Re: The magnificent bribe

[Vincent Van Uffelen]

Morlock,

while I don't believe that there was a single mind or small group of 
multiple minds that planned the app based information society I do 
believe that the US military does exceptionally well in the discovery 
(invention?) and subsequent kick-start of "potential". Furthermore, I do 
believe that looking only at the survivors of a very, very lucky chain 
of coincidences (Google, Facebook) does skew the interpretation. There 
have been search engines and social media platforms before (what 
happened to AltaVista, Friendster?) and I don't think the DOD has been 
involved in all of them. Stating that the NSA did create Google, in a 
grand 20 year scheme (with all their decision makers as marionettes) 
does hint at looking at the whole with a way too focused lens. It's 
probably more of a loose dance of seeding ideas, technology, money, the 
close observation, and the intervention when it seems to be needed 
(surely the military has been surprised by their own success more than 
once, I don't buy that they invented the FB news feed).


Big picture thinking does happen though and while I can't suggest any 
90th pure hardware or software technology references I would like to 
offer the technology of management theory. This I do believe is what 
actually keeps on informing the decision makers in military-industrial 
complex in their touchy-feely and continuously adapted approach to deal 
with information technology.


In the late 80th/early 90th the military started to think about new 
management principles and guidelines to steer their actions. The world 
"suddenly" became volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatility,_uncertainty,_complexity_and_ambiguity) 
and in combination with the finding of the last decades' system theory 
(e.g. Russel Ackoff work in the 70th) they learned to focus on "choice" 
as the primary factor for future control. Thus in contrast to previous 
management theories is the change of play from molding minds to 
modulating contexts in which minds can perform their life (have they 
read Deleuze's societies of control, most likely, in the constant search 
for competitive advantage management theory is very open to new 
influences). It is very likely that these theories not only changed 
their internal management practices but as the world is effectively 
their workplace will have informed their interventions, policy lobbying, 
and investments in the silicon valley ecosystem.


Needless, to say that VUCA started to appear in everyday business 
management literature and theory in the mid/late 90th and is heavily 
featured in the 00th future studies. And design thinking with it's 
shallow iteration through a rather fixed problem spaces is the prodigy 
child.


There are plenty of sources about this change in management culture but 
this dissertation written in 1991 in the US war college on management is 
a very fruitful source: 
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a235762.pdf Some juice quotes 
can be found on page 34 (PDF 42):


"No one can accurately predict what tomorrow will bring. We do know that 
volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity will define our 
future work environment."


"Edgar H. Schein tells us that it is possible that 'the only thing of 
real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture'"


\\vincent


On 19/12/2017 06:01, Morlock Elloi wrote:
Let's make (a plausible) assumption that "getting subscribers" and 
"app downloads" has been the sole goal, measure of success and 
fund-ability of info startups, since ever. Those making the obvious 
remarks (lack of business model, stupid concept, negative cash flow, 
etc.) were not in, missing the alleged point: creation of tap 
infrastructure for data collection/surveillance was the un-advertized 
end game.


This assumption then leads to conclusion that VCs pouring money into 
these data taps knew from the start what the end game was. This, in 
turn, implies some serious centralized long-term (15-20 year) planning.


Is there any evidence of such planning?

There are speculations, but the ones easy to find are fairly recent 
(like 2007: 
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5=10456534 
, 2015: 
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e 
).


Are there any earlier signs of this? Papers, conference reports, side 
remarks, from say 1990s, indicating that it was taking shape?




On 12/18/17, 13:23, Felix Stalder wrote:

I think we can say that the possibility of this transformation was built
on from the beginning and is potential -- realized when successful -- is
a precondition for venture capital to invest. So, when you want a date,


#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#    is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: 

Re: 'La Casemate', Grenoble FabLab burned down by anti-digital activists

[Vincent Van Uffelen]

On 17/12/2017 10:07, e...@x80.org wrote:

Morlock Elloi  writes:


Echoing recent digital critics such as Douglas Rushkoff or even myself,
they ask themselves what’s revolutionary or prophetic in an industry
that relies on old-school capitalism, monopolies, micro-work, state
regulations and money as a cardinal value. And as they reject the hacker
myth, they end up calling a revered

"Hacker spaces" and similar are simply recruitment centers for the new
cognitive class that will facilitate the machine-mediated control of
the rest. People instinctively understand this, despite the deluge of
propaganda to the contrary.

Computing machines are all about control. While there is a number of
positive side effects for those on the receiving side, ultimately it's
about control of the many by the few. Tending to computing machines
('programming') has immediate gratification: you see many hapless
'users' being controlled  by your 'interface', following instructions
you embedded once into the machine, millions and millions of
times. You don't have to be there, they still obey you and your 'flow
design'. You created f*cking 15 ... 10 commandments! (nod to
Mr. Brooks.) You are god. This is the only reason why everyone and
their mother wants to 'learn' computing 'science'.

I guess ignoring both the history and ample social contributions of the
hacker and digital activism movements turns out to be very convenient to
support that kind of victimised point of view. Oh, look! The machines
made us slaves!

You are correct about what the new cognitive class means for those not
it in. Those who belong, they will be the rulers of tomorrow, and those
who are left out, they will be the ones easy to control.

The ruling class acts on a rational basis here, and a great war against
knowledge and education is currently underway, fully supported by the
capitalist elites. For them, restricting access to the cognitive class
is a key point as low education levels are a critical factor for the
survival of their status.

For better or worse it seems to me that the only way to escape control
from computers is not rejection, but in-depth education about them.

E.
I agree, the world is as fucked as we allow it to (seem to) be, and, in 
my eyes it is actually important to keep on revealing the opportunities 
that are hiding in the gray scales.


However, while some "hacker spaces" or "maker spaces" are founded and 
run by members of the critical hacker/digital activist cultures the vast 
majority are often run by way less politically engaged teams of 
technology enthusiasts or even worse by larger institutions. Those 
spaces then primarily cultivate the deep engagement with the numbing 
joys of learning and teaching of the skillful mastery of technology and 
often fall totally flat on becoming a fertile ground for critical 
capacity building.


The question for me is though if burning the institution is actually the 
way to challenge this? Isn't pure critique in damning words or symbolic 
acts (and what else is the act of burning infrastructure) a bit too easy 
and actually quite ineffective? Hacker spaces are means of amplifying 
certain individual and societal habits, to change these it needs to make 
the institutions learn new tricks. Many of these spaces are actually 
based on some DIY, DITO, co-created, and co-organised visions and quite 
often run by well meaning people that are open for active (as in willing 
and capable to spend the needed time and energy to demonstrate the 
viability, validity, and utility of change) critique. I believe that 
those spaces can be nudged to change, that it is worth to try to claim 
influence over these valuable infrastructures, and the potential 
actualized by trying to meddle with the organisational structures of 
these places is effort way better spent than energetically, 
conceptually, relationally, and culturally cheap one-off (ok, two-off so 
far) interventions.


\\vincent






#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: Brexit democracy

[Vincent Van Uffelen]

I'm following this whole thread with great interest and feel that I 
could add a few synthesizing comments from a strategic designer's 
perspective. These designers are usually hired to be less concerned with 
the creation of the perfect, shiny object but more with shaping the 
structures culture enfolds upon, such as policies, laws, organizational 
structures, and sooner or later maybe even world views. To be able to do 
this they evolved a toolbox of practices that could also be very useful 
for the progressive causes.


THE STRATEGIC DESIGNER'S METHOD
Look at the problem from as many perspectives possible by using 
different lenses (e.g. control/power, environment, material impact, 
capital or symbolic value), identify the desired outcome and the 
(contextual) leverage points that can be modulated to force the system 
to adapt to reach the outcome. Derive of your findings the guiding 
principles, strategies, and tactics. After the initial assessment apply 
an iterative process of build (implementation of tangible or 
non-tangible artifacts that should change the system), measure (observe 
the system's reaction to your artifacts), learn (reassess you strategies 
and tactics) until your system has reached your desired state. The 
active involvement in the implementation of the tangible artifacts (a 
sustainable chair, a co-op housing project, an advocacy group, an animal 
wellfare NGO, ...) and the conscious use of them as potential trigger 
for systemic change make out of a designer and a strategist a strategic 
designer.


WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
We're facing a wicked problem, a complex system of systems that is at 
the brink of collapse, while none of this is directly experiential for 
individuals (also the system's response to individual actions is often 
not directly felt). We are bound to the path-dependency of the current 
socio-economic system, the capitalocene. No alternative cultural, 
sociological, political, or technological infrastructure on which a 
global system could run after a hard reboot (such as a revolution) is 
readily available (but partially working prototypes and a history of 
successful and failed "tests" are). Involvement of multiple stakeholders 
with different interests, involvement, power, or influence, which are 
deeply influenced by cultural, psychological, and physiological biases 
and therefore not necessarily act rational. A general feeling that 
general we are loosing control, that something needs to be done, that 
maybe event the end is nigh.


THE SOLUTION
??? ... There is probably not "one". But to find one, and as also voiced 
here on the list, we need to see our post-human, Anthropocene, climate 
changed, ... mess in a new light and that would require a paradigm 
shift. This new perspective would define the new normal, sets the 
cultural default values, and would be the base on which we derive all 
our laws, policies, and many of our unreflected daily actions. Paradigms 
don't shift suddenly, only the heavily biased post-hoc interpretation of 
the general awareness makes us often believe that, but are created with 
the hard work of many thoughts and hands. A paradigm shifts on mental 
and physical stepping stones, the critical infrastructure already built, 
the structures, patterns, and habits that are needed so an existing 
paradigm can tumble into to become a new one.


Following this list in the last month, and this conversation is a good 
example, I see that there are many good hearted specialists at work. 
Probably we are all most comfortable wearing our familiar spectacles 
(looking at things through the lens of control, affect, or the 
precariat) and ready to part with our analysis and offers of solutions. 
But in a world that more and more becoming a world of BOTH/AND not 
EITHER/OR single perspective and single perspective applications might 
not effect enough. It's a child's play for the powerful to let all those 
small scale fragmented actions run dry. It's too easy to loose the 
feeling of efficacy if you pull at one of the many loose threads of the 
knot and "nothing" happens.


What we need is a narrative that allows to get passionately involved 
into the "problem" of your choice but still let you feel to be part of a 
bigger project. A framework that allows to slot my own work in, or 
ideally even to provide enabling constraints. Something, one can let her 
imagination and his passions enfold upon. Something, that might even 
allow to let a potential failure/evaporation of the energy spent in our 
actions seem acceptable or provides a rough guideline what to do.


Looking from the designer's perspective here, I believe that there are 
two things that would be worthwhile to think about and work on.


1. The project to collectively design, tickle, foster, and implement the 
new paradigm.
Many, like the transition town movement are surely on that, but it might 
need to be a bit brushed up to become a "glamorous" mass compatible 
thing to do. Some of the 

Re: Algorithmic / Biometric Governmentality

[Vincent Van Uffelen]

Hmm, their team is a prime example of white, male, and non-diverse 
"singularity".


Are blockchain ICOs really spreading the control and wealth to the many? 
It's difficult to know, but considering the hurdles that have to be 
crossed to be able to gain access to the blockchain (to have internet 
access, a credit card or bank account, the knowledge and desire, and the 
money to invest) the vast majority of wealth generated went most likely 
into the pockets of the global top 2%. I've my doubt that much of this 
will start trickling down.


If the COIN has not the tackling of problems to the greater good in it 
genes, pardon me contracts, it will most likely not happen. Of course 
the platforms in creation could be very helpful (as Facebook is for many 
NGOs) but I don't have hope that the free coin markets will steer things 
into better places than the free financial markets did.


\\vincent

On 02/11/2017 13:53, charlie derr wrote:

On 11/02/2017 05:29 AM, Vincent Van Uffelen wrote:

Nevertheless, it [AI] remains a very powerful tool, and it is in the
hands of a very few (and their software engineer/programmer management
layer).

While it's still in the embryonic stages, I just wanted to mention a
rather ambitious effort to change this reality using blockchain
technology and implementing via open source code:

https://singularitynet.io

https://medium.com/ben-goertzel-on-singularitynet

Their whitepaper is due out any day now.

  best,
   ~c



#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: Algorithmic / Biometric Governmentality

[Vincent Van Uffelen]

I also wonder if just one skillfully performed twitch with the left leg 
could trip a gait detection algorithm? There are many holes to poke 
into. Having access to the interpreting system, as those researchers 
did, makes it obviously much easier to find the right "markers" to 
tweak. But considering that economies of scale will most likely give to 
rise to a few default classification networks, accessible for $£€ over 
an API, some of there inner workings might be discovered over time. 
Isn't the prying open of a black box peoples favorite pastime?


Regarding the rise of the "AI". Totally agree, it "became" something 
like climate change. An inevitable wicked problem, of which the 
involved's right hand demands careful consideration of the consequences 
while the rest of the body is pushing for its implementation at full 
speed. I very much like to stress that at the moment it is just machine 
intelligence, not sentient, or as Zuckerberg said: it's just math. 
Nevertheless, it remains a very powerful tool, and it is in the hands of 
a very few (and their software engineer/programmer management layer).



On 01/11/2017 21:33, Morlock Elloi wrote:

And this just in:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.07397

We introduce the first method for constructing real-world 3D objects 
that consis-
tently fool a neural network across a wide distribution of angles and 
viewpoints.
We present a general-purpose algorithm for generating adversarial 
examples that

are robust across any chosen distribution of transformations.


Video of a rather impressive demo (turtle gets classified as a rifle) at:

https://www.labsix.org/media/2017/10/31/video.mp4
https://www.labsix.org/physical-objects-that-fool-neural-nets/


The point of all these attacks appears to be that "AI" is just plain 
old primitive classifiers, rebranded by the marketing, all extremely 
brittle, working under naive assumptions (but good enough for demos 
and PR.) "AI" sounds more scary and induces defeatism, resignation, 
and deference to technology, which is its sole purpose.




..

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#    is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:




--
DE: +49 (0)160 9549 5269
UK: +44 (0)75 0655 0520
 
http://vincentvanuffelen.com

http://transmit-interfere.com
http://deepmediaresearch.org

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: Algorithmic / Biometric Governmentality

[Vincent Van Uffelen]

What bleak topic to engage with... Today's uplifting news is that all 
the machine learned intelligence needed to roll all this out on the 
large scale does rely on very complex algorithms which have severe 
issues with being too dependent on the initial condition. While the 
paper linked below describes the findings as a means to improve the 
learning algorithms it points to a vector to hack the AI. At the moment 
a small yellow, pink, or green pixels wins :)


https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08864

One pixel attack for fooling deep neural networks

Jiawei Su, Danilo Vasconcellos Vargas, Sakurai Kouichi (Submitted on 24 
Oct 2017)


/Recent research has revealed that the output of Deep neural 
networks(DNN) is not continuous and very sensitive to tiny perturbation 
on the input vectors and accordingly several methods have been proposed 
for crafting effective perturbation against the networks. In this paper, 
we propose a novel method for optically calculating extremely small 
adversarial perturbation (few-pixels attack), based on differential 
evolution. It requires much less adversarial information and works with 
a broader classes of DNN models. The results show that 73.8% of the test 
images can be crafted to adversarial images with modification just on 
one pixel with 98.7% confidence on average. In addition, it is known 
that investigating the robustness problem of DNN can bring critical 
clues for understanding the geometrical features of the DNN decision map 
in high dimensional input space. The results of conducting few-pixels 
attack contribute quantitative measurements and analysis to the 
geometrical understanding from a different perspective compared to 
previous works./




On 30/10/2017 21:47, Morlock Elloi wrote:
To throw in two items, one presently real, and one somewhat 
speculative. Both are contingent on high speed network-to-brain (N2B) 
interface, namely a handset, which has victim's attention many hours 
every day.


1. Social networks (ie. FB) likely know your IQ with margin of error 
of 5 points or less.


IQ is hard to mask, unnoticeable tests can be easily implemented, 
probably focusing on the speed of actions, ie. figuring out where the 
button is in a slightly changed interface, etc., which can be done 
over long time, not in one sitting. This information did not exist 
before (national IQ dataset), has nothing to do with your habits, and 
is highly valuable: once FB separates sharpies from dims (exactly half 
of us are below average), it can use different strategies to influence 
each. More importantly, this data is valuable to the law enforcement: 
if you are looking to frame someone, you go for dims. If you are 
looking for leaders, you narrow your attention to sharpies.


2. Ubiquitous N2B interfaces may enable effective brain hacking.

We are not talking advertizing and nudging here, but straightforward 
hacking that bypasses voluntary/consciousness layers. After all, the 
brain is just a computer, and it's a matter of time before buffer 
overflow zero days are figured out (note that they will stay zero 
days, as there is no one to send you the patch.) To illustrate the 
principle, this could be similar to the way that flashing patterns 
induce epileptic attacks in those prone to them. I don't expect a good 
brain overflow hack to have crude flashing patterns, it may have 
something far more discreet, a combination of outputs and feedbacks 
(something comes up on the screen, you click on X, then something else 
comes up, you ... etc.) that causes ... something. I'm pretty sure 
that self-respecting TLAs are already investing billions in the 
research (they did spend $90M on LSD research in 1950s.) The presence 
of the N2B interface is just too important to ignore.






But if the people in power are using these algorithms to quietly watch
us, to judge us and to nudge us, to predict and identify the
troublemakers and the rebels, to deploy persuasion architectures at
scale and to manipulate individuals one by one using their personal,
individual weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and if they're doing it at
scale through our private screens so that we don't even know what our
fellow citizens and neighbors are seeing, that authoritarianism will
envelop us like a spider's web and we may not even know we're in it.




#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#    is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:




--
DE: +49 (0)160 9549 5269
UK: +44 (0)75 0655 0520
 
http://vincentvanuffelen.com

http://transmit-interfere.com
http://deepmediaresearch.org

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of 

Re: What is the meaning of Trump's victory?

[Vincent Van Uffelen]

   One way to go forward would be to clearly define a moral compass and do
   our best to propagate it. After all, Brexit got barely voted yes, Trump
   got barely voted in (at least in popular vote), the progressive are not
   a small minority but constitute probably in many countries the majority
   (how many of the ones that didn't go to vote are just appalled by the
   lack of real options and would be happy to engage with a more
   progressive side?).
   However, neoliberalism corroded the political caste and our minds. And,
   the egalitarian society failed to manifest economically in the last
   centuries - it's one thing to give someone voting rights and a totally
   different thing to share your bounty of capitalism.
   Furthermore, the left failed to provide a strong narrative that people
   can use as stepping stones to be guided through uncertain times. The
   fragmented struggles for *-rights and anti-* movements never reached
   the coherence needed to be a platform of projection for the majority.
   Additionally, too many convinced of the egalitarian movement have been
   lulled into the comfort of gained freedom and forgot that it is just
   the harvest of continuous toil. As humans (in their full complexity of
   beings in becoming) are having flaws (buzzword! cognitive biases) and
   society nurtures further misalignment with the communitarian worldview
   I believe that the future beholds the need for continuous reminding of
   egalitarian values and their advantages. Humans bad sides will not go
   away by implementing a utopian society but a strong and morally just
   society can weaken their impact and therefore weaken potential
   exploitation.
   We are living in very interesting times, change is in the air, we all
   can feel it and this is with all it's potential dangers (WW3, fashism,
   ...) a good thing as the old way of living proves not to be working
   (socially, economically, and environmentally). The right is taking the
   chance and trolls tribal minds with memes and (breathtakingly
   effective) gibberish, to drum the old drums that people kept dusty but
   ready in their basements. In their usual way they close rank around a
   vague outlines of shared values and promises to disrupt societies (and
   to only wonder after disruption what comes next). I think that the left
   needed a few strong wake up calls (in big countries - who cared about
   Hungary, Austria, or the Philippines - UK Brexit, Trump's US, 5-Stars
   in Italy, AFD in Germany, an upcoming neo-Thatcherite president in
   France should be doing it) as painful as they are. The brittle
   situation of our global society is providing danger and opportunity and
   I hope to be involved in seizing opportunity.
   I think it's time to define the problem as a holistic one. It's not
   only racism, misogyny, patriarchy, capitalism, or extractivism it's all
   of it. This makes things way more complicated, what is it worth to push
   a little towards racial equality if this is just a drip in the ocean,
   why plant a few tomatoes in the backyard, or to petition for divestment
   of my pension fund? How to make sense of these micro-scale
   reconfigurations that most of the time seem to affect nothing? Finding
   answers on questions like this, creating a new narrative, that allows
   all of these little actions to slot into a larger movement this is in
   my eyes the challenge of the times. Taking climate change by the horns
   and fleshing out the contributions of each *-right and anti-* movements
   to mitigate this global crisis might be a good direction to go. Many of
   the swing voters could maybe caught via a strong narrative around
   climate change's risks and their possible mitigation.
   I'm still struggling how to tackle a holistic crisis. How can you go
   for all ends at the same time but without burning yourself? Maybe, a
   global society is of help. If I know that other people are going for
   other loosed ends I might find it easy enough to pick one of it and
   give a good tuck. We might need some way of communicating the
   collective division of change labor and its effect. I certainly, need
   to feel effect of my actions to be able to sustain pressure, probably
   many others need to see effect too. Granted, I know, many of these
   changes are slow, long term, this makes things difficult but maybe
   there is a solution.
   Lastly, I believe in democracy, so I've to believe in politics (as
   corrupted it currently might and ever will be). So any politician/party
   who dares to tell me something like the following might get my vote.
   1. We believe in equality (of race, gender, sex, human/nature,
   economically), and will fight for it (yes, really fight for it)
   2. We are aware that we are not perfect, we strive to do good, but we
   are flawed but open to critique.
   3. We'll be governing as transparent as possible.
   4. As a national politician we are in the hands of many external