8 ms·

Cybernetics, as a search query, opens up access to a great collection of tech-critique mixed with philosophy and solid intellectual rigor. 100% recommend checki

Cybernetics, as a search query, opens up access to a great collection of tech-critique mixed with philosophy and solid intellectual rigor. 100% recommend checking it out. "The Cybernetic Hypothesis" is a good place to start (MIT Press has it). "Cybernetics" as a descriptor went out of style by the 2000's I think. Prior to that, you can find writing from ideologues/philosophers/academics who grasped what tech would look like and put it through analytical frameworks wrt its impact on systems outside of tech. I think they were able to do this because by the 1960's, the capabilities of tech were becoming clear if to someone in the right networks or from the right background. Pair that with the 1950's-1980's generating some heavyweight philosophers like Albert Camus (although idk if he ever wrote about tech) or writers like Huxley who blur the line a bit, and you can find some really interesting insight on tech. The cybernetics writers did a good job of understanding that tech would change everything in some fundamental and abstract sense, so they focused meta-analysis to cohere the "so what" of it all (impact on ethics, governance, politics, sociology). An example is analyzing the trend in tech of `if system is discovered -> then attempt to codify and automate it.` This provides some scaffolding for thinking through AI-driven governance, for instance, but with a little more intellectual rigor than a substack article. It's similar to the value-add of reading really good sci-fi, but this time from Camus or Nietzche versus William Gibson or Neil Stephenson. If you feel that our times warrants some level of serious analysis, find like there's a general void of comprehension outside of small pockets and policy circles, and therefore decide to settle for pulling insights from a sort of disappointing blend of cypherpunk writing, Peter Thiel-isms, Lex Fridman interviews, and Andrew Yang because at least "they get the big picture of what tech will do": writing on cybernetics is good to check out.

Terretta 5y ago
> "Cybernetics" as a descriptor went out of style by the 2000's I think. A bit off topic, but in the ‘science of automatic control systems’ sense -- one could argue today it could be pronounced ‘kubernetes’. But imagine the consternation when we first collectively realized k8s had no cybernetics, no auto-governance (another related word*) of tech running on it. This is why a few of us met with CoreOS in the mid-2010s to talk about the idea that would turn into Operators: put the cybernetics back in kubernetes. Disappointed even today that so much mindshare and effort is around standing up and running k8s itself, or ‘declaring’ what runs in it (tbc, this part is good), and much less on ‘Operators’ so k8s could run your SaaS for you (which would be better). The original public introduction of the concept: - Brandon Philips @ CoreOS, Nov 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20170129131616/http://coreos.com/blog/introducing-operators.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170129131616/http://coreos.com... A more recent take: - RedHat, 2020: https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/kubernetes-operators https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/kubernetes-operators --- * Note: “The word ‘governance’ came from the Latin verb ‘gubernare’, or more originally from the Greek word ‘kubernaein’, which means ‘to steer’. Basing on its etymology, governance refers to the manner of steering or governing, or of directing and controlling.”
- dogman144 5y ago
  Actually on topic! Taking that hypothesis you have on kubernetes, check this out... The Cybernetic Hypothesis book discusses a philosophical/systems-thinking/governance obsession with the importance of "steering" or "piloting." Foucault taught a class on in it in the 80's prior to his death. The train of logic is interest in steering all systems that could be steered for <various reasons> led to a natural interest in cybernetics, as the automation offered a way to codify or "steer" this systems. Kubernetes <- derived from the greek "kubernesis," "the action of piloting a vessel." You're highlighting, I think to the extent I'm still grokking this all myself, a common counterpoint to cybernetic thinking - it offers a way to steer things, but often doesn't address core questions like "well who is steering this, why do we want to steer this, what other answer is there beyond efficiency for efficiency's sake?"
  - paulpangaro 5y ago
    The discussion here, so far as I've followed it (only beginning) is focusing on what is called 'first-order Cybernetics' about the role of feedback and information in systems that steer some variable toward a goal (think: pilot of a ship; thermostat). 'Second-order Cybernetics' (see von Foerster, Glanville) does ask, 'who is steering' and brings in both subjectivity and responsibility in an instance.
    - dogman144 5y ago
      Nice distinction. Based on what I’m reading lately, sounds like I need to chase down more of the latter.
- _jal 5y ago
  > ‘science of automatic control systems’ sense -- one could argue today it could be pronounced ‘kubernetes’. Only if one's view of the world is very constrained.
  - Terretta 5y ago
    Well, I agree. And yet, are there any other generalized cyber control systems even remotely usable to manage arbitrarily shaped workloads other than kubernetes (which isn’t that either, not yet)? Why not?
nanna 5y ago
Start from the horse's mouth, either Wiener's book Cybernetics, or better yet his "layman's introduction", The Human Use of Human Beings. If you're interested in the history then Ronald Kline's The Cybernetic Moment (John Hopkins, 2015) is the cannonical American history, and Slava Gerovitch's From Newspeak to Cyberspeak (MIT, 2002) is the Soviet. Eden Medina's Cybernetic Revolutionaries (MIT, 2002) covers its role in Allende's Chile, but compared to the US or Soviet this is marginal. The Cybernetic Hypothesis is a very violent reading, definitely wouldn't recommend as a first port of call.
- jonjacky 5y ago
  Another history is Dark Hero of the Information Age: In Search of Norbert Wiener, the Father of Cybernetics by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, from 2005.
  - dogman144 5y ago
    Thanks for the recs both. To your last point, it's an interesting read, and ya something else to start with might be a good call. I found it in sort an alternative book shop (think MIT Press publications that veer more radical, types of books you're stoked can still get published) in a major coastal metro. I was super interested to find a technical-ish book in that setting, so I picked up as I was having trouble finding anyone talking about tech in the way I thought it warranted and hoped this could be it (that aforementioned void). The book's approach to language and arguments (reads like a Camus book, not sure what this style of writing is called though, "academic" doesn't do it justice I think) paired with really clear takes on tech is striking. Maybe intense for a first read though, to your point. Also I'm only halfway through so TBD on what shows up in the second half of it; I might have recommended a wild read haha.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
polypodiopsi 5y ago
I strongly recommend the essay of carribean posthumanist (avant la lettre) Sylvia Wynter "the cerrmony must be found" if you are interested in some of the consequences in philosophy (or rather theory since there is a tendency to universalisation as put forward in the article here) in the cybernetic episteme. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://trueleappress.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/wynter-the-ceremony-muyst-be-found-after-humanism.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwijz724zp_zAhU0R_EDHWr2BN4QFnoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2pSUF9nVUQdbRpoFOQ-BOj https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
- dogman144 5y ago
  Cool stuff, skimming the first few pages look great. Thanks
maxbendick 5y ago
Excellent recommendation. I'll add Designing Freedom by Stafford Beer as a great intro. Available as a book and a series of free lectures here: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-1973-cbc-massey-lectures-designing-freedom-1.2946819 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-1973-cbc-massey-lectures-... You hit the nail on the head with the "disappointing blend" btw. So much thought coming from tech circles is lacking - it's often over-intuitive, self-unaware, and ahistorical.
- nickloewen 5y ago
  Thank you for the lecture series recommendation, I enjoyed those.
- dogman144 5y ago
  Thank you on both! It causes me distress that there isn't a solid discussion ecosystem today that (a) captures it better than "the blend", (b) is easily available to the public, and (c) is a bit more humane than sovereign individual concepts haha, i.e. western democracy is still around in "what's next." I wonder if, or how, this would ever get bootstrapped, and it feels critical that it is somehow. I know I, and probably everyone else, can list many of the reasons for this (Facebook distraction and... and...). What's disquieting is the list of entities who were not distracted and now apply the implications of cybernetics - if you can phrase it like that. - RU via thinkers like A. Dugin seem to grasp it and apply it in a fairy adversarial way to western ideology. - Downstream, Dugin is an input that folks like Bannon draw from the US. - Intel agencies seem to grasp it, and while I don't have knee-jerk negative views of those entities, equal understanding across democratically elected bodies and the agencies seems important. - CN grasps it and is building the governance systems they decide proper for what's next. This technical approach is getting exported. - Lastly, activist groups across the spectrum natively sense the seams present in how western systems were bolted onto tech's impacts, and opportunities for instability exist and are executed on. That's all to say, and hopefully by not too much of a rant, that it's critical that our public feedback loops find a way to account for how a huge spectrum of systems in our world have changed in a fundamental way because of tech, and we don't try to do so only by bolting on old solutions from the pre-tech era. Very few entities seem to offer clear analysis of this excluding reading cybernetics, humanities<>comp sci hybrid thinkers, and topics related to the above. Aside - Yang felt more like a figure the tech world would put forward as a solution, but as a result he felt too self-referential to the problem to be a good representative. but, I wonder if he is a spark that leads towards more tech-informed public discourse.

Terretta 5y ago

> "Cybernetics" as a descriptor went out of style by the 2000's I think. A bit off topic, but in the ‘science of automatic control systems’ sense -- one could argue today it could be pronounced ‘kubernetes’. But imagine the consternation when we first collectively realized k8s had no cybernetics, no auto-governance (another related word*) of tech running on it. This is why a few of us met with CoreOS in the mid-2010s to talk about the idea that would turn into Operators: put the cybernetics back in kubernetes. Disappointed even today that so much mindshare and effort is around standing up and running k8s itself, or ‘declaring’ what runs in it (tbc, this part is good), and much less on ‘Operators’ so k8s could run your SaaS for you (which would be better). The original public introduction of the concept: - Brandon Philips @ CoreOS, Nov 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20170129131616/http://coreos.com/blog/introducing-operators.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170129131616/http://coreos.com... A more recent take: - RedHat, 2020: https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/kubernetes-operators https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/kubernetes-operators --- * Note: “The word ‘governance’ came from the Latin verb ‘gubernare’, or more originally from the Greek word ‘kubernaein’, which means ‘to steer’. Basing on its etymology, governance refers to the manner of steering or governing, or of directing and controlling.”

dogman144 5y ago
Actually on topic! Taking that hypothesis you have on kubernetes, check this out... The Cybernetic Hypothesis book discusses a philosophical/systems-thinking/governance obsession with the importance of "steering" or "piloting." Foucault taught a class on in it in the 80's prior to his death. The train of logic is interest in steering all systems that could be steered for <various reasons> led to a natural interest in cybernetics, as the automation offered a way to codify or "steer" this systems. Kubernetes <- derived from the greek "kubernesis," "the action of piloting a vessel." You're highlighting, I think to the extent I'm still grokking this all myself, a common counterpoint to cybernetic thinking - it offers a way to steer things, but often doesn't address core questions like "well who is steering this, why do we want to steer this, what other answer is there beyond efficiency for efficiency's sake?"
- paulpangaro 5y ago
  The discussion here, so far as I've followed it (only beginning) is focusing on what is called 'first-order Cybernetics' about the role of feedback and information in systems that steer some variable toward a goal (think: pilot of a ship; thermostat). 'Second-order Cybernetics' (see von Foerster, Glanville) does ask, 'who is steering' and brings in both subjectivity and responsibility in an instance.
  - dogman144 5y ago
    Nice distinction. Based on what I’m reading lately, sounds like I need to chase down more of the latter.
_jal 5y ago
> ‘science of automatic control systems’ sense -- one could argue today it could be pronounced ‘kubernetes’. Only if one's view of the world is very constrained.
- Terretta 5y ago
  Well, I agree. And yet, are there any other generalized cyber control systems even remotely usable to manage arbitrarily shaped workloads other than kubernetes (which isn’t that either, not yet)? Why not?

nanna 5y ago

Start from the horse's mouth, either Wiener's book Cybernetics, or better yet his "layman's introduction", The Human Use of Human Beings. If you're interested in the history then Ronald Kline's The Cybernetic Moment (John Hopkins, 2015) is the cannonical American history, and Slava Gerovitch's From Newspeak to Cyberspeak (MIT, 2002) is the Soviet. Eden Medina's Cybernetic Revolutionaries (MIT, 2002) covers its role in Allende's Chile, but compared to the US or Soviet this is marginal. The Cybernetic Hypothesis is a very violent reading, definitely wouldn't recommend as a first port of call.

jonjacky 5y ago
Another history is Dark Hero of the Information Age: In Search of Norbert Wiener, the Father of Cybernetics by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, from 2005.
- dogman144 5y ago
  Thanks for the recs both. To your last point, it's an interesting read, and ya something else to start with might be a good call. I found it in sort an alternative book shop (think MIT Press publications that veer more radical, types of books you're stoked can still get published) in a major coastal metro. I was super interested to find a technical-ish book in that setting, so I picked up as I was having trouble finding anyone talking about tech in the way I thought it warranted and hoped this could be it (that aforementioned void). The book's approach to language and arguments (reads like a Camus book, not sure what this style of writing is called though, "academic" doesn't do it justice I think) paired with really clear takes on tech is striking. Maybe intense for a first read though, to your point. Also I'm only halfway through so TBD on what shows up in the second half of it; I might have recommended a wild read haha.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

polypodiopsi 5y ago

I strongly recommend the essay of carribean posthumanist (avant la lettre) Sylvia Wynter "the cerrmony must be found" if you are interested in some of the consequences in philosophy (or rather theory since there is a tendency to universalisation as put forward in the article here) in the cybernetic episteme. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://trueleappress.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/wynter-the-ceremony-muyst-be-found-after-humanism.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwijz724zp_zAhU0R_EDHWr2BN4QFnoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2pSUF9nVUQdbRpoFOQ-BOj https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

dogman144 5y ago
Cool stuff, skimming the first few pages look great. Thanks

maxbendick 5y ago

Excellent recommendation. I'll add Designing Freedom by Stafford Beer as a great intro. Available as a book and a series of free lectures here: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-1973-cbc-massey-lectures-designing-freedom-1.2946819 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-1973-cbc-massey-lectures-... You hit the nail on the head with the "disappointing blend" btw. So much thought coming from tech circles is lacking - it's often over-intuitive, self-unaware, and ahistorical.

nickloewen 5y ago
Thank you for the lecture series recommendation, I enjoyed those.
dogman144 5y ago
Thank you on both! It causes me distress that there isn't a solid discussion ecosystem today that (a) captures it better than "the blend", (b) is easily available to the public, and (c) is a bit more humane than sovereign individual concepts haha, i.e. western democracy is still around in "what's next." I wonder if, or how, this would ever get bootstrapped, and it feels critical that it is somehow. I know I, and probably everyone else, can list many of the reasons for this (Facebook distraction and... and...). What's disquieting is the list of entities who were not distracted and now apply the implications of cybernetics - if you can phrase it like that. - RU via thinkers like A. Dugin seem to grasp it and apply it in a fairy adversarial way to western ideology. - Downstream, Dugin is an input that folks like Bannon draw from the US. - Intel agencies seem to grasp it, and while I don't have knee-jerk negative views of those entities, equal understanding across democratically elected bodies and the agencies seems important. - CN grasps it and is building the governance systems they decide proper for what's next. This technical approach is getting exported. - Lastly, activist groups across the spectrum natively sense the seams present in how western systems were bolted onto tech's impacts, and opportunities for instability exist and are executed on. That's all to say, and hopefully by not too much of a rant, that it's critical that our public feedback loops find a way to account for how a huge spectrum of systems in our world have changed in a fundamental way because of tech, and we don't try to do so only by bolting on old solutions from the pre-tech era. Very few entities seem to offer clear analysis of this excluding reading cybernetics, humanities<>comp sci hybrid thinkers, and topics related to the above. Aside - Yang felt more like a figure the tech world would put forward as a solution, but as a result he felt too self-referential to the problem to be a good representative. but, I wonder if he is a spark that leads towards more tech-informed public discourse.