Tag: it

aside, definition, design philosophy, rationale

“On people called #melians who have no regrets”

In truth, whilst change IS inevitable — just as #siliconvalley and its dreadful hangers-on have universally, dogmatically and terrifyingly proclaimed for over half a century — its NATURE never automagically was. It’s just a fact, this: just a fact, too. For #bigtech is an only “half-the-story #tech”. And only ever has been.

Mil Williams, 27th April 2025, Arlanda Airport, Stockholm, Sweden,

It’s what I said a while ago.

There’s no courage involved in not feeling fear. And therefore no virtue whatsoever in being fearless.

There’s only virtue in doing something despite the need to overcome.

And one other thing I’ve learnt:

Not everyone should like you. If they did, you’d probably be doing something wrong.

Not wrong in itself. Wrong because in the first instance, in my experience, when you have an idea and are NOT stubborn enough not to have your course changed, it’s an error of crass proportions if and when you ultimately fail to persist in transforming the world, particularly when you ideas manifestly deserved to.

And sometimes, maybe often, we do fail to transform what’s around us with our thoughts and imagination precisely because, equally, we want to be liked: I mean, that is, that we tend to prefer to think not being liked is a sign we’re on the incorrect path.

But I now think the reverse. This is what I think. In two parts:

1. It’s always the bad guys who first see the dangers and implications — for them and their easy business models — of different and obstinately held ideas to their preferred future-present: the one they considered, out of their absolute sense of entitlement, absolutely theirs forever. Ideas like the ones, never necessarily originally but for sure always firmly, I’ve continued to propound over the years.

2. It’s always the good guys who last see the virtues and positives — for them and their terribly oppressed democratic communities — of different and obstinately held ideas to their assumed future-present: the one they were told was a result of inevitable change I mean, and absolutely NOT theirs forever.

In truth, whilst change IS inevitable — just as #siliconvalley and its dreadful hangers-on have universally, dogmatically and terrifyingly proclaimed for over half a century — its NATURE never automagically was. It’s just a fact, this: just a fact, too. For #bigtech is an only “half-the-story #tech”. And only ever has been.

This is why, when you want to deliver transformation, you have to accept you won’t be liked.

Firstly, the bad guys won’t ever do anything but hate you with their casually polite, practised and breezily easy business smiles.

And this will happen for perhaps the first five years.

And their goal is to break you, and make you stumble, and then dispirit you to the extent, perhaps, you kill yourself.

But then they have a problem. If they sense there will, after all, be a “next five years”, they realise the sword they wanted all that time for you to fall on no longer usefully, or at least reliably, exists.

So they will try to get closer to you and maybe even persuade you that all the while the smiles they sent your way with minimal financial breadcrumbs attached were actually, all the time in question, offerings of real dough.

And some of us out here give in at this point and take the money and run. And then the bad guys close down the ideas, and life continues to get worse for everyone else. Despite our ideas. Despite their coming originally into being. Despite what might have been.

The thing is … this is the thing. If you are stubborn … not original at all … just irreversibly firm in your preferred outcomes, even as fabulously flexible in your means and ways of getting there … well … you may end up concluding what I did when I got to the second and third and fourth and fifth “five years”: you only need to be liked by one group of people.

That’s all it ever takes.

Just one group is needed.

This group being?

The good guys who one day will realise that the #meliandialogue can be upturned: the islands of the world can beat — hands-down — the totalitarians.

Islands?

Places where we continue to understand that once in our histories we built fortresses in order to expand outwards with security and safety first and foremost. And that this was a good idea. And that this was the best idea. And that this is our next best step now.

And then we shall be … NOT #athens, ever … no. Not that. Not the #valley that causes so many tears. Never that. We never could be.

Rather, people called #melians who no longer shall have any regrets.

aside, definition, design philosophy, rationale

on a human victory

https://gb2earth.com/research/newlean | https://newlean.org (ask me for the password if required — this is an ongoing project and developing whitepaper)

or what achievements really consist of 

it's doing what you wanted 
but only hoped for
and maybe you wanted more than you hoped for
and maybe you expected deep down
the sound of total victory 
and anything else for a while seems like less 
and maybe even feels like a failure of the deepest of all
but in truth a total victory just ain't what humans are about 
when human is what we're about 
because a total anything 
is a pyrrhic everything  

and so i begin to warm to you finally 
and the idea that without writing a single line of code
i have convinced one of the biggest organisations in tech 
and those companies that work alongside them true  
that just my words and terms of english
have been enough to show how a new world 
exists right out there 
and that it's no longer on my part a failure of the worst 
in any shape whatsoever 
nor a loss of the least 
to propose that i might accept working with disruption of this nature
primarily because the culture of the big and the small 
in this case become us
as one and the same 
and the same and the one 
since both of us converging separately anon
have arrived at conclusions of parallel lines
where arguments cogently strung together 
on two-pagers of simple a4
eschewing as we do the fancy graphics 
of "say what you're going to say 
and then say it 
and then summarise it"
and where in fact the bullets pointedly hit 
the marks of zero innovation 
and even less invention
because to follow these paths so well-trodden --
so religiously i mean --
is to die a death of a thousand mutts 
as dog-days encroach and shroud our thinking

for it's time once again to move well on 
from the old old old man's valley 
where even the youngest entrepreneur
finds themselves trained up in the fuddy-duddy  
of the mere tweaking of tech 
so no one may rock the boats of existing portfolios 
nor business models galore (but actually hoary as hell)

because it's time the bells of brand new relationships
consecrated on firm and financially win/win terms 
begin to bring to the world 
the teams and reams  
of the gutenberg of intuitive thinking:

the printing-press of arationality 
changing the way we do technology much more easily 
and being as there's no better way to do this 
than working back from the customer always 
in combination with a new lean that reasons 
with care and compassion 
and rationales of the very best 
to the very VERY maximum 
HOW to extract the truths NO ONE says 
but EVERYONE knows full well
and all too well
and as well as the next
as we lie at night suffering the lies 
that tie the world up in knots 
and which have blotted our futures 
as they are held by their throats
gory and cruel as the fossil fuels they freely promote even now 
by those who care only for planets outside 
and little for the one we all grew up on --
and here i mean all of us 
and how i mean it's clearly seen 
and how it's been! -- because this IS it i say:
WELL time we found amongst the rich and poor
the course that aligns our interests both 
and so nothing better than a brand new process 
that unleashes our humanity as never before

and so i'm ready to see what's next
not as failure for another 
nor for me or them
nor total victory for me or another 
nor us as we might see ourselves 
nor even as the outputs of the lyricists of ancient harps 
as they start to sing again out loud and proudly 
but rather quite instead 
a victory of the grandest for a GOOD citizenry 
wishing to bring about a humanity of the brightest 
by simply enabling our gut feeling and intuitive ingenuities 
in ways we never imagined ever

this is what it is then this text i write 
as i send this poem to the people who know much better than me 
what's happening on the inside-out 
and how this will affect the outside-in
and so from me -- as this --
just as a missive 
of my final conformity 
and my capacity to embrace you now --
those of you 
who know (and how you do!) -- 
in my full cognisance
of the scientific and evidence-based realities 
which (burnished anew)
will renew and repair the horrors these warlike peoples 
have visited on the rest of us without qualms 
where to date only psalms are able for now 
to protect us with their prayers
and beseechings and readings 
of the sacred stones 
and the rites that serve strangely to right our wrongs ...

because whatever happens now 
the killing-field will be levelled
and new lean will become the tool we use --
shining as we will ... for sure! -- to release 
as we must and should 
and ought to and would have 
many many decades ago
if only we had cared to listen 
to the equally sacred understandings in tow
which we blithely ignored 
as stupidly tawdry attempts 
to go beyond making easy money 
and actually solving problems 
which weren't just making more money it's true 
in manners 
quite ill-mannered and foolish and unkind 
as we rewound to the past 
even as our tech is of now
and even as we chose firmly to screw the world 
for everything we could scrape 
and make ours 
to the exclusion of a legacy
we just DIDN'T want to make at all free
in any way whatsoever whatsoever 

and so now all this changes 
as i approach the companies
which working together 
in common cultural dissonance and rub
with different ideas yet common outcomes even so
and uncommon sensibilities in beautiful consonances 
for these are the resonances 
which enriching 
now demand we hand over to each other our destinies 
not as passive fates 
too late to the party to do anything wise 
but instead to a common goal 
that SHALL be that of rescuing our species 
from its long-term idiocies 
by tapping into that fabulous skillset and virtue 
present all this goddamn time:
the intuition of a humankind 
multiplied up a billion times and more 
being you and you and you and you
and me and her 
and thee and tree 
and us ALL seeing clearly anew 
as if never before ... 
... ever before:
THIS all being 
our shared future-present collective fate
awaiting us all from now on in 
and no longer too late to the party i mentioned
because that party is the citizenry we will fully reconstitute 
not as brutal future robots of silicon
but just sentient human beings 
achieving the total victories of me and you
no longer gone ...

https://open.spotify.com/track/2W6PNGCN4PGwPMf1jYazL4?si=qTYn168wSXWp-Z8v3GylfA&context=spotify%3Aplaylist%3A6S1UmnFR0ThrsO2lV82Moa

definition, design philosophy, rationale

NUESTRA huída hacia delante

I lived in Spain for around sixteen years. My Spanish is quite good; but I’m not a native in the language and never learnt it formally.

But the poem below, for some reason today, I felt obliged to write in Spanish: that is, castellano. Because there are a number of sometimes quite different languages the Spanish state and peoples communicate in. I know only castellano.

Mainly, in the street — and then receiving correction via an assiduous daily reading over the years of a linguistically ferocious Spanish newspaper called El País.

I wrote the poem below in response to a post that came my way an hour or so ago on LinkedIn. So the poem is dedicated to the man who posted that post, and made me want to write the poem.

Comments, as always, welcome always.

NUESTRA huída hacia delante 

sí lo es 
una huída 
hacia delante 
sin querer en absoluto 
y sin preocuparse por nada 

porque es hora de ver 
si tienes razones 
por pensar 
si hay personas e instituciones 
que te quieren 

y que quedan -como debieran- 
para que quererles 
a su vez y de vuelta 
sea sensato 
o no

porque he llegado 
a la conclusión 
que necesito
estar sólo 
con gente de buena fe

NO las que te hacen reír ...
pero entonces nada más que desde sus estupideces 
y desde sus más profundas idioteces
donde crecen sólo sus mentiras
cuando no las tetas de sus nenas

por arte 
del instagram
o del tiktok 
de las narices 
y de los gobernantes chinos que sólo te miran 

porque sólo quiero estar ya
con personas buenas
quienes saben ya de mi mundo
desde su interior:
para que otras explicaciones ya no son necesarias 

y porque ellos también
lo han experimentado y sufrido 
en el presente
igual 
que en el pasado 

y entonces si eso significa 
que a la gran mayoría
(que solo parece 
que sea la mayoría y -desde luego-
constituida en nada de "gran") 

me veo obligado a dar mi espalda
es porque tengo ganas
no de dar la espalda a nadie 
pero en su lugar 
mirar con firmeza de frente 

a caras como la tuya:
es decir 
a otra clase 
completamente 
de gente 

gente que sólo cree en un mundo
donde el jugo que se derrita 
no son las sangres 
de la población mundial entera 
ni de sus cuerpos frágiles 

llenos de las bondades 
por encima 
de cualquier abuso 
cometido por vicio 
y por medio de la violencia corporal 

de todos los hombres 
y mujeres 
autoritarios ...
pero para que -de otro modo 
bien distinto y precioso-

lo que echamos 
no es nada de menos 
a nada que hemos valorado
desde hace siempre 
como lo mejor de todo ser humano 

ni que hayamos querido derretir   
los jugos de nuestras vidas 
en campos de guerra 
y en apartamentos donde bombas
despiertan al bebé recién nacido  

para que pueda morir en el acto 
en charcos de su propia sangre 
con los cuerpos de sus hermanos enfrente
proclamando el adiós cruel 
de los violentos tan poderosos ... 

pues NO: 
no ... 
no ...  
no ... 
no paso más tiempo con gente así 

no es ésta la vida que elijo consentir:
y estar con la gentuza 
que sí prefieren consentirla
con las sábanas rojas de esos niños
todos los días de las semanas tan agredidas 

NO es donde voy a quedarme:
porque ya pido más a la vida 
y no me quedo con el lujo
de beber el mejor vino por un lado  
y derretir la humanidad por el otro 

como HAMAS nunca JAMÁS 
debiera haber concebido 
y ya no digo lo que pudo llevar a cabo
porque ellos sí han sabido siempre 
todo lo que han hecho y han querido hacer 

y así -en profundo recuerdo 
de ukraine y de 9/11-
damos la vuelta al verso anterior:
bebemos todos YA 
de las humanidades que más nos hacen nobles  

y derretimos únicamente 
a partir de ahora 
os ruego -por favor-
sólo los vinos 
de mas esplendor 

de los viñedos con más sabiduría  
y que nos sean capaces de bendecir BIEN
con sus alegrías 
de amores bien vividos 
y de muchos ciudadanos y ciudadanas viviendo ahora 

que deben luchar con una ferocidad 
que corresponde SÓLO 
a los que han intentado por todos los medios 
buscar otros caminos por esos medios 
e incluso cuando no queremos pelear así en absoluto 

porque cuando la guerra te toca a ti
tienes sólo dos opciones:
ninguna es fácil 
pero sólo una conduce 
a una muestra de lo que es firmemente mantenerse humano

y puedes ceder en todo por supuesto 
y quedar con lo que te dan si eso
o puedes luchar 
para otro futuro 
bien distinto 

y aunque yo sé lo que es para mí
y -ciertamente siempre será así-
no puedo ni debo definirlo para ti ya
porque ser un humano es eso:
la elección de cada uno ... elección bien propia 

pero lo que sí reservo -sin sentirme mal-
es el derecho a decir a la fecha de hoy 
y la de mañana 
y el año que viene
y desde mis escritos 

que quizás durante cientos de años 
pueda que perduren 
o -a lo mejor- solamente 
en las mentes de muy poco gente 
y a lo mejor ni eso ... ni eso mi amor 

pero a decir la verdad
me da igual ya
porque lo único que quiero 
de la vida que me queda 
en los años venideros (y espero llenos de amor)

es encontrarme con mis gentes
y NO con sangres encharcándose
y ni de hombres ahorcándose ...
pero sí -y eso sin duda- 
con mujeres y hombres tiernos 

capaces de vivir la vida 
correctamente y de manera noble 
incluso cuando 
nos han tocado los campos 
de la inhumanidad más espeluznante
definition, design philosophy, rationale

on weaponising penetration in tech and generative ai

meantime, the geneva convention, in the real-life world, expressly prohibits the power-plays that involve an aggressor weaponising their bodies against the aggressed in this way. so whilst #tech reserves the right, in order to defend us all, to penetrate the enemy with the tools the enemy habitually uses to penetrate our #tech, the real world and its legal framework consents to no such thing between humans. not even in times of war.

yet #tech is a tool with which humans act on humans. so where the difference, pray?

mil williams, 4th august 2023, stockholm sweden

background

#generativeai is about penetrating knowledge and benefitting from such penetration.

right now, artists and creators — also more generally, those who equally are being penetrated thus — are attempting to fend off such acts of intimate intrusion into their life’s work by taking the owners and developers of such tools to court for #copyrightinfringement, #copyrighttheft, and much more: because if they’d listen to me, even #plagiarism. why not?

4th august 2023: monica sjöö, moderna museet, stockholm sweden

the thesis of this post

we’ve just established, then, that this kind of #ai is essentially analogous to the dynamics of rape: one that inserts itself into the very existence — the profoundest and sometimes most mysterious existence — of the inserted.

#tech even uses the term “penetration” and the verb “to penetrate” when it talks about bad actors — or good, as sometimes against a common enemy such penetrators are seen to be.

meantime, the geneva convention, in the real-life world, expressly prohibits the power-plays that involve an aggressor weaponising their bodies against the aggressed in this way. so whilst #tech reserves the right, in order to defend us all, to penetrate the enemy with the tools the enemy habitually uses to penetrate our #tech, the real world and its legal framework consents to no such thing between humans. not even in times of war.

yet #tech is a tool with which humans act on humans. so where the difference, pray?

really … where?

more historically speaking

more widely, and more historically, #it too has always employed such penetrative approaches.

an example: the software i am using to write this post says “insert”: why not, more gently, “add”? (it’s anecdotal, of course: but even if you’re now just beginning to “wonder whether” … in my mind it’s a kind of progress for us all.)

there has therefore existed, in such #it spaces, no instinctively familiar place for those more easily and more usually penetrated — often quite against their will (see the rates of abuse against particularly women and children in any culture, if you doubt my position on this) — to begin to develop a different kind of set of technologies: and then, perhaps, as a result, outcomes for us all as well.

how this makes me feel as a man and therefore potential aggressor

i think this is wrong. we need to defend ourselves, mainly against bad actors who mainly are men, with the same tools: that is true. just because we have the right gender policies doesn’t mean that putin’s awful awful version russia, stealthy china’s current approaches, and incomprehensible north korea’s dark hackers will — all of a sudden! — stop penetrating us.

but whilst the single, where not singular, focus of a set of tools to anticipate and prevent such intimate intrusion probably does need a mindset where intimate intrusion is second nature to be effective, the big problems — the #complexproblems i discuss in the slide-deck linked to below — will never be solved efficiently by mindsets which think firmly that intrusion and its prevention are all that, under it all, matter in the final analysis.

• example complexify.me roadmap | on using #neurodiverse #tech #architectures to solve #complexproblems beyond traditional #startup ecosystems’ capabilities to deliver

what i suggest we do next

to our quiver of tools against the bad actors who we know are out there and need to be deviously penetrated in return, we surely ought to add (NOT insert …):

1. new startup approaches which redirect us to contemplating that which needs resolving whilst being enabled to remain complex in all their fundaments:

• complexify.me | complexifylab.com

• www.sverige2.earth/unified (business model canvas)

and new philosophical approaches to enable different brains to work much better together in harmony and productive outcomes:

• www.secrecy.plus/fire

2. new procurement and tendering processes which don’t lock out the innovations and inventions that those who run such processes are unaware of: something far more explorative therefore; much less prescriptive than we’ve had unchanged since the industrial revolution at least.

3. and finally:

a) an absolute embracing of #neurodivergent philosophies and thought-patterns as the rule, not the exception;

b) a move — also! — to assessing not diagnosing such skillsets (ie NOT seeing them as things to be considered responding well to being ever diagnosed as disorders — they simply aren’t!); and

c) firmly seeing anything that claims to be #neurotypical as simply one more kind of #neurodiverse state of mind. but not representative, either, of any other state of parallel #neurodiversity.

summary

this is my opinion: but it’s also a point of view. it’s my voice, above all: not aggressively expressed at all. i’ve experienced what it is to be diverse in a world which DEMANDS conformity — and what’s more, mainly controlled by the gender i am myself. and even so, it whitewashes its inability to truly embrace all humans as equally deserving of the powers some have to shape this world.

the three points expressed above are, therefore, my roadmap to enable us to escape this quagmire. because it’s led to global boiling; the throwaway economy; and the “cut-down virgin forests [sic]” policies with a pure brutality that delivers on consummate insanity.

my voice, then, is one forged out of auto-ethnography: that is, personal experience. so of course i would believe it would work, too.

why my assertions in this respect: if we become capable of returning our future-present civilisations to their twin building blocks, the sovereignty of the collective built firmly on the sovereignty of the individual, very slowly, but hopefully surely, we shall begin to move from what we could call a fundamentally and systemically, where not deliberatedly, #neurotypical #it and #generativeai towards a properly diverse and inclusive technology landscape, capable — maybe! — of even saving the species.

wdyt?

• www.sverige2.earth/overview

• www.sverige2.earth/example

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 …

… woman … and genders-all, naturally
definition, design philosophy, rationale

#ai: a #neurotypical #it to the max?

if i work with a big corp, it must be a free-thinking big corp capable of having its own, totally independent, criteria in respect of innovation

mil williams, stockholm sweden, 15th april 2023

introduction:

i’ve begun to re-strategise how projects like #complexifyme might reach direct clients:

  • first, identify convinced #neurodiverse company cultures where such thinking processes are already considered potential — or actual — skillsets
  • second, filter in those organisations that already evidence, publicly and proudly, innovation criteria clearly independent of those big tech partners might offer
  • i’m talking here of following what we might term the “ronald reagan approach”: go over the heads of an establishment and speak directly with an interested set of parties
  • finally, address such potential clients’ existent concerns in relation to whether the implementation of current #it-#tech serves their #neurodiverse business cultures, philosophies, beliefs and evidence-base

why this proposed approach:

this is the conclusion i arrived at yesterday: “if i work with a big corp, it must be a free-thinking big corp capable of having its own, totally independent, criteria in respect of innovation.” that is, be its own jury passing an informed and independently sophisticated judgment on what the tech barristers are laying out as the truth.

and then, via a final judge also independent of such process, deliver a final, robust and game-changing sentence.

meantime, is the above — as i assert — really true, do you think?

is #ai probably the most #neurotypical construct in the digital world? and given its widespread use, what does this mean for the problem-solutioning space we offer #neurodiverse thinking and their thinkers?

before you answer the questions posed, look at the example roadmap and its rationales below:

full presentation here:

summarising:

so. what do we think?

is #ai actually — in its broadly accepted automation implementations, at least — the most #neurotypicalising modern tool currently being used by humanity … and maybe misused at that?

definition, design philosophy, rationale

how to combine three brains to fight the fire of creative criminality with the fire of a newly creative crimefighting

introduction:

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:

• presentation submitted to public in october 2022 (pdf download)

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:

• www.secrecy.plus/fire | full pdf download

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.

mil williams, 21st march 2023
design philosophy, rationale

on the kind of society i’d love to work towards

as a by the by, these days in tech they often talk of something called “zero trust”. they never even broach the concept of “total openness”.

why …?

mil williams, johan & nyström coffee shop, stockholm sweden, 7th April 2023

a) i accept you are good

ok.

you’re right.

but you sometimes act using fascist tools, without really realising you are.

not taking ownership is a fascist tool.

pretending you’re something you’re not: this is fascist.

so fascists, then, can be right sometimes? is that what you prefer me to conclude? (btw, i don’t think you are fascists at all. but you’re so used to the right an admin has to admin a system that you can’t see why i should sincerely object.

why it could be in good faith, too.)

b) the nub of the issue

you feel i should trust you absolutely as if i were a catholic and you were the church. i don’t want that relationship with anyone. look what it brought us.

i want a trust built on a right to get it. and that means information-sharing.

look.

if you believe i am less able to comprehend what you already all comprehend, why work with me in the first place? why want to work with people less able than you?

one reason. just one.

but evidenced … not on trust.

c) what i mean by “not on trust”

i don’t want to take such important things on trust. i’ve done things on trust and they’ve just not worked out. i did when i got married. i did in 2002 in open source; and then in late 2002 in my mother’s homeland, and in the uk re my father’s wretched establishment’s prejudices from 2003 to the current day.

i also foolishly and stupidly used the tool of trusting in others in 2004 in both cases then given: i) media-related in respect of the new labour government at the time; and ii) a horribly personal example, as well.

d) what i mean by an “open society”

we shouldn’t have to build a democracy and society on trust. an open society, yes. of course. but a society where a person does what they do without evidencing to another it’s cool … no … not that. it inevitably leads to corruption. it inevitably leads to abuse of all kinds of powers. in all contexts, public and private. it enables rape. it enables the police force we now have in london.

we need openness precisely so we DON’T need trust. let’s get rid of trust and your demand for it. why? simple: it’s a lazy euphemism for faith. and faith comes from a time before gutenberg. and gutenberg brought science to us all. and now it’s time we gave arationality its place, and by so doing facilitated openness to the very maximum.

now it is. it really is.

e) my preferred timeline

first, do away with faith.

then, do away with trust.

and then make of our world a magnificent, peer-to-peer society of an EVERYTHING that it is to be UTTERLY egalitarian.

openness is beautiful. trust, meantime, is a tool to be turned against you by the powerful (at home and outwith, tbh). and faith is rarely more than what blinds you to what’s really out there. this being what faith always has been throughout human history: the bedrock of religions’ abuses. (not only that. good too, yes it’s true. but what i have seen in most of my life is that the good do good whenever they can, whilst the bad rise to the heights that serve almost inevitably TO CAN the striven good of the good. over and over.)

f) conclusion

anyways.

just that.

just this.

not much more to say today.

just as a by the by, though: these days in tech they often talk of something called “zero trust”. they never even broach the concept of “total openness”. why …?

and so to one final final thought, as i walk the streets of stockholm after posting: if i’m right in what i write here today, trust is a component of faith but not of openness. those of us who want open societies should, therefore, ensure we take note.

if you’d like to contact me, try email: we can start there … yeah?

milwilliams.sweden@outlook.com | positive@secrecy.plus

looking forward to chatting — and hopefully disagreeing!

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.

on making a systemically distributed intelligence and genius of all human beings … not just an elite

definition, design philosophy, rationale

do you understand now?

background

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”.

you can find it in “the atlantic” to this day:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/

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.

https://platformgenesis.com

my happy path to my genius

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?

https://www.ivepics.com

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?

do you understand me now?

do you?