Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

It's NOT irrelevant, Frank! On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:06 PM, glen ☣ wrote: > > Heh, just in case you think my comments about my gratefulness or admission > of my stupidity are somehow intended as ironic, I'll confirm they are NOT. > All y'all are way smarter than me. And I

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

I was talking to someone about a conference they attended and a technical discussion they had with an individual at the conference.He said he found the individual interesting -- a distinguished-looking older gentleman. Eventually he asked him about his affiliation. He said he was

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Steve writes: < ... but "Evil" might be one of many things depending on the reserved lexicon of the speaker... Social Conservatives would place LGBT and Abortion Rights and Gun Control on their list of "Evil" .. > Yeah, overloaded local dictionaries as a lazy cache for a community's

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Marcus - I personally am a fan of "late binding" in natural language. If I defer it too late, it can get me in trouble... Trump got a lot of slack from me along the way because of this. I can't tell if "Trump is clever to observe that people ... " or his pattern matching skills lead him to

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Steve writes: "I do like the stylization of upper case initiated variables similar to Marcus PROLOG reference, though if I understand him correctly I use it differently." Simple logic programs can be nothing but a conjunction of predicates. In this situation the predicates would be the

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Heh, just in case you think my comments about my gratefulness or admission of my stupidity are somehow intended as ironic, I'll confirm they are NOT. All y'all are way smarter than me. And I am very grateful for your presence, interaction, tolerance, and the very existence of the forum. I

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen - Is this your version of the Serenity Prayer? If so, it is a nicely novel one! I feel *measureably* (if only fractionally) smarter when I manage to (mostly) follow many of the deeply thoughtful discussions here... your's and Marcus' most most immediately. I could easily list a

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

No, because it's irrelevant. Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On May 5, 2017 2:36 PM, "Marcus Daniels" wrote: > Frank writes: > > > > “In that case I was using reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy > of which celebrity went to what school.” > > > > Because

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Frank writes: “In that case I was using reductio ad absurdum to argue the irrelevancy of which celebrity went to what school.” Because he’s a terrorist or because his ideas were wrong? His ideas resonate with whitelash voters. I find that scary. Marcus

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

I have 30+ years experience reading and, rarely, posting to bboards, forums, etc. Use of irony can cause problems. Even if most people know what you mean, there will often be people who think you mean what you say. I admit that I have occasionally used irony, such as when I mentioned that Ted

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Now would be a good time for a long conversation about the dimensionality of reality and its navigation, because I just can't bear the next thing I have to do. That danged REPL loop is just blinking at me now. Lower case evil and all that is fine. -Original Message- From: Friam

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

And as always I'm tremendously grateful for all my friends, who are immeasurably smarter than me, for their tolerance of my nonsensical attempts to navigate reality. On May 5, 2017 12:02:15 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels wrote: >Glen writes: > >< If a listener abstracts their

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes: < If a listener abstracts their self, they are just as evil as a speaker abstracting their self. > Steve writes: < Firstly, my own throwdown of "rhetoric" was intended to be very specific. I believe that you both took it to be a bit more broad than intended. I specifically

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

FWIW, I would try not to over-parse "rhetoric" any more than I over-parse "abstract". All informational language is persuasive and all persuasive language is informative. The distinction is false, I think. We see this most egregiously in the saying: If you want to learn something, read

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen/Marcus - As usual, I am enjoying watching your semantic and conceptual fencing match here. The flash of parry, riposte, counter-riposte can be blinding but engaging. The content, when I feel I have parsed it down all the way is usually enlightening and informative. Rather than try

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

"Linux is useless without a shell like GNU. But that doesn't mean those artifacts are somehow abstractions." There's abstract as "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence". A computer program not really physical. It can be represented as physical

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen write: "Their interpretation of their distributed artifact is decoupled from, abstracted from, their audience's interpretation of the same artifact. And they bear some responsibility for that decoupling." Listeners bear responsibility too. Marcus

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

But that's not what you said. You said they distribute abstractions, which they clearly do not ... cannot because that's nonsense. One cannot distribute an abstraction. The reason one can _experience_ discovering an unintended _use_ for an artifact is because these things that get

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes: < I disagree. These tools are personal (I'm OK if you'd prefer a different term... "local" perhaps, "concrete"?) and are definitely not abstract. When you put your life (as you know it) at risk submitting classified information to Wikileaks, that's personal. When you spend 1/2

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

On 05/05/2017 09:24 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I intended to make a different point than what I think you may have concluded. Heh, yes, I know. That was partly the point of referring to it in this context. >8^D Nonetheless, the point I inferred is still there. > To certain technologists,

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes: " But what I didn't get from his talk (yet it's mirrored in Marcus' post about open source communities) is the tight coupling that's needed." I intended to make a different point than what I think you may have concluded. To certain technologists, there is the view that our

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Hm. But enlightenment (IMO) only happens in a personal sense. And "personal" implies tight couplings. Eg Dick Cheney being OK with gay people because his daughter is gay, despite him being evil in every other non-personal aspect of his decades in power. Or Milo _finally_ realizing how bad

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen writes: "Being _in_ the world means being tightly coupled to it so that you feel the immediate consequences of your words and hear your own words repeated from others' mouths. If you're not tightly coupled, then you're at risk." Speaking truth to power implies that the truth stands on

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Well, I did get a chance to listen to CArne Ross' TED talk after Marcus pointed him out. (Nothing further, yet.) And he made one comment in that talk that I like, yet completely disagree with ... something like "it's up to each and every person to implement policy" ... or diplomacy or

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen - I know what you are saying here is intended to be more pointed, but doesn't it come down to the simple definition of rhetoric? Persuasive speech (including writing, posturing, gesturing in public) is intended to *persuade* and if one is effective in their rhetoric (persuasion), then

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Well said, Glen. At the same time, some of us who are not anarchists (I'm still on the journey) understand that the actions of many who call themselves Democrats, or Republicans, or President or Congressmen or CEOs--just a few seemingly less extreme examples--all exemplify the "different

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

OK. So, the answer is "No". Those non-violent anarchists are NOT willing to take responsibility for the actions of others who call themselves "anarchists". Nor, it seems, are they willing to take responsibility for the damage their rhetoric might cause. So it is with Islam, libertarians,

Re: [FRIAM] the arc of ai (was Re: Whew!)

Glen, you have a choice to assume that anarchists, like all political groups, come with a more nuanced spectrum of strategies than outsiders are able to discern. And many that I know understand that in the long run, non-violence is the winning strategy. On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:37 PM, glen ☣

[FRIAM] Why Merle thinks talking about Harvard Business School is an important conversation

*What we need is for the School to finally deliver on its founding premise, which is to produce enlightened people who make a positive difference in the world.*~ Duff McDonald That the Harvard MBA has helped to make the world a much worse place with greater inequality, less accountability and a