===

“However, even if we accept that citizens are not primarily causally responsible for our poor information environments, it could be argued that they nonetheless have a remedial responsibility to mend them.”

Solmu Anttila

===

This is about technology, maybe partially about generative AI, but more about technologies impact on culture and how we think. Let me begin with technology’s improbable intelligence. Yeah. I believe we should feel comfortable suggesting AI is intelligent. I say that recognizing I think the really smart people get caught up in the wrong discussions. As I’ve noted in the past the whole argument about whether artificial intelligence is actual intelligent or not is dancing on the head of a pin when the everyday schmuck like me, or anyone who uses a computer on a daily basis just for everyday work, the computer is pretty intelligent, artificial intelligence is anything but artificial, and we’re pretty glad that it’s a little bit more intelligent than we are because it elevates us. That said. I’ve always liked a thought that Norbert Wiener offered us in 1960. He briefly mentioned we should reject a certain attitude of people toward technology. What is that attitude? It is the assumption that machines cannot possess any degree of originality. And, yes, I associate intelligence and originality. Regardless. The assumption is shaped around the understanding that nothing can come out of a machine which has not been put into it. beyond originality, the output, this also suggests technology must always be open to human intervention WITHIN a process (not just post hoc). But going back to originality, the reason Weiner emphasized his thoughts on originality is because, at that time, many people diminished the concept of machines, or technology, outrunning human control, therefore, diminishing the idea that machines could gain control. Yeah. improbable intelligence has two interesting aspects: originality and control.

Let me discuss control first. Going back to Weiner he believed that machines can, and do, transcend some of the limitations of their designers and that in doing so they may be simultaneously effective and dangerous. He made this statement with a couple of thoughts in mind:

• a concern that technology would take on elements of whose behavior we cannot comprehend sooner or later.
• a recognition the technology often acts far more rapidly than humans are capable of and are far more precise in performing the details of their operations.

And while this may not be true intelligence what it does do is transcend humans in the performance of tasks – both doing tasks and thinking tasks. Which makes me circle back to the thought technology could theoretically take control over mankind. I don’t believe that is meant in a whole cloth way, but rather because technology moves so fast, so precisely, and in such an overwhelming way in terms of information flow, that people’s attempts to augment technology as they recognize issues, those attempts will be irrelevant, and ineffective, because technology never stops moving and the old issue has been replaced by a newer, more dangerous, issue. In other words, technology will always be ahead in this race. I imagine the grander point to be made is the only way to avoid complete disaster is if understanding of the technology equals the performance of the technology. I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is true of intelligence: human intelligence must be equal to technology intelligence (improbable as that may sound). Yeah. Improbable, no? Human speed makes effective control of technology a pipe dream. By the time we can react to our cognitive conclusions we may have already run off the cliff. Yeah. It is highly likely that given the fast pace technology assimilates and generates output it would either (a) be impossible to foresee the undesirable consequences or (b) be incapable of assessing the onslaught of output effectively against any strategic objective or (c) our ‘control’ decisions are obsolete by the time implemented. this ends my point on control, or, better said, our lack of control of our improbably intelligent technological partners.

Which leads me to originality.

Generally speaking, we mangle the concept of originality and totally misuse the concept with regard to technology’s output. How do we mangle the concept? Everyone should just assume that nothing is original that almost everything is a derivative of something that already exists and what really matters is what you do with what exists and can it be used in an original way. But, with regard to technology, Norbert Wiener points to a misconception that technology’s output will never be original because it is dependent upon the information that has been input. But if we apply the true definition of originality, the one I just pointed out about using what exists in imaginative ways, technology can certainly meet that originality definition. In addition, it can reconfigure data at a faster pace than humans. I stated that to suggest that technology can offer originality faster. Ponder that. Maybe the time has arrived to acknowledge a bit more liveliness and creativity, if not originality, in our technologies. And maybe if we do so we, people, can become a bit less mechanical (think in machine terms). I say that because maybe, just maybe, if we concede a bit of originality to technology and maybe if we stop thinking of ourselves in machine like terms, we may begin to view people as having the ability to evolve in tandem with technology.

Ponder that because there are absolutely some good consequences as well as some bad consequences.

Which leads me to the improbable.

It seems like we have entered an era where we have become significantly more accepting of the improbable. That doesn’t mean that in the past, and I mean centuries in the past, people’s beliefs didn’t dance around the edges of some improbable things. But typically, traditional thinking, let’s call it reason based thinking, was grounded in some basic societal agreements within which the improbable things stood out distinctly enough that the majority of people, well, recognized they were improbable. Technology has changed that. With all the information bludgeoning us the reality is the improbable has, perceptionwise, gained a degree of possible. It’s not that everybody agrees that it’s probable, they just don’t completely dismiss it. and technology appears to be the megaphone of the improbable (intelligent and unintelligent). In the cacophony of information available to everyone there will always be a voice shouting that some fact makes all other facts irrelevant and that you should be paying attention to this ‘fact’ and if the source of it has some semblance of credibility, it starts edging its way into the possibility zone. I believe it was HL Menken who said there is no idea so stupid that you can’t find a professor who will believe it. That has a grain of truth in today’s world. seemingly experts mingle with ordinary people  in terms of accepting some fairly improbable things despite having access to more good information than ever before. Technology elevates the improbable voice while also making some significant truths and thoughts invisible and therefore they become less relevant.

Which leads me to improbable intelligence becoming an authority.

Since the dawn of time people have believed in some authority. The only thing that has changed has been what that authority is and in today’s world it has become a revolving wheel of which we will pick and choose the authority that we want to believe. And while much of early authority intelligence was of dubious intelligence – royalty and religion – science pricked that improbable intelligence with probable intelligence. And that is where technology has assumed some authority; by dismantling the entire authority system to such an extent that we can’t discern who to believe in, therefore, what to believe. The world we live in is fairly incomprehensible to most of us and discerning the improbable from the probable, with some certainty, is beyond most cognitive abilities. Technology’s improbable intelligence plays a significant role in that almost no fact, actual or imagined, surprises us for long because what is an unacceptable contradiction to reality has become blurred. Technology has encouraged us that there is no reason not to believe – in anything. Technology’s improbable intelligence has taken on the role of probable intelligence. I cannot remember who shared this metaphor, but let me share it.

Prior to the technological world that we live in today which certainly had technology in the industrial sense life for most of us was like an unopened deck of cards. You could open the deck of cards and after flipping them over one by one you could be relatively comfortable of what the next card was going to be. But what today’s technology world has done has shuffled the deck so while every single one of us is familiar with the deck and we’re familiar with the cards that are within the deck, just because we see a card we can’t be confident of what the next card will be when it’s flipped over.

Anyway.

I imagine my point today is to say arguing whether AI/technology is intelligent or not, whether it is original or not, seems like wasted energy. While we argue, it assumes the role of the expert in original thought and reason and, well, intelligent dialogue. It has already outpaced even the best minds in society. So maybe we should accept the fact it is quite probably intelligent and quite probably going to run over many of the societal good things we embrace and start being a bit intelligent ourselves in solving what is quickly becoming an existential societal issue. Ponder.

===

“Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)”
Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass

===

“We are many, many people and yet we are one. What we do today with our thinking, what we do tomorrow with our thoughts, what we do with our actions and our interactions with people determines the course of the universe itself. You are not powerless. You are not without power.”

Little Crow

===

Suffice it to say, 24/7 technology has challenged most of what we thought about our self-identity. In the good old days self identity was a bit easier because we had a fairly limited exposure, neighborhood/school/work/community, to images and shared experiences which led to shaping what we saw as “self”. In today’s world we are faced with an onslaught of information which we are, frankly, incapable of assimilating within our cognitive scope. And while many people discuss this in terms of stress, knowledge, decision making, today I discuss it in terms of self identity.

It was actually Toffler, in The Third Wave, who warned us of some of the self-identity challenges in a small section called “warehouse of images.” He described being connected to the

worldwide web would be an information bomb exploding in our midst showering us with a shrapnel of images and drastically changing the way each of us perceives and acts upon our private world and, ultimately, what we view as ‘self.’ The outcome of that was a transformation of our psyches and identities. This transformation naturally occurs as each of us mentally creates a model of reality through this ever increasing warehouse of images. To be clear. Some of what we are calling “images” are visual, others are auditory and some even tactile. All of which craft some precepts crafted from some somewhat-tenuous traces to “our environment” (note: technology can suggest an environment which isn’t really practically what our true environment is, i.e., if I live in Cherkassy Ukraine I don’t really share much of the environment found in Ibiza Instagram). But all of this, practical or not, creates linkages that define relationships with our own self identity. Some are simple, others are complex, some even conceptual, but together these images add up to our picture of the world and allow us to locate our self identity in times, spaces and the network of connections around us.

Which leads me to make a point about now versus then.

These images do not spring from nowhere. They are formed out of the signals or information we interact with from our environment, neighborhood, jobs, homes, churches, schools and even politics. What mass media did was create some standard parts of a universal image file. This centrally produced imagery helps produce the standardization of behavior and ‘identity’ which permitted many of us to choose between ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ (or something in between). Technology drastically altered all of this. Standard was no longer standard and non-standard almost doesn’t exist. There is a lack of clarity with regard to cultural identity and because we have lost that grander narrative everything falls down to ‘individual choice’ which sounds good; but truly only increases stress. So as we are bombarded with an accelerated amount of images, it forces a parallel acceleration of change and doubt as we create and recreate in an attempt to sync up to an everchanging onslaught of context. New information reaches us and we are forced to revise our image file continuously at a faster and faster rate. Older images based on past reality must be replaced unless we update them our actions become divorced from reality. We not only find it impossible to cope with assimilating all the new images but also it challenges us to understand our own identity because we struggle to put our identity in a static context. In other words, we are constantly facing a self-identity crisis simply by existing in this environment.

Which leads me to make a point about ‘standardized view of identity.’

The distinguishing feature of conformity is that it is in implicit and it feels voluntary. No one tells us what to do or choose and no one offers a legitimate or formal reason to do so. Because of that, just as we prefer to spend time with people like ourselves, we like to fit in and our ‘identity’ arcs to some normative/median identity. And when we find that we don’t fit in, we can change or not. Conforming is the choice, sometimes conscious sometimes not, to change ourselves. Most conformity is familiarity and familiarity does not breed contempt. It breeds comfort. I say this not to suggest self-identity is about being like everyone else, but rather to suggest today’s 24/7 technology doesn’t really offer us a ‘median identity.’ Something to measure our identity on an I, We, World view. Its one big swirling moshpit of identity fragments so even if you wanted to be ‘normal’ you may not really be sure what normal is.

Which leads me to identity within a moshpit world.

Knowing the hard limits to our cognitive capacity and the huge cost of working long meaningless hours to ‘fit into a 24/7 world’ should not be an intractable problem to address. We have gobs of data and information showing the disastrous consequences on the individual. Despite that people continue to ignore the cognitive truths and believe they can somehow stretch the cognitive limits of their minds. This all has consequences for our self-identity. The ubiquitous world of technology allows us to connect with more people more ideas more information than ever before. All beyond the limits of our cognitive capacity which traps us in this horrible doom loop of where does our self begin and where does it end. Hanzi Freinacht is the one who suggests the idea of transvidualism where the self actually contains part of the whole which while most likely true only leads us to even more anxiety-driven questions: what does the self hold on to? Who are you? Is your reality yourself? is your identity ever just one thing but in constant motion and morphing with each interaction? I would be remiss if I didn’t point out all these questions suggest opportunities to accept our self-limitations and purposefully seek out, within the collective, ways to be part of things that are bigger than ourselves without losing are self-identity. To be sure, it is always easier to envision the negative scenarios within what I’m saying, but I believe the way of navigating the moshpit is to instead imagine the positive ways in which technology might help us create, shape and control our own identities and our own potential. We should be imagining the positive ways which this technology world allows us to apply a ‘new me’ within changing contexts and molding ourself to a changing world WHILE holding onto the center of who and what we are. It is possible the technology world will not only be able to better show us who we are, but also visions of who we want to be and who we could be.

“Be true to thineself.”

Shakespeare

—

We could use technology to help us understand why things are as they are as well as envision ways of what we could do with our lives. But here’s the deal. The struggle ultimately resides in ‘self.’ What I mean by that is ‘the core or the center of who and what we are.’ We all strive after something which we deem good or better sort of our personal version of progress. But if we are not careful this becomes good for the self and not the greater good as in not taking into consideration the larger whole. So, unless we as individuals sort out our center, our urges, impulses, and desires in a coordinated way we are doomed to constant confusion living in a contradictory identity state. This could quite possibly be self-destructive in a technological world which is constantly trying to attack us within its own coordinated, orderly system of ideas of what it thinks we should be and who we should be. To be clear.

“Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world”

Yeats

Even if you do not think about your centre, I can guarantee it will never be empty in a 24/7 technological world in which everything is connected the outside world because it will connect with whatever you leave empty and fill it with what it wants.

** note: even if you ‘cut-yourself-off’ from 24/7 technology on occasion, this is a battle you cannot avoid. Technology is ubiquitous. Take care of your center or technology will take care of it for you.

Everything I am discussing falls within a technological world which has all the appearances of structureless; as in chaos. But its not. Any group of people, of whatever nature, that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion. The structure may be flexible; it may vary over time, but it will be formed regardless of the abilities, personalities, or intentions of the people involved. Certainly the looseness and informality of the construct encourages participation in discussion and its often-supportive atmosphere, but always connective, elicits some personal insight. It within this that our identities are shaped and formed. Structureless gains structure then gains identity, a ‘personalized’ identity despite any pre-identified ‘centralized purpose’ suggesting what it should be. This last point is significant because this group identity shaping can either be of the people, or of the technology/algorithms. The latter happens more often than we would like to believe.

If a self-identity seeks to grow and thrive as it itself, it will often have to disabuse itself of some of the prejudices of the organization and structure of the things it attaches itself to. To be clear. There is no such thing as a laissez faire group in the internet, it is simply a smokescreen for either technology manipulation or someone seeking power.

Where we go from here.

Hanzi Freinacht said “the new game of life looks a lot like this: whoever has mastered the most perspectives when she dies, wins.” That’s the self-identity game. It used to be a more simplistic “what I believe represents what I am” but with today’s technology world who I am, if you seek to have a center that holds within multiple contexts, is an accumulation of perspectives. If the industrial age encouraged a standardization of identity, technology is ripping us apart. Overcome by details and information we have become almost incapable of conceptualizing anything – including our own identity. Consequently, we have begun crafting the details of who we want to be seen as to compete in a world in which other’s identities flash before us detail by detail. Detail by detail we push out into the world and before you know it you are no longer a self – as a solid concept – but rather a bunch of details and pieces you think have some value. And this is where stories come in. Thinking conceptually may be too much of a mind bender, but having a story, or stories, is not as tough. Good stories and well-maintained identities embracing stories endure. This is actually part of the Third Wave Toffler mentioned. 2^nd Wave media tightly reinforced, within stable distribution structures (major TV networks & major papers/magazines) shared world views and some semblance of common sensemaking within which an identity could comfortably reside (or, conversely, create a counter culture identity). In today’s environment worlds are created through our digital connection points, perspectives are gained through many interactions, and we need to become more comfortable projecting our identity, all facets, through this digital connectivity of almost infinite networks of other humans. The reality is technology is getting better; and worse. Technology is becoming easier to craft the identity we would like to project, but it is getting worse in that if you are not careful algorithms pick at the little gaps seeking to exploit with fear, doubt, and victimhood. Clearly, the lines have been erased between what we would have considered our self-identity and the digital worlds that represent our identity. The technological world has forced us to think of ourselves, in many ways, as content. And in some ways that is good. If our identities are content and useful content should have some substance, maybe, just maybe, by treating it like content we will make sure it is worthy of our self. Ponder.