Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

celebratedrecluse wrote

Management is very distinct from attention. The process of managing or engineering, as opposed to creating or hacking, are basically counteropposed to each other. One requires a distant sort of general dispersal of attention, a maintenance of a precarious mechanical status quo. While the latter's associated psychological states are dynamic and sometimes undefinable, ranging widely based on the particular activity and engaging the full stimulation of the human mind.

The idea that a new type of management could perfect society and conduct our lives according to ideal forms is not new. It is as old as Plato's Republic, and it has always driven towards fascistic and authoritarian politics. Technological innovation will not change the fundamental nature of this libidinal desire to create ideal management, which is actually a sociocultural phenomenon that has to do with power relationships in a society, and it is not directly tied to the technologies that it fetishizes in a given historical moment.

If you are not willing to abegnate long term state planning, you are not yet an anarchist. This isn't an attack on you as a person, but I will continue to disagree with your analysis if you express that there is something redeemable about hierarchical organizational planning. And if what you are articulating isn't definable as such, then it is something distinct from "long term state planning" as you said, and we need to get more particular about our terminology to understand the other's point.

1

earfuck70 wrote (edited )

Thanks for your reply! This is still the same person you were speaking to prior, but I needed to renew my account and start over. To continue this conversation just a little, I did not mean to infer redeeming hierarchical organizational planning in the traditional sense of group thinking with individuals and job titles etc. Nobody really needs more bureaucrats...

And I apologize for the vagueness or unclear language, english just happens to be a second one for me so I may lack some proficiency in articulating finer points.

But I meant state planning as something more futuristic through an updated version of organizational matrices guided entirely by autonomous intelligence sets capable of self-organizing, expanded problem solving and precise execution independent of human guidance. Something far independent of individuals or people altogether because that (in my opinion) has usually been the cog leading to fascism, socialism, authoritarianism etc.

I mention all of this "radicalness", because there is some urgency to make it happen in some way, through the contextual environment we are in with the history involved. Basically people have always been in charge of the state and over time, they have learned to misuse that power by avoiding responsibilities and consequences. The best thing to do (if possible) is to outsource state maintenance functions to autonomous intelligence systems that can practice and execute self-sustaining capabilities without interfering with any individualized units in the eco-system negatively. Newer information processing capabilities allow for this type of intelligence development and could "liberate" people from "governance" in the traditional sense and may even redeem ecological phenomenon from human destruction, if correctly programmed to do so.

I do value anarchist principles, but the most practical way of achieving them is if individuals are just no longer burdened with the job of "maintaining" the state. If you meant keeping anarchism alive as a counter opposing force in action, then it depends consistently on the existence of a tyrannical larger state manipulated by some monstrous entity like greed, or power etc. but how long does one stay an anarchist in this traditional sense and keep the fight alive? Till the counter opposed monstrous state becomes a threat to the entire planet and its eco-systems? Like right now....?

Hence forth, I think cutting a clear path away from many of these governing concepts is the best way to achieve something of real fundamental value and actually help people by outsourcing these things away from the domain of human manipulation. Let people practice real freedom and self sustenance, by letting the best tools we can build to maintain everything independently.

The only real challenge is to do all of this correctly without failing miserably as we have probably so done in the past over these types of initiatives.

So what do you think? Is it possible?

-3

celebratedrecluse wrote

But I meant state planning as something more futuristic through an updated version of organizational matrices guided entirely by autonomous intelligence sets capable of self-organizing, expanded problem solving and precise execution independent of human guidance. Something far independent of individuals or people altogether because that (in my opinion) has usually been the cog leading to fascism, socialism, authoritarianism etc.

So to this end, I would like to point you to the ways in which machine learning has resulted in AI which inherit human social limitations, including racism, bigotry, logical fallacies, and other...quirks.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-chatbot-racist

I think that it is well-intentioned, but entirely misguided, to think that digitization will bring a panacea to our problems and lay the groundwork for a more just society. The only thing that will really increase the chances of that happening are material arrays of networks, rhizomes of revolutionary activity-- the development of technology itself does not necessarily predict how the technology will be used. And right now, AI is growing up to be used by some of the most powerful, corrupted people in society-- corporations, police agencies, entertainment conglomerates. And it's inheriting many of our worst, most regressive tendencies as a species as a result.

So what do you think? Is it possible?

Perhaps a better question is, would this be desirable? Abdicating powers from human hierarchies to...algorithms? What if we questioned the nature of power itself, and sought to build social arrangements which built power together, rather than power apart from others; which valued both individual freedom and collective association. This is the anarchist project, and it is nothing if not opposed to the sort of technocracy which decides the autonomy of human beings are the variable to excise from the "equation" of our growing social malaise

Technology can be part of the revolutionary process, and almost certainly will be. But technological fetishism is a subset of commodity fetishism, a long-running and insidious array of ideological weapons which have been deployed on all of us.

2

earfuck70 wrote

Thank you for your response, and just as a disclaimer; what follows is my response to yours on this issue. But I'm not an expert within the industry or wanting to foster any malaise by disagreeing or opposing the ideological points you make. This is purely theoretical for dialectical purposes with some interest towards resolution or conclusion and how it may come about.

With that being said, yes. I have paid attention to the problems associated with A.I. learning as well as the alarm calls being sounded off by many CEO's and leaders over the great evil it represents; but an issue with this, is that A.I. is being taught to think like "humans" from people who may have developed no humanitarian modes of thinking themselves to begin (case in point: social media). Also the formal hierarchies developing A.I. are probably doing it behind the scenes with no transparencies in work or organic contributions from the trying collective- it would eventually be "serving". So there should not be much surprise that is being weaponized in a limited and destructive fashion (if it is).

A better specialized process for these hierarchies to develop would be something like an autonomous medical A.I. system that could mitigate diseases within the general populace, but their hearts may not be in the right place for something like that...

Anyway, your approach to a problem inevitably defines its results, so if and this is a big "IF"; we could resist against the fundamental evils of our machinas (within our own design), then there is a chance at having positive results depending on the evolved approach and attitudes translated into our projects. Therefore, I do think it would be desirable for a proper A.I. to not have similar same toxic attitudes or biases and to work efficiently at solving problems depending on the proper methodologies employed. But the solution for it (again) lies within the nuts and bolts of its design, as well as the attitudes of its designers, the techniques they employ and simulations of its executive parameters in actions etc. Tried and Tested, is a word that comes to mind.

Anyway, technological fetishism isn't really the goal or the motivation here, it does exist within many groups and sub sets for their own agenda; but my only concern would be problem solving on a fundamental level. I don't really care for technology or anything else pertaining to its marketing; other than the efficacy on which it could deliver with long term autonomous results on fostering net benefits.

This is also a problem that people in general- whether anarchists, socialists, statists, religious or any other groups have to failed to solve and have been given a very long time period of trial and error to do so- the fundamental problem of co-existence without being physically destructive to themselves or the next generations. The answer to it may lie within that which we haven't yet explored. But it would be folly to not try harder or do it correctly I think. If it means going back to the drawing board and starting over very many times, then it is a process of life- is it not? The next generations could use a little more protection or material security away from such existential risks? And also to not repeat the same mistakes that we made...

And to answer your one point specifically:

What if we questioned the nature of power itself, and sought to build social arrangements which built power together, rather than power apart from others; which valued both individual freedom and collective association.

In reality, we already have tried that and have failed many times. There were very many tribal entities spanning very many civilizations seeking to do exactly this imperfectly! Then a larger power broker from an isolated corner of the world entered in and disrupted every element of their collective power to conglomerate and exploit their surpluses to no one's benefit down the road. The real reason for this is basically, that the power principle is inherent! And will always exercise full control when left to its own devices, so the autonomous solution that I have proposed above; is further meant to be an antidote to the issue that keeps appearing over time, if it can be crafted correctly by the people well to do.

Venom and Anti-venom are not so different, except within the doses and how they are administered. One can save lives while the other kills instantly. Its your time to interpret all of this either as venom or to work to it as anti-venom but history would seek to evolve differently.

-3