Rob I applied my SSM method to your output here, like a broad AI might've done. The resultant context diagram was enlightening. You talk many things, but seemingly only evidence two, primary things. One of those has to do with constructors and embedding (the text-to-number transformations). I read up on it. It reminded me of numbering schemas for telecom systems.
However, the second feature is all about you vs others. It seems, other than advancing your own worldview, you don't really have sufficient knowledge to debate constructively. For this reason, I don't think you're quite sure of your contribution to the field, even after 35 years. I derived some rhetorical questions: Are you here hoping to find some inspiration/help from others, andor to play oneupmanship? First, know thyself: "A literal translation of the phrase 'Neuro Linguistic Programming' is that NLP *empowers, enables and teaches us to better understand the way our brain (neuro) processes the words we use (linguistic) and how that can impact on our past, present and future (programming)*." For example, by "This British guy Checkland wrote some books on management techniques. Some kind of "seven step" process:...", you mean Professor Peter Checkland, the considered *father of soft systems methodology*? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Checkland and https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lums/people/peter-checkland I wonder what your view is on Ivar Jacobson then, the considered father of OO? "You need to try and write some code." I do specify code, just differently to you. As evidenced, it probably produces meaningful results far quicker than trying to write a program to do the same. Ergo, it's highly accurate, rapid, cost effective, and economical. By any standard, those are great dev metrics. A departing word of reciprocal advice for you. Even though you refer to complex-adaptive systems science as "management techniques", I think you could learn a lot from its science, methodology, and applications. My 2007+ field-research and sampled contributions remain on Researchgate for anyone to access freely. I think we're quite done now. On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 6:46 AM Rob Freeman <chaotic.langu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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-M8fa9a7554f86df927b132841 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
