Complex adaptive systems and social intelligence are ideas that help explain what large AI models do. That does not make their outputs safe to consume.
Love where you are trailblazing with looking at AI kod PS through the lenses of CAS and cultural/social technology/intelligence lines of thought ... Though you have enough concepts to deal with, these resonate with those that I have always had a real soft spot for: Deleuze's rhizome (more organic network metaphors like mycellia) and assemblage theory.
Oldl binary thinking just can't deal with CASs.
Looking forward to reading more.
Btw, lovely take on genAI output: "out of the digital substrate of the decomposing human culture of the internet". :)
Thanks, Nigel. Deleuze and his buddy Guattari are among those writers I never got around to reading deeply, despite my sense that they are barking up the same arborescents as James and his buddy Peirce.
Indeed, a veritable canine-arborescent chorus. But reading D&G is a slog ... I think what they accomplish at the level of intellectual affect and innovation comes at the expense of intellectual clarity and consistency. Undoubtedly a self-conscious post-structuralist effort. Thankfully, CAS writers in contrast tend to either come from or want to emulate science thinking and clarity.
Merlin Sheldrake!!! Right on. Now we are talking.
Not surprised that you're a fan, Nick. What a great writer!
Love where you are trailblazing with looking at AI kod PS through the lenses of CAS and cultural/social technology/intelligence lines of thought ... Though you have enough concepts to deal with, these resonate with those that I have always had a real soft spot for: Deleuze's rhizome (more organic network metaphors like mycellia) and assemblage theory.
Oldl binary thinking just can't deal with CASs.
Looking forward to reading more.
Btw, lovely take on genAI output: "out of the digital substrate of the decomposing human culture of the internet". :)
Thanks, Nigel. Deleuze and his buddy Guattari are among those writers I never got around to reading deeply, despite my sense that they are barking up the same arborescents as James and his buddy Peirce.
Indeed, a veritable canine-arborescent chorus. But reading D&G is a slog ... I think what they accomplish at the level of intellectual affect and innovation comes at the expense of intellectual clarity and consistency. Undoubtedly a self-conscious post-structuralist effort. Thankfully, CAS writers in contrast tend to either come from or want to emulate science thinking and clarity.