following on from my previous post today, a reflection or two which i want to represent my future … and if you agree, our future … and if you all agree, all our futures …
realising why you couldn't be you makes it time to start anew and knowing the crime committed by them shouldn't make them not you at all because the struggle to fight right escapes us in the night where the dark barks back at us instead of harks to deeper lives and so one day it's true even when lifetimes are lost the cost of not showing we accept we are the same produces the insanity that rules our worlds right now
so all i can suggest is that forgiveness does entrust the forgiver with perhaps the only power existent on this earth where in its exerting we cannot do ill for nothing comes close to the bitter pill of reliving over and over the alternative state of pain and stuff
i turn a page then not if you do too but with you if you care to also also if you do and so my conditions are now nowhere found for i've lived my life and this was how and all i want for me at least is to know right now that love exists
poets learn to codify linguistic systems and use precise forms of ambiguity very quickly. this makes them ideal for making or breaking code more widely.
mil williams, stockholm sweden, 19th april 2023
poetry and #espionage have close connections. i won’t link to the article again; but it was either the #nyt or the #newyorker i read a while back which evidenced the fact in a #longread post.
poets learn to codify linguistic systems and use precise forms of ambiguity very quickly. this makes them ideal for making or breaking code more widely.
for all we know, the most ambiguous sorts of leaders — those who show themselves to be dictators, for example — might be frustrated literati. i wouldn’t be suprised.
when i post out-of-the-box thinking on #linkedin these days, i get a message basically instructing me to give a tip or ask a question to get a conversation going. this is all well and good for basic networking and personal branding. but there are deeper things we can use language for. and i want to prove this longitudinally. a #poet interested in code: not software only, though this of course as well.
but really, how to both reverse- and forward-engineer those #crimes being committed — like #thepurloinedletter — under our very noses. the things we call random which aren’t.
this.
i think by pushing the human #brain in the directions i look at first sight to be waywardly doing is intelligent: and capable of delivering outcomes that will defend us from future #ukraines. outcomes in war and peace. outcomes in engineering and politics. outcomes everywhere.
i think where i am going with this #intuition thing is in expanding the envelope of the possible to the once considered impossible. my brain has downsides: it can be unstable. but like the #eurofighter in its origins, instability duly channelled by #tech can deliver fabulous results.
mil williams, stockholm sweden, 19th april 2023
the #poem below was written an hour or so ago. it’s by a foreign user of #castellano who only lived there some sixteen years. but it has some huge merit for me because of what it strives to communicate. and it may have a minimum merit even for #spanish speakers themselves.
i think this is interesting.
my own #brain is, you see, much better now that it was when i was in my twenties.
so.
i think where i am going with this #intuition thing is in expanding the envelope of the possible to the once considered impossible. my brain has downsides: it can be unstable. but like the #eurofighter in its origins, instability duly channelled by #tech can deliver fabulous results.
why not begin to join me in this?
i mean … the #soldier as #poet … and the #poet as #soldier.
so #it-#tech must come afterwards: it must come when the rest of us have designed the problem as robustly as we can without knowing if what we design is practical or not. only then will we not censor our ideas whilst we still have the capability to be ambitious and aspirational: only then will we only think of the real world.
mil williams, stockholm sweden, 16th april 2023
from my iphone’s notes app just now:
i’m open to being hired as employee or consultant or business. any of; any combination of. all too.
absolutely.
if it means i can stay in #sweden but not have to do it with the traditional kind of simplifying and incremental #tech ecosystem … well, then yes. even more so.
because i’m defo NOT looking for that if i stayed here. i’m not looking for it anywhere. wherever we took the #hq.
the #hq is a starting point but not an envelope of participation, anyway. we do live in a hybrid-working and effervescently connected world.
but i get the concerns, too.
now.
i still think best process would involve, first, an empathetic #consulting organisation; only after this, a single #tech corp (once the problem was scoped by us, i mean); and finally, an intimately connected #security complex and infrastructure, too … but always, in this field, independently managed by the country’s own existent domain experts. me only ever going so far as delivering a participation that consisted of being a consultant, ever.
if a #tech ecosystem of local and regional is preferred here, or anywhere else, it must be absolutely and heavily vetted to filter out those people and companies who won’t see/can’t see the virtues of the different architectures i am proposing. this we could do on the basis of historical behaviours and pronouncements; products and digital service rollouts over the years; and other data which could help us drill into company and individual cultural dna.
because i’m not prepared to accept intellectual and technological trojans into the projects and workstreams. and i recognise them easily enough these days, when i meet them. so no pulling any wool over my eyes on this. on other matters, maybe still. this, no longer.
i need to be firm in this. i really do. you will probably never understand why: but here i don’t budge. not any more.
and so this is why i’d prefer to scope with a #nontech ecosystem before going to #tech partners, in order to only then finally begin to implement.
so this is what i propose (though i am always open to evidenced counter-proposals):
1. a chosen #tech partner — a single organisation or a vetted ecosystem — can start by implementing already drawn-up specs, created outwith their thinking-spaces; just as liverpool did for me back in 2019, with almost fabulous effect.
2. only once they understand and embrace emotionally and intellectually the new #secrecypositive ideas, and the consequent #it implications, do they then start to have the right and duty to input at deeper and more conceptual scoping stages.
if you want to do a #consulting corp in #sweden for example, that’s obviously good and in line with my existing ideas.
or any #swedish entity in any endeavour which is not #it, of course …
yup. this as well. (engineering and most manufacturing and retail are now #tech too, but not #it-#tech for example).
so #it-#tech must come afterwards: it must come when the rest of us have designed the problem as robustly as we can without knowing if what we design is practical or not. only then will we not censor our ideas whilst we still have the capability to be ambitious and aspirational: only then will we only think of the real world.
• first we design the problem. always. the real problem
• it’s NOT NOT NOT going to slide into being “how to get paid soonest”
• it’s going to be how to reverse climate change. that’s the first #nontrad #security #complexproblem i want to deal with. that’s what will be my day-to-day. and i want citizens who don’t know what’s impossible to achieve to be scoping the envelope of the necessary over the possible
and that’s then when #tech comes in and starts to implement. and once it sees our new #neurodiverse #software and #hardware architectures work in practice is when it will also get freely enthusiastic about a totally different panorama from the #neurotypical #it they so firmly and universally believe in atm.
and so that’s when — but only then! — they’ll also be able to deliver #neurodiverse principles in their praxis. equally deeply as we will show ourselves capable of delivering in problem design. and so then, equally convincingly.
without reluctance any more.
without back-pedalling at all.
without thinking the problem needs to be reduced stealthily to how to get paid above and beyond how to save the species.
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?
but never again shall i salivate the evil of the unnecessarily violent. as a last resort … this is how life sometimes must conduct itself. as a tool of habitual state … this is not.
mil williams, johan & nyström coffee shop, stockholm sweden, 9th april 2023
it’s not all plain selling. but then that’s not what life’s about.
but if i manage to stay here in the end, this — the end — it won’t be. it will be the best beginning i’ve ever managed. i spent seven years between the uk and ireland, trying to engineer a relationship between ireland and the uk. i failed.
now i say it out loud: not with joy but acceptance. acceptance that i failed in everything institutionally and personally related.
but not ideas-wise. not in respect of my increasing capacity to uncover them: like a pig and his beloved truffles. for me, ideas are truffles, waiting to be found; and they say that pigs bear many good resemblances to humans. physiologically, for sure. maybe in other respects i am still unaware of.
all i can say is if a pig is good enough for george clooney, why not associate myself with the same?
🙂
so why here — and now?
because in a very brief period of time i see a society like none i have experienced in my life. there are cruel people here: but the society as a wider whole is striving not to legislate or legitimate state cruelty. and this i am defo not accustomed to back in my homeland.
so if i have to contribute to a tech which scales up basic government and regional administrative instincts, i want it to be in a place where more manually these instincts are sound. meantime, the triumvirate of evil exists in the uk with the conservative attachment to russian wealth and trump’s idiocies all in one. and all by now as an all too well-established nouveau establishment of the horrifyingly, casually cruel.
one thing many don’t realise, and i still don’t fully understand: a military society can be a liberating one too. it all depends to what purpose you militarise — and with what genders you compose your military out of.
during my whole time in the uk i was oppressed by outliers of a military which, tbh, needed very few outliers anyway to operate and impose such oppression with the necessary precision. look at the state of the london metropolitan police right now just to appreciate how ugly the uk has allowed itself to become. and that’s the first line: just the police.
this is why here, and why now. and if it’s not possible now and here, it will be somewhere else similar, and sometime then.
but never again shall i salivate the evil of the unnecessarily violent. as a last resort … this is how life sometimes must conduct itself. as a tool of habitual state … this is not.
this post contains thoughts from a fortnight’s thinking processes more or less; plus the content of a synthesising presentation which is the sum of years of thought-experimenting on my part. i’ll start with the presentation, which is now where i want us to go:
fighting creatively criminal fire with a newly creative crimefighting
i created the slide below for a presentation i was asked to submit to a european digital agency pitching process, by the uk organisation public. the submission didn’t prosper. the slide, however, is very very good:
the easy answer is that obviously it benefits an industry. the challenging question is why this has been allowed to perpetuate itself as a reality. because real people and democratic citizens have surely perished as a result: maybe unnecessarily.
here is the presentation which public failed to accept for submission to the european digital process last october 2022, and from which the above slide is taken:
where and how i now want us to come together and proceed to deliver on creative crimefighting and global security
the second presentation which follows below indicates my thinking today: no caveats; no red lines; no markers in the sand any more. if you can agree to engage with the process indicated here, no conditions on my side any more.
well. maybe just one. only western allies interested in saving democracy will participate, and benefit both societally and financially from what i’m now proposing:
following on from the above then, thoughts i wrote down today — in edited format to just be now relevant only to the above — on my iphone notes app. this constitutes a regular go-to tool for my thought-experimenting:
on creating a bespoke procurement process for healthy intuition-validation development
step 1
pilot a bespoke procurement process we use for the next year.
we keep in mind the recent phd i’ve had partial access to on the lessons of how such process is gamed everywhere.
we set up structures to get it right from the start.
no off-the-peg sold as bespoke and at a premium, even when still only repurposed tech for the moment.
step 2
we share this procurement process speedily with other members of the inner intuition-validation core.
they use it: no choice.
but no choice then gives a quid quo pro: this means total freedom to then develop and contribute freely to the inner core ip in ways that most fit others’ cultures.
and also, looking ahead, to onward commercialise in the future in their zones of influence where they know what’s what, and exactly what will work.
and so then, a clear common interest and target: one we all know and agree on.
mil williams, 8th april 2023
historical thought and positions from late march 2023
finally, an earlier brainstorming from the same process as described in part two above, conducted back in late march of this year. this is now a historical document and position, and is included to provide a rigorous audit trail of why free thinking is so important to foment, trust and believe in, and actively encourage.
we have to create an outcome which means we know we think unthinkable things far worse than any criminal ever will be able to, to prevent them. we need a clear set of ground rules, but these rules shouldn’t prevent the agents from thinking comfortably (as far as this is the right word) things they never dared to approach.
the problem isn’t putin or team jorge. it is, but not what we see. it’s what they and others do that we don’t even sense. it’s the people who do worse and events that hurt even more … these things which we have no idea about.
if you like, yes, the persian proverb: the unknown unknowns. i want to make them visible. all of them. the what and how. that’s my focus.
trad tech discovers the who and when. but my tech discovers the what and how before even a glint in criminals’ eyes.
so we combine both types of tech in one process that doesn’t require each culture to work with the other. side-by-side, yes. but in the same way, no. so we guarantee for each the purest state each needs of each.
my work and my life/love if you prefer will not only be located in sweden but driven from here too. that’s my commitment. and not reluctantly in any way whatsoever.
[…]
i have always needed to gather enough data. now i have, the decision surely is simple.
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?
i just got a message from microsoft (linkedin) which asked me to consider and/or explain how what i was about to post (what you see below in the screenshots) related to my work or professional role.
why nudge in this way
is this a stealthy attempt to remove the ambiguities of #arts-based thinking patterns from contaminating the baser #chatgpt-x instincts and what they scrape?
more than personally, quite intellectually i think it’s wrong — in a world which needs lateral and nonconformist thinking — to define, a priori, what a thinker who wishes to shape a better business should use as a primary discourse.
because this discourse may include how much we follow or no the traditional way of framing information: where we state what we will say, say it, and then summarise it, we fit the needs of machines and people trained to think like them.
art should be used to communicate in any forum
‘truth is, when we choose a precise ambiguity (one forged out of the arts — not the confusions — of deep communication), where such ambiguity and the uncertainty it generates may in itself be a necessary part of the communication process’s context — and even content — what value ever is added by telling the speaker and/or writer they are ineffective?
in any case, the public will always have the final vote on this: and if you prefer to communicate in such ways and be not read, why not let it happen?
why choose this kind of nudge to upskill writers in the ways of the machine?
using automated machines to do so, too …!
so what do YOU think? what DO you?
me, what follows is what i want. what no one in tech wants to allow. because i’m not first to the starting-line: i’m last. they decided it didn’t suit their business models decades ago. i decided i didn’t agree. and i still don’t. and neither should you.
on making a systemically distributed intelligence and genius of all human beings … not just an elite
i trained in spain as an editor in the early part of the 2000s. but as someone who always blogged better than he authored, i already had the custom of attributing my ideas through the tool and habit of hyperlinking.
attribution is really important: not because it inevitably takes us down a peg or two, although it does. more importantly, an outcome with shape to it is more valuable than an outcome, full stop.
the memex machine
i realised this consciously ever since reading vannevar bush’s treatise on human thought: “as we may think”.
in it, using the immediate post-war tech available, and any future tech extrapolated from the same, he suggested a machine called the #memex. it would enable human thought to the extent that we would not only be able to store outcomes — what those most interested in making money would consider a product or service to be scaled up massively — but store the trails of thought that would always lead up previously (and to my mind — and bush’s — also preciously) to such outcomes.
because when a thought is a reel of thoughts not just a pic which snaps shut on time … this is when we have a human being rather than a machine.
the implications of attribution’s fact
the result of all the above? NOTHING we think up is independent of ANYTHING. as a consequence, it is tantamount — just about — to daylight (and more importantly, night-time) robbery to claim one has an exclusive right to make money out of any idea “you might EVER have”.
you don’t agree? then it isn’t. but then you’re a genius in the divisive sense most of society understands: that is, very few of us can or will be this figure; and most of us will never be anywhere near.
which is elitism to the max, in fact.
only i don’t agree with this. i don’t believe such elitist approaches accurately reflect the human brain and how it best works. and when leaders in different fields impress on us to believe that they do reflect the state of human thought, and then build business models on such belief systems, we get a type of tech-kryptonite thrust into the most vulnerable core of human experience.
my experience, meantime, as a language teacher, then facilitator, then enabler (the progression taking place out of what almost became a fanatical frustration with the rank incompetence of traditional learning paths) showed me ALL humans can radically improve their thought processes, given the right environment.
and where processes can be improved dramatically, surprising — even shocking — outcomes can be achieved. and so i saw it happen. and was a convert.
platform genesis
this is why both my son, from whom i am now deeply estranged, and myself worked together for a while on a platform we named “platform genesis”.
the idea is that all of us, all human beings, can find the right tools to uncover some aspect of genius in our souls, hearts, and grey cells. it’s not the preserve of intellect: it’s mainly the preserve of confidence in oneself — whether one has it or not. if one doesn’t, intellect cannot follow. if one does, a happy series of accidents — where a given — will lead to your genius in some way or other.
a few minutes after the photo that follows was taken i met the muse of my life. it’s hard to admit that nothing i have thought up since 2016 that evening in dublin on the banks of the river liffey would now exist if we hadn’t met and spoken for three hours, as we shared a meal on the roof terrace of “the woollen mills”.
i had lost my fear of flying the day before, you see: the 15th of june of that same year, when i flew into dublin on ryanair for the first time, for precisely the meeting that would then take place on what was my birthday the following day. being the 16th. coincidently called, in ireland mainly, “bloomsday”. (and so don’t you think it’s cool to have a birthday called “bloomsday”? the day you are born being that, i mean.
don’t you?)
and so i literally lost my fear of flying that june. actually, truly, in a second. a total flip. a click of the brain’s chip that’s never clicked back.
and therefore in my wider life, too: because i assure you, quite objectively, i have a better brain now at 60-something than i have ever had the whole of my life before. and it’s NOT because of intelligence that i am far more intelligent than i could once have imagined myself becoming. it’s because of the confidence that slowly seeped into and then infused my brain, my heart, and my soul … as an utterly natural consequence of meeting the muse of my life.
the meaning of this … for me
bringing together the threads of this article, then, i now conclude:
1. none of my ideas since are mine to exploit exclusively for my own benefit.
2. none of my ideas since are mine.
3. none of my ideas are yours.
4. none of my ideas are yours to exploit exclusively for your benefit.
5. all of the ideas which have emerged after this meeting of ours, and precisely because we met, belong to no one — and therefore belong, altogether, to a whole planet and creative ecosystem.
because it WAS a sort of magic: and magic, the genius of genie, once uncorked CANNOT be boxed into a business model for the benefit of the few.
conclusion
when we upturn a paradigm, we can choose to leave the business model — and therefore the hegemony — untouched. or we can choose to upturn two paradigms simultaneously: the “thing” itself (for want of a better phrase), and how we get it out there as fast as possible.
what’s the problem i’m looking to solve with the #gutenbergofintuitivethinking and the #intuitionvalidationengine? and #intuitionvalidation more broadly?
it’s not #darkfigure and #neocrime (only). it’s not #wastefulmeetings (only).
it’s not #loopholes and other zemiological activities (only).
it’s not the inability of #specialisms to duly and safely communicate across their knowledge lines (only).
rather, it’s something which informs all these use-cases — and many many more.
one UNCOMMON denominator: a denominator that connects everything in human experience since the dawn of rhymes:
truth. a concept of an absolute and indivisible truth. so we kick relativism finally into the long grasses, where it may be admired and remembered but not treasured. nor missed. again.
mil williams, stockholm sweden, 5th april 2023
accept and underline, therefore, and deliver on and re-establish, as a result, that a VALIDATED truth may be something we can establish ABSOLUTELY.
not universal truth: i’m not sustaining this. we can still be dependent on circumstance and context. but in each of these, an unattackable truth.
just this: impossible to break.
this i believe. deeply. firmly. and now till i die.
and if so, even if only gently, this then leads this article to its final statements.
all of the above says to me only one thing: i need to know what i owe my muse. because if any of the above can happen to any useful degree one day, it will happen one day only because of the impact she had on me, that day.
it’s consequently NOT a fixation at all i have for you, my dear muse, but an almost overpoweringly intellectual — as well as obviously emotional — demand to work out to what extent i was just a lever someone pulled.
not that YOU pulled it, either. i don’t think this for a minute. no.
but a tool or extension of someone or something out there … why is this so impossible to propose or contemplate? or prosper as an assertion to be justly considered?
i had an idea way-back-when. i posted it and then talked about it in various forums. i think the first time formally was a berkeley skydeck submission.
then i did an online whitepaper called crime hunch:
it contained a number of different ways of doing crime, ways which lent themselves particularly to the almost infinitely malleable — and therefore unimaginably criminal — world we now live in.
without asking the question as clearly as i could have at the start, the image that follows is really what was at the back of my mind … what i was gnawing away at without being so clear as i could have been at the time:
after the crime hunch page on terror and before the above slide, which in truth was created for a euro-event sponsored by the british organisation PUBLIC, i also had a lengthy video conversation with seven or eight american tech corporation executives. i never saw their faces or knew their names. but the conversation, even so, was valuable. before and after this conversation, i have found it easy to rate positively and highly the corporation in question.
anyway. i asked the assembled the conundrum which the crime hunch terror page poses. however, none of them was prepared to say anything; not even address it to say that it shouldn’t have been posed in the first place.
this was when i began to realise i might have gone too far.
so recently i decided i, myself, would address what could have been hurting people out there: people who otherwise might have seen themselves through to considering it useful to work with me.
i realised, too, i needed to finesse not only my words but also how i might address the challenges being raised: the tool or tools — or conceptual positions — needed.
squaring the circles of human intuition-enhancing #ai (and therefore of creative crimefighting) with traditional #datascience views
less than a month ago i produced a presentation about three kinds of human brains and how we might make it easy for them to work together. i was interested in exploring the weaknesses in my hollywood writers idea, and maybe bring onboard as well the strengths of a more traditional and exclusively automating #ai.
because one of the replies those people who do answer the terror conundrum have previously given is that using both teams of resources is the best solution.
the problem with this however is that it’s not necessarily a solution. we have cultural challenges of simple workplace interactions which inevitably kick in, where differing professional mindsets — necessarily conformist crimefighters (someone has to want to apply the rules) versus nonconformist creatives, for example — may struggle to understand, or even minimally validate, the other’s work and approaches.
what #datascience finds easy — and then, what it really struggles with
i then deepened this perception specifically in relation to the #datascience brain and how it values other, more intuitive ways of thinking.
and this formed the basis of the three brains presentation i mentioned: “fighting fire with fire”:
and what follows from the presentation itself on what i honestly now believe are cultural NOT technological challenges facing us:
i’d like us to focus for the moment on the first slide above:
without intending to or seeing at first what i had done, i was delivering finally on a solution to the conundrum i had — maybe a year or so before — ended up using in good faith but, at the same time, unintentionally hurting the sensibilities and feelings of more than a few.
in this slide we see a process emerging at last where two cultures can work profoundly well together, without having to negotiate anything ever of their own ways of seeing, or of their professional praxis and therefore often unspoken assumptions.
so. to the nitty-gritty.
how would it work?
we take the sorts of minds and creatives i’ve already typed and labelled as “hollywood screenwriters”. but not just hollywood, of course. more widely, the intuitive thinkers; the ones who go with hunches and inventing new future-presents on the basis not of experience exclusively but, rather, in tandem, and deeply so, with what we could call the leaps of faith of what often necessarily leads to genius — whether good guys or criminals.
and then with these brains, in the first stage of our newly creative part but never whole of crimefighting, law enforcement and national & global security, we also type the increasingly unknown unknowns of #darkfigure, and related, which the what and how of terrifyingly unexpected creative criminal activity surely involve.
and with this approach and separation of responsibilities — traditional #datascience and automating #ai on the one hand, creative #intuition-focussed humans to the max on the other — we may now propose using traditional automating #ai as it has functioned to date: that is, where the patterning and recognition of past and present events serves to predict the who and when of future ones. and so, leaving the frighteningly, newly radical and unexpected unknown unknowns of what and how to the creatives.
the value-add of this new process-focussed approach to humanising #ai
never the twain shall meet, maybe? because in a sense, with this separation of responsibilities, established and necessarily conforming security and law-enforcement organisations can advantage themselves of the foresight of creative #intuition and #hunches without losing the purity — if you like — of tried and tested security processes.
and the creative second and third brains below can create and forward-engineer the real evil out there before it becomes a bloody fact — yet without inhibitions or compunctions.
and then, what’s more, both parties — rightly conformist security professionals and effectively nonconformist creative crimefighting professionals — can do to the max, without confusion or shame, what best — and even most emotionally — floats their boats.
initial steps to delivering this process
this is the first steps of process i see and suggest:
final words
so what do you think?
is this a fairer, more inclusive, and frankly practical approach — as well as a way forwards to a real and potential implementation — of the original crime hunch terror conundrum i outlined at the top?
and if so, what would those first steps actually look like? #ai technologies and approaches like this, maybe — coupled closely with an existing #ai where no one would have to change their spots?
mil's page 