Post Cybernetic Thinking

Open discussion about the tension between cybernetic thinking (the math of logic) and the design of complexity–aware systems.

Background: let us consider the tensions, problems and opportunities in the unspoken dialogue between AI & IA

  • what did Minsky and McCarthy try to achieve, and what does that mean for mathematical thinking, personified algorithms and their view of the human brain
  • Kay, Engelbart and tool-based augmentation. What does non–stationary intelligence mean for phenomenology of using machines

On–going work:

  • feedback loops and self correction > are we using a monolithic metric to self correct? can we operate on multiple taxonomies? reading: The End of Average, Todd Rose
  • action-driven technological systems > is intelligence measured in actions? reading: The sitting Person thought experiment (slide 8 here)
  • dangers of abstraction when writing write a universal formula > does our system only follow a binary order when we leave details out? discussion: physics vs biology reading: This Idea Must Die, edited by Thomas Brockman
  • computing intelligence vs computing augmentation > do we see the brain as a computer problem or can try to understand adaptive human based computation (cognition)? > the difference between one dimensional static intelligence and the way the brain work > how do we improve the human mental journey when used in our systems? reading: On Intelligence, Jeff Hawkins
  • the fallacy of feed forward > does having a perfect statistical model of the past mean that can we predict the future? debate: it only does if the future follows the trajectory of the past.
  • is the universe is a scripted machine > getting to know complexity > reading: The Standing Ovation Problem discussion: what does this mean for agent–based simulation?
Written on October 27, 2017