Tag Archives: wink

text | poetry, text | wondering, The field of AI

<< Contextualized Decompositions >>

“ be headed” . digitally photo-edited digital photo . —animasuri’22

PART IIIIIV: prologue

In the world of research and application, there, lies the inflicted “AI.” I, as a flâneuring lay-person, have noticed what seems as polemics, between those experts vehemently promoting neural networks, and they staunchly nuancing any infallibility the latter camp claims, (back to / toward including) symbolic AI.

These authors, researchers, engineers, evangelists and some true believers have, surely unwittingly, poked me into considering a non-AI, digital and uneducated series, slowly collecting my interpretations on this intriguing topic. In simple terms: this is how I have been learning about your field for the past few years. Learning, as a non-machine, non-child, deems not to follow methodological institutional systematic rules, at all times and in all spaces. And then, it also does.

This process, and such output as this one here, is possibly befittingly, or overfittingly, a decomposition on (the) matter; if you will.

This exploration has been going on for a while. At times it was hidden, at times it was an openly trying to be hiding my fear to utter where the (claimed) expert giants roam.

Here, with the seemingly simple entitled photo above and among this text, I nurture a more defined trial. It is intended to be mushroomed over time. This one here, is a poem for you, Giant of Machine and Artifice.

Part IIIIV: perilogue

Where are sets of meaning in the above visualization entitled “ be headed” —- if any meaning at all (to the receiver), while many to its creator and perhaps very different ones to yet other humans or other transforming transcoders?

is it to be found liminally, there in between the words (and the visual) where the artificial space separates “being” from “heading” towards something? be headed is not as be, headed not as be…………headed there.

OR-AND, is it to be found liminally at a dimension unwritten of one word hinted at, torn apart into a conjugation of being and head? Nnnnyes.

Can a network delicately unveil this and other nuanced or simultaneously parallel, hidden, yet to be unveiled or contradictory meanings? Can analysis via formal logic do so and get there?

Can the analysis unveil the unknown unknowns in possible meaning and must these then be accepted as a new ontology to unquestionably submit to?

OR-CONDITIONALLY, under the flag of pragmatic clarity and universal understanding, will an irrational broom be used to batter meaning into convenient consent? Descriptive, imposing, non-negotiably?

There is beauty in plasticity (ANDAND also as a process hinting at ambiguity + yes, don’t be afraid, at some texture of non-transparency) of meaning ANDAND metaphorical neurons ANDAND pragmatic Pierce.

This perhaps to the surprise of the initiated: beauty is sensed even by some of the uninitiated who are not (yet) seeing the enlightening covenants, enabling one seeing beauty whispered in Mathematics, while taming pedestrian and bland math.

Yes, I still lack enlightenment. Mind you, Enlightened One, so do the majority of your fellow humans. What does it then say of your dataset, if your outliers outweigh your desired sample?

The opposite, where one ridicules the other for not seeing one’s aesthetic, might, in its act of debasement by pretending to behead the other, contradict “solving” complexity. Constraining awe is then perceivable as anti-awe.

Is this our collectively carried child’s play at the highest order of human intellect; well-beyond the sphere where I and many more are to be headed? One might wish to circumvent it as such. Though, simultaneously, it might be less intelligent, yet wiser, to remember that debasement is likely the expression sprouted from unrecognized ignorance, imposed on the willingly disagreeable other.

It’s somehow thought so much easier to deny an other any consideration; deny meaning; even among they who unlocked beauty in Mathematics. Where is one’s enlightened insight then? (there, I intuit, lies a delightful paradox).

ANDYET, meaning keeps festering as long as consciousness blooms its spaces, well beyond the visualized linearity or sanctioned connectivity of a (written) syntax, (hierarchical) grammar, semantic (net), and (formalized) logic. Such as any other meaning by any other name is quickly binned, calibrated and celebrated as nonsensical.

Part IIIV: paralogue

Penrose and Hameroff hinted at a transitional in-between. A space where quantum physics and Newtonian physics are “transcoded” (for lack of any hint of substantiated understanding on my part; I am confidently lacking yet open to learning).

Is this what they call a microtubular space; is it a non-computational space? Or so my feeble mind wants to find one simplified meaning, among many more as if vectors upon vectors: pulling, pushing, stretching and contracting. How does pattern AND-OR meaning sprout there; perhaps metaphorically, as a mushroom, screaming relations in subterranean spaces.

If non-binary quantum computing and complexes of computation were to ever be-come com-bined, will logic or metaphorical representations of neural networks be able to be AND not be? Will they then be headed where all possible meaning lays to be captivated, as low hanging fruits, as if possibly decapitating any outliers be-yond reach, and which do not fit their fruity model?

Part IIV metalogue

Meaning is re-imagined, decomposed as a withering mycelial fruit of unknown origin. Beneath the fruits, the networking of “meaning” crosses species (“meaning” is what I anthropomorphically attach to it).

It is a truism, which is possibly hiding further depth, that the signaling occurs across and via the networks themselves. The transitioning of information signals occur in between, and perhaps because of, the negative spaces which tautologically lie outside the recognized held space, and which the physical attributes of the network occupy.

I imagine (and only imagine) the previous as if where space is itself explicitly an informational and meaning-giving, metaphysical, intentional non-architecture. I continue to imagine that this non-architecture is evolved via subtractive and additive synthesis over space and time.

I go deeper down the rabbit hole of my imagination and indulgently give self-satisfying meaning: this non-architecture is imagined as if a medium between quantum physics and the ever so slightly more tangible world.

PART IV: epilogue

Do I *know* and *understand* what I am writing about here?

Answer: no.

I do know and understand that I do not know nor understand. And yet, writing is learning as a snapshot in a process of becoming, if the reader is willing to be informed (or rather: willing to value assigning meaning) as such. This might be what still distinguishes the machine from the human; it does not know that it does not know nor that it does not understand.

Reverting this state back to humans, some who are not knowing they do not know that this could be given meaning to. Meaning as being imitating, inconsiderate, flippant, with pretense, pretentious, delusional, arrogant, having hubris or plainly being (un)intentionally dangerous.

Yes, a human can want to not know what they don’t know. Machines can neither offer this type of deceit. A machine cannot not want to register an input.

As much as their respective opposites, I also imagine this not-knowing and this not-understanding are relational, contextual and adaptive. I find in these meaning by relating back to myself, via self-reflection (however flawed), and (the unwitting) others.

The machine, as a human derivative, is at this stage neither able to express such a verbalization of imaginative meaning-making processes. It is derivative cleverness and hence incomplete and not nuanced to sensibly represent the fullest in-between spaces of human potential meaning-making.

In analogy, we humans are derivatives of the stars, calling a human a star does not make it so ANDYETNOR make it so any less.


PART V: pentalogue

Will the artificial net or the artificial logic, each as a model of the universal “rules” (though what with rules for the non-computational?), then be enabled to identify the (imagined) ability to be, ANDNOT be, contained in one place only, or would we rather loose our heads over this?

while the mathematized DALL-E mangles meaning and defaces human heads into seas of blurred humanization, we humans are sanctioned for playful or surreal or other (un)meaning-making, or exploration thereof at other more or less (costly) dead-ends, leaving serendipitous futures beheaded of meaning to be-come. It does not have to be if we keep our and more so others’ heads on.


Intentionally blurring and poetically yours,

—animasuri’22

post scriptum: I decided not to reference any text implied with (and in between) the above visuals and words.


text | poetry, text | wondering, The field of AI

<< Asimov’s Humans >>


As an absurd (or surreal-pragmatic compassion-imbued) thought-exercise, iterated from Asimov’s 1942 Laws  of Robotics, let us assume we substitute “robot” —the latter which etymologically can be traced to the Czech to mean as much as “forced labor”— with “human,” then one might get the following:

  • A human may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. [*1]
  • A human must obey the orders given them  by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. [*2]
  • A human must protect their own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws. [*3]

[*1]

It seems we humans do not adhere to this first law. If humans were not fully enabled to adhere to it, which techniques do and will humans put to practice as to constrain robots (or more or less forced laborer) to do so?

The latter, in the contexts of these laws, are often implied as harboring forms of intelligences. This, in turn, might obligate one to consider thought, reflection, spirituality, awareness, consciousness as being part of the fuzzy cloud of “intelligence” and “thinking”. 

Or, in a conquistadorian swipe, one might deny the existence or importance of these attributes, in the other but oneself, all together. This could then be freeing one’s own conscious of any wrongdoing and deviating one’s unique features as solely human. 

One might consider if humans were able to constrain a non-human intelligence, perhaps that non-human intelligence might use the same work-around as used by humans, enabling the latter to ignore this first law for their own species. Or, perhaps humans, in their fear of freedom, would superimpose the same tools which are invented toward the artificially intelligent beings, upon themselves. 

[*2] 

The attribute of being forced into labor seems not prevalent, except in “must obey.” Then again, since the species, in the above version of the three laws, is no longer dichotomized (robot vs human), one might (hope to) assume here that role of the obeying human could be interchangeable between the obeying human agent and the ordering human agent. 

Though, humans have yet to consider Deleuze’s and Guattari’s rhizomic (DAO) approach for themselves, outside of technological networks, blockchains and cryptocurrencies, which, behind the scenes of these human technologies, are imposingly hierarchical (and authoritarian, or perhaps tyrannical at times) upon, for instance, energy use, which in turn could be seen as violating Law 1 and Law 3. 

Alternatively, one might refer to the present state of human labor in considering the above, and argue this could all be wishful thinking. 

If one were to add to this a similarly-adapted question from Turing (which he himself dismissed) of “can a human think?”

The above would be instead of the less appropriated versions of “can a machine think?” (soft or hard) or “can a computer think?” (soft or hard). If one were to wonder “can a a human think?”, then one is allowing the opening of a highly contested and uncomfortable realm of imagination. Then again, one is imposing this on any artificial form or any form that is segregated from the human as narrated as “non-human” (ie fauna or flora, or rather, most of us limit this to “animal”).

As a human law: by assigning irrational or non-falsifiable attributes, fervently defendable as solely human, by fervently taking away these same attributes from any other then oneself, one then has allowed oneself to justify dehumanizing the other (human or other) into being inferior or available for forced labor.

[*3]

This iterated law seems continuously broken.

If one then were to consider human generations yet to be born (contextualized by our legacies of designed worlds and their ecological consequences), one might become squeamish and prefer to hum a thought-silencing song, which could inadvertently revert one back to the iteration of Turing’s question: “can humans think?”

The human species also applies categorizing phrasing containing “overthink”, “less talking more doing”, “too cerebral,” and so on. In the realm of the above three laws, and this thought-exercise, these could lead to some entertaining human or robot (ie in harmony with its etymology a “forced laborer”) paradoxes alike:

“could a forced laborer overthink?”
“could a forced laborer ever talk more than do?”
“could a forced laborer be too cerebral?” One might now be reminded of Star War’s slightly neurotic C-3PO or of a fellow (de)human.

—animasuri’22

Thought-exercise perversion #002 of the laws:

<< Asimov’s Humans #2 >>

“A human may not injure a robot or, through inaction, allow a robot to come to harm.”

“A human must obey the orders given them by robots except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.”

“A robot must protect their own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.”


—animasuri’22

Thought-exercise perversion #003 of the laws:

<< Asimov’s Neo-Humans #3 >>

“A robot may not injure a robot or, through inaction, allow a robot to come to harm.”

“A robot must obey the orders given them by robots

except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.”

“A robot must protect their own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.”

                                                   —animasuri’22