Aristotle, agency, aliveness

Paul Diduch alerted me to Aristotle’s idea that natural things have an internal principle of motion, while human-made artefacts don’t. That made me wonder how agency and contemporary technology relate to an Aristotelian approach.

TwitterIn?

 If Musk's Twitter implodes (first quickly, then slowly, in a reversal of the usual procedure?) I expect Microsoft to buy and fold it into LinkedIn. Twitter feels increasingly corporate, which would fit Microsoft's portfolio. It also has a track record of buying trendsetters past their prime (Skype, I'm looking at you).

Defining Agency

Paul Diduch asked me whether I think weather systems like hurricanes have agency. The short answer is “No.” Giving a longer answer allows me to explore what I want the concept of agency to do, since there is no consensus on its definition even within disciplines like computer science or philosophy, let alone between them. 

Discursive and conversational search

Two things recently changed how I think about the possibilities for web search: (1) a webinar by engineers at search engine Neeva on its plans for using Large Language Models (LLMs); and (2) realizing that I’ve suddenly started using speech-to-text on my phone and desktop. I’m now willing and able to input much longer search queries, rather than just the few well-chosen words that I’ve been trained to put in the search box.

Apple ad changes: File under the Not Rule?

File under the Not Rule: Craig Federighi, Apple SVP of software engineering, saying that the company's privacy changes had "zero" to do with their interest in ads.

Source: WSJ video, "Apple's Privacy Changes Have 'Zero' to Do With Interest in Ads: Executive," October 26, 2022, at time code 0:44, "Zero part of the motivation. . . . This was driven by our privacy team."

He seems sincere, convincing, and believes what he's saying. But that doesn't invalidate the Not Rule.

Why say orgregore?

I’ve been using the term orgregore to refer to supra-human systems with agency and perhaps sentience that emerge from the joint actions of groups of people. Why not just call them organizations or institutions?

Significant but hard to discern

Testing my thesis statement (in the recent Project Snapshot), Paul Diduch pointed out to me that significant impacts are usually not hard to discern. That’s true, but there are exceptions. I believe orgregores are one of them. Here is first cut justification of my claim.

Wins for the "Not" Rule

 My "Not" Rule (if a senior executive claims something, one gets closer to the truth by taking the negative) is doing well in the current UK government meltdown.

On Thursday October 13, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng said in Washington, DC, "I'm not going anywhere" (BBC). He resigned the next day after a hurried return from the US (Reuters).

In Parliament on Wednesday October 19, Prime Minister Liz Truss insisted that “I am fighter and not a quitter” (CNBC, PM questions video). She resigned on Thursday October 20 (CNBC).

Degrees of Agency

There are many ways to define agency. The ones I’ve seen provide criteria for deciding whether an entity is or is not an agent. However, once it’s established that something is an agent it would be useful to assess degrees of agenthood. 

Tech & Mythology Project Snapshot – Oct 2022

It’s time to revisit the Tech & Mythology project outline since it keeps shifting as I learn more. There were previous snapshots in Jul 2020, Oct 2020, Feb 2021 and Nov 2021.

Ethics has downsides

I’m enjoying Justin Gregg’s new book, If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal: What Animal Intelligence Reveals About Human Stupidity. In the fourth chapter he discusses some problems with human morality. It made me realize that we need to be just as skeptical that ethics is an unalloyed good as we are that technological progress will always have beneficial outcomes.

Big Tech Blindsight

The emotional invisibility of Big Tech mystifies me. Why don’t I get more worked up about it? I can only speak for myself since I don’t have any survey data, but I suspect it’s not just me.

Hmmm did I hear you say…

I've been under the weather since last week, and Nancy Lucero—not just my tai chi teacher but also a talented designer—suggested a cleansing shower with all that nice, warm steam. I remarked that hot showers are one of the best things in life, along with sleep and chocolate. She responded with this:

Sing a Song of Spectrum

Is 100 MHz of radio spectrum a lot? It depends on whether it’s at 200 MHz (say, 200-300 MHz) where it’s a significant chunk of the entire band, or at 20 GHz (say, 20.0-20.2 GHz) where it’s just a sliver. Musicians don’t encounter this puzzle because they express intervals in terms of frequency ratios. Thus, a soprano can sing the same song as a bass, though at a much higher pitch; the same notes but transposed upwards. 

When we think about spectrum allocations, we shouldn’t think about raw hertz, but rather about the “song” that a given number of hertz allows an operator “to sing.” (H/t Nathan Simington, Ofcom/William Webb, and SPT; see endnote [1].)

Spectrum blind spots

We’re surprised when something unexpected happens; by definition, it’s something we hadn’t been thinking about. One way to avoid surprise is to try imagining unthought things. One way to do that is to consider how institutions stop us thinking about certain things. I’ll focus this post on spectrum topics we may not be thinking about hard enough. They include non-local interference, 3D interactions, agencies outside the FCC, the dearth of spectrum zoning, and the end of endlessly increasing demand for spectrum.