intuition – Page 3

WHY be so secretive about #freethinking on rockets?

What if the real reason the #elonmusks of our time are forcing #humans back into physical workplaces is because they know if it doesn’t happen more widely, then their long-existent, highly prized, and presumably immensely costly #secrecypositive thinking-spaces, based in such physical locations, will begin to lose their advantages over what was once a mostly blindsided European tech and socioeconomic sector?
Mil Williams, 9th July 2023, Stockholm Sweden

Background

From the slides included below today:

“Our defensible position is clear: all big #it companies long ago chose not to sell it. Instead, they preferred to use it for their own innovations. Perhaps not technologies or platforms as such – but certainly the idea: totally hermetic tools of creativity and business modelling.”

The full slide-deck can be found by downloading from the link that follows:

• The Philosopher Space | #NOTthepanopticon slide-deck

• The Philosopher Space | the full online whitepaper

But not only that: #espionage, #nationbuilding, interfering with due #democratic process … and #cultural/#industrial #intellectualproperty/#ip, and its broader tracking.

Yes. The final image above says “With A Little Help From My Friends” …

And actually, really rather a lot. Because I do have them, too. Though some spread the half-truth it ain’t so.

Why this post today

However, I’m not posting again about this brief and perhaps not overwhelming slide-deck to repeat myself. No.

It’s because I had an insight yesterday evening, late. I’ve been reading surveys from PwC and others — really cool surveys which shape narratives and edit reality interestingly, well and deliberatedly — which talk of how #innovation amongst the less advantaged has increased. And then again, more generally, how #innovation in digitally connected and aware organisations is increasing leaps and bounds over the olde-worlde office-bound competition.

I wonder something else, in the light of my slide-deck’s thesis: what if for the first time — post-pandemic times, I mean — everyone is innovating? Not just the companies of #techbarons which own already, use habitually, and restrict the distribution fiercely of #privacypositive and #secrecypositive thinking-spaces. The spaces that mean 29 out of the top 30 Internet companies aren’t European:

No.

In this sense, partly so, with hybrid and working-from-home workflows, it’s become easier to hack into a part of the system but also — maybe even more — harder for intrusive #bigtech to establish the overall narrative arc of a potential new competitor, in respect of an equally potential #innovation — or even #invention! — in the throes of. Like the difference between traditional warfare versus guerrilla, perhaps?

The real reason #techbarons want their workforces back behind THEIR closed doors

What if the real reason the #elonmusks of our time are forcing #humans back into physical workplaces is because they know if it doesn’t happen more widely, then their long-existent, highly prized, and presumably immensely costly #secrecypositive thinking-spaces, based in such physical locations, will begin to lose their advantages over what was once mostly blindsided European tech and socioeconomic sectors?

What do I mean?

In the face of the #totalsurveillance #panopticon used by aggressive corporates — particularly #bigtech corporates — against anyone they decided was a threat, there was little the rest of the world — without a shield of some sort, I am saying — could do to protect its ideas. Or even develop them half usefully before they were gouged into non-existence.

But maybe, just maybe, that competitive advantage began to fizzle during pandemic. With everyone outside #secrecypositive and/or #secrecy-obsessed HQs, and the world all operating from home, two consequences emerged:

1. Everyone worldwide was in just about the same conditions, as far as the visibility of #innovation and #invention was concerned.

2. Suddenly a new openness — a confidence that it was OK to be nonconformists in front of colleagues — began to arise. We communicate via Zoom, in pyjamas, wild cats running across desks, children bursting in unexpectedly … and business, serious starched white-collar business, is suddenly exposed to real human life. In business contexts. And what’s more, it works.

Of course, collaterally, we’d gain equal confidence to THINK as WE TRULY HAVE BEEN THINKING all these years! Only they never let us shine … hardly once.

Should we then forget about our own #secrecypositive thinking-spaces?

Am I suggesting that there’s no need for #privacypositive and #secrecypositive thinking-spaces of our own?

No. I’m not.

Even whilst we are more dispersed and yet creatively so at the moment, and even as this makes the overall shape of a competitor’s #innovation more difficult to sense as well, sooner or later they will work out a way. But in the meantime, they need US all back in OUR offices and locatable, just as much as they need THEIR workforces back in THEIR offices, and once more hideable.

In truth, isn’t it the case that hybrid and working-from-home workplaces are to the #secrecy-obsessed #techbarons what #opensource at its most competent most competently was to closed source? A breath of collaborative and hyper-creative air in often challenging and anti-creative hyper-competitive environments.

Our challenge now

The question is: do we now have the balls to deliver for our humanity what #techbarons multiple have only ever cared to deliver for themselves?

And perhaps not even fully for their shareholders … not even this!

After all, the species is burning the planet, #bigtech has kept to itself this #freethinking on steroids I discuss in this post (and other places, too) for all these years … and all they’ve been able to use it for instead is making money out of a pandemic and putin’s three wars. As well some untold number of other human tragedies …

I’d guess since #totalsurveillance itself was implemented: 2003, says anyone?

Because NO ONE in the history of warfare has ever invented a sword without developing it’s related shield. So whilst the digital #panopticon was applied for reasons we all understood clearly in their day, #bigtech has sold global humanity short ever since.

How? I’d surmise by developing the aforementioned #freethinking on rockets — but for purely selfish gain.

In summary

Shouldn’t we all now REALLY feel cheated by the #techbarons of the world who act like this?

Actually, I think we should. Look. Give us all a break, guys. The planet needs us to be all at the top of our games much much more than rockets to Mars ever will.

How about we collaborate instead?

Ever heard of a philosopher kind of a guy called John Forbes Nash Jr?

definition, design philosophy, rationale

On future-proofing #ai

In a nutshell — or a chipset! — what I propose we do asap is move radically away from the more recent division of power and hierarchies between admins versus users that has shaped #ai and #it ever since the arrival of the Internet, towards the suggested conflation of admin and user in one.
Mil Williams, 3rd July 2023, Stockholm Sweden

Proposal

Would anyone in #scandinavia, more specifically I’d be bound to say #sweden, like to begin work on designing and implementing, from scratch, a totally repurposed set of #ai- and #it-related architectures and frameworks in order to create absolutely future-proof ethical and privacy-positive #ai and #it frameworks?

That is: do for #ai what I have already suggested via the concept of a digital equivalent of the #privacypositive and #secrecypositive attributes pencil and paper have for centuries conferred on us:

• https://www.secrecy.plus/spt-it

The original “intuition validation engine” README on GitHub

In this case, in respect of #ai- and #it-#tech, I would suggest using a starting-point I already clearly described with the original 2019 specification of the #intuitionvalidationengine (i’ve) (currently on my GitHub account in private mode, and reproduced in full below):

intuition-validation-engine

The goal of this engine is to permit both human and machine intuition to be validated.

This will be done constantly, but not intrusively. People and machines will have a choice, always.

It is assumed that for the purposes of this project both parties will be encouraged to upskill the other in mutual dialogue and equal partnership.

It is also assumed, a priori, that the keywords for the processes involved will be:

1. A procedure of CAPTURE, controlled by humans on the one hand and machines on the other, where neither will be obliged to share ideas, content and personal data that they do not feel safe sharing.

2. A procedure of EVIDENCING, where the captured data can be stored, retrieved, shaped and patterned, and used for supportive purposes that expand the lives and experiences of the beings concerned.

3. A procedure of VALIDATION, where it becomes clear to everyone participating: a) why a human being might believe and act in a certain way; and equally so, b) why the machines that prefer to work within the framework of this project will arrive at their own particular positions and conclusions.

Finally, it is hugely important that everyone who chooses to work on the project might easily understand that it is not a traditional software paradigm: let us assume, instead, that people, code, machines and all other objects participating will form part of a new space we might call “i’ve”.

That is to say, there will be no distinction or hierarchy in this space between the individuality of the objects in question, with respect to their entity as sovereign actors. In this sense, all will enjoy becoming part of a multiple-perspective environment, and all will help to support and contribute to a wider and transcendental knowledge that both befits and benefits others.”

• https://ive.home.blog

So.

Alongside the clearly developed initial architectural philosophy stated above, i would then have us move on to working with the #platformgenesis progression of the original concept as it existed since 2019:

• https://platformgenesis.com | see also the attached slides

Then, with further collaborative actions, especially in the light of other technologies developed since, we could begin to properly propose an absolutely future-proofed #ai and #it-#tech which, as per their real-world template of pencil and paper, could never NOT become privacy- and ethically-sensitive, whatever the regulatory demands created in the future by any global or regional body.

This would be my objective from two directions: legal and technological; abandoning neither for the other. And making both future #ai and #it-#tech as firmly #ethical and #privacypositive by design as to make regulatory innovations that might challenge it impossible to design.

To summarise

In a nutshell — or a chipset! — what I propose we do asap is move radically away from the more recent division of power and hierarchies between admins versus users that has shaped #ai and #it ever since the arrival of the Internet, towards the suggested conflation of admin and user in one.

The division described has, in my judgement, severely — and increasingly — affected the citizens and workforces who strive to function and live creatively, despite the challenges, in Western corporates and wider societies when needing to think freely. These needs arise in many — if not all — fields of endeavour too, and in most during mission-critical moments and when decisions have to be taken using an unpickable #highleveldomainexpertise (something we sometimes are also happy to call #gutfeeling) which becomes the only thing we may be able to reliably depend on.

The real existential challenge for our democracies and business discourses and praxis then arises when we fail to think as freely as others who, with a clear and ongoing possession and enjoyment of #privacysensitive and #secrecysensitive architectures and technologies, maintain their capacity to beat us hands-down, at least on the #intuition side of societal and business activities:

• https://crimehunch.com/terror | concentrate here on considering which team would be best at a new “what and how” (I’m happy, meanwhile, to recognise that pattern-recognition capabilities in machines will inevitably process vast amounts of data better when focussing on more concrete questions of “who and when”)

• https://www.secrecy.plus/why

• https://omiwan.com/the-foundations

Finally …

If you want to find out more about my latest ideas, why not go to the #sweden located and focussed online whitepaper I’ve been using to further my thought around complementary strands of complex thinking?

• https://www.sverige2.earth

aside, definition, design philosophy, rationale

they called us pirates all those years ago, but #bigtech is the truly zemiological community of today

my ex- has two indian friends she used to teach spanish to. they lived close to where we did: a married couple.

we were invited to theirs on occasions, and would go over enthusiastically of course, for a full evening repast with other guests we might or might not have met before. they were immensely gracious guests, were her indian friends.

one time, we were introduced to what turned out to be a techie guy: an executive type, though.

yes … not a software engineer or anything like this.

i was clear i’d been invited by apple via the brother of the bebo founder, at a meetup in the wellcome foundation cafe some years before in london, to come onboard.

this time, the techie guy basically spun the story that all tech corps controlled the next ten years of tech … all tech corps. this wasn’t an apple thing, let’s be clear. this was all of them, including apple. (he did assert he knew the apple case from inside.)

so. big tech would rarely launch useful stuff, just for the good of the world. it would do so when a series of conditions were met.

for example:

• what — for them — was all-too-existent tech, but invisible and, indeed, unknown to the outside world, wouldn’t end up being revealed to anyone unless there was a sound bottom-line reason. they wouldn’t even float the concept publicly (that is, telling the idea but not saying they had developed it …)

• neither did they ever seem keen to express the desire, or be driven by the need, to apply such apparently non-existent tech imaginatively for the whole species’ benefit, before, that is, its time arrived as per their aforementioned ten-year calendarisations of the related monetisation opportunities and timelines

remember google glass?

research the year it appeared: go on.

dr steve mann invented it and used his own from 1984, if my memory serves me right:

https://mannlab.com/eyetap

google then had to finally retire its own consumer version from sale because of “invasion of privacy” concerns from the wider market (and perhaps, also, the wider mass media): and this, even when the version sold had an unnecessarily large and obviously clumpy camera.

do you think they weren’t using it far more covertly way before they launched a consumer version?

do you think they stopped using their own privately covert version after the consumer version was boxed off and deactivated?

of course they used it way before, covertly and more, on everyone.

of course they wouldn’t stop using such a powerful surveillance — and counter-surveillance — tool.

like exxon in the 1970s hiding the research that predicted THEN to the tenth of a degree the global warming (not climate change, ffs) NOW incurred due directly to their fossil fuels:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

well. big tech behaves in exactly the same way. it has massive solutions: it had them decades ago. its bottom-line doesn’t need them now, though.

and it certainly DOESN’T want to democratise genius, as i have argued increasingly our species needs us to aim at doing, if we want to survive the cataclysmic climate and other challenges encroaching more and more our daily experiences of life:

https://platformgenesis.com | see the slides at the top of this article for more detail of #platformgenesis

so what do we do? if big tech refuses to change its ways 180 degrees — and it will refuse, i assure you — what do we do?

we do it ourselves!

we do it for the military and security, but also for a citizen force which uses sousveillance not to control the state but work with it.

we create relevant software constitutions to achieve it. we use the genius resident deep down in every human being to deliver unpredictable thought, predictably.

and ultimately, we will eliminate ALL loopholes.

and we will eliminate a wider zemiology from every community.

and we will cut back the dried-out deadwood of our societies’ most creatively criminal poachers.

we will make the woods of every community — whether professional or geographical — good again: all of them.

that is, make the timbers of a civilised society no longer anything to be shivered about by anyone.

look:

in sweden you already invented a cctv which is useful but, at the same time, doesn’t need to store the images to deliver law-enforcement support.

it’s this kind of shameless thinking — shamelessly free! — that i hanker after, and now really really do need.

this is why from here: from sweden. exactly this.

yes …

and i appreciate, too, that everyone needs to participate.

but i am angry at big tech for giving up on the species.

and i know how capable it is of getting into projects in order to mess around with them for defensive reasons and purposes: to protect above all the interests of its blessed bottom-line over the interests of, for example, war-torn victims.

the fortnite founder event in salford i attended some years ago proved this, when i was informed by an attendee that basically my idea of #hmagi had been bought up and closed down from another bright mind years before:

https://www.secrecy.plus/hmagi

so hear this please, and believe me: i speak from evidence not prejudice.

i see things and then make connections of a precise and painful nature which few others — very few — either care to, or can’t, see.

and i am here to change the world, so it becomes the world we ALL deserve — even the bad guys as they stand: because, after all, maybe i am wrong.

maybe i am.

maybe, after all, we may all be redeemable …

definition, rationale

when #secrecypositive tools were turned long ago against their creators …

i’ve described the idea of “mil’s theorem” before:

“If, in an almost infinitely malleable digital world, I can imagine a new kind of criminal activity via the limited intellectual and financial resources I have access to, others with far more of both will already be doing what I imagined. I don’t, therefore, need to provide more evidence than that to be able to demonstrate it’s happening and it exists.”

let’s take the above theorem one more time then.

the definition, in my #whirled and your #world, of #neocrime having become this:

crimehunch.com/neocrime | an updated understanding of the 19th century concept of “dark figure”

now then: if we accept my argument for argument’s sake, that in almost infinitely malleable digital we only have to intuitively and creatively think up new criminal activity in terms of its “whats” and “hows” (“who” and “when” remaining the preserve always of the machines) in order to be evidencing their existence, today i bring a new one to the table:

“let’s imagine that communities of professional praxis exist in #espionage, too. just like journalists who communicate outwith their employer-spaces with other journalists; just like security people and bus drivers acknowledge the presence of the nominal ‘opposition’ with a tip of the cap or a thumbs-up … just like any profession where specialised skillsets bring humans together with humans who are like them because of their knowledge-sets more than the allegiances they are paid to maintain …

imagine the above, then, in #spycraft in particular; and so imagine over the years that a network out of sight of the employers themselves has grown up exponentially, where — using tools i nowadays sustain firmly have been developed to operate in the areas of #neocrimes and #darkfigure (supposedly on the side of the good gals and guys, too) — agents commonly communicate with each other using #secrecypositive (and NOT #totalsurveillance-compliant as i would prefer) environments and architectures, in order to basically scratch each other’s backs at the expense of broader citizen and state interests.

remember “mil’s theorem”: if i can simply think it up, someone else more powerful and monied than me already did long ago.

but here’s the thing: it’s possible the field operatives might be doing such things but it’s also possible that in 99 percent of cases out of deep ingrained senses of honour and responsibility (and why not? patriotism too …) they’ve chosen over the years not to. even when they could. (some of us still exist, you know.)

so here’s another #neocrime-ism: what if it wasn’t the operatives who worked behind democracy for their own self-enrichment — or maybe even global domination — but, instead, their bosses …?

not one and all. not even all that many. but enough to tip the balance over the years between #ukraine NEVER happening and #russia being given an under-the-counter carta blanca to proceed as it would wish, and always wanted.”

ok. that’s the last bit of “mil’s theorem” theorising for today.

enough, right? and maybe understandably insulting for many at that.

listen up before you get utterly irritated with me. what i’m doing here is using a public space as if it were a #secrecypositive space. i’ve reached a moment in my life where i realise what was done to me in 2003 can’t be done again. since then, i’ve studied #criminaljustice at master’s level and have a whole battery of logical tools and legal principles to defend myself. and so i’m feeling fairly impregnable — and will continue to do so unless someone actually, literally, wipes me off the face of the planet.

but assuming the latter won’t happen … what if #secrecypositive spaces have now been turned against the people who invented them? and not me thinking now? but them, having built decades ago? because when you create a weapon of destruction you ALWAYS consider how its corresponding shield might need to look …

so what if the guys and gals who did this technology all those years ago as i now surmise were good people who defend our security and safety every day? and what if the bad gals and guys are now abusing savagely — to the extent of enabling #ukraine AT LEAST — such architectures and platforms to their own ends?

what if … that?

design philosophy, rationale

like the magdalena’s memory #911

i tasted cold coffee with soya drink just now
and the memories of a campsite somewhere in austria maybe 
high up in the mountains where summer green was all around 
and showers stopped automatically 
and buttons had to be repeatedly pressed
and the early morning drifted smells of bacon grill and more 
and the milk was uht
'cos it had to be it just had ...

so all this came drifting back to me
and all this was sharp as nines 
and all this was in my head just how
and right now is when i remembered with fondness
the trials and tribulations and real pain 
of being my mother and father's son

because mostly it was pain:
slashing tongues which fast cut me to the quick 
nailing me to the spot like hammer hitting out 
and lashing me with criticisms of everything i tried 
to make emerge from me

and so only this minute 
do i begin very slowly 
to do the things i always wished to do
and be the man i never was 
and grin to love
not grin to bear 
and find at last 
in human relations 
the right to enjoy myself full fair 
without recrimination or disapprobation 
or disapproval of some religious scriptures:
what hurt me so all those years ago 
and still on occasions serves to actually destroy my soul 

and so now i don't care
what he might think
because now he's passed and is in his clink 
and she meanwhile reveals herself 
as authoritarian body
of dictatorial mouse:
scampering around and making all silent 
and then patting down the violences of them both

for the passive-aggression he imposed on my child 
was fully enabled by her actions of default
and whilst i was younger
and felt myself deeply
the blame of just being there and occupying a space 
which was never to be mine 
in the end it's true i've had this life of falsehood 
and in the end it will be TRUER
you and me
or me and another 
or whomsoever i shall finally meet 
in joy and daily grandeur 
when heads hit pillows 
and the mellowness of affection 
turns into 
for a moment 
no longer the passions of terrible and bloody rejection 
for my brain is a magdalena 
and my memories are beginning to heal

definition, rationale

On talking about #intuition

Introduction to this post:

Today I had a brief video-chat with someone positively predisposed to the idea of #intuition. He even saw it as bordering the mystical. He was Indian. Indians love #intuition, it’s true. But #it-#tech Indians have caveats they all seem to share. This is something I have seen before: real deep trust in human #intuition’s capabilities but a real distrust in any chance of ever validating it usefully.

This man is also involved professionally in #it-#tech. When I gave him four examples of how not all #tech had chosen to diminish human beings in the field of non-traditional #datasets, he was still unconvinced.

The four templates we should look to when validating #intuition:

Example 1: the #film-#tech industry from its beginnings over a hundred years ago has decided to almost always amplify and enhance existent human abilities: more voice with a microphone; keener vision with a camera; greater expressiveness with the language of close-up. And in so doing it’s made billions, perhaps trillions, in the paradigmatic century of its total cultural dominance.

Example 2: in my younger years video was not admissible evidence in the #criminaljustice system of my homeland. Now it is. What changed to put in the hands of #lawenforcement and #justice’s stakeholders and subjects this tool to eliminate procedural waste so dramatically? We didn’t change any #justice system: we just introduced new tools to validate video evidence, so that the hidden knife in the real life holdup was proven to have been used via a validated electronic cousin.

Example 3: the detective who just knows that someone is lying in an interrogation may be wrong too, on occasions; but often they all too accurate. Yet it then takes due process months, maybe years, to arrive at the same conclusion. What if we could validate — not prove right but decide definitively (as the #video example above now allows us to much more speedily) whether in truth MAYBE wrong but ALSO maybe right — so that this detective’s #hunch would bring about a conviction (or release) of the most adequate?

Example 4: I then suggested to my interlocutor that we should come up with a new 9/11 before it strikes us again. Here, I suggest we learn how to reverse- or forward-engineer bad human thought, so as to stop it in its tracks, with the most #creativecrimefighting you could conceive of:

• crimehunch.com/terror

But not the “when” or “who” of what is already being planned out: in these cases, machine automation operates really competently on the basis of existent #lawenforcement and #nationalsecurity #it-#tech data-gathering processes …

Rather, I mean to say here the “what” and “how” of an awfully #creativecriminality. And I say this because 9/11 was a case of where assiduous machines which humans used conscientiously, and in all good faith, were roundly beaten by horrible humans who used machines as extensions of themselves terrifyingly well: being the case, therefore, of simply not supporting existent habits of #creativecrimefighting (because detectives can be immensely creative already in tussling out narratives that explain otherwise insoluble crimes) with conventional #it-#tech choices and strategies that absolutely do NOT since time immemorial care to foreground and upskill human #intuition.

What happened next and, maybe, why:

When I said to my interlocutor that these four examples surely served as robust precedents and templates for proceeding to validate #intuition and #crimehunch insights just as deeply, as well as to an equally efficient end … well, this was when he veered back to talking again of #intuition’s impenetrable workings. “Yeah,” he was saying, “intuiting is great process … but don’t dare to untangle it.”

And it’s funny how those who work in an industry — that is, #it-#tech — where the richest of its members are incredibly wealthy on the back of their particular and often mostly privately privileged visions of how the future must become … well, that these wealthy individuals then, and similarly equally, find themselves incapable of conceding that such a profoundly value-adding activity for them should have its own wider validation systems for us all. Why? Well. In order that EVERYONE who could care to might acquire a distributed delivery of similar levels of genius-like thinking: what I have in fact called the “predictable delivery of unpredictable thinking”.

• platformgenesis.com

How I would, then, most like us to proceed:

I’d like us to create software, wearables, firmware and hardware environments where not only a select few can enjoy being geniuses, but where we all have the opportunity to be upskilled and enhanced into becoming value-adding, natively intuition-based thinkers and creators:

• complexifylab.com | sverige2.earth/canvas

One small and hugely practical example:

Attached below, just one small application we might develop, using existent architectures — not the particular ones I think more appropriate for truly deep #intuitionvalidation, where we conflate admin/user in one #datasubject — and with a proposed 100-day roadmap to demonstrate that the beautiful insight I had more than a year ago is actually, honestly, spot-on:

1. That #intuition, #arationality, #highleveldomainexpertise, #thinkingwithoutthinking, and #gutfeeling are potential #datasets as competent as #video suddenly became when we believed finally its validation was a real deliverable.

2. That all the above all-very-human ways of processing special #datasets actually contain zero #emotion and even less of the #emotive when it’s their processes we’re dealing with. And that when they do EXPRESS themselves emotionally it’s out of the utter frustration which the driver and #datasubject of such #intuitive processes suffers from as a consequence of the fact that no one at all, but NO ONE, in #it-#tech cares to consider #intuition and related as #datasets worthy of their software and platform attentions.

So out of frustration I say .. but never the intrinsic nature of such #intuitive patterns of collecting #data and extracting insights which people like that detective I described earlier do believe sincerely in, when driving the most mission-critical operations of #publicsafety of all.

• secrecy.plus/fire

definition, design philosophy, rationale

On the “Complexify Me” and “Complexify Me Holding & Lab” proposals

I’ve been progressing my projects recently quite a bit. See the two “business model canvas” drafts below as one example:

One observation I need to add as per the following updated sverige2.earth homepage — Ireland and Liverpool UK may now form a co-location for Workstream A with its associated AI innovation (though not invention) processes:

As you can see, Irish-located big-tech would provide circular-economy hardware lifecycle delivery and management, whilst the cloud that would sit behind an agnostic cloud management services dashboard, also located in Ireland, would itself be located in the Nordic versions of US big-tech cloud services.

Finally, in this first corporate relationship, the responsibility for AI innovation (though not, as already observed, invention) would be that of existent Liverpool AI organisations and institutions.

Meantime, I’ve finally been on the serious hunt for a funding flexible enough to allow me to locate in two or three countries without being imperiously tied to one. The latter has always been my objection to the UK-based government funding streams I’ve been offered: zero intention to promote ties with other countries that don’t purely involve selling to them, with no collaboration contemplated at deep levels; no transfers of technology, knowhow, or business models; and nothing, really, that talks to me of open doors, whether intellectual, technological, or even simply business-related. And this was before Brexit.

As a result of all this, I’ve now found a funding-pot foreign to UK government and agency approaches which will, if awarded, allow me to capitalise on my existing UK-based ltd company structure, establishing myself in Ireland simultaneously for what I mentioned above already that I call Workstream A, alongside a filtered Workstream B; and then taking the next step to set up a Swedish AB as Holding and driver of the Intuition and Neurodiverse Thinking Lab I want to be my direct responsibility and end-of-life work, covering off the pure research and invention that will form the basis of Workstream C and Workstream D.

This funding stream I have applied for just yesterday would enable all of the above to be kickstarted into the life it should’ve had already years ago. And I now exclude no one: simply include everyone with starting-conditions I will be firm about, it is true; but that once agreed I have no intention of us changing, ever.

Below, then, as a flavour of the tenor of my thinking, the video I was asked to make for the funding submission described above:

“Complexify Me” and “Complexify Lab” funding submission video

This video now forms part of this submission for funding, the initial decision on which will be taken by the organisation in question in June 2023.

Useful further reading:

complexify.me | the original whitepaper
complexifylab.com | why the lab
sverige2.earth/canvas | two “business model canvas” drafts (the first specifies Ireland only, but I’m now inclined to include Liverpool UK as well in respect of AI innovation and repurposing)
sverige2.earth/workstream-a | Workstream A — the focus of Ireland and Liverpool UK
sverige2.earth | the broader “Sverige 2 Earth” homepage

Enjoy!

🙂

Oh, and have a safe Sunday … yeah?

aside

in some way all of us too

following on from my previous post today, a reflection or two which i want to represent my future … and if you agree, our future … and if you all agree, all our futures …

realising why 
you couldn't be you
makes it time 
to start anew
and knowing the crime 
committed by them
shouldn't make them not you at all
because the struggle to fight right 
escapes us in the night 
where the dark barks back at us 
instead of harks to deeper lives
and so one day it's true 
even when lifetimes are lost 
the cost of not showing 
we accept we are the same
produces the insanity 
that rules our worlds right now

so all i can suggest 
is that forgiveness does entrust
the forgiver with perhaps 
the only power existent on this earth 
where in its exerting 
we cannot do ill
for nothing comes close 
to the bitter pill 
of reliving over and over 
the alternative state of pain and stuff 

i turn a page then
not if you do too
but with you if you care to also 
also if you do
and so my conditions
are now nowhere found
for i've lived my life 
and this was how 
and all i want for me at least 
is to know right now that love exists

https://open.spotify.com/track/0MPC71yE4W8L7cojuE7MP4?si=5x1DqmknQumI_D439DKE6Q&context=spotify%3Asearch%3Aharmo&dd=1

definition, rationale

as a tool of state, this is not life (says the “he” that is “me” in #sweden … where life BECOMES a tool of state)

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.

definition, design philosophy, rationale

“upskilling” human beings in the ways of the machine … again? i don’t THINK so

introduction

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.