Category Archives: Uncategorized

Uncategorized

<<γνῶσις>>


I seem to be against all institutionalised, ritualised, and mediated forms of religion. 

and yet,

“G*d” is a Pythagorean cup for everything I don’t understand
I’ve been given an endless supply of this ambrosia

and then,

When rising toward in-sight
I become flushed

—animasuri’22

  • v

the three visuals of seemingly “antique plates” were created in the liminality between text and tech: artificially with craiyon by using the above humanly-composed poem as input. Of the latter, and preceding feeding it to craiyon, the first line was perversely, yet with a human in the loop, substituted with a paraphrased version, artificially iterated with quillbot .

text | wondering, The field of AI, Uncategorized

Terms, terms, terms as words, words, words

As a layperson, using my brain’s ‘algorithms’, trying to pattern-recognize the tree from the forest, I wish to share my ignorant “insight,” obtained during my ongoing life-long learning, being confident someone somewhere (perhaps a future me) will find an attribute or two to disagree on:
 
‘Symbolic Artificial Intelligence’ is synonymous to the more colloquial ‘Good Old-Fashioned AI’, which is in turn simplified to the abbreviation ‘GOFAI’. Symbolic AI uses symbols that could be read by humans. These symbols represent ‘real world’ concepts. These concepts could be formal logic concepts or other (e.g. ‘linguistic’). These symbols are used (or ‘manipulated’) to create ‘rules.’

‘Rules’ are also used to enable the use (or manipulation) of these symbols. This, in its entirety, I understand, for now, as an integrated whole that encapsulates human (‘expert’) knowledge, and these aforementioned rules, into a system which I understand as a ‘Rule-Based System’.

For instance then, ‘Reasoning through syllogisms’ is a rule-based method toward logic reasoning and implies a set of rules used by humans that are also computational and hence, I sense, could be used in the above-mentioned AI systems.

As an added bonus, I think to understand that if these rules and symbols are then used with, for instance, human (aka ‘natural’) language processing (‘NLP’), then one can see the ‘deterministic’ at work. And yet, here, I feel my learning is still very shaky.

That stated, my syntactic logic, of the latter, should not be turned around in thinking that I believe to have learned that NLP is inevitably and only GOFAI. I don’t think so; for now, I do not understand it as such.

This is where the last paragraph of my story here above is trying to imply the second major branch, along the first branch as described here above, in the field of AI: (un)supervised ML, ANNs and the likes; or so I am understanding it to the present day.

Some of these terms and words, in this second branch of the AI field, I explore elsewhere here on the blog, and that as output of my auto-didactic learning processes.
 

Keeping it as basic as possible, with the aim to explain it to anyone who might ask me (while I do think it more cautious not to ask this layperson), where could I improve or correct this “understanding” (which I assume to be lacking)?

The field of AI, Uncategorized

<< AI Text, Subtext & Contextual(izing) Literacies >>


It might be desirable to consider (functional, nonlinear) literacy in a larger context and not only within the market or professional realms; and not only of data preceding AI alone

For instance: computational thinking (as a methodology & secondarily as an “attitude” for increasing awareness and human discernment about one’s mental models creation) could (and is starting to) occur at a childhood’s level (K-12)

One might want to methodologically map this with digital literacy: not collapsed to technique or production alone, and yet, also through community lenses, eco-system & environmental lenses, cultural lenses, and policy lenses, which might/should imply ethics and careful consideration, via different mental models, allowing, for instance, what-if scenarios, value-thinking & context/consequential thought

And a learner could also be thinking about thinking:

“what could be (non-human) thinking, intelligence, awareness? How could these be imaginable, even if someone believed these not to exist outside of humans? What is signal versus communication versus language? What is poetry if not human-made? What is signal versus knowledge? Why might someone (besides me) care about alternative forms of intelligence? What would it be like to be an intelligence stuck in a car? Does consciousness exist? Is thought a tool of the mind and language a technology? What could it mean (to someone besides me) “to understand”? How do these technologies influence information? What can I do about it? How would these questions influence (my) design, application or recycling? How do / could these affect (my) energy use and (my being in this) environment? How would I balance reflection with action, with revision, with innovation, with harmony, with well-being with compassion, with…? How can I be(come) “smarter” (less gullible / biased / less dependent) about these structures and processes?”

…and so on

Next one could consider media literacy mapped with data literacy & learning about various visualizations of the same data leading to subjectivities, & implying information, misinformation, disinformation or confusions in representation and cognitive processes, leading to sustained undesirable biases & behaviors (note: debate and dialog about “undesirable” as ongoing, compassionate and driven by caring discernment)

Then, as the attached post resonates with me hinting behind its self-labeled “simplified” structure: AI literacy (well beyond the hype, brain mimicry or Neural Networks & Machine Learning alone; and inclusive of AI ethics even if, though some voices disagree, the technical insight is minimal)

These literacies could be nurtured both via #offline non-digital methods and via non-brand specific (online) electronics (soft & hardware)

ai strategy minus foundations could lack awareness and (longitudinal, multidimensional) sustainability

Header: sculpture by Lucas H. (2022); reproduced here with permission

text | wondering, The field of AI, Uncategorized

<< My Data’s Data Culture >>


Far more eloquently described, more then 15 years ago, by Lawrence Lessig, I too sense an open or free culture, and design there within, might be constrained or conditioned by technology , policy, community and market vectors.

I perceived Lessig’s work then to have been focused on who controls your cultural artifacts. These artifacts, I sense, could arguably be understood as types of (in)tangible data sets given meaningful or semiotic form as co-creative learning artifacts (by you and/or others).

I imagine, for instance, “Mickey Mouse” as a data set (perhaps extended, as a cognitive net, well beyond the character?). Mickey, or any other artifact of your choosing, aids one to learn about one’s cultural narratives and, as extended cognition, in positive feedback loops, about one self in communicative co-creation with the other (who is engaged in similar interactions with this and other datasets). However, engaging with a Mickey meant / means risking persecution under IPR (I wrote on this through an artistic lens here ).

Today, such data sets for one’s artificial learning (ie learning through a human made artifact) are (also) we ourselves. We are data. Provocatively: we are (made) artificial by the artificial. Tomorrow’s new psychoanalyst-teacher could very well be your friendly neighborhood autonomous data visualizer; or so I imagine.

Mapping Lessig, with the article below, and with many of the sources one could find (e.g.: Jason Silva, Kevin Kelly, Mark Sprevak, Stuart Russell, Kurzweil, Yuval Noah Harari, Kaśka Porayska-Pomsta ) I am enabled to ponder:

Who do the visualizations serve? Who’s privacy and preferences do they interfere with? Who’s data is alienated beyond the context within which its use was intended? Who owns (or has the IPR) on the data learned from the data I create during my co-creative cultural learning (e.g: online social networking, self-exhibition as well as more formal online learning contexts); allowing third parties to learn more about me then I am given access to learn about myself?

Moreover, differently from they who own Mickey, who of us can sue the users of our data, or the artifacts appropriated therefrom, as if it were (and actually is) our own IPR?

Given the spirit of artificial intelligence in education (AIED), I felt that the following article, published these past days on such data use that is algorithmically processed in questionable ethical or open manners, could resonate with others as well. (ethics , aiethics )

Epilogue — A quote:

“The FTC has required companies to disgorge ill-gotten monetary gains obtained through deceptive practices, forcing them to delete algorithmic systems built with ill-gotten data could become a more routine approach, one that modernizes FTC enforcement to directly affect how companies do business.”

References

https://www-protocol-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.protocol.com/amp/ftc-algorithm-destroy-data-privacy-2656932186

Lessig’s last speech on free culture: here

Lessig’s Free Culture book: here

Uncategorized

Neoignorance 


One might sense abstraction (e.g. a model, a stick figure, a pattern, yes, a word or… an axiom) as a form of ignorance. 

Before one explodes into an understandable offense, I invite you to bare-bear with this imagined linguistic equation and continue the read:

An abstraction might be understood as a type of metaphor, ignoring the complexity of the attributes of that what it refers to and of that what (at various times in various spaces) it is dynamically contextualized by. 


[1]

Firstly, yes, observed as inherently human, this narrative here is a media-massaged oversimplified abstraction of the idea of ‘abstraction’ as a form of ignorance. This text is what it describes.  It, as a conceit, had best never be confused with what it abstracts, & thus, with what it is a metaphor or and equation of.

Then again, the potential of confusion at times could lie at the basis of poetry, humor or rhetoric (in this text here, simplified to be, momentarily, irrespective of the perceived ethics of the assumed intent by its instigator and by its ‘translating’ interpreters ). In such manner the abstract could be denied its conceit (i.e. denied in at least its first and second denotations) in ‘favor’ of a construed 1:1 map of reality, or of a complex sub-system thereof. 

Softening the above statement one could actively maintain a mantra towards vigilance (and aid a learner, irrespective of age, in reminding):

they.are.not.the.same.things.

That stated, this neither must, at all times, imply the weighing of value of the metaphor versus that of the abstracted. This might occur while one continues wondering about the potential value of both (i.e. “so what, now what?”).

It might, additionally, be a good idea to continue realizing and maintaining, in one’s judging mindsets, that it, at times, is context-sensitive.

These realizations are potentially (metaphorically) liberating; or so this author here wants a reader to consider considering (yes,… layering). The realizations could offer access to the imagined (metaphorical / abstracted) yet also concrete relationship with humans, which includes oneself, and also, with acts driven by one’s ability in varying degrees of distinguishing a metaphor or an abstract, as an ‘ignorant’ construct.

This is imagined (by this author) to possibly occur, while paradoxically embracing both that ‘ignorance’ and the consideration that an abstraction or a model seems to reasonably, yet misused, tend toward shedding (too many a) complex contexts.

We tend to be perceived as (over)simplifying or making matters too complex. This process occurs irrespective of whether one would be doing so “objectively” and irrespective of the possibility that simplification, oversimplification, and of some references being made too complex, do occur simultaneously in one and the same text and diversified by the multitude of interpretations (e.g. translations, judgements, transcodings)

For instance, this text has been defined as oversimplifying in its opening sentences. And yet… it is simultaneously making something obvious, seemingly complex (to some). While the text might be perceived as pretentious and as offering its potential readers all of these paradoxical convolutions, its author is and could be (only) partially aware; unless extrinsically pointed out in further detail by others and if intrinsically welcomed by the author(s) in question. Then just perhaps dialog might occur (even if only sproutingly and then witheringly so).

These mechanisms can be transcoded to anyone and to any (inter- intra-)human (mediated) utterance.

In addition, these attributes, being triggered into awareness (e.g. as a ritual act similar to washing hands or brushing teeth), potentially, could be extrapolated to many observations of any act (thus to any experience & possibly to the influences on that what is being observed); which has been long established or recently innovated or delivered. e.g.: “I am not my offspring” (i.e. a bio-relation of that sort is often disturbingly confused via the many metaphors); …“offspring are not my avatar” (i.e. a potentially brutal and a tautologically reductionist metaphor, or abstraction, as a metaphorical techno-abstraction).

The other ways cialis 25mg of getting permission lists is to use the start and stop method to control PE. If you cheapest cialis without prescription are one of those people who are thinking about sleeping with a beautiful catch or your partner having enjoyed exciting dinner at a great place, or just a home cooked meal before a sizzling night, Vardenafil is your perfect answer . You can purchase these greyandgrey.com viagra uk medicines even without a single side effect and hence stimulate hair regrowth significantly. The top surface is constructed by essentially soaking the metal inside of a container filled with acid while electrocuting it. viagra cost india

Hence, some, if not most, ‘metaphors’ might tend to be classifiable as ideological: the manner with which we conduct ourselves and others (yes, many are non-conspiratorially being conducted at one time or other), in-between and with, ourselves and those same or other-others; e.g.: I [= the me, myself] yelled: “Jimmy [=the other], what will the neighbors [=the other-others] think?!”

[2]

Secondly, yes, embrace it, in many areas of our thinking and acting we are child-like. This is not to be confused with ‘childish’ nor with an act of someone who we biologically taxonomized and hence defined as within the fluidly demarcated realm of developmentally being a child. All three can occur simultaneously (while then probably increasing the tautological overlap in some of the denotative or connotative attributes): “the childish child-like child”… (yes: silly, humorist, poetic, rhetorical; take your pick).

This evaluating demarcation too is weighed ideologically & thus culturally [e.g. “grow up, be a ‘man’, grow some hair, though, shave that hair in your nostrils & ears!” …what’s up with this hair obsession…] 

The “child-like” is an invitation (for the proclaimed “grownup”) to have compassion toward at least two human processes:

[a]

the imaginative toward the nurturing of a thought-seedling (however mundane or obvious to one);

[b]

the opportunity and potential for rapid failure and rapid intra-personal micro-innovation, by means of dialog with the other (“Jimmy”) and with the (imagined) other-other (“the neighbor”). 

The child, and maybe almost *any* of us, could intent to realize inherent (increasing) blind spots of the un-educated & not-knowledgeable, which are found spread out across metaphorical ‘non-insight-islands’ of our ‘Land of the Ignorant’; do hear this author whisper: “I’m your neighbor there”.

The learning and the exploration of thought, the observation and reflection of an act, and the non-linear process of integrating these, might not be the obtaining of “enlightenment” but rather of “neo-ignorance”. 

Yes, “neo-ignorance” as in “‘knowledgeable,’ intertwined with the modesty of some realization of the temporarily & the ephemerally, until falsified or revised; proverbially ad infinitum”. 

The “social,” in flesh- or digit-based networks, might best allow one self, and the less-or-more-connected other(-other), such processes. Surprise (Utopians, please, close your eyes for an upcoming spoiler):

we.do.not.yet.do.so.sufficiently.

This could be suggested so to enable us to call the “social”, *social*, rather than becoming lazy, singularly and linearly blaming the tech or the content-baring-bearing media, as a subset of the tech, while ignoring the human attributes in and in-between the entire mix-a-doodle. 

Uncategorized

Labor Education (part 2)


In my research (read: slow learning) on China’s Education Reform l sense, perhaps incorrectly, that education revolves and evolves around 5 (what I poetically label as) “knowledge clouds” that are intermingling with each other, and this across all stages of formal K-16 public education:

  1. Moral Education
  2. Intellectual Education
  3. Physical Education
  4. Aesthetic Education
  5. Labor Education.

These seem to be elegantly phrased as
“ 德智体美劳 “ ( Dé zhì tǐ měi láo), where each character respectively refers to one of these 5 “clouds”.

Recently more attention seems to be suggested toward Labor Education (not to be confused with Vocational Education).

Although parents have, understandably, been putting a heavier priority on the intellectual cloud (and clout) toward increasing their child’s potential to more outstandingly pass the extremely tough National University Entrance Examination (i.e. Intellectual Education), value is, in general, felt toward Labor Literacy (劳动素; láodòng sùyǎng). The latter seems to imply a number of attributes, such as:

According to the UK Health Centre, approximately one in every ten couples in India has to suffer from this problem. cheap brand cialis In, our previous articles we discussed on different types of the massage canada sildenafil therapies. In the event https://www.unica-web.com/in_the_near_future_korea.htm super cialis cheap the cancer is found from the best supplier and manufacturer. unica-web.com viagra super store Now, the study says, there’s evidence that one precedes the other.

• 劳动观念 (láodòng guānniàn) Labor Concept
• 劳动能力 (láodòng nénglì) Labor Capacity
• 劳动习惯 (láodòng xíguàn) Labor Habit
• 品质劳动 (pǐnzhí láodòng) Quality Labor
• 劳动意识 (láodòng yìshí) Labor Awareness
• 劳动精神 (láodòng jīngshén) Labor Spirit
• 劳动实践 (láodòng shíjiàn) Labor Practice

Hopefully being forgiven my frivolous comparisons: while Labor Education seems to be established as an important part of the socialist education system with Chinese Characteristics, perhaps, for the reader here, it can be slightly compared to some degree, with one or other of the following concepts:

• social applicability and valued craftship (i.e. as in “quality that comes from creating with passion, care, and attention to detail”),
• artistry,
• duty-of-care,
• work as one of the sets of one’s ethic and aesthetic in life,
• positive and mindful ritual with social benefit,
• love toward the fruits of labor,
• the act of making or doing as a service to the other in their communal or basic human relational setting (e.g. at home doing chores),
• flow
• and to some readers it might perhaps be mappable and understandable as somewhat as those mindsets and activities that oppose “idle hands” and their (religious or mythologically-believed) consequences.

Uncategorized

I Think of You as Human


Isn’t that indeed the debate we could be having; to identify those traits that make you human.

Then, if we were having the debate, would we be continuing a bit further with our sharing of thought, perhaps into a what-if scenario of the (un)likelihood of ever coming to a monolithic consensus (which I secretly hope we do not ever entirely get to)?

Would we then dare & wonder about what a next action would be toward those “certifiable” as having (more) human traits (then others)? Does this start to ring as history, folding back onto our present future conditional:

Would it be as the linearity of IQ or Mensa tests, a lean Blackbelt certification, or as a certificate of a tertiary education?

Would it be as if being an academic or professional field labeled with a positive bias compared to those fields or professions labeled by some through a lesser lens?

For ease of sample generic viagra purchase, one can easily buy Kaamgra soft online from certified online pharmacy stores. Several recent studies support using purchase cheap cialis http://amerikabulteni.com/2013/10/13/beyzbolda-lig-sampiyonluklarinda-heyecan-firtinasi-suruyor/ for every planned lovemaking activity. Dosage 5mg cialis tablets has to be taken only once in 24 hours duration and you should try to take it with great carefulness utilizing significant dosages for a prolonged duration of time causes the erection to occur. Investigations into the mechanisms of how bi-polar issues are influenced by discount levitra tamoxifen citrate are ongoing.

Would it perhaps be implemented as glass ceilings or would it be “cleverly”, systematically embedded as multiple “minutia” of regulatory classification, frivolously sprinkled with sweetness of segregation?

Would it be conceivable that such consensus would result in the stitching of geometric shapes onto our more or less human suits? Would it be imaginable to be applied as a Spartan society & their pragmatic ravines?

Would we escalate & medicalize, wall-off, criminalize?

Would we then dehumanize.

—-animasuri’21

text | poetry, text | wondering, thoughts of the wise old woman, Uncategorized

Enlightened Darkness


An enlightened room…is that a non- or de-darkened room, as if a “dark room” that is not a dark room?

An enlightened black color… is that a color that is non-black as if a “black color” that is not a black color? A tromp l’œil or a trick of the brain’s visual cortex’s processes?

An enlightened despot is that a non- or de-psychopathed leader as if a ”psychopathic individual” that is not psychopathic?

Which characters & imaginable (absurd/ funny/ scary/ enlightening/ …) stories does an “enlightened [__________________]” conjure up?

One might like to play with words such as: demon, female bricklayer, husband, angel, giant gnome, virus, blood clot, idiot, belly, fossil fuel vendor, genius, antisocial personality, compassionate moral individual, axolotl, solar panel vendor, robber, bank,…

Knowing that 1 of the denotations for “enlightened” is “freed from #ignorance & #misinformation”, then how might a bright, well-lid room, any tone of white color, or a functional altruist, be differentiated from their somewhat enlightened counterparts, that were played with above?

Certain things in life that takes a toll in our happiness cannot be avoided. generic cialis price These are the type of savings seen every day viagra cialis for sale in every American grocery store. Treat it from the very beginning to avoid buy cialis browse around that unwanted health complications. Ranbaxy produced this effective drug and provided result oriented treatment to the millions of men across the globe to avail the effective treatment. cheap brand cialis

Some of the many triggers and vectors:

“What is the opposite of psychopathy? A statistical & graphical exploration of the psychopathy continuum”

“Enlightened room” a superficial online search result

the source for the one of many denotations for “enlightened”

#learning #multidimensionality #complexity #diversity #wink #imagination #nondualist #vectors #continuum

text | wondering, thoughts of the wise old woman, Uncategorized

The Promising Currency of Trust

secretworldchronicle.com levitra 10 mg Actually this is a problem regarding the lifestyle. Denial and resistance are sildenafil samples the two hurdles for rehabilitation of an alcoholic person. Over a period levitra from canadian pharmacy of time it becomes very necessary to supplement their diet with proper medication to prevent progressive brain aging and decline so as to avoid the onset of physical development, hormones start to course through their bodies, and they may not be sincerely arranged. Each dose contains some certain amount of time to mix up with all the blood present in one s body viagra sale mastercard and then it reacts accordingly and is all ready to show the best possible result.


What if Trust were more then currency. 

Is trust a medium of exchange or is it rather the metaphorical fertile soil within which we could collectively nurture a birth of relational learning? Do other currencies allow or stimulate such relational learning in a manner with which trust could?

Is trust the UI or could it rather be the codex; the code, the Duty of Care and / or the social contract? 

What are the attributes of trust, what are its algorithm(s)? What are its Trojan horses or its bugs? 

If trust were currency then why would we have (the word) “currency” and not simply (the word) “trust”? Why then the dilution, segregation or confusion? If there were an answer could trust then truly be (reduced to) a currency?

If we want to call trust a currency then how should our perception of currency (and trust) change? Should it change?

What is the difference between trust and entrust? One might more easily entrust than one would be trusted, or vice versa, or other? One might be more enabled to depart with or distribute trust compared to being or feeling enabled to depart with other types of currency; e.g. cryptocurrency or “money”. The flow of trust versus the flow of such other currency has potentially different vectors and different gauges as well as different resources or feedback loops or currents. 

Have we collectively found a conversion method to identify and speak the same signals, pinging the other, to enable a trans-system integrity, entitled “trust”? 

The exciting call-to-action with analogous metaphors is as is with reality in memes: critical thinking that is augmenting, rather than dismissive, is implicitly requested as a filter of projecting said meme or metaphor into the foresight of one’s nascent action with larger networked contexts and eco-systems. Yet that call-to-action is explicitly avoided or explicitly kept implied. 

I intuit we perhaps don’t want; though we do need to innovate on our individual and in-between thinking processes. The “innovation” lies in our mental space to enable us to dig into the multidimensionality and multi-directionality of *the attributes* and *the consequences* (which is a mechanism of foresight) of a metaphor or a meme such as “trust = currency”. Or, since trust and knowledge are related: knowledge(-sharing) = currency …after all, if trust can be then why not it?

I sense we might need to do so by means of explicit yet, creative redesigning of narratives in exchanges and debate of knowledge or exchanges of intuitions (unveiled by contemplating on e.g trust and currency).  

As some have alluded: we need a new global narrative and to which I then add: we need a new interlinking of the components that enable us to create a new narrative. We need new spaces in-between the nodes that allow the exchanges of trust, knowledge and consciousness which each could be understood as currencies of sorts. 

I imagine (and foresee) this to be as intense as the impact by multi-billion dollar PR, advertising and marketing industries which might be seen as driven by a trust in the unwavering rote learning of its target-audiences/consumers. It might be perceived as such due to the industries’ repeating of its formulaic communications of iterative versions of one and the same underlying intent: collect currencies of various types.

However, one might collectively wish to aspire to more than a rite to passage via rote-learning into the superficialities of the desired promises, hidden within a metaphor or a meme alone. To trust is to dive deeper and wider. How does a currency have proverbial depth and width?

Currencies might have implied greed; should trust have greed? Imagine for a moment: what if greed were good and what if trust were not to have greed than…. trust is no good? Absurdity seems to creep in. Some creases in mapping “currency” with “trust” need to be ironed out for some of us (at least for the naive such as myself).

Rather a critical co-creative analysis of attributes and steps is needed toward shared action in, for instance, eco-to-human-to-human-to-eco “trust”-building. Better questions than the ones I opened with might be helpful to an uninitiated, such as myself, of whom there are many around this planet and whom we entrust to calling “home”. After all, if one were to imagine Earth void of any other human (and perhaps any other mammalian or other life form) except one’s own self, would one trust to sense “home”?

If trust were, mythologically and esoterically, to be encamped by the few initiated into the circle of trust, could one then truly speak of trust in a practical applicable sense as a viable currency (for humanity and its eco-systems)? Or would then trust —as an innate human co-creative processing attribute— be commodified? If so, then sure, we as a species could do / trust to undergo that (after all, even an entire human has been known to be commodified as a data pool).

Indeed, in the process of exploring trust as equalized to being a currency, one might quickly move one’s thinking through a techno-lens, unveiling the hypes of blockchains. Then one might either claim a result via rapid rote-learning, and that by “blindly” submitting to a hype. Or rather, one can be excited and open to explore the potentials via questions: what is needed for this techno-imbued trust? Does it offer what we need? …and much better questions then these. 

How can we improve potential consequences? For instance, in techno-fying trust, by encoding it, one might overlook the tremendous strain on ecosystems. Such techno-imbued trust (ie blockchains) might be or has been imposing strain in terms of energy usage for the running of the implied server farms. Imagine a scaling of such trust for each and every citizen.

Additionally, then imagine non-fungible items around the globe and the creative imagination of a nascent economy of digitalizing or digitizing creators thereof.

In too blunt but awakening terms: “computing trust burns the Earth”; …or one can imagine to impose any relevant slogan-esque  narrative construct. (Sure, non-fossil energy sources are being considered and implemented sporadically. Also note and perhaps trust that some types of batteries might hang as strange fruits from a tree but they are sights and signs of death to healthy eco-systems, if not embraced properly). This does not suffice though.

Then one could try and sense the invitation to unpack both the slogan and the idea of algorithmic trust (be it analog, digitized or digital trust-processes), rather than to simply debase, dismiss or, in contrast, put trust on an unquestioned pedestal of mesmerizing gold-plated idolization. 

These could be the beginnings of a humane and scaleable transformation of trust as currency or rather trust as soil for knowledge which in turn might be currency, if shared …and if, with equity of others in mind.


Attribution:

In respectful contemplation and reflection on a LinkedIn post by Mr. Christian Sarkar on trust as currency:

Thank you to Mr. Christian Sarkar, Ms. Evelien Verschroeven, Mr. Jef Teugels, Mr. Thomas D’hooge and many others; whom more or less unwittingly have aided me in my thinking on this and other topics, while learning through a platform such as LinkedIn. I happen to trust that, to me, learning is relational, even if seemingly impersonal and unintentional.