplification, oversimplification, and of some references being made too complex, do occur simultaneously in one and the same text and diversified by the multitude of interpretations (e.g. translations, judgements, transcodings)

For instance, this text has been defined as oversimplifying in its opening sentences. And yet… it is simultaneously making something obvious, seemingly complex (to some). While the text might be perceived as pretentious and as offering its potential readers all of these paradoxical convolutions, its author is and could be (only) partially aware; unless extrinsically pointed out in further detail by others and if intrinsically welcomed by the author(s) in question. Then just perhaps dialog might occur (even if only sproutingly and then witheringly so).

These mechanisms can be transcoded to anyone and to any (inter- intra-)human (mediated) utterance.

In addition, these attributes, being triggered into awareness (e.g. as a ritual act similar to washing hands or brushing teeth), potentially, could be extrapolated to many observations of any act (thus to any experience & possibly to the influences on that what is being observed); which has been long established or recently innovated or delivered. e.g.: “I am not my offspring” (i.e. a bio-relation of that sort is often disturbingly confused via the many metaphors); …“offspring are not my avatar” (i.e. a potentially brutal and a tautologically reductionist metaphor, or abstraction, as a metaphorical techno-abstraction).

The other ways cialis 25mg of getting permission lists is to use the start and stop method to control PE. If you cheapest cialis without prescription are one of those people who are thinking about sleeping with a beautiful catch or your partner having enjoyed exciting dinner at a great place, or just a home cooked meal before a sizzling night, Vardenafil is your perfect answer . You can purchase these greyandgrey.com viagra uk medicines even without a single side effect and hence stimulate hair regrowth significantly. The top surface is constructed by essentially soaking the metal inside of a container filled with acid while electrocuting it. viagra cost india

Hence, some, if not most, ‘metaphors’ might tend to be classifiable as ideological: the manner with which we conduct ourselves and others (yes, many are non-conspiratorially being conducted at one time or other), in-between and with, ourselves and those same or other-others; e.g.: I [= the me, myself] yelled: “Jimmy [=the other], what will the neighbors [=the other-others] think?!”

[2]

Secondly, yes, embrace it, in many areas of our thinking and acting we are child-like. This is not to be confused with ‘childish’ nor with an act of someone who we biologically taxonomized and hence defined as within the fluidly demarcated realm of developmentally being a child. All three can occur simultaneously (while then probably increasing the tautological overlap in some of the denotative or connotative attributes): “the childish child-like child”… (yes: silly, humorist, poetic, rhetorical; take your pick).

This evaluating demarcation too is weighed ideologically & thus culturally [e.g. “grow up, be a ‘man’, grow some hair, though, shave that hair in your nostrils & ears!” …what’s up with this hair obsession…] 

The “child-like” is an invitation (for the proclaimed “grownup”) to have compassion toward at least two human processes:

[a]

the imaginative toward the nurturing of a thought-seedling (however mundane or obvious to one);

[b]

the opportunity and potential for rapid failure and rapid intra-personal micro-innovation, by means of dialog with the other (“Jimmy”) and with the (imagined) other-other (“the neighbor”). 

The child, and maybe almost *any* of us, could intent to realize inherent (increasing) blind spots of the un-educated & not-knowledgeable, which are found spread out across metaphorical ‘non-insight-islands’ of our ‘Land of the Ignorant’; do hear this author whisper: “I’m your neighbor there”.

The learning and the exploration of thought, the observation and reflection of an act, and the non-linear process of integrating these, might not be the obtaining of “enlightenment” but rather of “neo-ignorance”. 

Yes, “neo-ignorance” as in “‘knowledgeable,’ intertwined with the modesty of some realization of the temporarily & the ephemerally, until falsified or revised; proverbially ad infinitum”. 

The “social,” in flesh- or digit-based networks, might best allow one self, and the less-or-more-connected other(-other), such processes. Surprise (Utopians, please, close your eyes for an upcoming spoiler):

we.do.not.yet.do.so.sufficiently.

This could be suggested so to enable us to call the “social”, *social*, rather than becoming lazy, singularly and linearly blaming the tech or the content-baring-bearing media, as a subset of the tech, while ignoring the human attributes in and in-between the entire mix-a-doodle.