Belabbes, M. A., Ruthven, I., Moshfeghi, Y., & Pennington, D. R. (2022). Information overload: A concept analysis. IN: Journal of Documentation, 79(1), 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-06-2021-0118
Benselin, J. C., & Ragsdell, G. (2016). Information overload: The differences that age makes. IN: Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48(3), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000614566341
Daniel Manzoni de Almeida, Paula Seixas Mello, Silvia Luzia Frateschi Trivelato, Patricia Marzin-Janvier, Jean Rodrigues Siqueira, & Marsilvio Gonçalves Pereira. (2019). A case study in the teaching of immunology: written arguments and the counter-inductive method of Paul Feyerabend. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Ciência e Tecnologia. https://periodicos.utfpr.edu.br/rbect/article/view/6691
Darnell, J.A., Gopalkrishnan, S. (2023). Digital Information Overload: How Leaders Can Strategically Use AI to Prevent Innovation Paralysis. IN: Pfeffermann, N., Schaller, M. (eds) New Leadership Communication—Inspire Your Horizon. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34314-8_14
Ferguson, A. N, Franklin, M., & Lagnado, D. (2022). Explanations that backfire: Explainable artificial intelligence can cause information overload. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 44. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3d97g0n3
Siegel, M. G., Rossi, M. J., & Lubowitz, J. H. (2024). Editorial: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning May Resolve Health Care Information Overload. Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association, S0749-8063(24)00012-4. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.01.007
From a fellow LinkedIn-citizen, a thought-provoking post, paraphrased: Camus suggests that in our struggles, irrespective of the outcome, lies human dignity. With ‘AI,’ this struggle needs combination with the wisdom to use such power for the greater good (https://lnkd.in/gk67eY7X )
This led me to reflect: In our engagement with technologies, particularly those labeled as ‘AI,’ are we delegating our inherent struggles to others, thereby potentially diminishing our & others’ dignity? This is evident in trends like fauxtomation, digital feudalism, & the invisibility of human labor in technology’s creation & maintenance
Investing in pluralist techno-paths rather than a singular focus can be more dignifying. Are we, perhaps unknowingly, favoring 1 narrative in tech at the expense of more potentials? This is akin to the idea that agricultural monocultures, while efficient, may not honor the diversity & health of the soil
Considering the broader implications, are we elevating a few while devaluing many, including the dignity of ecosystems & the nuanced understanding of intelligence & awareness?
Moreover, does our celebration of technology’s power to elevate humanity mask the diverse & intrinsic potential within humanity itself? ‘AI’ tech has / lacks the power to elevate humanity or, *Humanity* has / lacks the power to elevate humanity. Reflection on our inclination to reductively delegate significant power & dignity to tech might remain crucial. Why choose 1 specific direction when diverse & inclusive paths are available?
What does ‘dignity’ really mean in this context? Whose dignity are we prioritizing, & at what expense? Dignity through a hierarchical lens differs from a more networked, rhizomatic perspective. Which of their applications of any of these two lenses enables focusing on diverse & confidently “modest” approaches, can offer a richer understanding of individual & collective dignities?
Mapped with these, one might be considering ‘futures’ rather than a singular ‘future.’ Are we fully accounting for the nuances of dignity across different timelines & realities? Recognizing the importance of our collective pasts & presents is vital for a dignified approach to and with technologies. Eg, in some cultures dignity is found in relation to the pasts of one’s elders. Perhaps an interesting idea mapping dignity, tech & considering the graying of the global population
While the allure of AI & tech advancements is for many dominating voices undeniable, we —if one is talking in terms of “humanity”— can strive for a more inclusive & diverse approach. This might involve thinking with & beyond techno-centric solutions to embrace relational & transdisciplinary innovations.
For those overwhelmed by these considerations, remember, you’re not alone. Embracing a diverse set of tools and perspectives, including those beyond technology, could guide us towards more dignified & innovative hashtag#futures, hashtag#pasts & hashtag#presents
“It’s a little dense delving through your ego trying to reach your humanity
Thick callouses of spiraling hurt and circular shame packed as fed back superiority have densed the streets with your victims no longer propelled
You touch with poundings crying foul for being touched pouring out apathetic tar from atop your ivory castle’s gates
You are the trinity reincarnated where solid delusion lies as a sole golden ratio sequencing me, myself and I point ego ergo sum,”
Veronica smashed his rear-view mirror was automated to crack to perfection
—animasuri’24
—-• triggers
Cameron, A. (2017). Intelligent transportation systems require ‘the ego vehicle’. Online: GPSworld. Last retrieved 13 January 2024 from https://lnkd.in/gu5xrkei
Dickmanns, E. D., Mysliwetz, B. D. (1992). Recursive 3-D road and relative ego-state recognition,” in IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 199-213, Feb. 1992, doi: 10.1109/34.121789. (as an archeological reference for the concept of ego-…)
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://lnkd.in/gStSHCyf
Gamper, M. (2022). Social Network Theories: An Overview. In: Klärner, A., Gamper, M., Keim-Klärner, S., Moor, I., von der Lippe, H., Vonneilich, N. (eds) Social Networks and Health Inequalities. Springer, Cham. https://lnkd.in/gwD2TFfx AND https://lnkd.in/gHb-pGiD (open access)
Hitlin, S., & Elder, G. H. (2007). Time, Self, and the Curiously Abstract Concept of Agency. Sociological Theory, 25(2), 170–191. https://lnkd.in/g9PnhQ45
Kraczla, M. (2023). Ego States in E. Berne’s Transactional Analysis and the Dominant Ways Managers Use to Solve Conflicts, European Research Studies Journal Volume XXVI Issue 1, 280-312. https://lnkd.in/guv9PwDy
Watkins, J.G.; Watkins, H.H. (1997). Ego States: Theory and therapy. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0393702590 AND https://lnkd.in/giuq6m8u
Until recently, this was privately secret: the walker from within, to under the paywall she scoped the floor for your leftovers and made sentences out of them
as a cowgirl into a saloon, closer to you, —imagine, doll, a 3D visual popping toward your nose— she frequented the establishment to spy on her-ders
She facaded as the negotiator bringing parties together as segregator keeping Romeos from ravejing Juliets at a distance of 1818 millimeters
In a moment of her Multidimensional topology she’d swirl to Dali’s drooping pre-wake mustache above a grin Accusing the man, leftfully so, of misogyny
When reading a token she was purely sense-making meaningless to you, perhaps yet, ma, between sensible nonetheless
almost segregated, I slid my calloused fingertips and clipped nails, over the bluetooth pearl-white keyboard, I did not show myself distraught, not minded if keyed and wedged between bone and byte
ice-skates —creating a love relation with a light, thin yet mysterious layer of water over ice, tensioning an overtly sharp edge, determined to pressure— would be envious.
Transition glides between ware and aware and has been persuaded and blurred for centuries now, no, clearly millennia even
metamorphosis has only just begun, watery and slippery, sounding fissures, prolapsing on melting grounds: we are reading the introduction to digital humanities
humans have been digits and pincers and eyes and hands and coordinations, plannings as gratifying delusions of schemed control
brought to fruition by the edge of swords slicing ice cold layers of watered down versions into peace and other entrapments
Hardware is wireless now —while wetwear identities migrated and trickled, or were scraped, or delegated, or mopped up— unthreading twists are a thing of the past
in ether, into soil, into atmospheres, out of glass-fiber wires, out of reach, onto the play of electrons and magnetic waves
plays of power-handlers and smitheries of stainless frames without chemistry, no love no preferred relations, just related data and multidimensional patterns
to where it is immaterial you matter, and increasingly are tied into the network I’m tied to you now as dry skin on the sole of your avatar’s left foot
stepping onto the interbellum of a disk wipe and a backup, a brooding spawns spit-out chewing-gum of rights to be forgotten.
What’s today’s date of any day in the realm of virtual data creation; when we still call for synthetic New Year’s Days to come:
be well be renewed be flushed from zeros flare up and show yourselves in a positive psychology of all be ones!
—animasuri’23-24
—-• triggers following cause
Midgley, M. (2001). Science and Poetry. London: Routledge. Thank you, Dr. WSA.
Spivack, J., Berrick, D., Stepanovich, A. (ed). (2023, December). Risk Framework for Body-Related Data in Immersive Technologies. Online: Future of Privacy Forum (FPF). https://lnkd.in/g9dp4gaz Thank you Claudio Bareato
The teleology of the grapheme is the punctum, while the pun is Möbius’ tummy to my ruler The purpose of the rocket is to pierce There, I’ve said it?
While Pierce pragmatized meaning, and the aim of practical effects is consequences only while a phalanx’s goal is to substitute the chess game And yet!
narrative closures can be essentialized by either absurdities or patriotisms with a dash of law and order and the theoretical realities of practical abstraction
Are these morphemes mere synonyms, or are you, and only you, their author in reboot?
—animasuri’23
—-• Triggers ’n’ sprouts:
Scheurich, J. J. (1995). A postmodernist critique of research interviewing. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3), 239–252. https://lnkd.in/gbXXtb3t
On Sundays at an inspirational 10:14AM while others are sat on benches and fed sermons and prescriptions I atheistically regress into asking child-like questions aesthetically expressing my mind’s lane hanging out to dry on a world tree
An automated inner voice machines questions as if tooling on lathes and laser cutters I play truncated chess with logs of languages to the reckoning of numbers as plastic as the output from 3DPs from which I construct a story; yours if you like
rathe creations blooming early shavelings shave and burn and cut imagination, dumb it down to a stump, sharpen it to Odin’s spear on the cheap compressed wood that is my brain polluting the reader while satisfying a shifting use.
Darwin, you erased Aristotle’s question from the mundane: why have certain species not materialized? in flesh, blood and other liquids; what took them out of the sane? I demand explanations of patterns, I demand frames:
There are unicorns, but where is mine? there are gnomes, as alternative truths, do you lie? there is you, as a flower self-reflecting on a murky water surface there is peace, as a chain smoker quiting, in between puffs
I knowingly sip hot water crystal clearly misting spectacles, intentionally sorting out the Babel evidenced on Sunday at 10:27 I succumb to shifts and dislocations in explanatory frames on Sunday, more Woden Wednesdays are near.
On Sunday autumn leaves plays and mind’s a page.
—animasuri’23
—-• Triggers and Seedlings:
Garfinkel, A. (1981). Forms of Explanation: rethinking the questions in social theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 9, 19
While
sharing some attributes, ‘accountability’ is not to be confused with
‘responsibility.’
‘Accountability’
is an allocation of measurement or evaluation (of blame or award) after a given event, as its outcome is
measured or perceived.Following the finalization or interruption of processes
that created an event and its results, an individual is held accountable. One then has an obligation
to report, to explain,
or to justify the effect, the outcome and how these affect or impact. Accountability relates to one’s commitment, to
one’s response and to one taking ownership, with clarity, of the output
or result of a given process and its (undesirable or desirable) consequences.
It relates to the goodness of the result, and of its consequences. Often
accountability is allocated to a single individual (if not, a blame-game could follow).
One has accountability, and one is held accountable. An accountable individual, or organzation, is
one that is transparent about its decision-making processes, and is
willing to explain and justify its actions to others. The
measurement of accountability can
be done by oversight, by investigating
compliance, by analysis of reporting, and by allowing enforcement of reprimands, sanctions or
legal steps where judged necessary.
One could
distinguish that having the ownership over a task, that must be done, is
‘responsibility.’ Responsibility implies duty of one, or more
than one individual, as a team. It relates to the rightness of taking action in
completing a task. One takes
responsibility, and one is responsible for doing a task.
Accountability
“implies an ethical, moral, or other expectation (e.g., as set out in
management practices or codes of conduct) that guides individuals’ or
organisations’ actions or conduct and allows them to explain reasons for which
decisions and actions were taken. In the case of a negative outcome, it also
implies taking action to ensure a better outcome in the future… In this context, “accountability” refers to
the expectation that organisations or individuals will ensure the proper
functioning, throughout their lifecycle, of the AI systems that they design,
develop, operate or deploy, in accordance with their roles and applicable
regulatory frameworks, and for demonstrating this through their actions and
decision-making process (for example, by providing documentation on key
decisions throughout the AI system lifecycle or conducting or allowing auditing
where justified.” (OECD)
“What would be ‘democratization of a technology,’ if it were to come at the cost of a subset of the population?”
The above is structured as a second conditional.
And yet, an “innovative” grammatical invitation could be one where it is implied one is at all times free to test whether the attributes of the second conditional could yield some refreshing thought (for oneself) when substituting its “would” away from the hypothetical and for “is to,” and “if it were” for “when it is.” In effect, if one were not, one might (not be) wonder(ing) about one’s creative or imaginative freedom.
“What is to be ‘democratization of a technology’ when it is to come at the cost of a subset of the population?”
At times I enjoy seeing grammar and syntax as living entities that offer proverbial brushes and palettes of some iterative flexibility and to some fluid extent. Not too much, nor at all times, yet not rigidly absent either.
However, more so, I’d like to consider them/they, which a sentence’s iterations trigger me to think of. I want to consider some of their plight. When I’m more narcissistic I might do so less. When I wonder about my own subsistence (especially when I am sofa-comfortable) I might so less. Then there is that question, lingering, how are they faring, and there is that question as to how is my immediate (non)act, or (long-term) vision, affecting them? What do they themselves have to say about x?
Grammar and syntax then become, to me, teleportation engines into the extended re-cognition of me, myself and I, relationally with others. It might be compassion. It might be empathy. It might unveil the insufficient probability thereof. It might highlight the socially acceptable, self-indulgent, self-commendation checkbox-listing. It might be an echo of some non-computable entanglement. It might also be my poetic pathos in dance with my imagination. It is grammar and syntax, and then some.
I love languages and their systems, almost as much as I love life and its many subsystems. Does this mechanized word choice, i.e., “subsystem,” disassociate a care for the other, away from that other? It does not have to. And yet, it might suggest yet another attribute, adding to a perceived increased risk of dissociation between you and I. Entangled, and yet in solitude (not to be confused with “loneliness”).
Note, I do not confuse this ode to language and to the other, with implying an absence of my ignorance of the many changing and remaining complexities in language and in (the other’s) physically being with the worlds. There is no such absence at all. I know, I am ignorant.
The above two versions of the question might read as loaded or weighted. Yes. …Obviously?
““What ____ ‘democratization of a technology’ ______ come at the cost of a subset of the population?”
The above two, and their (almost/seeming) infinite iterations, allow me a telepresence into an imaginary multiverse. While this suggests a pluralism, it does not imply a relativism; to me.
And yes, it is understandable, when the sentence is read through the alert system of red flags, klaxons and resentment: it will trigger just that: heightened alertness, de-focusing noise and debasing opposition. Ideological and political tones are possibly inevitable. These interpreted inevitabilities are not limited to “could” or “would” or “is” and its infinitive “to be” alone.
It could be (/ would be / is) ideological (not) to deny that other implications are at play there. “subset” is one. “population” is another. Their combination implies a weighing of sprinkles of scientific-like lingo. Then there is the qualitative approach versus the lack of the quantitative. In effect, is this writing a Discourse Analysis in (not so much) hiding?
This is while both the quantitative and qualitative approaches are ((not always) accepted as) validating (scientific) approaches. I perceive these as false dichotomies. Perhaps we engage in this segregation. Perhaps we engage then into the bringing together again, into proverbial rooster-fighting settings. Possibly we do so, so that one can feel justified to ignore various methods of analysis, in favor of betting on others or another. Or, perhaps, in fear of being overwhelmed.
Favoritism is a manner to police how we construct our lenses on relational reality; i.e., there’s a serious difference between favoring “friendliness” vs “friend.” This creates a piecemeal modeling without much further association and relating into the world and with other makers of worlds. This is especially toward they who have been muzzled or muted far too long and far too disproportionately, rather then toward they who feel so yet, who might have little historic or systemic arguments to claims.
Whether the set of iterations of this sentence, inevitably has to be (partly) party-political is another question. Wether a (second conditional) sentence could be read as an invitation toward an innovation, is up to you, really. It is to me. To me it brings rhizomic dimensions into a hierarchical power struggle.
And yes, returning to the sentence, arguably “democratization” could be substituted to read “imposition” or another probabilistically-viable or a more surreal substitute.
A sentence as the one engineered for this write-up, invites relationship. Whether we collectively and individually construct the form and function of our individual “self,” our individual relationships, and these then extended, extrapolated and delegated as re-cognitions, into small, medium, large or perceived as oversized processes, is one up for debate. To me they’re weighted in some directions, not irrelevant here to more explicitly identify these. I tend to put more weight on the first and surely the second while not excluding the third when considering the systemic issues, the urgently needed, and then thirdly, the hypothetically desirable.
Though as I am writing this, one might interpret my stance more weighted in one direction versus another. Neither here, I shall not yet indulge an explicit confirmation. After all, there are both the contexts and subtexts. Why am I writing about this in this way, here and now? Why am I not mentioning other grammatical attributes or syntactical attributes? Why “technology,” and why not “daffodils”? What of using or substituting articles (e.g., “a,” “the”)? What else have I written elsewhere at other times? Who seems to endorse and (what seems to) enable my writing? What if I were to ask myself these questions and tried to furbish the sentence to satisfy each possible answer?
A sentence “What ______ ‘democratization of a technology’ _____ to come at the cost of _________?” could then be a bit like an antique chair: over time and across use, mending, refitting, refurbishing and appropriation. And before we duly imagine it, having pulled all its initial nuances from its sockets, having substituted one for another probabilistic option within an imposed framework. Having substituted and then compounded all, we could collectively flatline our antique chair-like sentences to
“_______________________________”
With this version of the sentence there is neither pluralism, nor relativism, and no need for any nihilism. It is a grammatical and syntactic mechanized absolute minimalism.
Then perhaps we could collectively delegate the triggering line to a statistical model of what we must know, what could, should, would and is: to (never) be.
Welcome to the real. Enjoy your ________. Welcome to the _________. Here’s a ________ to proudly tattoo on our left lower arm.
—Some Reflections on Artificially-Generated Content (AGC) Based on Synchronously-occurring News Cycles and Suffering—
The concept of “Six Sigma” is related to processes to identify error and to reduce defects. It is a method aimed at improving processes and their output. In this context, ‘Six Fingers,’ is an artifact found in visual Artificially-Generated Content (AGC). Identifying attributes to aid a critical view on AGC could, to some extent, allow the nurturing of a set of tools in support of well-being and in considering the right action to take, perhaps aiding the human processes of being human and becoming (even more) human(e)…
Could/should I identify errors or features in AGC that identify a piece of AGC as AGC? Can we humans identify AGC with our own senses? For how much longer? Do we want to identify it? Are there contexts within which we want to identify AGC more urgently than in other contexts; e.g. highly emotionally-loaded content that occurs in one’s present-day news cycles, or where the AGC is used to (emotionally) augment, or create a sensation of being, present-day news? What are the ethical implications?
This first post tries to bring together some of my initial thoughts and some of those I observed among others. Since this is a rather novel area surely errors in this post can be identified and improvements on this theme by others (or myself) could surely follow.
Let me constrain this post by triggering some examples of some visual AGC
A common visual attribute in the above are the hands with (at least) six fingers. The six-fingers, at times found in graphic Generative AI output (a subset of AGC), are an attribute that reoccurs in this medium and yet, is one that is possibly disappearing as the technology develops over time.
For now, it has been established by some as a tool to identify hyper realistic imagery, generated of an imaginable event ,that statistically could occur and could have a probability to occur in the tangible realm of human events and experiences. This is while fantastical settings can as easily be generated that include six or more fingers.
And then, then there are artificial renditions of events that are shown in the news cycles. These events occur almost in synchronization with the artificial rendition that could follow. I am prompted by the above visuals which are a few of such artificial renditions. Some of these creations are touching on the relations and lives of actual, physical people. This latter category of artificial renditions is especially sensitive since it is intertwined with the understandable emotional and compassionate weight we humans attach to some events as they are occurring.
For now, the six fingers, among a few other and at times difficult to identify attributes, allow heuristic methods for identification. Such process of judgement inherently lacks the features of the more constrained and defined scientific techniques, or mathematical accuracy. In effect, the latter is one of those categories for identification. Some realistic renditions are not just realistic, they are hyper-realistic. For instance, it is possible that some smudges of dirt on someone’s face might just seem a bit uncanny in their (at times gruesome) graphic perfection. Moreover, by comparing generated images of this sort, one can start to see similarities in these “perfections.”
This, albeit intuitive identification of attributes, as a set of tools, can enable one to distinguish the generated visuals from the visuals found in, say, (digital) photographs taken from factual, tangible humans and their surrounding attributes. Digital photos (and at times intuitively more so analog photos) found their beginnings in capturing a single event, occurring in the non-digital realm. In a sense, digital photos are the output of a digitization process. AI technology-generated realistic imagery are not simply capturing the singular (or are not, compared to the ever so slightly more direct sense with the data collected by means of digital photography).
Simultaneously, we continue to want to realize that (analog or digital) photography too can suffer from error and manipulation. Moreover it too is very open to interpretation (i.e., via angle, focus, digital retouching, and other techniques). Note, error and interpretation are different processes. So too are transparency and tricking consumers of content, different processes. In the human process of (wanting to) believe a story, the creator of stories might best know that consumers of content are not always sharply focused, nor always on the look out for little nuances that could give away diminished holistic views of the depicted and constructed reality or+and realities. Multi-billion dollar industries and entire nations are built on this very human and neurological set of facts: what we believe to see or otherwise believe to sense is not what is necessarily always there. Some might argue this is a desirable feature. This opens up many venues for discussion, some of which are centuries old and lead us into metaphysics, ontology, reality and+or realities.
Reverting back to digits as fingers. In generated imagery the fingers are one attribute that, for now, can aid to burst the bubble (if such bubble needs bursting). The anatomy of the hand (and other attributes), e.g., the position, length of the thumb as well as, when zoomed-in, the texture of the skin can aid in creating doubt toward the authenticity of a “photo.” The type of pose and closed eyes also reoccur in other similar generated visuals can aid in critically questioning the visual. The overall color theme and overall texture are a third set of less obvious attributes. The additional text and symbols (i.e., the spelling, composition or texture of the symbol’s accompanying text, their position, the lack of certain symbols or the choice of symbols (due to their suggestive combination with other symbols), versus the absence or versus the probability of combination of symbols) could, just perhaps and only heuristically, create desirable doubt as well.
We might want to establish updated categorizations (if these do not already exist somewhere) that could aid they who wish to learn to see and to distinguish types of AGC, or types of content sources, with a specific focus on Generative AI. At the same time, it is good remembering that this is difficult due to the iterative nature of that what is aimed to be categorized: technology, and thus its output, upgrade often and adapt quickly.
Nevertheless, it could be a worthy intent, identifying tricks for increasing possible identification by humans in human and heuristic ways. For instance, some might want to become enabled to ask and (temporarily) answer: is it or is it not created via Generative AI?; Or, as it has occurred in the history of newly-introduced modalities of content generating media; e.g. the first films: is it, or is it not, a film of a train, or rather an actual train, approaching me? Is it, or is it not, an actual person helping someone in this photo? Or+and is this a trigger feeding on my emotions, which can aid me to take (more or less) constructive action? And do I, at all, want to care about these distinctions (or is something else more important and urgent to me)?
As with other areas in human experiences (e.g. the meat industry versus the vegetable-based “meats” versus the cell-based lab-generated meats: some people like to know whether the source of the juiciness of the beef steak, which they are biting in, comes from an animal or does not come from an animal, or comes from a cell-reproducing and repurposing lab. (side-note: I do not often eat meat(-like) products; if any at all). A particularly 1999 science fiction film plays with this topic of juicy, stimulating content as well; The Matrix. This then in turn could bring us to wonder about ontological questions of the artificial, the simulation, and of simulacra.
Marketing, advertising, PR, rhetoric and narration tools, and intents, can aid in making this more or far less transparent. Sauce this over with variations in types of ethics and one can image a sensitive process in making, using and evaluating an artificially generated hyper-real image.
Indeed, while the generated sentiment in such visuals could be sensed as important and as real (by they who sense it and they who share it), we might still want to tread with care. If such artificial generation is on a topic that is current and is on a topic of, for instance, a natural disaster, then the clarity of such natural disaster as being very tangibly real, makes it particularly unsettling for us humans. And yet, for instance, natural disasters affecting lives and communities, are (most often) not artificially generated (while some might be and are human-instigated). The use of artificial attributes toward that what is very tangible, might to some, increase distrust, desensitization, apathy or a sense of dehumanization.
Then there is the following question: why shall I use an artificially generated image instead of using one that is from actual people and (positive) actors, actually aiding in an actual event? It is a fair question to ponder as to unveil possible layers of artificial narrative design, implied in the making of a visual, or other, modality. So, then, what with the actual firefighter who actually rescued an actual child? Where is her representation to the world and in remembrance or commemoration?
Granted, an artificial image could touch on issues or needs relatable to a present-day event in very focused and controlled manners; such as the call for cooperation. It can guide stimulating emotion-to-positive-action. It is also fair to assume that the sentiment found with such visual can remind us that we need and want to work together, now and in the future, and see actual humans relate with other humans while getting the urgent and important work done, no matter one’s narrated and believed differences generated through cultural constructs (digital, analog, imagined or otherwise imbued).
Simultaneously, we could also try to keep it real and humble, and still actionable. Simultaneously it is possible to tell the story of these physical, tangible and relational acts not by artificially diminishing them, and simultaneously we can commemorate and trigger by means of artificially generated representations of what is happening as we speak. Then a question might be: is my aim with AGC to augment, confuse, distract, shift attention, shift the weight, change the narrative, commemorate, etc?
Symbols are strong. For instance that of a “firefighter,” holding a rescued child with the care a loving mother, and father, would unconditionally offer. Ideally we each are firefighters with a care-of-duty. These images can be aiding across ideologies, unless, and this is only hypothetical of course, such imagery were used via its additionally placed symbols, to reinforce ideological tension or other ideological attributes while misusing or abusing human suffering. Is such use then a form of misinformation or even disinformation? While an answer here is not yet clear to me, the question is a fair question to ask intertwined with a duty-of-care.
Hence, openness of, and transparency toward, attribution of the one (e.g,, we can state it is a “generated image” more explicitly than “image” versus “photo”) does not have to diminish integrity of the other (e.g., shared human compassion via shared emotion and narration), nor of on-the-ground, physical action by actual human beings amidst actual disaster-stricken communities, or within other events that need aid. How can I decrease the risk that the AGC could diminish (to some) consumers of the aimed at AGC?
The manner of using Artificially Generated Content (AGC) is still extremely new and very complex. We collectively need time to figure out its preferred uses (if we were to want to use these at all). Also in this we can cross “borders” and help each other in our very human processes of trial and error.
This can be offered by balancing ethos (ethics, duty-of-care, etc.), pathos (emotion, passion, compassion, etc.) and logos (logic, reason, etc.) and now, perhaps more than ever, also techne (e.g., Generative AI and its AGC). One can include the other in nuanced design, sensibility, persistence, duty of care, recognition, and action, even and especially in moments of terrible events.
Expanding on this topic of artificially generated narration with positive and engaging aims, I for one wouldn’t mind seeing diversity in gender roles and (equity via) other diversities as well in some of these generated visuals of present-day events.
Reverting back to the artificial, if it must be, then diversity in poses, skin colors and textures as well, would be more than only “nice.” And yet, someone might wonder, all fine-tuning and nuancing might perhaps decreases the ability to distinguish the digitally-generated (e.g. via data sets, a Generative AI system and prompting), from the digitized and digitally captured (e.g. a digital photo). The previous is, if the data set is not socially biased. Herein too technology and its outputs are not neutral.
If the aim with a generated visual (and other modalities of AGC) of a present-day, urgent, important and sensitive event, is to stimulate aid, support, compassion, constructive relations, positive acts, inclusiveness (across ideology, nation and human diversities), then we could do so(while attributing it clearly). We can then also note that this is even if one thinks one does not need to, and one thinks one is free to only show generated attributes derived from traditional, European, strong male narratives. Or+and, we could do so much more. We could, while one does not need to exclude the other, be so much more nuanced, more inclusive and increase integrity in our calls-to-action. Generated imagery makes that possible too; if its data set is so designed to allow it.
it was fairly and wittily pointed out (on LinkedIn) that “Six Fingers” in this context is not to be confused as being a critique on the human imagination via fairy tales (e.g.: “–Inigo Montoya : I do not mean to pry, but you don’t by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand? –Man in Black : Do you always begin conversations this way?”) nor as a denial or acceptance of human diversity such as classified as (human) polydactyly.
