Quan, Lots of words. None of which mean anything to me...
OK "soft-systems ontology" turns up something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_systems_methodology This British guy Checkland wrote some books on management techniques. Some kind of "seven step" process: 1) Enter situation in which a problem situation(s) have been identified 2) Address the issue at hand 3) Formulate root definitions of relevant systems of purposeful activity 4) Build conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions : This methodology comes into place from raising concerns/ capturing problems within an organisation and looking into ways how it can be solved. Defining the root definition also describes the root purpose of a system. 5) The comparison stage: The systems thinker is to compare the perceived conceptual models against an intuitive perception of a real-world situation or scenario. Checkland defines this stage as the comparison of Stage 4 with Stage 2, formally, "Comparison of 4 with 2". Parts of the problem situation analysed in Stage 2 are to be examined alongside the conceptual model(s) created in Stage 4, this helps to achieve a "complete" comparison. 6) Problems identified should be accompanied now by feasible and desirable changes that will distinctly help the problem situation based in the system given. Human activity systems and other aspects of the system should be considered so that soft systems thinking, and Mumford's needs can be achieved with the potential changes. These potential changes should not be acted on until step but they should be feasible enough to act upon to improve the problem situation. 7) Take action to improve the problem situation CATWOE: Customers, Actors, Transformation process, Weltanshauung, Owner, Environmental constraints. I'm reminded of Edward de Bono. Trying to break pre-conceptions and being open to seeing a problem from different perspectives. Look, Quan, in the most general way these kinds of ideas might be relevant. But only in an incredibly general sense. Would we all benefit from taking a moment to reflect on "how to place LLMs in context of such developments." Maybe. At this point I'm on board with Boris. You need to try and write some code. Simply talking about how management theory has some recent threads encouraging people to brainstorm together and be open to different conceptions of problems, is not a "ready to ship" implementation of AGI. On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 5:32 AM Quan Tesla <quantes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Rob. I'm referring to contextualization as general context management within > complex systems management. ... ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T682a307a763c1ced-M3d4918db953d60852bc7ccd0 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
