3 ms·

Selected quotes > The role of self-learning algorithms would seem to be very significant in this context, since – like capitalism – they also hinge upon moveme

by opaque 8y ago

Selected quotes > The role of self-learning algorithms would seem to be very significant in this context, since – like capitalism – they also hinge upon movement > If the systematization of the possible is somehow reconfigured by self-learning algorithms, are the capacities of indefinite potential then also reconfigured when it comes to evading this very systematization ... > An associationism that can never be known, a life of associating with other things and people that is not amenable to and not incorporable by calculation – is this now changing through AI? > However, the distance between the actual output signals of their algorithms and the target output represents what I call a space of play. Indeed, the algorithm designers described ‘playing with’ or ‘tuning’ the algorithm so that the output converges on the target. Here I think that deep machine learning is not circumscribed at all by a limited spectrum of possibility ... I don't think all humanities are gibberish, but this is. I'm sure a Philosopher would find my opinions on Nietzsche to be similarly half-baked.

danharaj 8y ago
None of those quotes are particularly hard to understand, even excised from their context.
- thrower123 8y ago
  One could say everything that is trying to be said in those quotes a helluva lot more clearly if one threw away the thesaurus and spoke like a human being, rather than a high school senior trying to sound erudite in a college admissions essay.
- bitminer 8y ago
  Could you please translate that second example? > If the systematization of the possible is somehow reconfigured by self-learning algorithms, are the capacities of indefinite potential then also reconfigured when it comes to evading this very systematization ... It just doesn't parse for me. What is doing the evading?
  - skedaddle 8y ago
    The full question and its response, for context: > KW: If the systematization of the possible is somehow reconfigured by self-learning algorithms, are the capacities of indefinite potential then also reconfigured when it comes to evading this very systematization? In other words: is a new, ‘intelligent’ systematization of indefinite potential arising in the context of AI? > LA: You have really identified a crucial issue here. In the final chapter of Politics of Possibility, I proposed that potentiality continues to overflow and exceed the capacity for the calculation of possibles. However, I am worried that this evasive potentiality may also be under threat, and I do address that in my new book Cloud Ethics. With contemporary deep machine learning, there is a move to incorporate the incalculable and to generate potentials that need never be fully exhausted. Gilles Deleuze once wrote that ‘the problem gets the solution it deserves’, implying that the particular arrangement of a problem will systematize a solution. To my reading, today’s algorithms are reversing this, so that the solution gets the problem it deserves – in the sense that the potential pathways of the neural net are infinitely malleable in relation to a solution. Let us not forget that by ‘solution’ we mean an algorithm that may decide juridical processes, policing, security, employment and so on. Hope this clarifies things.
    - AllegedAlec 8y ago
      Not really, imho.

by opaque 8y ago

danharaj 8y ago

None of those quotes are particularly hard to understand, even excised from their context.

thrower123 8y ago
One could say everything that is trying to be said in those quotes a helluva lot more clearly if one threw away the thesaurus and spoke like a human being, rather than a high school senior trying to sound erudite in a college admissions essay.
bitminer 8y ago
Could you please translate that second example? > If the systematization of the possible is somehow reconfigured by self-learning algorithms, are the capacities of indefinite potential then also reconfigured when it comes to evading this very systematization ... It just doesn't parse for me. What is doing the evading?
- skedaddle 8y ago
  The full question and its response, for context: > KW: If the systematization of the possible is somehow reconfigured by self-learning algorithms, are the capacities of indefinite potential then also reconfigured when it comes to evading this very systematization? In other words: is a new, ‘intelligent’ systematization of indefinite potential arising in the context of AI? > LA: You have really identified a crucial issue here. In the final chapter of Politics of Possibility, I proposed that potentiality continues to overflow and exceed the capacity for the calculation of possibles. However, I am worried that this evasive potentiality may also be under threat, and I do address that in my new book Cloud Ethics. With contemporary deep machine learning, there is a move to incorporate the incalculable and to generate potentials that need never be fully exhausted. Gilles Deleuze once wrote that ‘the problem gets the solution it deserves’, implying that the particular arrangement of a problem will systematize a solution. To my reading, today’s algorithms are reversing this, so that the solution gets the problem it deserves – in the sense that the potential pathways of the neural net are infinitely malleable in relation to a solution. Let us not forget that by ‘solution’ we mean an algorithm that may decide juridical processes, policing, security, employment and so on. Hope this clarifies things.
  - AllegedAlec 8y ago
    Not really, imho.