<< subtext >>
Monthly Archives: April 2023
<< Techno Limitation-Rhetoric as Human Opportunities >>
Table of Contents
The First Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
The Second Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
The Third Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
The Fourth Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
The Fifth Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
The Sixth Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
Bringing the Sets of Limitation-rhetoric Together.
Why the first set should not be underestimated as potentially troubling.
Epilogue | Asimov: Ever So Slightly Closer to I, Robot.
Prologue & Introduction
‘Limitations are the mother of invention, or is it: Invention is the mother of limitations?’ Somehow these syntactic options remind me of Zappa rather than Kranzberg. And yet:
- “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.” (Kranzberg 1995: 6)
- “Invention is the mother of necessity” (Kranzberg 1995: 7)
- “Technology comes in packages, big and small” (Kranzberg 1995: 7)
- “Although technology might be a prime element in many public issues, nontechnical factors take precedence in technology-policy decisions” (Kranzberg 1995: 8)
- “All history is relevant, but the history of technology is the most relevant.” (Kranzberg 1995: 9)
- “Technology is a very human activity – and so is the history of technology” (Kranzberg 1995: 11)
In the realm of automation that is claimed to come with degrees of smartness, we can here call for Asimov’s Three. Besides his obvious three laws of ethical robots, some of us might feel urged to also regurgitate Kranzberg’s 6 propositions, here above. Our techno-recitals are at times performed as if these were biblical mantras.
For those wondering, they are not and perhaps we should not blindly enact this ritual of rote-culturalization either. For some hint on this latter creation of doubt, in context of our present technological developments, a handpicked collection of quotes is offered here below and from the source of Asimov’s Three (and then some). The latter work, I, Robot, suggests how “limitation” is a flued concept in the hands of human actors.
‘Fluidity’ is itself neither good, nor bad, nor neutral. this might tend to be the case for many concepts while for ‘technology’ we tend to forget and could realize effect due to scaling as an added issue, requesting us to tread with care to labeling it as singularly neutral, bad or good. In our markets and pop cultures we might tend to overlook this or keep this muted. In a process of becoming aware thereof, lies one little example of a human opportunity to become a human innovation as human.
These and other “laws” create and offer limitation to this innovation of humanness. the act of innovation does not just lie with lithium-hungry items. And these are claimed to make explicit limitations inherent to one or other system. So far so good with the obviousness.
When looking through a socio-technological lens, it seems that a few voices revisit a need to point out our human limitations rather than (also) pointing out the limitations of some human output: the art, the artifact, the artifice and the artificial. Simultaneously, some seem to only point at techno-centric solutions and seem to have forgone hope for any human-centric and human-relational set of approaches. ‘Approaches’ do not only have to be “solutions” to non-existing or existing “problems.” Thirdly, some go as far as reducing humans as mainly machine-like. For the latter, one can see Asimov’s quotes here below, or any mechanomorphic metaphors. Especially those analogies toward how our brain is claimed to function. Penrose and Hameroff, for instance, might argue against this. (Ekert 1998)
The techno-centric approach (that at times also debases hope for and with the human) is creamed-up to be an Icarus-like pinnacle of enriching human accomplishment. If a reader senses a paradox here, please do sense it. It is there.
While the human, or for some the entirety of humanity, is grabbed into a fallacy of epistemic proportions (i.e., Leibniz), there are, spread out, false dichotomies as well.
The two, the human and the human output, are tautologically intertwined. In common human storytelling, these two are as characters swapping places.
At times, one is narrated as causality, claimed cause, or as effect of the other. Causality is very confusing for many of us, and me included. For instance, too easily I assign causality where there might not be one. Secondly, it has been said that some form of causality is ignored and thought of as purely correlation (where it is not correlation).
Linear, reductionist and (beautifully-humanly) flawed characters these two are made into when considering ‘limitation.’ Each human, and her accomplishments, are quickly deconstructed by other humans to present the collective of both, with cultural claims and scientific “causal” “facts” of ‘limitation.’
What are these limitations?
Through the narratives surrounding our present-day technologies, and claimed effects on society, I started, still frivolously, to organize sets of ‘limitation.’ I organized these as I, for now, think to perceive and interpreted them through a biased lens of opportunity and innovation.
Perhaps you too find it of use.
Following a fishing for limitation-rhetoric, six variations on the theme have for now been listed here.
To some degree, I subscribe to some, while others I find questionable and that since these seem to hint toward allowing increased risk, this too as a ‘limitation,’ toward a human’s and life’s well-being.
Each category of this limitation-rhetoric uses its own memes, one-liners and narratives that run the risk toward demagoguery. In this exercise, I did not catalogue these. This is while some set(s) do(es) represent more rational and fair reasoning on urgent issues and limitations of humans and their imposing output. That is, too many individuals and communities have been negatively experiencing limitations for far too long and at times with far too high an intensity and far too large a negative set of consequences (e.g.: abuse, death).
The First Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
some voices have claimed or evangelized that the unhinged or undesirable attributes observed in the output of some of our latest ChatBots unveil the limitations of all of humanity. These hyperbolic voices at times (not all), seem to have a motivation to distract away from the limitations of their own design work, or of engineering methodologies, as these are constraint by business vectors or competitive acceleration risks. These are as, with a broad brushstroke, how human endeavors tend be. Some use their claim of the oracle-status of this one technology, exhibiting their slice of delusions of grandeur. Since they too are human therein might seem to lie some odd tension. Imagine this to be a Stockhausen orchestral and choral piece and it might make sense. For instance, imagine a character claiming: “see what technique we have developed, following an allocation of vast resources. It enables us to showcase humanity’s fragility, in its entirety.” Or imagine such voice as an oracle-imbued apology of: “it’s not us, we did not create this. It’s them, the representatives of the weak entirety of humanity.”
The Second Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
other voices add on to the first set in that not only output is telling, and input reveals human limitation. This is observed when humans try and jailbreak this one technological system of Chatbots, by prompt injections that are, by some, labeled as singularly hostile. This is then for some (not all) uttered as a distraction. Such narrative seems to aim at steering us (i.e., humanity) away from the potentially collective act of testing the limits for the purpose of engineering, scientific, legal, and social processes. Not to mention the aim of testing human play, liberty and becoming. Each come with their own methods of due diligence. Each offer a testing of robustness, viability, credibility, replicability, measurability and standard or cultural conformance. Each provide opportunity and pressures toward exploration of innovations thereof. Innovation is not only the digital artifact as a static object for reverence through obediently-singular usage, with ‘usage’ as if solely the prescribed application. (enrich: omni-usage)
The Third Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
Then a set includes humans who might identify the limitations of humans in a liminal space. This occurs in between the input and output of the given tech, e.g., a Large Language Model. The blackbox issues would be one set that is implying human shortcomings with transparency. Then again, some others argue lack of transparency is not always a limitation, and rather a design feature. Some vectors in the set of transparency enable explainability. Other processes and attributes will be just a bit too revealing if for instance open access, for capitalist or security reasons, is not desired. Possibly other arguments against maximum transparency could be (individual) privacy, dignity, integrity, and respect. Through the lens of desirability and limitation, there seem to possibly be two mythological yet human subsets here: those who like to exhibit, and those who like to mystify. Yet, they are united by those who’d like to take a peep.
The Fourth Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
Fourthly, limitations are identified contextually (and “external,” though, not really if context implies an inter-related process with that what is contextualized and the contexts): carbon footprint of server farms that run these models, and the GPU power needed, or the cost of several hundreds of thousands of dollars per day to feed and run some hungry model and the access to its usage in server farms hidden from humans who have similar yet perhaps more urgent or humane need for basic resources.
The Fifth Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
Then there is the calling-out of subtext and the inherent and at times baked-in systemic issues of training data. Analysis lays bare the historic, as well as socially discriminatory biases. Some counter voices then try to muddle that discrimination and bias are needed in statistics. Surely, and yet…
Moreover, some human (and even some artificial) voices identify systemic bias beyond the data, as these are found in the Caucasian and Anglo-Saxon “bro”-culture or (post-)colonialist justification and x-washing processes. This is then in addition to the calls to reconsider outsourcing of “automation” and “AI” processing to menial human workers. These humans are being hidden behind a Wizard of Oz’s curtain and that often into territories that offer more laissez-faire toward a sustaining and increasing of techno-feudalism. Counter voices, whom are at times found in the following sixth category, might claim a bias here that is too (reactionary and) anthropocentric as opposed to an openness to an evolutionary going beyond our present (human) forms and functions. The question put forward here is not about a back (i.e., a romanticizing of an imagined past), or forth (i.e., an techno-centric innovation through a romanticized lens of a future). It might rather be a question of: who’s form and who’s function, and serving who, at the cost of who (yet again)?
The Sixth Set of Limitation-rhetoric.
Sixthly, we can identify the voices pointing out the limitations that doom and far future needs offer. These voices are seemingly intertwined with effectiveness and claimed altruistic narratives. Some countering pushback highlights that these limitations are pointed out within this sixth set while within this set there seems a fervent denying of any romancing toward eugenics of various nuance, flavor or iteration.
Bringing the Sets of Limitation-rhetoric Together.
The fifth and this sixth set of identifying voices toward the limitations of humanity (as a whole or in part of those with resources, power and control) seem to be at odds with each other. This is while the sixth and the first seem at times to act as drinking buddies and party wingmen. This in turn seems to occur while conveniently monotonizing the sexes and genders into one which is then obscured via exnomination à la Barthes.
Could generative “AI”-technologies, of which I ignorantly think ChatBots to be one manifestation, be as a cultural form of cosmetic surgery which itself might be felt as a cultural form of medical procedures? It statistically polishes a historic style into a homogeneous architecting that seems more human than human. This tendency brings together five and six into the human tragedy of never-good-enough confused with relation, interaction (into the worlds), creativity, wonder, wandering, innovation and exploration.
This also hints at eugenics, or at a mass-debasement of life’s forms and functions. Such aspirations for eradication claim this or that form or function as preferred over others, while at an earlier or later stage in human history the same item was or could be revered and preferred as superior. A total collection of ideal human aspirations has not been and probably shall not be universally fixed (unless some extreme, hyperbolic dystopian form of architecturally, technologically policed collectivism is all-inclusively imagined). I think to note that the process of eagerly desired yet lazy type of imagination plays a serious role in the creation of limitation-rhetoric.
Some human voices hint at eradicating less desirable traits (with technology). These voices are not necessarily the same voices as those who claim to see the unveiling of human limitation through the output of some technology. Interestingly, both voices might be interpreted as echoing opposition to degeneration (“Entartete” in German) as an imposed limiting label on the arts and entartete humans. Our sadistic or masochistic traits come in extreme different weights. Sure, these are not necessarily always acted upon by all, and all at once, and that with the same highest setting of intensities as if a Spinal Tap’s 11 setting.
Why the first set should not be underestimated as potentially troubling.
The first category of limitation-rhetoric, as offered here above, I wish to highlight further. It is one often heralded by those who work in, or for, the eco-system that created the technologies to begin with. (Disclaimer: I am working with and in technologies that are open to applying these).
Are we, as individuals in humanity, as a species with its many nuances, certain we prefer our engineers to tell us how they have unveiled human nature via their own shortcomings in their designs that were made under understandable financial stresses and needs for return on investments?
Engineers, as much as many a professional label, might gather a human sample that might lack representation compared to the entire population. We want it differently. The “to want” is not yet the “to be.” For the time being the ‘engineer’ is a rather homogeneously forces set compared to what it could be and compared to the larger population.
In addition –when considering the scientific method Rogers warns us humans of– some additional attributes that make studying a technological model, or in extension humanity through some type of LLMs, a precarious business: “as far as research and scientific publications are concerned, the ‘closed’ models… cannot be meaningfully studied, and they should not become a ‘universal baseline’” (Rogers 2023)
Surely then popular technological (or scientific) models should not function as a “universal baseline” to judge the universal shortcomings of the entirety of humanity. Is herein a hint of a non-technological misalignment issue of engineering in service of the human, the human community and of humanity? (We could refer to Asimov’s First Law and its alterations throughout the story of “I, Robot“)
To state that a technology helps us (serendipitously) unveiling the questionable limitations of humanity, might be giving too much credit to one human technological output and little credit to the observations in other fields, that have been explored for centuries, if not longer. Secondly, it is a sentiment blatantly filled to the rim with epistemic fallacy: a language model, no matter how large, as scraped of a part of the internet does not represent the entire output of the entire species.
While an astronomic number of individuals spend time online (online while using one language), they are not all individuals, nor all symbolic artifacts, symbolic processes or the larger semiotics which humanity (and beyond!) intentionally and unintentionally has to offer. Human (and other) expression has not been statistically catalogued in one language model. It surely has not catalogued the unexpressed or unrecognized or unarchived. There is so much more to take note of than the diffused, statistical, structured reshuffling of today’s alter piece in our techno temple. Move away from the screen (you can go back) and let the worlds engulf you.
That act of equating the sample and the model with the entirety of the human population, indeed could show a limit, (not “the”). For instance: of humanity and our tendency toward an epistemic fallacy. That is the tendency of each of us (including this author) to dichotomize and to equate the reductionist attributes of any model with the entirety of reality. Leibniz might not be happy, folks. But, yeah: “who cares –while claiming importance of philosophy, humanity and the arts– as kings of the techno and finance courts we can treat them as jesters and trivial entertainment and ignore their reflections and the acts that they have nurtured,” I imagine a hardened voice to reply.
If one ignores voices (as well as this text likely might) that have expressed limitations which were expressed outside of one’s own preferred bubble(s) or zones of comfort. If one then claims that the voices in one’s own bubble have suddenly unveiled a wisdom (which is already found elsewhere and far more nuanced). Then, a conclusion, made with a largesse of “humanity,” constrained into the astronomical smallness of a super large language model, might not necessarily be wise.
By the way, ‘large’ is only comparatively large to any acknowledged model (by excluding those that are being ignored, if any) we humans have identified before. Such act itself is indeed human and indeed limiting (as is the nature of a model). Such attribute (e.g., the one these voices of the first category offer) and which unveil vectors within our limitations, might be and are insightful. They might, and some are, telling. Yet they might, and are, not all-inclusive nor nuanced.
This write-up is neither sufficient, yet it tries to remind us to keep dialog and allocation of resources or labels of limitation an open debate and one that should not only cater to those who have already been catered to.
Limitation can be about potential and opportunity and innovation. The opportunity to set experienced wrongs in some (not so small) communities and demographics, right. I suggest we embrace this and the other limitations (perceived, actual, dominating or outlying). ‘Embrace’ here is an act of modest and caring acknowledgement of living existence. This innovative embrace could make for richer action: relation, reflection, intention, debate, trial and error as unrecognized serendipity to creative continuing life-centered innovation.
Epilogue | Asimov: Ever So Slightly Closer to I, Robot.
The First Law: “…it is impossible for a robot to harm a human being…” OR “…a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow him to come to harm.” OR “…an unbreakable First Law—which makes it impossible for them [robots] to harm human beings under any circumstance.” OR “the First Law of human safety”
The Modified First Law: “”…we either had to do without robots, or do something about the First Law—and we made our choice… “…we had to have robots of a different nature. So just a few of the … models… were prepared with a modified First Law. To keep it quiet, all … are manufactured without serial numbers; modified members are delivered here along with a group of normal robots; and, of course, all our kind are under the strictest impressionment never to tell of their modification to unauthorized personnel.”
OR “”…the Machines work not for any single human being, but for all humanity, so that the First Law becomes: ‘No Machine may harm humanity; or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.’…”
The Non-First Law Robot “Law”: “…“Dr. Calvin, we don’t dare let that ship leave. If the existence of non-First Law robots becomes general knowledge—”… “…it was found possible to remove the First Law.”… But the Law, I repeat and repeat, has not been removed, merely modified.”… What was left of the First Law was still holding him back.” …”I mean there is one time when a robot may strike a human being without breaking the First Law. Just one time.” “And when is that?” Dr. Calvin was at the door. She said quietly, “When the human to be struck is merely another robot.””
The Second Law: “a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.” OR “obedience”
The Third Law: “a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.”” OR “self-preservation”
The “fourth” law: The first law comes first, dominating the second and third law. Then “the Second Law of obedience is superior to the Third Law of self-preservation.” [unless, we decide to modify the first law then, well then the sky is the limit. ]
Some References
Asimov, Isaac (1950, 2004). I, Robot. IN: The Robot Series. New York, NY: Bantam Spectra Books Random House). https://archive.org/details/irobotnovel
Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018).Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, PMLR 81:77-91, 2018. IN:Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (PMLR), 81:77-91. ML Research Press. Last retrieved on 20APril, 2023 from https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a
Ekert, A., R. Jozsa, R. Penrose, and Hameroff Stuart. (1998). Quantum Computation in Brain Microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff ‘Orch OR‘ Model of Consciousness. IN:Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 356, no. 1743 (August 15, 1998): 1869–96. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1998.0254.
Federal Trade Commission, USA (FTC). (2023, April 23). FTC Chair Khan and Officials from DOJ, CFPB and EEOC Release Joint Statement on AI. Online: etc.gov. Last retrieved on 26 April, 2023 from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/04/ftc-chair-khan-officials-doj-cfpb-eeoc-release-joint-statement-ai
Kranzberg, M. (1995). Technology and History: “Kranzberg’s Laws.” Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc., Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 5-13, 1995. 0270-4676/95. STS Press
Leibniz, G. W. ( ). the indiscernibility of identicals. IN: Discourse on Metaphysics, Section 9. IN: Loemker, L. (ed. and trans.). (1989). Leibniz, G. W., Philosophical Papers and Letters. Springer Netherlands. P 151, 187, 225-226, 231-232. (If conveniently ignoring Max Black on two distinct universes that have location as the one deviating attribute while having all other properties to be identical. Here one could ignorantly argue that they are not identical and that their context, over time, would gradually deviate some attributes away from being identical)
Mathjis, E., Mendik, X. (2011). 100 Cult Films (Screen Guides). Palgrave Macmillan. p 177.
Rogers, A. (April 25, 2023). Closed AI Models Make Bad Baselines. IN: Towards Data Science. (Blog). Online: medium,com. Last retrieved 26 April, 2023 from https://towardsdatascience.com/closed-ai-models-make-bad-baselines-4bf6e47c9e6a?gi=65b7adc7d2ff
Zappa, F. (1974. ) Don’t Eat the Yellow Snow. IN: Apostrophe (‘). Frank Zappa (minus The Mothers of Invention). A popular song about a mother, a son and snow of questionable substance.
This text elsewhere:
https://medium.com/@vjgvxhg/techno-limitation-rhetoric-as-human-opportunities-f8a64b6c4333
<< Castle Made of Lame-Stone>>
Some people need castle
some people need cake
Some people need water
Some people need lake
I’m fine with each and all
with play, rhythms in life
and festive fluff
What they want
does not shake
What does not rhyme with me
is my confusion of need
with want, with urge
with desire
with access with excess
as if minimally required
with priority with importance with urgency
with deciding for, by taking of
from others without consent
off of backs and off of tears
and drained from blood
and drenched with shame
into norm and into silence
and into false beauty
of acceptance
into struggle and then
into a teamed-up audacity
of judgement
against those
who do need
against those,
they, them, the other
for being angry
rather than angried
for being enslaved
rather than slave,
mentally chained
duped,
violated and raped
for feeling left out and cast aside
without claim
without a shred of the humane
This and they
Will not slip
into your sea,
eventually.
—animasuri’23 Thank you, Mr. Hendrix
Thank you. limestone, from the sea
header visual: Limestone pavement at Newbiggin Crags
cc-by-sa/2.0 – © Adie Jackson – geograph.org.uk/p/551913 and thank you.
<< Governor Tékhnē >>
<< Governor Tékhnē >>
toothlessly,
even the crickets
have fallen
silent.
—animasuri’23 contextual triggers:
The Analysis and Research Team (ART): Milton, G., Genson, R., Alhadeff, J., Gaub, F., De Marcilly, C., Erll, M., Finamore, S., Saliot, E. (2023, April 24). ChatGPT in the Public Sector – overhyped or overlooked? Online: European Council Research Papers. Council of the European Union. Last retrieved 25 April 2023 from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/council-research-papers/
Contextually this title might be of additional interest when noticing the publication by Insider of 2022:
David, Emilia. (2022, December 20). Viral chatbot ChatGPT will be overhyped, then overlooked, and then, perhaps, essential. Online: Insider. Retrieved from: https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-will-be-overhyped-overlooked-and-then-perhaps-essential-2022-12
As a third reference and source, it might be of interest to note that the authors of the EU article close with a disclaimer: “During the writing process, ChatGPT was used to obtain a view on some of the descriptions of machine learning techniques and was consulted on whether its own assessment of its ability to respect some of the principles underpinning the work of the public sector corresponded with our own.”
Rosenberg, Scott. (2023, April). How we all became AI’s Brain Donor. Online: axios.com retrieved from here
A few of the beautifully human oddities at play:
it is said/lamented by some that ethics has no teeth
…mandibles are not teeth; and yet…
… silence is at times popularly symbolized with sounds of a cricket. While their sound actually breaks silence and en masse are very loud
the EU is said to lead on regulation, mapping GDPR with Human Rights and ethics …and yet its research team is using ChatGPT… a derivative (on LLMs) technology that plays loosely (via statistical probabilistic regurgitation, appropriation and regeneration) with: accuracy ( eg truth, reality, libel, “confabulation,” “delusion”) privacy protection, consent, data dignity, data transparency, data minimization, data purpose limitation, right to data access, right to data erasure, right to be forgotten, right to object, algorithmic transparency, techno-feudalism, accountability, confidentiality, and so on. Some-to-many of these concepts are part of GDPR and Human Rights declarations.
some voices are concerned we are regulated and governed by technology, big-tech into techno-feudalism.
IPR, GDPR, Human Rights, … : e.g.: consent, data sufficiency, data ownership, data privacy, … governance as toothless?
Learning by Doing
Possibly Montessori’s publications might offer some corroborating background. As for constructionism and constructivism, respectively Papert and Piaget might come to mind.
Birdwell, Koninckx, D., & Scott, R. (2015). Learning by doing Jonathan Birdwell, Ralph Scott, Dale Koninckx. Demos.
Cortini. (2019). Learning by doing… errors! comment on gil-lacruz et al. learning by doing and training satisfaction: An evaluation by health care professionals. int. j. environ. res. public health 2019, 16, 1397. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 51–. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010051
D’Angelo. (2017). Videogames and logical mathematical ability: the Game-Over project. Form@re, 17(1), 228–. https://doi.org/10.13128/formare-20482
Diaz, & Woolley, T. (2021). “Learning by Doing”: a Mixed-Methods Study to Identify Why Body Painting Can Be a Powerful Approach for Teaching Surface Anatomy to Health Science Students. Medical Science Educator, 31(6), 1875–1887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01376-x
Gavrel, Lebon, I., & Rebière, T. (2016). Formal education versus learning-by-doing: On the labor market efficiency of educational choices. Economic Modelling, 54, 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.01.006
Ismael Gómez Gutiérrez. (2018). Learning by Doing with the Chocolate Factory. Proceedings, 2(21), 1321–. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2211321
Bauer, Viola, K., & Strauss, C. (2011). Management skills for artists: “learning by doing”? International Journal of Cultural Policy : CP, 17(5), 626–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2010.531716
Becker. (2005). A review of Learning by Doing, A Comprehensive Guide to Simulations, Computer Games, and Pedagogy in e-Learning and other Educational Experiences. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(2). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2TC7W
Grimes. (2001). How was it for you ? – learning by doing, the Street Law way. New Law Journal, 151(6968), 87–.
Ann Haefner, & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers’ developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653–1674. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000230709
Hedrick. (2011). Learning by doing. NACTA Journal, 55(3), 98–.
Anido, Llamas, M., & Fernandez, M. J. (2001). Internet-based learning by doing. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(2), 18 pp.–193. https://doi.org/10.1109/13.925839
Lee. (1999). Distance learning as “learning by doing.” Educational Technology & Society, 2(3), 66–76.
Lesgold. (2001). The Nature and Methods of Learning by Doing. The American Psychologist, 56(11), 964–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.11.964
Levitt, List, J. A., & Syverson, C. (2013). Toward an understanding of learning by doing: Evidence from an automobile assembly plant. The Journal of Political Economy, 121(4), 643–681. https://doi.org/10.1086/671137
Li, Saldanha, I. J., Vedula, S. S., Yu, T., Rosman, L., Twose, C., N. Goodman, S., & Dickersin, K. (2014). Learning by doing-teaching systematic review methods in 8 weeks. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(3), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1111
Morado, Melo, A. E., & Jarman, A. (2021). Learning by making: A framework to revisit practices in a constructionist learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1093–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13083
Moye, Dugger, W. E., & Stark-Weather, K. N. (2014). is “learning by doing” important? A STUDY OF DOING-BASED LEARNING. The Technology Teacher, 74(3), 22–.
Noorafshan, Hoseini, L., Amini, M., Dehghani, M.-R., Kojuri, J., & Bazrafkan, L. (2014). Simultaneous anatomical sketching as learning by doing method of teaching human anatomy. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 3, 50–. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9531.131940
Olsson, Jonsson, B., & Nyberg, L. (2008). Learning by doing and learning by thinking: An fMRI study of combining motor and mental training. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2(5), 5–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.005.2008
Roberts. (2002). Beyond Learning by Doing: The Brain Compatible Approach. The Journal of Experiential Education, 25(2), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590202500206
Tamo, Jubani, A., & Gjokutaj, M. (2012). NEW DIMENSIONS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING “BY DOING” IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT OF EDUCATION. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 44(1), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/12.44.81
van der Loo, Krahmer, E., & van Amelsvoort, M. (2019). Reflection in Learning to Write an Academic Text.: How Does Reflection Affect Observational Learning and Learning-by-Doing in a Research Synthesis Task? Frontiers in Education (Lausanne), 4(19). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00019
Vollmers. (1997). Learning by doing – Piaget’s constructivist learning theories and their consequences for pedagogical practice. International Review of Education, 43(1), 73–85.
Voukelatou. (2019). The contribution of experiential learning to the development of cognitive and social skills in secondary education: A case study. Education Sciences, 9(2), 127–. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020127
Wells-Brickhouse, & Faulkner, P. E. (2018). Gardening! Agricultural Education Programs Promote Learning by Doing. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 90(4), 23–25.
Zink. (2012). Beyond learning by doing: Theoretical currents in experiential education. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 16(1), 56–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03401017
<< Human-made Outlier Synthesis >>
Some hype and others lament “democratization” (Turing Institute & Seger et al. 2023) and “democracy.” Even though sharing two linguistic roots, the processes to the former can deconstruct the latter. This possibility does not lie in the meaning of the individual words. Nor does it lie in the statistical probability of their appearance, occurring in each other’s proximity. It might partly lie in the lived relationships, triangulated with human interest, incentive, aspiration and application. Or, more pungently, in the absences thereof. Here is an interpretive narrative as illustration:
The recent report by the CAIDP on Artificial Intelligence and democratic values offers a stage. This publication is an impressive work that heralds policies, frameworks and protections. It echoes the statement that “Policymakers want an enabling policy environment while mitigating the risks of AI language models” (OECD).
There is promise of innovation while enabling the commoner to remain free from… ?
The political enablements and constraints imply technological enablements and constraints, while the latter more dominantly implies market influences. Both of them affect social enablements and constraints.
They affect how the demos (“we”) moves (i.e., agency) and is moved (i.e., “our” wanted or unwitting delegation) within the human polis (i.e., the metaphorical dwelled city). Their mapping, that of polis and tékhnē, are here not a mapping of a linear, one to one, nature. That’s almost so tautological that it is as comforting as listening to and being reminded of Beethoven’s hair decompositions and of sound into his music, again and again. (Thank you, Dr. Walter Sepp Aigner)
Simultaneously, these enablements and mitigations create narratives that nurture outliers and entrenchments that are not (and should not at all cost?) be ignored or flippantly dismissed (and we are not only thinking of jellyfish, rhinos or swans of bland monochrome coloring). (Day One Futures) Counter to some scientific and engineering needs, we should not always ignore nor filter away the outliers, either. (Taylor et al. 2016)
It should be noted that not only technologies and also policies have “omni-uses” or multiple uses users gained access to and have the incentive to tinker or pervert away from the intended or designed usages ( Daniel Schmachtenberger & thank you Liv Boeree). Hence, can protections also be impositions? Yes.
Neither is amplification to be equated with taking note of these outliers. As well is the note-taking not immediately a representation of the note-taker’s outlying, emotional state-of-mind. Note-taking can rhetorically be embellished or muted while having been authored in a state of rational, calm mindfulness while reminding us of a call to innovation to address systemic issues that are ignored or relabeled as if technical outliers or socio-inevitable issues alone; “that’s how it’s always been done”.
And yet, I am utterly excited being alive during these times. This all the whilst I can also think, breathe, reflect and consider the tails of the curve-balls we throw into our underbellies. It does not have to make one despair, nor imagine having reached Nirvana. It could be perceived that such dichotomization and polarization in thinking and working with policy and technology is an act of outlier-creation. In effect this type of creation might mute urgencies related to social minority, and to socially subdued or pressured voices. Almost paradoxically, these voices are then narrated (by opposing voices) as too extreme and uncomfortable (i.e., as “outliers”), away from a fairness of reparation, and toward a governed solidification of their further biased formatting through models and automation.
These same outliers and the omni-uses of technology, of information, and of policy, are affecting social relations. These are as curve-balls into the outlying edges of our playing-field, hitting those of us who are less empowered, those of us who are maintained in iterations of stereotyping and yet more of the same: the antithesis of (social & relational) exciting forms of innovation ( forbes & thank you Prof. Darius Burschka for having pointed at this). Is this antithetical innovation a Wizard of Oz Experiment in the wild, toward large-scale social engineering manipulation?
This seems as an application of an “experiment” which might be seen as an outlier yet at large scale and with serious affective impact. Just as some historic “outliers” (read: biases and bigotries) which are downplayed as ignorable outliers. As if kicking a dead horse, the ignored outliers are then further drowned by some outliers off of the scale of sanity. The insane is given technological form to, as well as given vast policy-making attention, with reduced understanding of both tech and the socio-culturally maintained outliers, who could and should find their place in the middle.
Reflection on the idea of, the lenses to look onto, and the processes that could be constructing, maintaining or muting outliers, and their omni-uses, are as such not a faux-pause, some other acts though might seem reflective and pausing yet smell as if they are not. ( financial times and business insider)
For instance, with The Internet Archive (IA) losing its “lending lawsuit…” (Copyright Lately) should we‘ve cracked down on access to credible and validly verifiable sources? This question is here re-placed in context of opening up the World Wide Web to tsunamis of synthetically-generated content that can’t be corroborated, are based on sources that were taken without consent, nor regard for IPR. .
Is the latter at such vast scale, and with such financial backing, that it’s too large to notice? (Politico) So large it remains hidden? (EUractiv) As a flea in a red carpet not enabled to reflect on its carpet being a carpet?
So, IA: no, “AI,” yes? Are now outliers and false dichotomies at play?
Synthetic “content” entrenches biases and reinforces boring yet harmful stereotypes. (See recent examples by Abeba Birhane via Twitter). It does the opposite of tackling historic and systemic issues (that have synthetically been kept as outliers across the centuries). These could already be addressed socially, policy-wise and technologically. We even have non-techno cognitive tools. (thank you Alireza Dehbozorgi for pointing at this) And yet they are stalled by incentives and will, mixed with resources & access.
There lies innovation. In contrast: lie-innovation is instead the stark option we decided exploring feverishly via tech & policy. Here social omni-use is present. Here outliers are reinforced on the scale of the sane.
There is a recent publication entitled “Real World AI Ethics.”Could we now —with digital multiverses, generative AI outputs, & deepfakes— also urge for the nascence of “Fake World AI Ethics,”(6) which could explore outliers that are mixing fakery with the false labeling of actual issues as “fake,” by ignoring what is lived, right now & right there, under extreme conditions? While information is “neither matter nor energy” (Norbert Wiener; Thank you Prof. Felix Hovsepian, PhD, FIMA For reminding us) its creative ugly ducklings named ‘Mis- & Dis-‘ are roughing up lots of dust & partying on vast amounts of energy ( EUractiv )
Innovation is not a one way ticket to bliss, unless we allow asking: “innovative” to whom and with what omni-used meaning making? Repetition and regurgitation, are derivative acts. They are confusing boredom for innovation and could if not handled with care, oppose addressing actual needs. This note-taking here could be interpreted as boring as well, as much as re-reading Beethoven could be. Though, they do not have to be.
Democratizing “solidarity” (thank you Michael Robbins) via wanting Beethoven, or social relational care into diversities of lived, local and global needs, can symbolize omni-innovation in tech and policy.
some highlighted References
OECD (2023), “AI language models: Technological, socio-economic and policy considerations”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 352, OECD Publishing, Paris,https://doi.org/10.1787/13d38f92-en.
Seger, Elizabeth, Aviv Ovadya, Ben Garfinkel, Divya Siddarth, and Allan Dafoe. “Democratising AI: Multiple Meanings, Goals, and Methods,” March 27, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12642.
Taylor, J. et al. (2016 ). Alignment for Advanced Machine Learning Systems . Last retrieved on April 15, 2023 from here
<< The Age of Open Letters >>
<< The Age of Open Letters >>
Earth, 12 April, 2023
Dear H.S. Sapien,
Since the dawn of our species we wanted to be the knowing type. Intelligent. Wise. We are trying so hard to forgot our ignorance.
This urge might have been one to control and impose our individual or communal agency. Agency, as if an act of increasing embodiment of the lived world, and of they who be-live it. I do not know. I imagine.
Thousands of years later we still have little idea and try to label, or ostracize, our fellow companions as lesser in areas we claim authority. In doing so we increase our own agency by implying we versus them know, we versus them are intelligent, we are the wise, they are not. We silence by ignoring.
Ignorance is then the severance of relations from the other: the not-wise, the not-intelligent, the not-knowing. We prefer to do so by the bling bling of our words, our artifacts and our utopian or dystopian prophecies. We dichotomize, and with it, lobotomize humanity by targeting the anonymized other.
In this process it seems as if, to some, that ‘intelligence’ is the antithesis of care, compassion, nuance, context, consideration, acknowledgment and relation. A lack of nuance seems to be introducing a lack of diversity, and therefore possibly a lack of inclusion.
This reduction, could well be functioning as a little tea bag. It is soaked into our glorification of machined representations and of mechanized representations of us. Or rather, of how a happy and certified-intelligent few envision us in their image. This occurs, and yet not consistently, as a questionably scientific or rigorous observation. This letter could be perceived as one such example. Though it would not be the most urgent nor most important example. Let us not get fixated.
This letter, as call to action (perhaps slightly biased through a leftish-libertarian communal lens), is not a new one. It is a repeated call to ever so slightly begin to increase doing the reverse: include compassion, care and nuance. Especially invest consideration into those voices that are not in our comfort-zone of our knowing, from our assigned wise, nor from our designated intelligent. Again, let us not get fixated on staring onto one belly-button.
We relate too often by diminishing the other. We too often engage in this Spiel with fallacious rhetoric. Yes, this letter –as any letter– too suffers from it. Across the ages of eagerly grasping at knowing, intelligence, wisdom, some now also hide behind the dominion of one techno-narrative to rule them and us all.
Dominion is a diminuet. We then wish to pour this overlord-story into one tightly controlled story and ask ourselves “what is intelligence ?” That process seems as a rigged game-play.
We could do this. We could collectively submit to this. And yet, we could also diversify our narratives and ventures. We probably do not wish to be manipulated into only one answer to the question on intelligence. It’s way too early for that. It feels way too simplistic.
Moreover, besides the question of intelligence(s), other, urgent and pressing matters too might need attention with tools, aptitudes and attitudes we are maintaining and creating.
In rigging ourselves and others we have been using models which are inherently reductionist and inherently flawed. As dragnets we apply these models, across the proverbial sea floor of what it means to be(come) human. This is then somewhat blindly engaged into, while grabbing and clawing around and about ourselves. The models can be; the manner of use or of celebration might need nuancing.
There is one field of study, I shall not name it, that has especially taken it upon itself to exclude the uninitiated and yet, simultaneously has some of its prominent voices express expertise on almost everything and all. That is, in the least, a double standard.
This self-imposed reverence goes from labeling and containing of what it means to be human, to how to replace humans or the activities humans (“should”) care about, and activities we humans (“should”) not care for. One could think about work. One could think about processes of creativity and expression. This meaning of human (or the dismissal of meaning and understanding as important attributes in the human becoming) happens to become narrated in one, or very few, and yet rather unnuanced story-telling sweepstakes.
Remarkably, at present, the field implied here is especially strongly condemning and that via its output, its exclusion, and its practice against any human who is interested in areas of the Arts and Humanities. This goes at times also for they who are interested in Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Though, some might argue that a disdain is especially noticeable toward humans who relate through, or to, the Arts and Humanities, and then back to that one unnamed field here in question. With the exception of a coopted few (whom among themselves are also bickering and ignoring), this latter set of humans get fired, debased, mocked or ignored.
Some members in this unnamed field will pay lip service to the importance of some areas within the Arts and Humanities. Though, in some sort of double speak their acts and their lack of entering in debate or dialog with the “commoner” shows a different reality-building. As long as the rebuttals towards the in-grouped are not too critical, the outside voices can offer their awe and pay their undying gratitudes. These dynamics too make up human “intelligence” and “intelligentsia.”
While decisions are made on intelligence –which afflicts all life– it might feel, to some, as if it is not life itself deciding. Machine and their bell curves seem to be taking on that role of decision. This is then augmented by “life” seemingly bestowed onto machine and its curved output. In this exciting, and yes, creative human storm, we then argue that soon only some of us have to discuss (our) intelligence.
No.
We have already been discussing intelligence and related constructs. We have done so via scientific or other models, and we know we still know very little. We do know more than I know, or you individually know. We still know too little. To some it is even questioned whether we could or even should know. Others then dismiss these voices even more. In considering intelligence, we should continue the consideration by means of transdisciplinary exchanges, inclusive of they who might not know, not be as intelligent as you (perceive yourself), or not be the wise whom you revere.
What could, additionally, be discussed is how our lack of insights (from Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Humanities, the Arts,…insights which are already limited in these segregated fields) are being hyped and contorted even further through one field, as if answers from that one field are set and done. They are not.
Let us not be too blasé. It does not take a non-insider too much effort to notice –without perhaps being able to put a finger on the accurate pain-point– that something might be amiss. (Algorithmically, systemically, and culturally) amplifying voices, while attenuating others, does not make this disappear. It makes for arrogance and readiness for a trip up. True, as this letter, anyone who puts their work out there exposes oneself to trip ups. It is ok, until it is too scaled, too urgent and too (hyped to be) consequential.
Moreover, this narrative-monoculture could be diminishing the diverse collections of human stories. This could thus also diminish scientific methodological rigor. This could, thirdly, diminish and disempower innovation to be constraint into a very narrow stratum.
Yes.
Yes, we will have to discuss the intelligence of how that is being done by a select group in name of all individuals (i.e., human or other forms of life and other degrees and nuances of non-human forms of *biological* intelligence).
Perhaps we might want to add some humbleness and inclusivity to those “voices” who are less-to-not-initiated in the realm which some call exclusively their own, yet which output is bragged to be spreading like a wild fire across all fields; across all of humanity; over and across all life.
Is the intelligence, of the stakeholders in this one unnamed field, sufficiently justified for outside-others to only remain “beautiful yet quiet?” Is it intelligent to speak of an attribute that belongs to all (i.e., the complex of intelligence), while the majority sits by quietly and simply accepts a verdict?
Do you remember being a child and being talked about, yet having no say, no voice, no enablement and no empowerment? Try to go back in your memory. Try to sense that feeling it created in you then. Extrapolate this feeling, beyond this one demographic niche of “justified” (?) patronization (i.e., parent-teacher onto child). It is not stimulatingly intelligent. Stimulate this awareness. Stimulate this not only for technical or mathematical processes (which could indeed be “cool!”) while mimicking our intelligence (and not only yours) with a model, as a slither of what might be imagined as one (mimicry) of intelligence for and to all.
As some, in this unnamed field, have stated: if you don’t know the difference between x or y, you should not talk about our field. To those who claim this: I am not mentioning your field here, and yet I will not retire from learning about yours as I embrace it as part of our shared, human journey. You claim to know, but have you listened and learned outside your niche? If not, then what is intelligence? What is wisdom? What is knowledge?
Perhaps it might be intelligent and wise for that unnamed field to also embraces humans, the humane and the Humanities –as well as Biology, Chemistry and Physics– while the field seems to be set on its appropriation of intelligence, and what it tells us intelligence to be and what human is to be. What life is to be. If the unnamed field were to continue as the sole backer of financially viable form of intelligence, could it intelligently become as a field filled with unnamed soldiers who were in pursuit of humanity’s freedoms?
Sincerely,
The Other Kind of (Tech-loving) Human.
<< Mathematics & I >>
As a metawhore I feel Mathematics
I do not know Mathematics
I sense Mathematics’ incessant caress
as proverbial greedy hands all over me
mathematics pays me with life
lived by it, her, he, they
I might seem dumb,
despicable and disposable
to its mathpriests
for they struggle daily
to understand her
to contain him
to ex-plain them
and here I come
with seeming debased intimacy
at metaphysical non-dimensions
and linguistic ephemeral metaphors
I am metawhore
to love to
to art to
to learn to
meet my lover
whom I seem to
never meet eye to eye
—animasuri’23 
“… I would use the words of Jeans, which says that the great architect seems to be a mathematician. And for you who don’t know mathematics, it’s really quite difficult to get a real feeling for the deepest beauty of nature.”
— Richard Feynman
<< Dried Digital Mould >>
Flow is freedom to be moved
on the ebbs of life intensifying
gratitude for a smile
that imposes nothing: no thing
yet holds all
wisdom and all else
not one mantra is needed
when engulfing its celestial rhythms
rhymes roll rotations
nature is flow’s standard demodeled
no one digit combines
Flow’s freedom
quietly
floating by
—animasuri’23 
Convoluting References:
Cy Grand, Nina Simone, scientific models and Jazz standards, fungi, germification as organic analog artistic process, LLMs, and Annemarie Borg at https://youtu.be/gd4o1s1rnnk
this work was humanly created via analog continuous neuro-stochastic processes, which in turn were turned discreetly discrete via linearity of linguistic limitation and digitally reduced in word and structure and medium. (Please, also see a lens of life’s offering of irony and play)
<< A Language of Techno Democratization >>
“What would be ‘democratization of a technology,’ if it were to come at the cost of a subset of the population?”
The above is structured as a second conditional.
And yet, an “innovative” grammatical invitation could be one where it is implied one is at all times free to test whether the attributes of the second conditional could yield some refreshing thought (for oneself) when substituting its “would” away from the hypothetical and for “is to,” and “if it were” for “when it is.” In effect, if one were not, one might (not be) wonder(ing) about one’s creative or imaginative freedom.
“What is to be ‘democratization of a technology’ when it is to come at the cost of a subset of the population?”
At times I enjoy seeing grammar and syntax as living entities that offer proverbial brushes and palettes of some iterative flexibility and to some fluid extent. Not too much, nor at all times, yet not rigidly absent either.
However, more so, I’d like to consider them/they, which a sentence’s iterations trigger me to think of. I want to consider some of their plight. When I’m more narcissistic I might do so less. When I wonder about my own subsistence (especially when I am sofa-comfortable) I might so less. Then there is that question, lingering, how are they faring, and there is that question as to how is my immediate (non)act, or (long-term) vision, affecting them? What do they themselves have to say about x?
Grammar and syntax then become, to me, teleportation engines into the extended re-cognition of me, myself and I, relationally with others. It might be compassion. It might be empathy. It might unveil the insufficient probability thereof. It might highlight the socially acceptable, self-indulgent, self-commendation checkbox-listing. It might be an echo of some non-computable entanglement. It might also be my poetic pathos in dance with my imagination. It is grammar and syntax, and then some.
I love languages and their systems, almost as much as I love life and its many subsystems. Does this mechanized word choice, i.e., “subsystem,” disassociate a care for the other, away from that other? It does not have to. And yet, it might suggest yet another attribute, adding to a perceived increased risk of dissociation between you and I. Entangled, and yet in solitude (not to be confused with “loneliness”).
Note, I do not confuse this ode to language and to the other, with implying an absence of my ignorance of the many changing and remaining complexities in language and in (the other’s) physically being with the worlds. There is no such absence at all. I know, I am ignorant.
The above two versions of the question might read as loaded or weighted. Yes. …Obviously?
““What ____ ‘democratization of a technology’ ______ come at the cost of a subset of the population?”
The above two, and their (almost/seeming) infinite iterations, allow me a telepresence into an imaginary multiverse. While this suggests a pluralism, it does not imply a relativism; to me.
And yes, it is understandable, when the sentence is read through the alert system of red flags, klaxons and resentment: it will trigger just that: heightened alertness, de-focusing noise and debasing opposition. Ideological and political tones are possibly inevitable. These interpreted inevitabilities are not limited to “could” or “would” or “is” and its infinitive “to be” alone.
It could be (/ would be / is) ideological (not) to deny that other implications are at play there. “subset” is one. “population” is another. Their combination implies a weighing of sprinkles of scientific-like lingo. Then there is the qualitative approach versus the lack of the quantitative. In effect, is this writing a Discourse Analysis in (not so much) hiding?
This is while both the quantitative and qualitative approaches are ((not always) accepted as) validating (scientific) approaches. I perceive these as false dichotomies. Perhaps we engage in this segregation. Perhaps we engage then into the bringing together again, into proverbial rooster-fighting settings. Possibly we do so, so that one can feel justified to ignore various methods of analysis, in favor of betting on others or another. Or, perhaps, in fear of being overwhelmed.
Favoritism is a manner to police how we construct our lenses on relational reality; i.e., there’s a serious difference between favoring “friendliness” vs “friend.” This creates a piecemeal modeling without much further association and relating into the world and with other makers of worlds. This is especially toward they who have been muzzled or muted far too long and far too disproportionately, rather then toward they who feel so yet, who might have little historic or systemic arguments to claims.
Whether the set of iterations of this sentence, inevitably has to be (partly) party-political is another question. Wether a (second conditional) sentence could be read as an invitation toward an innovation, is up to you, really. It is to me. To me it brings rhizomic dimensions into a hierarchical power struggle.
And yes, returning to the sentence, arguably “democratization” could be substituted to read “imposition” or another probabilistically-viable or a more surreal substitute.
A sentence as the one engineered for this write-up, invites relationship. Whether we collectively and individually construct the form and function of our individual “self,” our individual relationships, and these then extended, extrapolated and delegated as re-cognitions, into small, medium, large or perceived as oversized processes, is one up for debate. To me they’re weighted in some directions, not irrelevant here to more explicitly identify these. I tend to put more weight on the first and surely the second while not excluding the third when considering the systemic issues, the urgently needed, and then thirdly, the hypothetically desirable.
Though as I am writing this, one might interpret my stance more weighted in one direction versus another. Neither here, I shall not yet indulge an explicit confirmation. After all, there are both the contexts and subtexts. Why am I writing about this in this way, here and now? Why am I not mentioning other grammatical attributes or syntactical attributes? Why “technology,” and why not “daffodils”? What of using or substituting articles (e.g., “a,” “the”)? What else have I written elsewhere at other times? Who seems to endorse and (what seems to) enable my writing? What if I were to ask myself these questions and tried to furbish the sentence to satisfy each possible answer?
A sentence “What ______ ‘democratization of a technology’ _____ to come at the cost of _________?” could then be a bit like an antique chair: over time and across use, mending, refitting, refurbishing and appropriation. And before we duly imagine it, having pulled all its initial nuances from its sockets, having substituted one for another probabilistic option within an imposed framework. Having substituted and then compounded all, we could collectively flatline our antique chair-like sentences to
“_______________________________”
With this version of the sentence there is neither pluralism, nor relativism, and no need for any nihilism. It is a grammatical and syntactic mechanized absolute minimalism.
Then perhaps we could collectively delegate the triggering line to a statistical model of what we must know, what could, should, would and is: to (never) be.
Welcome to the real. Enjoy your ________. Welcome to the _________. Here’s a ________ to proudly tattoo on our left lower arm.