male brain – mil's page

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

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

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

a different, more process-focussed way of humanising #ai

introduction

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:

• crimehunch.com

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.

• crimehunch.com/neocrime

• crimehunch.com/loopholes

it also included what in hindsight has become a nascent way of fighting crime:

• crimehunch.com/terror

developing the nascent idea more fairly

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”:

• www.secrecy.plus/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?

• www.secrecy.plus/hmagi

• thephilosopher.space

____________________

squaring the need for us to fight crime creatively in the context of inspectorial it-tech architectures

i’m beginning to see a way forwards for my ideas on intuition validation in the context of inspectorial it-tech architectures.

the latter are great at who and when; they’re not fit for purpose — 9/11 showed this clearly — when we’re talking about new kinds of what and how. this, in my view, is because they inevitably inhibit the capacity we otherwise had in pencil & paper days to think profoundly and fearlessly before we showed anything to the outside world. now we simply don’t know who is watching, so not everything we might think even gets thought.

i want us to make the unthinkable as thinkable as possible, in order to prevent the supremely — that is, creatively — bad people on this rock from turning their thoughts into real-world events.

attached some thoughts from my digital note-taking which i’ve delivered this morning.

meantime, here are the slides of one of my recent roadmaps for setting up a company or organisation designed to begin to shape how we might make some of these ideas much more tangible.