3 ms·

> Does anyone really believe this company is viable in 2024? In this scenario, Apple is dead. Death is not a "couldn't hack it" outcome. Death is an evolved an

by patcon 3y ago

> Does anyone really believe this company is viable in 2024? In this scenario, Apple is dead. Death is not a "couldn't hack it" outcome. Death is an evolved and persistently retained pattern in all living systems that have arrived here to share spacetime with us (the exceptions that are sustainable are vanishingly small, and those unsustainable are synonymous with approaching-death, aka cancer) Death is adaptive to systems. With very few exceptions, all living things DIE. We've been selected to DIE. Things that don't die, kill their ecology. They are terrible neighbors, and so are selected for extinction. So your "would apple survive" question feels like it's missing the point. All agents must eventually die for the larger performance to thrive. But no actor* will ever choose that, the system does. (Governments often plays this role in the noosphere, as a corporation won't.) *Humans seem different in that we can model a system, and think like systems. We are an actor, flirting with being a system. I'm open to the fact that we can maybe decide to choose death, even when we have put other options on the table ("defeating death"). So far as a collective of supposedly smart agents, we're kinda failing to realize the adaptive nature of death, and are mostly driving for increased longevity. (All of the above is informed by complexity science or complex systems, if anyone finds the above trains of thought interesting.)

ZeoVII 3y ago
Reflecting on the future intersection of AI and corporate governance, one of my underlying concerns ties directly to the concept of mortality. Currently, the inevitability of death ensures a natural cycle of change within companies, as departing leaders make way for new visions and ideas. This turnover allows for evolution, adaptation, and sometimes, necessary redirection. However, the integration of AI into these leadership roles introduces the potential for an 'immortal' rigidity. If AI were to maintain steadfast control, it might anchor organizations to a static set of principles or strategies, lacking the organic, transformative shifts that human mortality inadvertently guarantees. This challenges us to consider how we might embed adaptability and growth into systems that, by their nature, could become inflexibly eternal.
- samus 3y ago
  Such sclerotic are vulnerable to competitors though and can only survive if they are entrenched enough to be able sit out any changes with minimal adaptations, like car makers and the weapons industry.

by patcon 3y ago

ZeoVII 3y ago

Reflecting on the future intersection of AI and corporate governance, one of my underlying concerns ties directly to the concept of mortality. Currently, the inevitability of death ensures a natural cycle of change within companies, as departing leaders make way for new visions and ideas. This turnover allows for evolution, adaptation, and sometimes, necessary redirection. However, the integration of AI into these leadership roles introduces the potential for an 'immortal' rigidity. If AI were to maintain steadfast control, it might anchor organizations to a static set of principles or strategies, lacking the organic, transformative shifts that human mortality inadvertently guarantees. This challenges us to consider how we might embed adaptability and growth into systems that, by their nature, could become inflexibly eternal.

samus 3y ago
Such sclerotic are vulnerable to competitors though and can only survive if they are entrenched enough to be able sit out any changes with minimal adaptations, like car makers and the weapons industry.