last night, speaking with a member of family, who professes a faith that includes a deity called god and its counter-element being the devil, i realised that society is full of bad people. not weak people: deeply bad people.
21st century third-decade societies — whether british, irish … wherever … oh yes, there are good people … but power in a tech-riven digital world, a world where tech of all kinds of levels rules, is insidiously criminalising every effect we once were reasonably able to assert was random. there are plenty of good people it’s true; but only the bad exert the power that makes the world run and administers what actually happens.
an anecdote from yesterday:
a young woman said to me yesterday evening: “it’s just stuff.” she was either facile & naive or dangerous. but probably dangerous in any case, because in the face of such embedded criminality, she chose to claim it was random.
re dark figure, law enforcement and security globally:
and so we come to this conclusion: law enforcement and security across the world find it much easier to deliver on their kpi structures by chasing and incarcerating those who don’t know what they’re doing than the covert digital-based criminals at all levels of tech who do know what they’re up to — and more importantly, how.
why i will no longer look to work with security-related citizens:
i’ve already signalled on these pages and others that i will no longer work on projects related to these kinds of professions: let me now explain why.
they depend on modern tech; on modern tech partners to explain what’s possible and what’s not. in a system where legitimately we have always separated out judge and jury, when it comes to procurement of tech we connect judge and jury both so they’re in the same bag as the criminals themselves.
tech is corrupt from top to bottom. it shouldn’t be trusted with advising what’s possible in respect of innovation.
but hey … who am i to say?
my next steps:
i’m no longer going to bang my head till it bleeds. i’m going to repurpose ALL my #secrecypositive ideas — this time with zero elements of #totalsurveillance compliance — in order to begin to implement tools to solve the #complexproblems the #leanjourney toolkit has chosen to filter out all these years:
because modern tech only primarily aims its crosshairs at ONE problem: how to ensure the customer pays. everything else is how to cherry-pick out of solutioning-process what’s not relevant to a bottom-line.
great for the individual company’s balance-sheet; but sincerely catastrophic for a wider society.
as climate change — just one example — now shows.
complexify.me – done simply well:
i’m now going to concentrate all my forces on creating a tech ecosystem and set of tools which tech doesn’t care to invent; has chosen, in fact, just about criminally not to all these years.
an ecosystem and tools where #neurodiversity FINALLY delivers as a skillset, not a touchy-feely inclusion impulse.
and to the extent that #diversity becomes the new norm; and so normality returns to being just one more arrow in our society- and species-saving quivers …
let’s say i have to do something to be allowed to live:
i have a no-no or two, though …
not meeting family: not anyone. maybe one exception … but not a demand i make again; not even implied. not even wishing for. i won’t presume.
re family, i’m happy with my mother and the one sibling i get on with, but no one else on any other side. there’s always my children and so forth, but that’s never been your business. that will begin to work again in the future if it does; and if it doesn’t, i will share responsibility for any eventual failure.
‘problem is, you lost me this morning when you didn’t follow up — here no going back, because you were playing with me cruelly: no irish, no croatian, no other english — forget it.
talking realistically, in order to square two circles:
let’s talk realistically — what can i do to have a life more or less reasonably without your surveillance and neo-terrorism, everywhere i turn?
remember: i will, after what you failed to deliver on this morning, never meet with family nor anyone with a relationship to, whether personal or business, whom i don’t already get on with. you lost that opportunity today, just to underline.
but other things within my capacity … well, these things, for sure … more than happy to, actually really eager to.
you want to undermine the capacity of the tech i want to see in security? this can be resolved easily. you have your reasons i know: i can see why of course, though i will never share the criteria because i am far more a purist in these matters than you ever will be. but for us to proceed — for you to proceed — there is a solution which i now put before you all.
one caveat: one condition. as long as i get enough to have a comfortable rest of my life, we can talk about this but it requires you first to evidence that “neo-terrorism on the individual” will not be committed against my person again. and that is not an easy call to evidence.
some minimums, first:
i want european residence from this month.
i want an official, even if only cover, role that suits my skillset, in my judgement.
i don’t care if it’s employment or self-, but if either or both, i must be very difficult to fire. i want the kind of job security i’ve never had in my life, mainly because of british interventions to date.
i commit to targets everyone must commit to, but no opportunity for “noi” again, for this reason. (whether uk/irish influences — or within sweden itself, the latter of which has also already manifested itself.)
the legal side: i want a position of institutional power to deliver on “noi” as a robust legal figure, in the three years i scope; and thus the seven years i have as my goal to regular and widespread prosecutions.
i want to be in charge of complex problem-solutioning programmes, but completely outwith security.
i want to be able to exclusively license to all fields relating to security, the strategising and development of which i shall play zero part in the future.
loopholes, however, will remain part of my side of the deal: a complex problem to be eliminated eventually in the 20-year timeframe i propose. “noi”, too, as previously mentioned.
no conditions can be placed around the tech my side chooses to repurpose or begin to develop further. any developed tech will be developed exclusively for complex problem-solutioning, and then any reuse for security will involve new licensing agreements.
c is fine if she wants. it’d be cool and fair if she did, but that’s her choice. she chooses.
no other family contact, not after today.
no people or companies from my past in what i am responsible for: they may, if it is judged appropriate, however, freely participate to any level at all in respect of security workstreams i have nothing to do with in the future.
distribution of existing workstreams:
websites:
i license ideas from crime hunch, citizen hunch, and omiwan to security.
platform genesis is complex problems, not security.
the philosopher space is complex problems, not security.
secrecy.plus where applied to complex problems belongs to this stream. where security, it belongs to security from the start.
we negotiate the details of the division and separation, as expected would be the case.
examples: fire is clearly to be licensed to security, and will not be my responsibility in the future.
digital pencil & paper is my workstream.
i want hmagi for complex absolutely, but maybe it can be a common workstream. i doubt you will eventually want it; but i’m up for a common workspace for it, myself.
never meet again: that i keep entirely for my workstreams. nothing to do with security.
complex problems: where do they sit and who do they work with?
my initial thoughts: swedish interests, agencies and unis; the eu, particularly the ec; the un; and so forth.
security: that’s up to you. not my job. but i’d suggest:
the italians first, who are historically firm in the integrity of their pursuit of organised criminality.
in the uk, the met’s internal affairs department might be another good place to start.
locations:
complex problems obviously then to be located in sweden and europe.
this means it’s very easy for security to definitively locate to the us.
but never again shall i salivate the evil of the unnecessarily violent. as a last resort … this is how life sometimes must conduct itself. as a tool of habitual state … this is not.
mil williams, johan & nyström coffee shop, stockholm sweden, 9th april 2023
it’s not all plain selling. but then that’s not what life’s about.
but if i manage to stay here in the end, this — the end — it won’t be. it will be the best beginning i’ve ever managed. i spent seven years between the uk and ireland, trying to engineer a relationship between ireland and the uk. i failed.
now i say it out loud: not with joy but acceptance. acceptance that i failed in everything institutionally and personally related.
but not ideas-wise. not in respect of my increasing capacity to uncover them: like a pig and his beloved truffles. for me, ideas are truffles, waiting to be found; and they say that pigs bear many good resemblances to humans. physiologically, for sure. maybe in other respects i am still unaware of.
all i can say is if a pig is good enough for george clooney, why not associate myself with the same?
🙂
so why here — and now?
because in a very brief period of time i see a society like none i have experienced in my life. there are cruel people here: but the society as a wider whole is striving not to legislate or legitimate state cruelty. and this i am defo not accustomed to back in my homeland.
so if i have to contribute to a tech which scales up basic government and regional administrative instincts, i want it to be in a place where more manually these instincts are sound. meantime, the triumvirate of evil exists in the uk with the conservative attachment to russian wealth and trump’s idiocies all in one. and all by now as an all too well-established nouveau establishment of the horrifyingly, casually cruel.
one thing many don’t realise, and i still don’t fully understand: a military society can be a liberating one too. it all depends to what purpose you militarise — and with what genders you compose your military out of.
during my whole time in the uk i was oppressed by outliers of a military which, tbh, needed very few outliers anyway to operate and impose such oppression with the necessary precision. look at the state of the london metropolitan police right now just to appreciate how ugly the uk has allowed itself to become. and that’s the first line: just the police.
this is why here, and why now. and if it’s not possible now and here, it will be somewhere else similar, and sometime then.
but never again shall i salivate the evil of the unnecessarily violent. as a last resort … this is how life sometimes must conduct itself. as a tool of habitual state … this is not.
this post contains thoughts from a fortnight’s thinking processes more or less; plus the content of a synthesising presentation which is the sum of years of thought-experimenting on my part. i’ll start with the presentation, which is now where i want us to go:
fighting creatively criminal fire with a newly creative crimefighting
i created the slide below for a presentation i was asked to submit to a european digital agency pitching process, by the uk organisation public. the submission didn’t prosper. the slide, however, is very very good:
the easy answer is that obviously it benefits an industry. the challenging question is why this has been allowed to perpetuate itself as a reality. because real people and democratic citizens have surely perished as a result: maybe unnecessarily.
here is the presentation which public failed to accept for submission to the european digital process last october 2022, and from which the above slide is taken:
where and how i now want us to come together and proceed to deliver on creative crimefighting and global security
the second presentation which follows below indicates my thinking today: no caveats; no red lines; no markers in the sand any more. if you can agree to engage with the process indicated here, no conditions on my side any more.
well. maybe just one. only western allies interested in saving democracy will participate, and benefit both societally and financially from what i’m now proposing:
following on from the above then, thoughts i wrote down today — in edited format to just be now relevant only to the above — on my iphone notes app. this constitutes a regular go-to tool for my thought-experimenting:
on creating a bespoke procurement process for healthy intuition-validation development
step 1
pilot a bespoke procurement process we use for the next year.
we keep in mind the recent phd i’ve had partial access to on the lessons of how such process is gamed everywhere.
we set up structures to get it right from the start.
no off-the-peg sold as bespoke and at a premium, even when still only repurposed tech for the moment.
step 2
we share this procurement process speedily with other members of the inner intuition-validation core.
they use it: no choice.
but no choice then gives a quid quo pro: this means total freedom to then develop and contribute freely to the inner core ip in ways that most fit others’ cultures.
and also, looking ahead, to onward commercialise in the future in their zones of influence where they know what’s what, and exactly what will work.
and so then, a clear common interest and target: one we all know and agree on.
mil williams, 8th april 2023
historical thought and positions from late march 2023
finally, an earlier brainstorming from the same process as described in part two above, conducted back in late march of this year. this is now a historical document and position, and is included to provide a rigorous audit trail of why free thinking is so important to foment, trust and believe in, and actively encourage.
we have to create an outcome which means we know we think unthinkable things far worse than any criminal ever will be able to, to prevent them. we need a clear set of ground rules, but these rules shouldn’t prevent the agents from thinking comfortably (as far as this is the right word) things they never dared to approach.
the problem isn’t putin or team jorge. it is, but not what we see. it’s what they and others do that we don’t even sense. it’s the people who do worse and events that hurt even more … these things which we have no idea about.
if you like, yes, the persian proverb: the unknown unknowns. i want to make them visible. all of them. the what and how. that’s my focus.
trad tech discovers the who and when. but my tech discovers the what and how before even a glint in criminals’ eyes.
so we combine both types of tech in one process that doesn’t require each culture to work with the other. side-by-side, yes. but in the same way, no. so we guarantee for each the purest state each needs of each.
my work and my life/love if you prefer will not only be located in sweden but driven from here too. that’s my commitment. and not reluctantly in any way whatsoever.
[…]
i have always needed to gather enough data. now i have, the decision surely is simple.
there are two questions i’d like to discuss in tonight’s post. the first as per these screenshots of a previous post earlier today:
in the second image above, i allude to “zero trust” versus “total openness”. and then add, in an addendum written after the original post, that trust is the secular term we have been constructing for a while in the absence of a more religious faith.
‘only thing being that faith presupposes a universal deity of irreplaceable goodness (that’s the deal; why it’s safe to have faith), whilst trust is what we far more imperfect humans do with each other — equally imperfectly.
from one of my own presentations on a “natural justice”, quoting from various guardian newspaper stories
relativism — but not what you’re thinking jim
i think a bit of what is happening is something to do with relativist approaches to criminal justice and law enforcement. and i’m not talking about populist rubbishing of 1960s post-modernist belief systems.
i’m saying that, actually, the defence lawyer’s right — and even obligation — to defend someone they’re pretty sure is guilty relativises since time immemorial the concept of absolute truth. and if you don’t like the word “absolute”, how about we say “core”?
i don’t even mean universal truth. i think i already mentioned on these pages that i sensed a profound difference between the ideas of absolute and universal. this evening, someone encouraged me to explain. and being forced to do so in this way served to clarify my own thought with great utility.
the difference between universal and absolute truth
i ended up using the example of the roman catholic church and my mother. for her, her church is part of a wider community of christians. and she is, in the main, well disposed to these other churches and their own manifestations of such christianity. even so, for her the catholic church trumps them all: in this sense, it holds out for a wider humanity the universal truth that is its teachings.
meantime, many others of other religions, whilst subscribing to similar concepts of an all-seeing god, would beg to differ re my mother’s universal positioning of her church.
from their point of view, i’d argue that — more objectively seen — my mother’s truths were what i would now begin to define as absolute truths: that is, particular to a set of circumstances, and criteria clearly too. but NOT universal for everyone.
and if we apply these two concepts to the criminal justice and legal systems?
apply this explanation to criminal justice and to the legal system: you then get a different view of what a “core” truth in such contexts might after all look like.
forget the debate between a relativised reality or no. forget the naughty 1960s versus the tarnished but ever so real 21st century.
let’s move, instead, into the scenarios of universal truth (applicable one hundred percent to all human beings) versus absolute truths (always context-specific).
from reality-agnostic defence lawyers to criminal justice and legal systems with absolute and core truths
in this sense, from the totally reality-agnostic defence lawyer’s position, where core truth simply can’t exist in the debating chamber that is the court of law such professionals usually operate in, we may slowly begin to put together a new set of ai tech-driven validation systems: systems which may, after all, begin to recover our capacity to deliver these absolute and core truths i am differentiating.
i just got a message from microsoft (linkedin) which asked me to consider and/or explain how what i was about to post (what you see below in the screenshots) related to my work or professional role.
why nudge in this way
is this a stealthy attempt to remove the ambiguities of #arts-based thinking patterns from contaminating the baser #chatgpt-x instincts and what they scrape?
more than personally, quite intellectually i think it’s wrong — in a world which needs lateral and nonconformist thinking — to define, a priori, what a thinker who wishes to shape a better business should use as a primary discourse.
because this discourse may include how much we follow or no the traditional way of framing information: where we state what we will say, say it, and then summarise it, we fit the needs of machines and people trained to think like them.
art should be used to communicate in any forum
‘truth is, when we choose a precise ambiguity (one forged out of the arts — not the confusions — of deep communication), where such ambiguity and the uncertainty it generates may in itself be a necessary part of the communication process’s context — and even content — what value ever is added by telling the speaker and/or writer they are ineffective?
in any case, the public will always have the final vote on this: and if you prefer to communicate in such ways and be not read, why not let it happen?
why choose this kind of nudge to upskill writers in the ways of the machine?
using automated machines to do so, too …!
so what do YOU think? what DO you?
me, what follows is what i want. what no one in tech wants to allow. because i’m not first to the starting-line: i’m last. they decided it didn’t suit their business models decades ago. i decided i didn’t agree. and i still don’t. and neither should you.
on making a systemically distributed intelligence and genius of all human beings … not just an elite
i like what i say about #happiness below — and in the film at the end of this post — because, for me, it’s spot-on and describes how i’ve lived my life till now.
however, a bit more forcefully than till now i want #happiness and its #butterfly to settle rather sooner than later on my shoulder.
just a bit of daily joy is all i ask … not even so i can fight more sustainably the bad people i must fight … just so i do it more efficiently.
you can’t be efficient if you’re unhappy. that’s why so many people who make a living out of monetising our capacity for waste promote so vigorously the unhappiness of us all.
let’s begin now to stop them together. and let’s find a bit of joy — each of us — for each other every day.
i trained in spain as an editor in the early part of the 2000s. but as someone who always blogged better than he authored, i already had the custom of attributing my ideas through the tool and habit of hyperlinking.
attribution is really important: not because it inevitably takes us down a peg or two, although it does. more importantly, an outcome with shape to it is more valuable than an outcome, full stop.
the memex machine
i realised this consciously ever since reading vannevar bush’s treatise on human thought: “as we may think”.
in it, using the immediate post-war tech available, and any future tech extrapolated from the same, he suggested a machine called the #memex. it would enable human thought to the extent that we would not only be able to store outcomes — what those most interested in making money would consider a product or service to be scaled up massively — but store the trails of thought that would always lead up previously (and to my mind — and bush’s — also preciously) to such outcomes.
because when a thought is a reel of thoughts not just a pic which snaps shut on time … this is when we have a human being rather than a machine.
the implications of attribution’s fact
the result of all the above? NOTHING we think up is independent of ANYTHING. as a consequence, it is tantamount — just about — to daylight (and more importantly, night-time) robbery to claim one has an exclusive right to make money out of any idea “you might EVER have”.
you don’t agree? then it isn’t. but then you’re a genius in the divisive sense most of society understands: that is, very few of us can or will be this figure; and most of us will never be anywhere near.
which is elitism to the max, in fact.
only i don’t agree with this. i don’t believe such elitist approaches accurately reflect the human brain and how it best works. and when leaders in different fields impress on us to believe that they do reflect the state of human thought, and then build business models on such belief systems, we get a type of tech-kryptonite thrust into the most vulnerable core of human experience.
my experience, meantime, as a language teacher, then facilitator, then enabler (the progression taking place out of what almost became a fanatical frustration with the rank incompetence of traditional learning paths) showed me ALL humans can radically improve their thought processes, given the right environment.
and where processes can be improved dramatically, surprising — even shocking — outcomes can be achieved. and so i saw it happen. and was a convert.
platform genesis
this is why both my son, from whom i am now deeply estranged, and myself worked together for a while on a platform we named “platform genesis”.
the idea is that all of us, all human beings, can find the right tools to uncover some aspect of genius in our souls, hearts, and grey cells. it’s not the preserve of intellect: it’s mainly the preserve of confidence in oneself — whether one has it or not. if one doesn’t, intellect cannot follow. if one does, a happy series of accidents — where a given — will lead to your genius in some way or other.
a few minutes after the photo that follows was taken i met the muse of my life. it’s hard to admit that nothing i have thought up since 2016 that evening in dublin on the banks of the river liffey would now exist if we hadn’t met and spoken for three hours, as we shared a meal on the roof terrace of “the woollen mills”.
i had lost my fear of flying the day before, you see: the 15th of june of that same year, when i flew into dublin on ryanair for the first time, for precisely the meeting that would then take place on what was my birthday the following day. being the 16th. coincidently called, in ireland mainly, “bloomsday”. (and so don’t you think it’s cool to have a birthday called “bloomsday”? the day you are born being that, i mean.
don’t you?)
and so i literally lost my fear of flying that june. actually, truly, in a second. a total flip. a click of the brain’s chip that’s never clicked back.
and therefore in my wider life, too: because i assure you, quite objectively, i have a better brain now at 60-something than i have ever had the whole of my life before. and it’s NOT because of intelligence that i am far more intelligent than i could once have imagined myself becoming. it’s because of the confidence that slowly seeped into and then infused my brain, my heart, and my soul … as an utterly natural consequence of meeting the muse of my life.
the meaning of this … for me
bringing together the threads of this article, then, i now conclude:
1. none of my ideas since are mine to exploit exclusively for my own benefit.
2. none of my ideas since are mine.
3. none of my ideas are yours.
4. none of my ideas are yours to exploit exclusively for your benefit.
5. all of the ideas which have emerged after this meeting of ours, and precisely because we met, belong to no one — and therefore belong, altogether, to a whole planet and creative ecosystem.
because it WAS a sort of magic: and magic, the genius of genie, once uncorked CANNOT be boxed into a business model for the benefit of the few.
conclusion
when we upturn a paradigm, we can choose to leave the business model — and therefore the hegemony — untouched. or we can choose to upturn two paradigms simultaneously: the “thing” itself (for want of a better phrase), and how we get it out there as fast as possible.
what’s the problem i’m looking to solve with the #gutenbergofintuitivethinking and the #intuitionvalidationengine? and #intuitionvalidation more broadly?
it’s not #darkfigure and #neocrime (only). it’s not #wastefulmeetings (only).
it’s not #loopholes and other zemiological activities (only).
it’s not the inability of #specialisms to duly and safely communicate across their knowledge lines (only).
rather, it’s something which informs all these use-cases — and many many more.
one UNCOMMON denominator: a denominator that connects everything in human experience since the dawn of rhymes:
truth. a concept of an absolute and indivisible truth. so we kick relativism finally into the long grasses, where it may be admired and remembered but not treasured. nor missed. again.
mil williams, stockholm sweden, 5th april 2023
accept and underline, therefore, and deliver on and re-establish, as a result, that a VALIDATED truth may be something we can establish ABSOLUTELY.
not universal truth: i’m not sustaining this. we can still be dependent on circumstance and context. but in each of these, an unattackable truth.
just this: impossible to break.
this i believe. deeply. firmly. and now till i die.
and if so, even if only gently, this then leads this article to its final statements.
all of the above says to me only one thing: i need to know what i owe my muse. because if any of the above can happen to any useful degree one day, it will happen one day only because of the impact she had on me, that day.
it’s consequently NOT a fixation at all i have for you, my dear muse, but an almost overpoweringly intellectual — as well as obviously emotional — demand to work out to what extent i was just a lever someone pulled.
not that YOU pulled it, either. i don’t think this for a minute. no.
but a tool or extension of someone or something out there … why is this so impossible to propose or contemplate? or prosper as an assertion to be justly considered?
they say we human beings, over and over, stub our toes on the same stones.
we do it with #meetings, for sure: all the tech that has ever been developed aims to reproduce the weaknesses — even deepen them — of the original beast.
why tech-enabled meetings don’t work right now
three examples:
1. whatever your level of hierarchical importance, you will find it a challenge even to coincide with one person’s calendar … never mind ten or maybe more. then multiply this up over a year: the waste spent negotiating just timings — never mind agenda! — is dreadful.
2. ensuring everyone is duly prepared, and therefore focussed, for a #meeting is a herculean effort in itself. but even when it is achieved, we have the problem which follows, expanded on in point 3: if the structure is strong enough to deliver a reasonable ratio of time versus usable outcomes, it may — equally — be too fierce to enable the potential for tangential leaps of faith that lead to true invention … and so, possibly world-beating innovation.
3. as alluded to in point 2, an developed here now, the inability which current #meeting structures have to ensure that the thoughts and ideas of some of the most significant thinkers a company may employ are ever registered, never mind taken advantage of, is … well … criminal.
whose thought — exactly! — we are criminally wasting
here we are talking about the more reflective thinkers amongst us — and on all teams, everywhere. the ability to freely and vulnerably think up paradigm-shifting ways of running an organisation, and then the ideas such capacity moves us collectively towards in the future to ensure the organisation will thrive always, is wholly dependent on our ability NOT to:
a) talk over the creatives to keep control of our hierarchy;
b) organise the direction of a conversation so the gathered listen to us, instead of us to them;
c) command and never properly enquire.
so why don’t we ask a different question? instead of saying how we might do meetings bigger and better in remote and hybrid ways, why not ask:
“how about we don’t meet again, ever?”
that is, upturn the #meeting paradigm for once in our human history.
it wouldn’t work for everyone: not all company cultures are actually interested in the #truth, and what i am proposing is effectively a company and organisational #truthmachine.
but some companies are: recently pwc published a fabulous workplace survey which shows that forward-looking and forward-acting corporations see the freedoms of, for example, hybrid- and fully remote-working as enhancing almost everything related to company organisations and hierarchies one could possibly imagine. including retaining an evermore picky and supremely skilled digital-savvy workforce.
my call to action: a startup which upturns ALL #meeting paradigms
so here’s the idea:
add into this perfect and virtuous storm the idea that we might remove — for those organisations intrigued and engaged by verifying and validating the #truth of #business — the hierarchy within the #ideasgeneration #thinkingspaces and nodes that traditional #meetings are sometimes capable of enabling …
well … you MUST find engaging and intriguing whatever we might be able to achieve …
i had an idea way-back-when. i posted it and then talked about it in various forums. i think the first time formally was a berkeley skydeck submission.
then i did an online whitepaper called crime hunch:
it contained a number of different ways of doing crime, ways which lent themselves particularly to the almost infinitely malleable — and therefore unimaginably criminal — world we now live in.
without asking the question as clearly as i could have at the start, the image that follows is really what was at the back of my mind … what i was gnawing away at without being so clear as i could have been at the time:
after the crime hunch page on terror and before the above slide, which in truth was created for a euro-event sponsored by the british organisation PUBLIC, i also had a lengthy video conversation with seven or eight american tech corporation executives. i never saw their faces or knew their names. but the conversation, even so, was valuable. before and after this conversation, i have found it easy to rate positively and highly the corporation in question.
anyway. i asked the assembled the conundrum which the crime hunch terror page poses. however, none of them was prepared to say anything; not even address it to say that it shouldn’t have been posed in the first place.
this was when i began to realise i might have gone too far.
so recently i decided i, myself, would address what could have been hurting people out there: people who otherwise might have seen themselves through to considering it useful to work with me.
i realised, too, i needed to finesse not only my words but also how i might address the challenges being raised: the tool or tools — or conceptual positions — needed.
squaring the circles of human intuition-enhancing #ai (and therefore of creative crimefighting) with traditional #datascience views
less than a month ago i produced a presentation about three kinds of human brains and how we might make it easy for them to work together. i was interested in exploring the weaknesses in my hollywood writers idea, and maybe bring onboard as well the strengths of a more traditional and exclusively automating #ai.
because one of the replies those people who do answer the terror conundrum have previously given is that using both teams of resources is the best solution.
the problem with this however is that it’s not necessarily a solution. we have cultural challenges of simple workplace interactions which inevitably kick in, where differing professional mindsets — necessarily conformist crimefighters (someone has to want to apply the rules) versus nonconformist creatives, for example — may struggle to understand, or even minimally validate, the other’s work and approaches.
what #datascience finds easy — and then, what it really struggles with
i then deepened this perception specifically in relation to the #datascience brain and how it values other, more intuitive ways of thinking.
and this formed the basis of the three brains presentation i mentioned: “fighting fire with fire”:
and what follows from the presentation itself on what i honestly now believe are cultural NOT technological challenges facing us:
i’d like us to focus for the moment on the first slide above:
without intending to or seeing at first what i had done, i was delivering finally on a solution to the conundrum i had — maybe a year or so before — ended up using in good faith but, at the same time, unintentionally hurting the sensibilities and feelings of more than a few.
in this slide we see a process emerging at last where two cultures can work profoundly well together, without having to negotiate anything ever of their own ways of seeing, or of their professional praxis and therefore often unspoken assumptions.
so. to the nitty-gritty.
how would it work?
we take the sorts of minds and creatives i’ve already typed and labelled as “hollywood screenwriters”. but not just hollywood, of course. more widely, the intuitive thinkers; the ones who go with hunches and inventing new future-presents on the basis not of experience exclusively but, rather, in tandem, and deeply so, with what we could call the leaps of faith of what often necessarily leads to genius — whether good guys or criminals.
and then with these brains, in the first stage of our newly creative part but never whole of crimefighting, law enforcement and national & global security, we also type the increasingly unknown unknowns of #darkfigure, and related, which the what and how of terrifyingly unexpected creative criminal activity surely involve.
and with this approach and separation of responsibilities — traditional #datascience and automating #ai on the one hand, creative #intuition-focussed humans to the max on the other — we may now propose using traditional automating #ai as it has functioned to date: that is, where the patterning and recognition of past and present events serves to predict the who and when of future ones. and so, leaving the frighteningly, newly radical and unexpected unknown unknowns of what and how to the creatives.
the value-add of this new process-focussed approach to humanising #ai
never the twain shall meet, maybe? because in a sense, with this separation of responsibilities, established and necessarily conforming security and law-enforcement organisations can advantage themselves of the foresight of creative #intuition and #hunches without losing the purity — if you like — of tried and tested security processes.
and the creative second and third brains below can create and forward-engineer the real evil out there before it becomes a bloody fact — yet without inhibitions or compunctions.
and then, what’s more, both parties — rightly conformist security professionals and effectively nonconformist creative crimefighting professionals — can do to the max, without confusion or shame, what best — and even most emotionally — floats their boats.
initial steps to delivering this process
this is the first steps of process i see and suggest:
final words
so what do you think?
is this a fairer, more inclusive, and frankly practical approach — as well as a way forwards to a real and potential implementation — of the original crime hunch terror conundrum i outlined at the top?
and if so, what would those first steps actually look like? #ai technologies and approaches like this, maybe — coupled closely with an existing #ai where no one would have to change their spots?
mil's page 