Or maybe they did but it didn’t reach us (well, me). Another thing you folks sure can do is advertise and actively push your media (with news that align with decent humane values and unaffiliated with local politics) in places where local press isn’t doing well.

To best if my (awfully limited) awareness, only the Pope said anything beyond the obvious “war bad” and actually had a CTA of “talk to your representatives”. The career politicians merely distanced themselves with “not our war” and the usual UN-grade statements of concern.

Put this way - yes, of course it is ludicrous. Nobody's asking you to get any of us rid of a petulant king. Or change anyone else's laws or processes. That'd be pure madness.

But saying things to be heard across the pond isn't meddling with politics. How about providing support, opinion and advice?

Yes, but responsibility is, sadly, irrelevant. It only really matters in collaborative efforts, where parties split effort and take it. In presence of external factors, it’s nothing but a “I shouldn’t have to do it”. Yes, but problems don’t care about who’s supposed to solve them.

All true. But frame it this way: a neighbor got a brain disease and acting unpredictably. You can’t and shouldn’t force medical care, yes. You can say all the “they shouldn’t have made their choices” mantras and leave it to chance they don’t go too nuts and burn the condo. Or you can keep pushing.

Because by looking away and only issuing strongly worded concerns, the world had allowed North Korea, Iran, Eritrea, Turkmenistan, Russia, and many other countries to become what they became?

Not that anyone knows a solution- all options (appeasing, ignoring, sanctioning, intruding) are bad.

That’s a long checklist for “just honestly serve interests and answer needs of those common people who trusted and elected you.”

I strongly suspect lack of mid-term responsibility is the root issue, or one of root issues. Fix that, this list becomes just a weird artifact of its era.

I hope I’m not. I try to imagine that we can hire unlimited numbers of genies that can do anything we ask. That’s the hyper-optimistic view on AI.

And I argue that even that still doesn’t get rid of jobs forever - just rearranges markets. Because it doesn’t magically achieve us post-scarcity.

Fair point, I meant it as fundamental to the current technological approach only. To best of my awareness, no one figured out catastrophic forgetting so far.

Responsibility is fundamental to a human society though. Some try to skip that, and it already doesn’t work well.

My point is, it’s impossible to remove human involvement in a human society, only rearrange it (like with every prior technological revolution).

AI doesn’t address scarcity. It won’t magically create resources for everyone out of thin air. Jobs will still remain a thing, just different ones.

You imagine any of those currently-fundamental limitations getting resolved? How?

Continuous on-spot learning requires different technology, but let’s be hyper-optimistic about capabilities and say it does. I still don’t see responsibility addressed in such a short time. That’s society, not tech.

Sure, machine intelligence improves overall. We taught machines language, now we teach them thinking and some non-verbal stuff we take for granted.

Yet, “AI” usually doesn’t learn anything in its practical application. It’s an equivalent of a human anterograde amnesiac, that can only rely on notes.

It’s the opposite.

Humans continuously adapt and learn. Machine models - as they currently exist - are all static and retain no state past their outputs.

New models are trained, but this training is large scale, blind to most details. They reason better, but that’s just catching up with humans.

Dismantle, and then… what?

And is it even a root issue or just a (sub)system experiencing its failure mode? Arguably, it’s not exactly a direct problem of capitalism that large corporations tend to have intelligence of an ant colony and can happily walk in a death loop, pulling everyone else in it.

How? In my understanding, responsibility requires personhood. A machine can’t be held responsible, so one still needs a competent human in the loop. Just doing things differently.

Large-scale temporary disruption (like how it was when USSR fell) for sure, but I don’t see how it can be permanent.

Now I think something like "composite" is probably a better term. Either way, still cannot agree on "additive." I would've dismissed the formula additive syntax nuance as a minor nit, but you said the word itself. Knowledge is not a mere sum of information, or is it?

8/8

All this said, I must apologize and take back my words about cumulativity. I've picked a bad term there, using it inaccurately, in a colloquial (just a hand-wavy "made up of accumulated parts") sense. That was a hasted response where I gasped for a word, lacking proper thought.

7/8

As I've said, D+I+K=W implies D=W-I-K - simply through a naive arithmetical interpretation (which as I've said addition usually implies). And that exact sentence I quoted above is where my jab at D=W-I-K comes from. There is more, but I think this one is concise and sufficient to show my point.

6/8

The terminology somewhat varied since, that paper is quoted as still relevant and definitive e.g. by Rowley in "The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy", which I believe is a nice overview paper. If those aren't good, please point me to better sources.

5/8

Ackoff's "From data to wisdom" address is frequently quoted in relation to the concept, and its very second paragraph has this sentence: "Each of those includes the categories that fall below it - for example, there can be no wisdom without understanding and no understanding without knowledge."

4/8

I wish you'd have asked for sources more directly or politely rather than making immediate assumptions. Despite your implications I also had some pleasure of reading a few (hopefully) authoritative papers on it. I can't say I properly understood all the detail, but I got the overall idea.

3/8

I don't question your experience teaching, or knowledge of practical applications. On that matter I trust you have this experience, and thus you have unquestionable authority through irreplaceable experience. However, I've noticed an oddity and I felt that I had to point it out.

2/8

Sir, this is Wendy's^W^W Bluesky. Shortness of medium almost enforces brevity, so I apologize I have not explicitly quoted sources and explained my logic. I'll correct myself.

1/8

Sir, with all due respect, everything I’ve read on the matter strongly suggested it’s cumulative, but not additive. Thus my objection to the notation. It allows nonsensical statements like K=W-D-I.

And I never used a word “process.” this said, “processing” is the verb commonly used b/w D and I.

Side note: If this is about DIKW pyramid, using “+” is a very odd choice. Traditionally, additive notation is used in commutative contexts, and DIKW is a hierarchy with order-dependent transformations.

D →ᵖ I →ˢ K →ᶜ W (not ideal) or W = c(s(p(D))) would make more sense.

Still processing the rest.

Of course - I cannot possibly speak for anyone else, at any large scale. Not sure how you do that.

I don’t question that wisdom, but I ask you to question its application. You used it as a thought-stopper here, followed by stating a dogma that’s backed up with an example that confirms selected bit but doesn’t prove it fully. That’s not logical.

∀x,m ∈ X: x ≠ m ⇒ (P(x) ⊬ P(m) ∧ P(x) ⊬ ¬P(m)).

And when I said “parrot,” I haven’t meant anything diminishing. I sure do that a lot myself: fast-thinking prevails by a huge margin, and I suspect most things I say aren’t so well thought out as I’d wish them to be.

(I might be exceptionally dumb, of course, haha.)

Yep. Absolutely no disagreement from me.

Mythos - like most literary genres - don’t need to follow any logic, and are open to any interpretation. Which makes them convenient with all sorts of people who try use our cognitive fallibilities (including group conformity) to their benefit.

Yes?… Televangelists are loud, but they’re tiny fraction of religious people out there - and a very special case. I think religion there is secondary, just a convenient thing, they could’ve preached pseudoscience or philosophy just the same.

Most religious folks don’t preach, they parrot at best.