C-234. AI and the tech imperative
The most notable feature of AI tech, granting its contributions to efficiency, appears to be its lack of elasticity. Whether evident in robots or closed captioning. Mindful that the past is as weak in prescription as in prediction, AI technology is not yet the Help for our steps Forward we need AT, ON the Frontier of the Expansion.
The crux of the matter appears to be the anchoring point, the foundation for its technological development. Available instances of functionality are attended, rather than needed functionality. Copy, not Compose, is an underlying thesis. (Learn/Know >1++. “Deep learning,” it is said re extracting algorithms from “big data” – i.e., lots of behavioral instances. But more basement than foundation?)
Consider closed captioning. Those of us who use it are frustrated by its frequent lapses of coverage and seemingly systematic lag behind the speaker’s words. Most critical, however, is the lack of Grasp, for lack of Involve. Words are misrepresented in the captioning because there is apparently no control for linguistic context and/or common experience. Humorous sometimes. But misleading or obscuring other times.
(What is said about [WISA] B-speak technology is seriously flawed [e.g., ambiguities of both the singular and the plural] with respect to what is called for [WICF] and what there is to be talked about [WTITBTA], in addition to the thoughtknots and tangles of what is talked about [WITA]. Makes closed captioning, like translation before it, seem like digging a hole deeper.)
Something like a “Companion” (Mind) technology would be very helpful. To aid us in mettle composition. To equip us for behavioral architecture, similar to the palette, easel et al needs of the professional artist. The sort of Help technology that would come in useful for contemplation and design of a proposed community (i.e., necessarily a composition of steps to be made and taken as needed).
***
What might and ought the role of “artificial intelligence” be? Keeping in mind, so to speak, that we are dealing here with a thoughtknot of two unexplicated concepts. So we begin by distinguishing AI as it pertains to four types of technology: Tool tech; procedural tech; procedural tech for tool tech usage; tool tech for procedural tech usage.
We can look at these four types in two ways: (1) 3/4ths deal with tool tech; and, (2) 3/4ths deal with procedural tech. But have we been evenhanded in addressing the need for and development of these two? Don’t they need to be balanced, to optimize their CEM potential?
We are most familiar with AI with respect to tool (hardware) and tool use (software) techs. AI serves to do what humans formerly did, with more efficiency typically and, perhaps, more effectiveness. Humans and their current jobs may not be needed. For businesses, cost/benefit applies. However, humanity still needs much more help from technology, especially with respect to procedures (aka behavioral architecture). Needed functionality/functionality >1++ is a constant reminder.
The question arises whether AI can serve to help humans do what they can’t do but still need to do. To solve problems other than decision making’s problems (e.g., more than just what someone is saying, or which learned step to take next). There are far more, and far more difficult, problems to be solved that will require new procedural technology, more than and other than that of tool and tool-use technologies.
“We, the people” is, perhaps, the outstanding example. And along with that, “Freedom TO.” After Freedoms FROM and OF must come the development of capabilities to make possible the functionality (i.e., step strength and materiality) we – and “We, the people” -- need.
***
The four tech types fall short in two ways of exhausting the functionality of technology: 1./ the functionality required to produce these four types (e.g., to make an airplane); and, 2./ the additional functionality that can be had via R-sense by “molecularly” nesting tech within tech within tech (the tools and procedures of and by which an airplane is constituted, e.g., a wind tunnel).
We suggest that a tech imperative applies here. By invented tool and/or procedure, we must give steps – i.e., functionality – all the Help we can.*It could be a serious miscalculation to pour most of our resources into just one, even two, of these tech types. Just as it has clearly been questionable to invest more in exploring one universe than the other. Even with two, there are metastrategic matters to contend with: balance assessment (ratios) and achievement (CEM principles).
PP-CEM tells us to look to R-sense for Help on this. Elastics (expanded procedural technology) is unlimited in what we can produce in and by molecular steps. Composing mettles to optimize step strength.
***
“Tech” is about functionality. Tools and procedures provide functionality. The functionality demanded by the Nature of Things as well as by the things of nature. In this view all techs are steps-re-steps and steps-re-steps-re-steps … and so on. It might be helpful to distinguish B-techs and S-techs. Although both tools (B-techs) and procedures (S-techs) provide functionality, confounding them as we do in talking about practices, actions and traditions clouds our vision in thinking about needed tech invention. “Invent” (like “Create” an R-word) is better seen as art than talent; it needs its palette unsmeared. And considering what is yet needed of technology, it would be foolish to pass up any architectural possibility open to the step’s Involve CEM Grasp. We cannot forfeit the molecular step potential to what is, analytically re instances, pretty much Stone Age step craft.
***
* Recall that, given the Nature of Things (aka History), there was and is a direct tie to technology … from needed functionality to tech-enhanced (step) functionality. Establishment Arts and Sciences are not main stream. To think them mainstream diminishes and weakens our Grasp of technology. The technology we need to Help self (individual) and selves (partners, communities).
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2020 R. F. Carter
The crux of the matter appears to be the anchoring point, the foundation for its technological development. Available instances of functionality are attended, rather than needed functionality. Copy, not Compose, is an underlying thesis. (Learn/Know >1++. “Deep learning,” it is said re extracting algorithms from “big data” – i.e., lots of behavioral instances. But more basement than foundation?)
Consider closed captioning. Those of us who use it are frustrated by its frequent lapses of coverage and seemingly systematic lag behind the speaker’s words. Most critical, however, is the lack of Grasp, for lack of Involve. Words are misrepresented in the captioning because there is apparently no control for linguistic context and/or common experience. Humorous sometimes. But misleading or obscuring other times.
(What is said about [WISA] B-speak technology is seriously flawed [e.g., ambiguities of both the singular and the plural] with respect to what is called for [WICF] and what there is to be talked about [WTITBTA], in addition to the thoughtknots and tangles of what is talked about [WITA]. Makes closed captioning, like translation before it, seem like digging a hole deeper.)
Something like a “Companion” (Mind) technology would be very helpful. To aid us in mettle composition. To equip us for behavioral architecture, similar to the palette, easel et al needs of the professional artist. The sort of Help technology that would come in useful for contemplation and design of a proposed community (i.e., necessarily a composition of steps to be made and taken as needed).
What might and ought the role of “artificial intelligence” be? Keeping in mind, so to speak, that we are dealing here with a thoughtknot of two unexplicated concepts. So we begin by distinguishing AI as it pertains to four types of technology: Tool tech; procedural tech; procedural tech for tool tech usage; tool tech for procedural tech usage.
We can look at these four types in two ways: (1) 3/4ths deal with tool tech; and, (2) 3/4ths deal with procedural tech. But have we been evenhanded in addressing the need for and development of these two? Don’t they need to be balanced, to optimize their CEM potential?
We are most familiar with AI with respect to tool (hardware) and tool use (software) techs. AI serves to do what humans formerly did, with more efficiency typically and, perhaps, more effectiveness. Humans and their current jobs may not be needed. For businesses, cost/benefit applies. However, humanity still needs much more help from technology, especially with respect to procedures (aka behavioral architecture). Needed functionality/functionality >1++ is a constant reminder.
The question arises whether AI can serve to help humans do what they can’t do but still need to do. To solve problems other than decision making’s problems (e.g., more than just what someone is saying, or which learned step to take next). There are far more, and far more difficult, problems to be solved that will require new procedural technology, more than and other than that of tool and tool-use technologies.
“We, the people” is, perhaps, the outstanding example. And along with that, “Freedom TO.” After Freedoms FROM and OF must come the development of capabilities to make possible the functionality (i.e., step strength and materiality) we – and “We, the people” -- need.
The four tech types fall short in two ways of exhausting the functionality of technology: 1./ the functionality required to produce these four types (e.g., to make an airplane); and, 2./ the additional functionality that can be had via R-sense by “molecularly” nesting tech within tech within tech (the tools and procedures of and by which an airplane is constituted, e.g., a wind tunnel).
We suggest that a tech imperative applies here. By invented tool and/or procedure, we must give steps – i.e., functionality – all the Help we can.*It could be a serious miscalculation to pour most of our resources into just one, even two, of these tech types. Just as it has clearly been questionable to invest more in exploring one universe than the other. Even with two, there are metastrategic matters to contend with: balance assessment (ratios) and achievement (CEM principles).
PP-CEM tells us to look to R-sense for Help on this. Elastics (expanded procedural technology) is unlimited in what we can produce in and by molecular steps. Composing mettles to optimize step strength.
“Tech” is about functionality. Tools and procedures provide functionality. The functionality demanded by the Nature of Things as well as by the things of nature. In this view all techs are steps-re-steps and steps-re-steps-re-steps … and so on. It might be helpful to distinguish B-techs and S-techs. Although both tools (B-techs) and procedures (S-techs) provide functionality, confounding them as we do in talking about practices, actions and traditions clouds our vision in thinking about needed tech invention. “Invent” (like “Create” an R-word) is better seen as art than talent; it needs its palette unsmeared. And considering what is yet needed of technology, it would be foolish to pass up any architectural possibility open to the step’s Involve CEM Grasp. We cannot forfeit the molecular step potential to what is, analytically re instances, pretty much Stone Age step craft.
* Recall that, given the Nature of Things (aka History), there was and is a direct tie to technology … from needed functionality to tech-enhanced (step) functionality. Establishment Arts and Sciences are not main stream. To think them mainstream diminishes and weakens our Grasp of technology. The technology we need to Help self (individual) and selves (partners, communities).
In light of the very useful Search feature now available, parenthetical back references are suspended for Comments as of C-184.
(c) 2020 R. F. Carter
S