I think ML will eventually capture human social patterns, simply because so much data is available. Teams/Zoom/WebEx meetings (or equivalent) will be used for training models, in addition to security surveillance and opt-in Alexa type interfaces. The various popular modes of thought are already in reach, if not captured, by Meta and others. The "live" opponent just seems to me like adversarial learning in ML. There will tend to be only so many games one can participate in, so I am suspicious this is the best way to learn. The success of diffusion models makes me think there is something to be said for unintelligent adversaries -- noise. ________________________________ From: Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of glen <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:01 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading
Well, sure. In a benign environment like any kind of "training", the nuance isn't justified. But if we shift the context from training to *testing*, the nuance becomes crucial. There's a MMA guy in Portland who makes a great argument for testing your training against a "live" opponent. Despite his peri-right-wing opinions on various things, he's absolutely right. And our adversarial technologies demonstrate it well enough in controlled environments. In another context, a friend of mine who trains and tests PhD candidates by being on their committees, advising them, etc., distinguishes between PhDs and "super techs" who happen to have PhDs. Similarly, growing up, the rednecks around me were constantly yapping about "book smart" vs. "street smart". And, yet anther example is "gatekeeping", people who (think they can) recognize bad faith in that nuance. Practically, we, as a species, are very good at recognizing the patterns of superficial versus deep mimicry [⛧]. So the low SnR argument has to be couched in terms of *why* we're so good at it? If it's rarely justified, why are we so sensitive to such nuance? The same question can be dually inverted: Why do so many of us *want* to feel included? To have a tribe (from which we can exile the posers)? [⛧] Yes, that's begging for some data. Experiments showing the [in]ability to detect deep fakes, emotions behind facial expressions, shaming of cheaters in clinical psych games, etc. are rife with methodological problems. So, if anyone simply contradicts me and says we're *not* good at such things, I'll probably just concede. I don't really have the data to back my position. But it would be fun to knead over particular experiment reports. I guess Dunning-Kruger could be referenced. Maybe very few of us are good at it, but the very many of us who are incompetent believe we're competent? On 9/6/22 07:37, Marcus Daniels wrote: > I had to do some cybersecurity training and it was set up so that all the > choices one could make led to the same outcome. The point was to understand > the properties of the paths, not the outcome. > While that wisdom might be of some value in some other situation, often there > is no discernable difference between the nuance in a social rule and > variation that arises due to novelty or ambiguity of circumstances. The > signal to noise ratio just isn't high enough to justify the extra precision. > The actors in this training could have been interpreted as quietly > demonstrating concern rather than neglect. One could imagine a cartel boss > would not want to wait for a reasonable number of outliers before taking > action. After all the cartel boss is a criminal and not concerned with > fairness. An experienced undercover cop knows she needs to mimic the > expected distribution very carefully, and that even if she does mimic it very > carefully her life is still in danger. > > Marcus > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of glen > <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 6, 2022 7:57 AM > *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading > Well, Steve's targeting of "feeling included" does target "understanding". > I'd argue that the spies don't understand the communities they infiltrate. > Even deep undercover or method acting doesn't provide understanding. I argue > that any bad faith actor like a spy or "acting while cynical" has a reductive > objective as their target. What was interesting about the concept of bad > faith was Sartre's suggestion that the deep undercover operator who finally > *does* begin to identify with the community they've infiltrated is the > interesting edge case. That's the cusp of understanding. > > I suppose I'm making a similar argument to EricC's argument for "belief", > which I call "dispositional". If you don't act on your belief, then you don't > actually believe that thing. So, an undercover cop who infiltrates a drug > cartel but refuses to Necklace a local do-gooder just doesn't understand what > it means to be in the cartel. They can't understand. And they shouldn't > understand. The spy is there for a more specific objective, not understanding. > > One of those more specific objectives might be *prediction*. In simulation > and [x|i]ML, there's a stark distinction between predictive versus > explanatory power. Ideally, strong explanatory power provides predictive > power. But practically, 80/20, reductive prediction is easier, faster, and > more important. The excess meaning is swept under the rug of variation or > noise. At raves, a reductive objective is harm reduction. Sure, it would be > fantastic to teach all the kids pharmaco[kinetics|dynamics] and chemistry ... > as well as psychology and neuroscience. But the harm reduction tent is not > really there to get into the kids' minds. The objective isn't understanding. > It's a reductive focus on dampening the edge cases. > > > On 9/3/22 08:47, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> The claim is that there is all this diversity in subcultures and that the >> only way to understand them is to participate in them. If it is possible to >> fake it, and I think it is, then that raises doubts about the claim. That >> is what spies specialize in. >> >>> On Sep 2, 2022, at 7:17 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I have spent most of my life avoiding "acting while cynical"... I have >>> *felt* cynical about a lot of things, and Marcus' description of a lot of >>> things speaks to my "inner cynic" but I haven't spent much time being >>> *harmed* by engaging in "performative activities while feeling cynical >>> about them". If I dig a hole it is either because *I* need a hole, or >>> someone else *needs* a whole, and only rarely do I help someone dig a hole >>> as a team/trust/affinity building exercise unless the There are too many >>> holes in the world that *want* digging to spend much effort en-performance. >>> >>> I've never felt particulary "included" in any social circle and I have seen >>> that a little bit of "Performative Grease" might have helped this square >>> peg fit more-better in the round holes it encountered, but generally I >>> simply avoided those activities and drifted further and further out. That >>> is not to say I haven't *tried* to be a good sport and do what others were >>> doing on the off chance that it would actually be something that worked for >>> me, but generally not. >>> >>> BTW... there seems to be some inverted general usage of >>> "square-peg/round-hole", drilling a round hole and then driving a >>> square(ish) peg into it guarantees a good tight fit... it is preferred to >>> round peg-round hole in traditional joinery. >>> >>>> On 9/2/22 8:17 AM, glen wrote: >>>> OK. But the affinity and "inner self" alluded to by the phrase "faking it" >>>> is nothing but a personality momentum, a build-up of past behaviors, like >>>> a fly-wheel spun up by all the previous affinities and faking of it. We >>>> faked it in our mom's womb, faked it as babies, faked it as children on >>>> the playground or in class, etc. all the way up to the last time we faked >>>> it digging ditches or pair programming in Java. >>>> >>>> The only difference between feeling an affinity and engaging in a new >>>> faking it exercise is the extent to which the new collaboration is similar >>>> to the previous collaborations. As both Steve and Dave point out, spend >>>> enough time living in a world and you'll grow affine to that world (and >>>> the world will grow affine to you). >>>> >>>> I suppose it's reasonable to posit a spectrum (or a higher dim space) on >>>> which some people have particularly inertial fly-wheels and others have >>>> more easily disturbed things that store less energy. Of the Big 5, my >>>> guess would be neuroticism would be most inertial. Perhaps openness and >>>> agreeableness would be the least inertial. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 9/2/22 05:35, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>>>> There are many common tasks that parties could direct their attention >>>>> toward. This happens at companies, prison cafeterias, and churches. >>>>> That it is grounded in a particular way doesn't make it any truer, or >>>>> anyone more committed to it. We are often forced to participate in >>>>> cultures we don't care about, and faking it is an important skill. Just >>>>> because someone sweats or gets calluses or tolerates others' >>>>> inappropriate emotions in some circle of people, doesn't mean there is >>>>> any affinity toward that circle. Oh look, he dug a hole. I dug a hole. >>>>> Sure, I'd do those kind of performative activities if I were a >>>>> politician, as I bet there are people who think this way. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 12:06 AM >>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] more structure-based mind-reading >>>>> >>>>> And, of course, there is no such thing except appearance. What could it >>>>> possibly mean to say that an appearance of a bond exists, but no actual >>>>> bond exists? >>>>> >>>>> On September 1, 2022 7:29:45 PM PDT, Marcus Daniels >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> If you want to create the appearance of a bond where none exists, get to >>>>>> work. Once one recognizes the nature of work it is easy. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 1, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From glen: "If you want to share values with some arbitrary shmoe, then >>>>>> get to >>>>>> *work*. Build something or cooperate on a common task. Talking, >>>>>> communicating, is inadequate at best, disinfo at worst." >>>>>> >>>>>> This is kinda the whole point of Participant Observation at the core of >>>>>> cultural anthropology. The premise is you cannot truly understand a >>>>>> culture until you live it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, there is still a boundary, a separation, between the >>>>>> anthropologist and those with whom she interacts, but sweat, calluses, >>>>>> blood, and emotions go a long way toward establishing actual >>>>>> understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> davew >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022, at 12:30 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/1/22 11:21 AM, glen wrote: >>>>>> Inter-brain synchronization occurs without physical co-presence during >>>>>> cooperative online gaming >>>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393222001750 >>>>>> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393222001750> >>>>>> >>>>>> There's a lot piled into the aggregate measures of EEG. And the mere >>>>>> fact of the canalization conflates the unifying tendencies of the >>>>>> objective (shared purpose) with that of the common structure (virtual >>>>>> world, interface, body, brain). But overall, it argues against this >>>>>> guru focus on "sense-making" (hermeneutic, monistic reification) and >>>>>> helps argue for the fundamental plurality, openness, and stochasticity >>>>>> of "language games". >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to share values with some arbitrary shmoe, then get to >>>>>> *work*. Build something or cooperate on a common task. Talking, >>>>>> communicating, is inadequate at best, disinfo at worst. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree somewhat with the spirit of this, however a recent writer/book I >>>>>> discovered is Sand >>>>>> Talk<https://www.harpercollins.com/products/sand-talk-tyson-yunkaporta?variant=32280908103714 >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.harpercollins.com/products/sand-talk-tyson-yunkaporta?variant=32280908103714>> >>>>>> by Tyson Yunkaporta and more specifically his references to "Yarning" >>>>>> in his indigenous Australian culture offered me a complementary >>>>>> perspective... >>>>>> >>>>>> I definitely agree that the "building of something together" is a >>>>>> powerful world-building/negotiating/collaborative/seeking experience. >>>>>> The social sciences use the term Boundary >>>>>> Object<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object >>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_object>> and Boundary >>>>>> Negotiation Artifact. Jenny and I wrote a draft white-paper on the >>>>>> topic of the SimTable as a "boundary negotiating artifact" last time she >>>>>> visited (2019?). A lot of computer-graphics/visualization products >>>>>> provide fill this role, but the physicality of a sand-table with it's >>>>>> tactility and multiple perspectives add yet more. The soap-box racer >>>>>> or fort you build with your friend as a kid provides the same. The >>>>>> bulk of my best relationships in life involved "building something >>>>>> together" whether it be a software system or a house... >>>> -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
