Posts Tagged ‘Technology’
“In nature, as in work of art, the isolation of an object tends to invest it with absoluteness, to endow it with that more-than-symbolic meaning which is identical with being”*…
Does AI threaten our humanity? Nathan Gardels, the editor-in-chief of Noema Magazine, suggests that the horse has already left the barn…
From Silicon Valley to the Vatican, across kitchen tables and in the halls of power, the world is astir over the question of whether humans will be able to control the AIs we’ve created. But that begs the question: What does it mean to be “human”?
One place to start sorting this all out is what Confucian philosophy calls “rectification” — naming things for what they actually are.
To N. Katherine Hayles [here], author of Bacteria to AI: Human Futures with our Non-human Symbionts [here], we are already “post-human.”
As she explained to Claire Webb in a recent Futurology podcast, the concept of “human” is culturally and historically contingent. These days, she says, there is still the dominant view that arose with the Enlightenment of the human as an autonomous, singular entity with “rational free will.”
For Hayles, that has never been true because humans have never existed as an entity apart but have always been “woven in the web” of a surrounding environment, or “Umwelt.” It is the symbiotic interactions within that interdependence which determine the signs we sense, the meaningful interpretation of the information we process, the decisions we make, and the actions we take that define who we are.
The most obvious example of our relational interdependence with non-human life is the gut bacteria within us, the biological functions of which we’d perish without.
The false notion of self-enclosed human autonomy is even less true today, she argues, because “we are already in a deeply symbiotic relationship with computational media — chips, routers, devices, microwaves, etc. They have become the controllers, processors and disseminators of a flow of information” in which we are inextricably enmeshed — and, in advanced societies, without which we couldn’t survive. If it all crashed, we couldn’t transport food, fly airplanes or operate the stock market. We’d quite literally live in the dark.
As Hayles describes it, this condition amounts to “distributed cognition and distributed decision-making” between human and non-human participants. She calls these “cognitive assemblages” or “networked intelligence.”
In short, we are “post-human” because we are inseparably joined in an “integrated cognitive framework” with computational media.
This post-human condition would seem to place us some distance along the continuum toward Singularity, the full fusion of humans and intelligent machines. By definition, this symbiosis blurs the line of who or what is in control.
In a related Futurology podcast, Kevin Kelly [here] tells Nils Gilman that “we are already in the Singularity.” From his northern California perch, Kelly has been surfing the waves of technological innovation and cultural transformation for decades, going back to his time as co-founder of The Whole Earth Catalog with Stewart Brand and then Wired magazine.
What Kelly means by “already in” is that human/machine fusion is a presently ongoing process that doesn’t suddenly cross some rapturous threshold, but incrementally unfolds with the accelerated deepening of the “integrated cognitive framework” Hayles talks about.
We can’t clearly see the massive change taking place now in its pixelated form, but will only be able to recognize the fuller picture of what has taken place from a future retrospective standpoint. Our perspective is clouded, says Kelly, by the fact that “we are living inside the event horizon.”
For Kelly, the Singularity is not a closed process with a fixed endpoint, but perpetually open to the emergence of new creative forms and unexpected symbiotic combinations, what the complexity scientist Stuart Kauffman calls the “adjacent possible” that can’t be foretold. “The Singularity is always near,” as Kelly puts it, but forever remains on the elusive horizon.
Hayles departs from the transhumanist vision of Singularity where human consciousness one day is uploaded to an inorganic substrate other than the biological body.
She makes the point, as do many others, that artificial intelligences on their own cannot attain consciousness.
This is because they lack the “natural intelligence” that can only emerge from the extraordinary complexity of the millennia-long evolution of embodied humans adapting to their environment to survive and thrive. No matter how powerful the large language models may be, language which inherently infers that distinctly human experience, cannot be meaningfully transferred to an inorganic substrate lacking the commensurate context.
AIs cannot know the “ground truth” of embodied intelligence, which, at bottom, is the homeostatic quest for survival that neuroscientist Antonio Damasio argues is the root of emotion and self-awareness.
AIs may use chain-of-reasoning logic to achieve objectives by stringing together the language they’ve been trained on, but the meaning is not the same. Precisely the danger of AIs is that they become empowered as actors through “recursive self-improvement” ungrounded in lived experience.
As such, they lack the ingrained primal training that informs moral reasoning. In Pope Leo XIV’s words, “So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean.”
Though AI models may “imitate language” and “simulate empathy and understanding,” he says, “they do not understand what they produce.”
What humans invaluably bring to the table of an “integrated cognitive framework” is, in the parlance of the pontiff, the “integral” nature of the human as a “whole person” in the full set of relations with others and nature that constitute him or her. “The person,” he says, “is not a system of algorithms: he or she is a creature, relationship, mystery.”
In this sense, retaining “human control” of AIs means purposefully and insistently instantiating the integral element drawn from lived human experience into our entwinement with intelligent machines.
The challenge is not just about “disarming” the capacity of AI agents to act on their own, as the Pope has called for, but also about “arming” the integral conception of the human within the integrated cognitive framework in which we already dwell…
From an integrated to an integral cognitive framework: “We Are Already Post-Human,” from @noemamag.com.
* Aldous Huxley, The Doors of Perception
###
As we contemplate connection, we might recall that it was on this date in 1973 that a US Federal Judge signed his decision, following a lengthy trial, declaring the ENIAC patent invalid and belatedly credited physicist John Atanasoff with developing the first electronic digital computer, the Atanasoff- Berry Computer (or simply, “the ABC”). Built in 1937-42 at Iowa State University (then Iowa State College) by Atanasoff and a graduate student, Clifford Berry, it introduced the ideas of binary arithmetic, regenerative memory, and logic circuits.
As it happened, these ideas were communicated from Atanasoff to John Mauchly, who used them in the design of the better-known ENIAC built and patented several years later.
“In our world of big names, curiously, our true heroes tend to be anonymous”*…
Your correspondent is headed off-line for a few days, so (R)D will be off until Monday, October 19, when (airline performance permitting) regular service should resume…
Billions of computers and phones run on code looked after by a handful of mostly-volunteer people. On his lovely site sheets.works, Akash Wadhwani introduces us to some of those generous souls…
People post [the comic above] whenever something breaks. The tower is labelled “all modern digital infrastructure” and it stands on one small block, “a project some random person in Nebraska has been thanklessly maintaining since 2003”.
We wanted to know how close to true it is. We downloaded the full history of 23 pieces of software that phones, browsers and servers depend on, and counted everyone who made ten or more changes to each one between October 2025 and October 2026. Then we listed what is actually installed on an Android phone, an iPhone and a Windows PC…
Wadhwani opens with the story of Paul Eggert…
Your alarm, a boarding pass, a meeting in another country, the day your salary lands: anything on your phone that shows a time has to know where you are. Underneath sit every Android phone, every iPhone and most of the servers on the internet.
They all get local time from one text file, the time zone database, which holds every clock rule a government has ever announced. Paul Eggert, a lecturer at UCLA, keeps that file up to date in his spare time [and has since 2012].
4,000,000,000 Android phones and iPhones use his file. We didn’t count servers, Macs or laptops, which would push the number higher.
On 29 September Paul put out version 2026e of the file. The first line of its notes says that Manitoba moves to permanent -05 on 31 October, which tells phones in Winnipeg not to set their clocks back on 1 November, and it was typed in by two volunteers a month ahead…
Read on for 22 other tales of extraordinary generosity: “The people holding up the internet.”
* Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America
###
As we give thanks, we might spare a thought for a man who, if not un-sung, has been at least under-sung: Walter M. Elsasser; he died on this date in 1991. A physicist, he contributed to science across several disciplines. In atomic physics, he interpreted electron scattering. In geophysics, during the 1940’s, he provided insight into radiative heat transfer in the Earth’s atmosphere, and developed the currently-accepted dynamo theory to explain the origin and properties of the Earth’s magnetic field. And he pioneered study of the magnetic orientation of minerals in rocks to reveal the Earth’s history of its magnetic field.
The last fifty years of his life were in large measure spent on biology, more particularly on Systems Biology: Elsasser worked toward a theory of organisms (an effort to establish the distinction between living and inanimate matter). His thinking is still at play in both Complex Systems Biology and Relational Biology.
“Unless you strip bodies of their corporeal nature and impart corporeal nature to incorporeal beings, nothing you expect will take place”*…
In 1965, Hubert Dreyfus wrote the first widely-considered critique of artificial intelligence, Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, a report for RAND. He updated and expanded the work for broad publication in 1972 as What Computers Can’t Do (which was further updated and revised for two subsequent reissues) and a “sequel,” Mind Over Machine (in 1986). For a precis of Dreyfus’ views on AI, see here.
His invocation of alchemy resonates still, for example in the estimable Henry Farrell‘s consideration of Adam Becker‘s (great) recent book More Everything Forever…
Adam Becker’s “More Everything Forever” begins by describing the ideas of Eliezer Yudkowsky, an AI guru who Sam Altman thinks deserves a Nobel Prize. Yudkowsky’s ambitions for humanity include “[p]erfect health, immortality,” and a future in which “[i]f you imagine something that’s worse than mansions with robotic servants for everyone, you are not being ambitious enough.” According to Yudkowsky and his peers, a “glorious transhumanist future” awaits us if we get AI right, although we face extinction if we get it wrong.
“AI” and “transhumanist” are new terms for rather older ambitions. As the seedy occultist Dr. Trelawney remarks in Anthony Powell’s 1962 novel, “The Kindly Ones,” “[t]o be forever rich, forever young, never to die … Such was in every age the dream of the alchemist.” Renaissance alchemists won the support of monarchs like Rudolf II, the Holy Roman Emperor who squandered his realm’s money on a futile quest to discover the Philosopher’s Stone. Now, as Becker explains, AGI, or artificial general intelligence, has become the means through which philosophers might transubstantiate our mundane reality into a realm in which the apparently impossible becomes possible: living forever, raising the dead, and remaking the universe in the shape of humanity.
These ideas would be a curiosity, if they weren’t reshaping the world, and policymakers’ understanding of national security…
[Farrell explains, elaborating on the beliefs in play and explaining how they played in the Biden Administration (which, he argues, largely internalized them) and now in Trump’s…]
… The Biden administration’s policies rested on risky bets. AI may not be the universal solvent for vexing and complex technological problems promised by Altman, Amodei, and their peers. Some (including most members of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, as well as myself and colleagues) believe that current approaches will not lead to anything like self-improving AGI anytime soon. As DeepSeek’s success in building AI models suggests, semiconductors may not provide the chokehold on AI that American policymakers believed.
In any event, the Trump administration has seemingly opted for a different approach, replacing a grand plan for a global AI order with a loose approach based on the ever-shifting convergence between notions of American greatness and the particular interests of well-connected companies. This currently involves leveraging control of technology to maintain American domination, cutting deals with Gulf states, while trying to cut China out. When Trump toured the Gulf states with an entourage of tech CEOs, he offered access to top-end semiconductors in exchange for promises of massive investment, graciously accepting a jet plane, and a large-scale money transfer routed, with fees, through his family stablecoin.
This emerging blend of imperium, magical technology, and self-dealing too is reminiscent of the Renaissance. The English wizard John Dee, who claimed to have turned mercury into gold in the presence of Rudolf II, is also credited with coining the term “British Empire.” As a member of the court of Queen Elizabeth I, he combined alchemical experiment and indirect conversation with angels with more mundane plans to extend British power across the Atlantic and enrich himself.
The alchemists’ quest for immortality and universal transformation is again entangled with the struggle among empires. The dreams of perfect health, the conquest of death, and mansions with robot servants that Becker describes inspire visions of a radically transformed far future and a near present in which America can use advanced technologies to bolster its power. Such visions stem from an ideology of salvation that has indeed fueled important technological advances but may be quite wrong about where those advances will bring us.
We are being ushered into a world where AI models offer new and useful means to summarize the information of the world and draw nonobvious connections across it, but can also weave new syncretic religious beliefs together from the myriad human sources that they summarize. In the early 20th century, Weber argued that rationalized Calvinism had led to the defeat of the old gods and the inexorable disenchantment of a world dominated by bureaucracy and organized capitalism. In the early 21st, just the opposite is happening as AI draws open the gate for the return of the fantastical. Yudkowsky’s eschatology is just one of the prophetic visions attendant on AI. The practical changes that AI will bring to bureaucracy and markets will go hand in hand with religious ecstasy and fervor, as some people come to believe that they can speak to God through the machine, while others use it to elaborate their own extended fantasies about politics. As Becker’s book shows, technology is not just an abstract force changing the world, but a mirror in which human beings see their dreams and ambitions made manifest. We’re starting to discover what that looks like at scale.
Eminently worth reading full: “What AI debates have to do with alchemy,” from @himself.bsky.social.
Then consider this, from Nicklas Lundblad, a senior exec at Deep Mind, Google, Stripe, and elsewhere, recently turned public policy Fellow. In a piece adapted from a lecture in a series of talks on the philosophy of artificial intelligence that he gave at Mid-Sweden University), he puts Dreyfus’s thought into context, tracing the history of arguments with/against it over the years, as both technology and thinking about technology advanced. He concludes…
… So, we may say, what is Dreyfus answer?… That he is obsessed with showing that machines are incapable of being human?
In fact, his conclusion, already in 1965 – and then repeated in the 1972 book – is much more interesting. Here is how Dreyfus concludes his critique:
If the alchemist had stopped poring over his retorts and pentagrams and had spent his time looking for the deeper structure of the problem, as primitive man took his eyes of the moon, came out of the trees, and discovered fire and the wheel, things would have been set moving in a more promising direction. After all, three hundred years after the alchemists we did get gold from lead (and we have landed on the moon), but only after we abandoned work on the alchemic level, and worked to understand the chemical level and the even deeper nuclear level instead.
Dreyfus’ answer is not to get stuck in the question of what computers can’t do – but to reject even that last piece of thick ontology and ask if we are making a fundamental conceptual mistake. He suggests that we find what is to intelligence as chemistry is to alchemy and look for another set of concepts, another language, to describe what we are doing.
We would, in Dreyfus view, be much better of trying to build alien intelligence or replicate animal intelligence or even jettisoning the idea of intelligence entirely in favour of a new concept – perhaps something like cognicity – that removes the Difference from the research program.
Dreyfus recommendations would imply that we should drop the benchmarks that distract us and instead focus on simpler, thinner ontologies around tasks and interactions. What we need, he would suggest, is a conceptual shift into that simpler ontology – at least if we want to make real progress.
The shift into modern machine learning seems to prove that when the thicker ontology was abandoned we did discovered things obscured by the idea of man as a symbolic animal.
What if we abandon both the idea of man and machine?…
Also worthy of a full review: “Reading Dreyfus,” from @nicklaslundblad.
* Zosimos of Panopolis, an alchemist (and Gnostic mystic)
###
As we think about transmutation, we might recall that it was on this date in 1954 (only 11 years before Dreyfus wrote Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence) that IBM introduced the “IBM 608,” the first calculating machine to use only solid-state transistors instead of vacuum tubes (thus needing only about 5% of the power to perform the same operations). The machine was housed in several large cabinets and could be purchased for $83,210 (or rented for $1,760 per month)… that’s just over $1,000,000 on an inflation-adjusted basis (or about $22,000 per month). It used more than 3,000 germanium transistors and could store 40 nine-digit numbers and perform 4,500 additions per second, among other operations.
“Something is happening here / But you don’t know what it is / Do you, Mister Jones?”*…
Further to the post of Septmeber 15: on trying to understand what might lie on the other side of a transformation driven by AI (and related technologies). Microsoft’s Deputy CTO, Sam Schillace, suggests that organizations are about to change completely…
… Here’s a nerdy TL;DR if you want it: I think AI will enable a switch from what is essentially circuit switching today, in all kinds of organizations, to something that will look and feel a lot more like packet switching. This will happen partially because it can now (AI is to this problem what fast processors were to distributed networking protocols), and because networks are almost always more powerful, flexible, and scalable. This idea is going to feel super uncomfortable and be rejected by business leaders, employers and academics in much the same way that network engineers rejected the idea of packet-switched networks…
… In 1965, making a long-distance phone call in America was a feat of engineering coordination. A call from New York to Los Angeles required a dedicated copper path, physically reserved, for the duration of the conversation, and AT&T had to employ armies of switching engineers to manage this. The Bell System was one of the great technical achievements of the twentieth century, and the people who built it were not fools. They worked ferociously for what they were optimizing for: guaranteed, high-quality, reliable connections between two points.
It seemed fine – expensive, but that’s what everyone was used to. If you are my age, you remember when long-distance was even a thing, and those calls cost more and were precious. I still get a tiny bit nervous talking to my parents 3000 miles away in Michigan, that was so deeply ingrained. Part of me still can’t believe that phone calls all cost the same.
Then a small group of researchers, largely funded by ARPA, mostly working in universities, proposed something that sounded to the Bell engineers like a joke. Instead of reserving a dedicated path, you would break messages into small pieces, label each piece with a destination, and release them into the network to find their own way. Different pieces of the same message might travel completely different routes. They might arrive out of order. There was no guarantee that any particular piece would arrive at all. A phone call, under this scheme, would be like mailing a letter by tearing it into a hundred pieces and dropping each one in a different mailbox, hoping they’d all show up. (Kind of like training a giant AI model on lots of small fragments of language (tokens) and hoping that somehow intelligence would emerge from putting them back together randomly – which largely worked).
The Bell engineers had a name for this general idea: chaos. They had a specific critique too, which was that you couldn’t make any guarantees about quality of service. Voice needs low, consistent latency: you can’t have some syllables arriving seconds after others. And of course, data needs reliability: a corrupted file is useless. The engineers were right about all of this. Packet switching, in its early forms, was genuinely worse at the things circuit switching was designed to do.
It also, within a few decades, made the Bell System irrelevant. The internet didn’t improve on the telephone network; it made the telephone network a minor application running on top of something much larger. Today your phone calls travel as packets (which is why they all cost the same – there’s no such thing as a “long circuit” now), just like everything else. The Bell engineers optimized for the wrong thing. I love that this also has a flavor of “worse is better”. The Bell engineers were optimizing for “correct, complete, but complex and rigid” and the internet is more “simple and recoverable beats correct and complex”.
What actually happened was a philosophical shift about where intelligence should live. Circuit switching is a centralized control philosophy. Someone, somewhere, reserves the path before any message travels it. The network takes responsibility for delivery. The endpoints are dumb; they just send and receive. All the complexity, all the guarantee-making, lives in the infrastructure itself. This works, and it scales up to a point, and then it hits a wall, because the central system has to know everything about every connection, and that knowledge becomes impossible to manage as the network grows. (Sound familiar? This is how we build companies these days. We’ll come back to that idea)
Packet switching inverts this entirely. The network is dumb and the endpoints are smart. A router doesn’t understand the content of the packets it handles – it reads a destination address and forwards the packet one hop closer. The intelligence about what the message means, whether it arrived correctly, what to do if it didn’t – all of that lives at the edges, in the devices doing the communicating. The protocol defines what the endpoints must do. The network just moves bits.
You have seen this argument before, in a different domain. Central planning versus markets is the same disagreement. The Soviet planning apparatus tried to do for an economy what circuit switching does for a telephone network: reserve resources, guarantee outcomes, manage the whole system from the center. It failed not because the planners were stupid but because the information required to run a complex system centrally exceeds what any center can hold (it also failed because many of them were corrupt, and centralized systems are vulnerable to this, since there’s no way to build in mechanisms to correct, outcompete or otherwise reverse that corruption).
Prices, in a market, are packets. They carry information about supply and demand from the edges without anyone at the center having to understand or coordinate it. Markets are chaotic, wasteful, frequently unfair, and they consistently outperform central planning at scale for the same reason the internet outperformed the Bell System. The network always wins, eventually, because the network is where the information actually lives.
Let’s think about companies now. Companies love to do re-orgs. Or at least, they have to do them. They’re a lot of work, just like it was a lot of work to organize and change the old Bell network, and for the same reasons. Companies have to deal with the pain of organizational overhead, because to a large extent, they try to do central planning – circuit switching.
A manager, in an org chart, is a leased line. From an organizational perspective, they’re like a circuit between strategy and execution, reserved whether or not signal is flowing. The org chart is the circuit map. It tells you the paths that exist, which means it also tells you the paths that don’t. If you need to get information or work from point A to point B and there’s no line between them on the chart, you have a problem – you need to go up to a common node and back down, or you need to get someone to lay a new line. When a company needs to change how it behaves, it rewires the circuit map, which we call a reorg.
Why do we do this? This is not because companies are stupid or because the people running them lack imagination (hopefully). It’s because circuit-switched organizations are the only kind that could be managed without the infrastructure that packet-switched organizations require (which isn’t unlike what happened with the internet – we needed cheap processors to be able to build routers that could handle packets fast enough. Before we had that, we had no choice but to set up dedicated circuits).
If you can’t do the things an organization needs – observing and judging work, finding capabilities, holding people accountable – without the overhead of a fixed org chart, well, you just have to have it.
The cost of this solution is enormous and mostly invisible because it’s so normalized…
[Schillace expands on this idea…]
… When packet switching was proposed, the experts who objected most loudly were the most qualified people in the room. They were “right” in an engineering sense, but wrong in the systems sense. And they did what most people do, asking a “why not” question (against the old design and constraints) instead of a “what if” one: what if the new processors could enable a new network design?
Most people looking at AI are making the same mistake, and I predict we will see a lot of this from the orthodox “business advisor” community. I hear this from engineers and leaders already, and it sounds just like the Bell folks: You can’t guarantee accountability in a decentralized system. You can’t audit a network that routes around hierarchy. Regulators will never accept this. Sophisticated investors will raise concerns about governance.
All of these objections will be correct in the short term and beside the point in the long term. They are right from some kind of local engineering perspective but wrong from an emergent systems perspective. The question is not whether packet-switched organizations perform better on the metrics that circuit-switched organizations were built for. They won’t, at least at first, just like packet-switched networks didn’t at first. The question is whether the new architecture unlocks things the old one couldn’t do at all. And I think it will – I think we will get levels of scale, creativity and responsiveness by using these new tools to push intelligence to the edge of all kinds of organizations – not just businesses but political, social, educational and creative ones…
…There is a useful heuristic here, which is that disruptive ideas tend to produce a room that’s roughly split in half. Usually something like half the people think the idea is obviously correct (the folks asking “what if”), and half think it’s obviously wrong (the “why not” crowd). I’ve written about this kind of bifurcation before – this is the sign of something that is genuinely disruptive, and the split is between people who are rejecting it because it feels threatening, and people who have internalized the new world view and are beginning to extrapolate it…
[Schillace considers earlier, unsuccessful attempts at “packet-switched organizations,” concluding that “AI is [the] missing piece – cheap enough intelligence to put “everywhere” and enable a bunch of these ideas for real. It’s the equivalent of those cheap processors [that enabled packet switching] finally showing up, except it’s a much more complete stack arriving all at once” and that the next few years will consist in discovering the new protocols that will allow “packet-switched organizations” to succeed…]
… The Bell engineers who resisted packet switching were not, in the end, wrong about what they said. Voice quality did suffer in early VoIP, packets did get dropped a lot, and for a while, quality was worse. But they were wrong about what would matter in ten years, and catastrophically wrong about what would be possible in thirty.
Email was not a better telegram, the web was not a better encyclopedia, and streaming was not a better cable network. Each of these looks, in retrospect, like an obvious evolution, but none of them were conceivable from inside the circuit-switched world (I remember the freak out about how video was going to break even the highly scalable new internet. It wasn’t even thinkable in the circuit switched world). They required the new infrastructure before anyone could imagine what to build on it.
The organizational equivalent is similarly hard to see in advance. It is likely that packet-switched, AI-native organizations will not just do existing organizational things more efficiently, but that they will do things that are not currently possible. There might be organizations that form around specific problems and dissolve when the problem is solved, rather than persisting as structures in search of purpose, or expertise that routes to where it is needed rather than being allocated by headcount. We might have large groups with a degree of strategic flexibility and sophistication that have never existed together – we might get political or creative movements in radically different shapes because of that. We are definitely going to see an evolution in the creation, management and use of institutional memory. Training will probably look very different, as will job descriptions.
And almost certainly: we will get things we cannot name yet. Nobody in 1975 could have described Google, or Facebook, or VOIP, or even Google Docs.
The phone company’s engineers built something extraordinary. The Bell System was a genuine engineering achievement, and the people who designed it were some of the best technical minds of their era. They lost anyway. Networks are more robust, once the infrastructure to support them exists, and the right protocols to create and maintain them are adopted.
My bet is that the organizations of the future, the ones that compete and thrive, will make use of AI to build networks the same way the internet made use of those cheap processors and new protocols to build huge scale and new capabilities.
This will feel controversial, and might even be worse at first, but networks always win. The age of centrally planned organizations is coming to an end…
Eminently worth reading in full. Chaos that scales: “The Network Always Beats the Castle,” via @timoreilly.bsky.social.
See also: Benedict Evans‘ “AI, tools and transformation“:
… With every new technology, we start by using it for the work we already have, and we just do that more and faster. But then, over time, you make entirely new things. We will use AI to automate broad classes of stuff inside existing workflows and existing companies (although, as I’ve outlined above, that will be enormously more trouble and work than just giving everybody a model). But with every previous platform shift, the stuff that actually mattered was the stuff that wasn’t even possible before and that no-one even imagined…
And by way of keeping all of this in perspective, see Henry Farrell‘s “Machine god metaphors eat your brain” and Max Read‘s “Between 5 and 14 thoughts about AI and the discourse cycle.”
(Image above: source)
* Bob Dylan, “Ballad of a Thin Man” (from Highway 61 Revisited, 1965)
###
As we try to peer over the horizon, we might send carefully-calculated birthday greetings to a man whose work has helped propel the advances we’re pondering: James Hardy Wilkinson; he was born on this date in 1919. A mathematician, he is best known for his pioneering work in numerical analysis and numerical linear algebra, especially in the context of high-speed digital computing. In 1970 he won the ACM Turing Award.
“Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time”*…
Photographer Maya Barkai has collected pedestrian traffic signals from around the world…
Walking Men worldwide™ is a series of public art installations, a photographic collage of pedestrian traffic icons assembled from around the world, presented in humane scale. The project was conceived as a collaborative effort of international photographers, each adding a piece to the collage… Once assembled on one canvas, these icons represent the ever-growing list of international contributors.
The subject of this project started with one of New York City’s most familiar street icons, one that repeatedly appears in the pedestrian traffic light we meet every day. As one of NYC’s most recognizable figures, the ‘walking man’ is also an international celebrity, a graphic sign that transcends all languages and places, and appears in various forms around the world as an integral part of our urban landscape.
Numerous traffic-light-characters represent the modern “Walking Men”. Standardized yet diverse, they commonly show us the correct and safe way of travel. The Walking Men Worldwide™ project explores various representations of the universally rendered ‘man’, and attempts to examine its inherent conundrum; why is it that while we all consider these icons to be topologically identical, they appear to add such a unique character to our urban identity? These two-dimensional ‘men’, omitted of all idiosyncratic detail, repeatedly reveal themselves in multiple forms on traffic lights and street signs on every corner, as this photographic collage unveils a rich and fascinating world within the confines of a coherent, multi-lingual graphic vocabulary.
What started as a series of largescale public art interventions, has evolved into an important, rare visual document on its own right. This body of work not only provides us with the first and most cohesive look into the world of human circulation, but in leading a participatory experience through a collaborative process that is rooted in the nature of documentary photography, the work has unified people through a simple yet powerful act of art; The creative process involved in my work is an example for how an artist can gather hundreds of worldwide contributors by utilizing social media as a platform, and motivate people to take part in the creation of a collage that unites them all on one canvas. In doing so, it creates a collaborative process that diminishes all political agenda, and becomes a “graphic Esperanto”…
Explore: “Walking Men Worldwide” via Kottke.org.
* Steven Wright
###
As we look both ways, we might send combustible birthday greetings to Robert Bosch; he was born on this date in 1861. An engineer, inventor, and ultimately, buiness magnate, he contributed to the need for the Walking Man: he invented the spark plug and the magneto for automobiles, and founded the German conglomerate Bosch.
The final years of Bosch’s life were painful. When his company was forced to accept Nazi contracts, he had his managing staff join the Nazi party to prevent external, committed Nazi officials from attaining employment and taking over the organization. Bosch slow-walked the orders and used his company and foreign connections to foster anti-Hitler activism. Bosch worked particularly closely with his business advisor Carl Friedrich Goerdeler, a figure central to the 20 July plot to assassinate Hitler. Goerdeler continued the resistance movement after Bosch’s death in 1942.
In 1937, Bosch had restructured his company as a private limited company. He established his last will and testament in which he stipulated that the earnings of the company should be allocated to a foundation devoted to charitable causes (and which received his 94 percent ownership of the company on his death). His will sketched the outlines of the corporate constitution, which was formulated by his successors and is still valid today. Bosch remains in relatively solid shape on the Brand Ledger.
You must be logged in to post a comment.