4 ms·
> 1. Technologies are not neutral. > (...) It is important for each of us to consider the biases of various technologies _and to seek out those that reflect ou
by gadrev 5y ago
> 1. Technologies are not neutral.
> (...) It is important for each of us to consider the biases of various technologies _and to seek out those that reflect our values and aspirations._
(emphasis added)
This couldn't have aged better. I'd argue the issue is with finding anything that doesn't reflect your ML-inferred "values and aspirations", at least when lurking on the big platforms.
> 4. Information is not knowledge.
> We must not confuse the thrill of acquiring or distributing information quickly with the more daunting task of converting it into knowledge and wisdom.
This is very important, and I wish I had learned this much sooner. Chul-Han, who was featured around here a few days ago, devotes a lot of attention to this point in several books. I wish I had grasped this earlier TBH.
- gfody 5y ago> 4. Information is not knowledge. information is knowledge packaged for transport. converting information into knowledge is just called learning when humans do it. spreading information you don't understand is a service or a disservice depending on your intent.
- Barrin92 5y agoInformation isn't just knowledge packaged for transport. Knowledge is always subjective and a representation of some information as it holds meaning to a subject that interprets it. Simple example, a gazillion string long DNA segment holds information, but without actual understanding and organization in some context (which importantly differs depending on who interprets it for what purpose) it holds no meaning. Saying that this process of creating knowledge is "just" learning might be the most loaded "just" in history because that process is probably the most complicated, mysterious and least understood thing on earth.
- gfody 5y ago> the most loaded "just" in history nah I can do better. DNA is just data, you can say it "holds information" the way a footprint holds information but that's just an idiom. knowing is just a perception. you can think you know something and be wrong.
- jhbadger 5y agoIt really isn't "just an idiom" -- DNA holds information even in the very most rigorous definition of information as defined by information theory by Claude Shannon and others. Computing the entropy of sequences is actually a useful way to predict if they are likely to have a function.
- gfody 5y agoinformation theory equates information with data (bits), it's the spherical cow in a vacuum and in that context the "information" that DNA "holds" is just a jargon referring to the bits.
- jhbadger 5y agoBut that's like saying atoms are just "jargon" for talking about matter. Bits are what information is comprised of.
- gfody 5y agoit's not because "atom" isn't a technical term, it has always referred to the indivisible bedrock (greek root a-tomos or "not-cuttable"). equating information with data outside the context of information theory is precisely wrong and definitely not the same information being discussed in tfa. bits do not comprise information, you could say data reduces to bits. data != information. data is objective by definition. information must be able to inform/influence the metaphorical ledger backing ones ability to know, transferring knowledge. not all knowledge can become information and not all information can become data.
- agumonkey 5y agoMan Point 4 is so prescient. > That said, the proliferation of data is also a serious challenge, requiring new measures of human discipline and skepticism. We must not confuse the thrill of acquiring or distributing information quickly with the more daunting task of converting it into knowledge and wisdom. Incredibly true, and since the web2.0 we have our nose into that problem on a daily basis.