set: 000x
If ‘Odinshühnchen’ were a set of tokens it could be probabilistically reasonable to rehash it to ‘Odin’s hühnchen’ or could functionally be confabulated to become ‘Odin’s chick,’ possibly “hallucinated” to be of chocolate make. It seems when temperatures (t) are set too high (well above 2) a ‘chocolate chicken of Odin’ suddenly seems fair play.
Technology infused poetic thoughts —(by humans for humans) as a discussion and negotiation of nuances of linguistic intuitions and the weighing of words within a compound concept— are dimensions and vectors of what makes us human, well beyond the state of mathematical, engineering and scientific reductions we have access to for the moment. As with the statement “oxygen isn’t enough for humane life,” one without it would be equally challenging as thinking without reductions. And yet, that does neither exclude going beyond either.
Let me elaborate: non-sense, or nonsense, makes us human. Think of a snail intending nonsense; or of a lion. Perhaps a lion cub, or a dolphin might seem to have their moments and yet one might suspect the transposition of human features or human needs for sense-making onto non-human inanimate or animate others. Nonetheless, one might also wonder whether it is humans as a species who take non-sense to very diverse depths or heights. If so, one might assume this is since nonsense can be defined as acts (of which thoughts are a subset) lacking sense, for sense must be there to outlie nonsense away from its median, mean or mode’s stances.
Let us play with sense and nonsense via a loose interpretation of a neurolinguistic concept of “concept blending” while contextualizing the hypes, utopias and dystopias veining the public narrated peripheries of the field of AI. (That’s where this ignorant author roams).
For instance, ‘algorithmic’ we can agree is an adjective. It intuitively asks for another word to follow. Likely a noun. This sensation is very much as with playing musical chords or sequences that create an anticipation in the listener for some specific chord or note to follow. As it is with bird song. And so it follows…
In this case, let us imagine ‘algorithmic’ is followed by ‘fairness.’ It follows that this would result in the concept (a compound of two words) ‘algorithmic fairness’ just as, for instance, if ‘Odin’ were followed by ‘chicken’ would most likely result in ‘Odin’s chicken.’
Secondly, let us now assume that ‘algorithmic’ can be followed by a number of nouns. This creates a set of concepts that start with the adjective ‘algorithmic.’ For instance, another one is ‘algorithmic governance.’ Sure, one could play a surreal game and suggest ‘algorithmic potato’ or ‘algorithmic chocolate chicken.’
Here thus an intuition is introduced where the weight or the probability of one is higher than the other. And, where the “closeness” of one is closer than the other. ‘algorithmic’ is closer to ‘fairness’ than it is to ‘potato’ or ‘chicken’ and perhaps, to some, less so ‘chocolate.’
This is partly due to one (e.g., ‘fairness’) having been used by other humans (perceived as leading voices or as voices echoing leading voices) while the other is not or probably is not (i.e., ‘chicken’).
In the ‘algorithmic’ set of concepts with the adjective ‘algorithmic,’ we (too) often decide not to include concepts such as ‘algorithmic potato.’ And yet , the set could still have a number of concepts within it.
One could decide to notate these concepts differently than how they are traditionally read. So instead of populating this set with constructs such as ‘algorithmic fairness,’ they would be populated with constructs such as ‘fairness, algorithmic_’ and not with ‘potato, algorithmic_’
Though some concepts give the intuition that this notation would not be entirely proper. (Yes, yes, really) Possibly because the link between the word ‘algorithmic’ and the following word or words is stronger or closer.
For instance: ‘Algorithmic Decision-Making Systems (ADMS)’ It feels as if this concept is less open to be notated in the structural style of ’fairness, algorithmic_’ It might be due to the fact that there is an acronym ‘ADMS’ and its capital letters or it might be something else. It might be because the concept is not only two words and rather three.
A similar intuition occurs with ‘algorithmic outrage deficit.’ And yet a different intuitive oddity occurs with ‘potato, algorithmic_’ let alone ‘chicken, algorithmic_’ and even more so ‘chick, algorithmic_’ not to mention ‘chocolate chick, algorithmic_.’ Earth shattering stuff this is.
These intuitions introduce inconsistencies into the set. The set which could contain ‘fairness, algorithmic_’ and ‘governance, algorithmic_’ and ‘harm, algorithmic_’ and ‘manipulation, algorithmic_’ and ‘oppression, algorithmic_’ and ‘persuasion, algorithmic_’ and ‘profiling, algorithmic_’ and ‘suggestion, algorithmic_’ and ‘transparency, algorithmic_’ and so on.
Therein lie, to this ignorant mind, the juices of a type of “concept blending” and perhaps, who knows, of fountains of discomfort and perhaps even anger in they who oppose such human-made blends. Who knows, who’s to chirp about it?
The above might have been conceptually blended (behind the scenes) with a list of bird names translated from German into diverse sets of language, triggering imaginations of sense-making in human sense-making reshuffling, and that in manners that seem to defy sensibility and functions or matrices of probabilistic processes.
‘Transparency, algorithmic_’ is thus questionable here.
—animasuri’24
