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


why i am not fit for working in crime and security … but why #complexproblems is a quite different matter

crime is a domain i have pretty good knowledge of at #autoethnographic and #academic levels, but it is always going to be a subset of #complexproblems: #complexproblems are NOT a subset of a generally creative #criminality.

mil williams, stockholm sweden, 14th april 2023

i just want this to be clear. i’m happy for others to work with my ideas in security and so forth. but i am going to focus on developing systems for #neurodiverse #thinkingspaces that begin to solve #complexproblems our species needs resolving, above and beyond #criminality.


things like #climatechange and #foodsecurity for example.

crime is a domain i have pretty good knowledge of at #autoethnographic and #academic levels, but it is always going to be a subset of #complexproblems: #complexproblems are NOT a subset of a generally creative #criminality.

what’s more, i don’t have the confidence of people in #lawenforcement and #security. never have: never will. i’m a free-thinker, above all. this doesn’t make me better, at all. but it might mean it makes me incompatible with good #security and #lawenforcement praxis.

so this is what i am now thinking and strategising. i may be able to acquire the necessary confidence to do these things in other fields of human endeavour. at the very least, the potential for a decent engagement is more likely in other areas now.

if there are people in some allied country who work, even so, in crime and related, and still are interested in what i propose, do come forwards and show yourselves.

but even here, let’s propose that anything we do starts with the principle and framework of #complexproblems, not creative #criminality.

contact me on the email below, if you do want to explore.

just explore.

just see the reality. examine the truth. and maybe, just maybe, do something usefully different for a change:

milwilliams.sweden@outlook.com

complexify.me | #neurodiverse software and hardware architecture for solutioning #complexproblems

(because i’m really really really NOT as fierce as you have been led to believe by the people back home …)


“coffee-shop cctv hacked to gain intel with military value”: EXACTLY why our security needs different tech philosophies

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/11/russian-hackers-target-security-cameras-inside-ukraine-coffee-shops

and these freedoms for us all. not just the inhibiting hierarchies enjoyed by those who own — in more ways than one — this thing we know as tech. and therefore our democracies.

mil williams, stockholm sweden, 12th april 2023

there is so much #darkfigure being delivered by people in tech, and our law-enforcement and security agencies have given up on developing systems which could counter such #neocrime:

crimehunch.com/neocrime

the agencies rely heavily on machines plus humans — in that order — because their tech partners are interested in the monetisation virtues of this order of priorities:

sverige2.earth/complexify


meantime, the bad hackers use humans plus machines — in this order — to creatively imagine, imagineer, and only then engineer new and covert ways of committing crimes that remain as invisible as possible for as long as possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/11/russian-hackers-target-security-cameras-inside-ukraine-coffee-shops


and it’s not even that our agencies are criminal in the main (though some take advantage of #darkfigure extensively to bend, or sometimes go so far as to break, the law), but their ongoing inability to recognise the importance of humans over machines is negligence of a sort:


and even more so, the illegitimate criminal power of the human+machine workflows and deals over the agency machine+human combos is utterly ignored, in the absence of truthful criteria re innovation and procurement. and yet it would be so easy to begin a process of repurposing, with integrity, of existing technologies to ensure people are made bigger by machines and not diminished.

i’m sorry. but it has to be observed, painful though the recognition, if a given, will be.

because this next one has to be taken on the chin, if we are to improve our capacity to fight creative criminality in a collective future-present:

9/11 came about because horribly creative humans used machines as tools to kill other humans, who failed to prevent it from happening because their tech partners had consistently recommended using machine+human workflows.

not because they really believed this was true; that is, that human intuition was a lesser value than the incremental thinking engendered by machines.

no.

rather, because machines+humans make more money, more easily, than workflows that consist of humans+machines … that is, humans expanded and enhanced by machines.

mil williams, stockholm sweden, 12th april 2023

crimehunch.com/terror

and so the only way we can prevent such horrors in the future — particularly the invisible ones such as the recent us defense leaks due to bad hackers and web actors, some of which date back to october 2022 and are only just now discovered, as well as the cctv hacking reported in the guardian newspaper article above — is to begin to reverse the order and purpose of tech.

this — what follows now — is what i suggest and advocate most firmly: humans always first, enhanced and expanded by tools whose primary rationale no longer remains monetising a tech partner into obscene levels of technological wealth whatever the wider human cost but, instead, delivering without exception on making a safer and more secure, more legitimate, more socially responsible, and more honest world all round.

and these freedoms for us all. not just the inhibiting hierarchies enjoyed by those who own — in more ways than one — this thing we know as tech. and therefore our democracies:

sverige2.earth/complexify


complex problems vs security and law-enforcement: how to square the circle of my ideas

let’s say i have to do something to be allowed to live:

i have a no-no or two, though …

not meeting family: not anyone. maybe one exception … but not a demand i make again; not even implied. not even wishing for. i won’t presume.

re family, i’m happy with my mother and the one sibling i get on with, but no one else on any other side. there’s always my children and so forth, but that’s never been your business. that will begin to work again in the future if it does; and if it doesn’t, i will share responsibility for any eventual failure.

‘problem is, you lost me this morning when you didn’t follow up — here no going back, because you were playing with me cruelly: no irish, no croatian, no other english — forget it.

talking realistically, in order to square two circles:

let’s talk realistically — what can i do to have a life more or less reasonably without your surveillance and neo-terrorism, everywhere i turn?

remember: i will, after what you failed to deliver on this morning, never meet with family nor anyone with a relationship to, whether personal or business, whom i don’t already get on with. you lost that opportunity today, just to underline.

but other things within my capacity … well, these things, for sure … more than happy to, actually really eager to.

you want to undermine the capacity of the tech i want to see in security? this can be resolved easily. you have your reasons i know: i can see why of course, though i will never share the criteria because i am far more a purist in these matters than you ever will be. but for us to proceed — for you to proceed — there is a solution which i now put before you all.

one caveat: one condition. as long as i get enough to have a comfortable rest of my life, we can talk about this but it requires you first to evidence that “neo-terrorism on the individual” will not be committed against my person again. and that is not an easy call to evidence.

some minimums, first:

  • i want european residence from this month.
  • i want an official, even if only cover, role that suits my skillset, in my judgement.
  • i don’t care if it’s employment or self-, but if either or both, i must be very difficult to fire. i want the kind of job security i’ve never had in my life, mainly because of british interventions to date.
  • i commit to targets everyone must commit to, but no opportunity for “noi” again, for this reason. (whether uk/irish influences — or within sweden itself, the latter of which has also already manifested itself.)
  • the legal side: i want a position of institutional power to deliver on “noi” as a robust legal figure, in the three years i scope; and thus the seven years i have as my goal to regular and widespread prosecutions.
  • i want to be in charge of complex problem-solutioning programmes, but completely outwith security.
  • i want to be able to exclusively license to all fields relating to security, the strategising and development of which i shall play zero part in the future.
  • loopholes, however, will remain part of my side of the deal: a complex problem to be eliminated eventually in the 20-year timeframe i propose. “noi”, too, as previously mentioned.
  • no conditions can be placed around the tech my side chooses to repurpose or begin to develop further. any developed tech will be developed exclusively for complex problem-solutioning, and then any reuse for security will involve new licensing agreements.
  • c is fine if she wants. it’d be cool and fair if she did, but that’s her choice. she chooses.
  • no other family contact, not after today.
  • no people or companies from my past in what i am responsible for: they may, if it is judged appropriate, however, freely participate to any level at all in respect of security workstreams i have nothing to do with in the future.

distribution of existing workstreams:

  • websites:
    • i license ideas from crime hunch, citizen hunch, and omiwan to security.
    • platform genesis is complex problems, not security.
    • the philosopher space is complex problems, not security.
    • secrecy.plus where applied to complex problems belongs to this stream. where security, it belongs to security from the start.
      • we negotiate the details of the division and separation, as expected would be the case.
      • examples: fire is clearly to be licensed to security, and will not be my responsibility in the future.
      • digital pencil & paper is my workstream.
    • i want hmagi for complex absolutely, but maybe it can be a common workstream. i doubt you will eventually want it; but i’m up for a common workspace for it, myself.
    • never meet again: that i keep entirely for my workstreams. nothing to do with security.
  • complex problems: where do they sit and who do they work with?
    • my initial thoughts: swedish interests, agencies and unis; the eu, particularly the ec; the un; and so forth.
  • security: that’s up to you. not my job. but i’d suggest:
    • the italians first, who are historically firm in the integrity of their pursuit of organised criminality.
    • in the uk, the met’s internal affairs department might be another good place to start.

locations:

  1. complex problems obviously then to be located in sweden and europe.
  2. this means it’s very easy for security to definitively locate to the us.

wdyt?

is this now possible?

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.

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

“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

curie + foucault … and then a crime-free world?

foucault said everything is dangerous: and more reason, for this reason, to study everything more deeply.

curie said we shouldn’t fear understanding: almost that it was our duty.

i want, now, to set up a national security facility which uses curie’s approach for its outer core, where our good people learn in supported ways to fight bad people.

and i want then, once we have fashioned the necessary tools, to develop an inner core which gets as pointed as foucault’s persistence re the dangerous.

at the #nobelprize museum today i saw two words on the floor near the entrance, amongst many others. the two i recognised and stood near were in english. i hope one day others i am able to recognise will be in swedish.

my words of preference were “persistence” and “disrespect”. of the two, the one i stood next to first was “disrespect”. not gratuitous: measured. that’s me. and that will always be me.

and that’s what i want to make of the aforementioned national security facility: something deeply infused with a profound lack of respect to the shibboleths of crime and … to what we can or can’t do to stop and dismantle them.

let’s do it.

it’s time we did. time to have confidence in our abilities. our competences. and our integrity.

machines + humans or humans + machines … or …?

i once wrote the below:

crimehunch.com/terror

i think i upset a lot of people. i remember a more than hour-long conversation with faceless executives from a big us tech corporation i really value and would love one day to work with.

i say “faceless” neutrally, mind: they had no faces, just circles with initials; and were never introduced to me. six or seven plus the person who organised the video-chat. during lockdown, it was.

i asked them the above question: there was silence for around ten seconds. in the event, no one replied at all. the fear was palpable. the fear that someone would say something which someone else would report back, and forever mark a person’s career, without recourse to explanation.

or so i thought. on reflection, maybe i had gone too far. maybe it was wrong for me to suggest their machines weren’t up to the job of beating creatively criminal terrorists. maybe it was wrong for me to suggest we could do more to creatively crimefight: to make human beings capable of being as nonconformist to the good as the putins et al of recent years have manifestly been longitudinally to the extreme ill.

here’s the thing: maybe i wasn’t wrong but maybe i wasn’t enough right.

obviously, if the exercise was delivered to its full extent, whatever your answer the assembled would inevitably agree that both machines and hollywood scriptwriters (or their analogous: the skillsets of, at least) would be the best solution. but even here problems would exist — and i would go so far as to suggest, actually, real roadblocks.

people who operate by rules and regulations — conformists we all need that make the world function with justice and fairness — don’t find it easy to value the contribution of nonconformists who, more often than not, make their own hugely competent rules. and, then again, of course, vice versa. conformists don’t always float the boats of nonconformists as much as they should.

so to allude to the fact that we need to be as good as the supremely creative criminality out there in our own forging of a singular combination of intuitive arationality with the best machines we can manufacture is NOT the solution.

no.

the solution lies in ensuring the cultures of nonconformism and conformism may come together to facilitate this outcome of creative crimefighting and national security … this … just this … has to be the solution.

if we minimally know our philosophy, a thesis — being that crimefighting and national security need ever more traditional ai to deliver a fearsome capacity to pattern-recognise nonconformist evil out of existence, alongside people who press the operational buttons on the back of such insights — will get, from me, its antithesis: that is … we need just as much, if not more, what we might term the “human good” to battle the “human bad”.

and maybe the machines, too. alongside and in fabulous cahoots.

yes. and maybe, of course, the machines.

but what if we change the process? what if a synthesis? as all good philosophy?

1. to find the nonconformist what and how — the next 9/11 before it arises — we use hollywood and analogous creativity to imagineer such events.

2. and to find the who and when of such newly uncovered neocrimes, we apply the obviously terrifyingly useful pattern-recognition capabilities of the ever more traditional ai. so that their adepts, their supporters, their proponents … and those conformists who more generally are comfortable with such approaches … well … simply be comfortable with this new paradigm i propose.

in this scenario, the suits and the flowery shirts work in consonance but never simultaneously. and so we square the circle of respect amongst the two parties, which long-term would always be difficult to sustainably engineer and forge permanently.

wdyt?