Put a snake at a type writer
You’ll eventually read something
that stings
Put a horse at a type writer
You wait and see from
canter and gallops winnings appear
Put a monkey at a type writer
You suddenly have to justify
Shakespeare
Put yourself at a type writer
you become a silence monkey-horse
slithering well-formed minotaurs
among words with sweat, flow
as pearls for noses toil
against the forest’s floor
—animasuri’24
The scary truth
about apple pie
on the windowsill
is nobody knows
what will happen next
The scary truth
about the universe
on the expanse
is nobody knows
what will happen next
The scary truth
about scary truths
off the newsstands
is nobody wants to knows
what will happen next
—animasuri’24
set: 000x
If ‘Odinshühnchen’ were a set of tokens it could be probabilistically reasonable to rehash it to ‘Odin’s hühnchen’ or could functionally be confabulated to become ‘Odin’s chick,’ possibly “hallucinated” to be of chocolate make. It seems when temperatures (t) are set too high (well above 2) a ‘chocolate chicken of Odin’ suddenly seems fair play.
Technology infused poetic thoughts —(by humans for humans) as a discussion and negotiation of nuances of linguistic intuitions and the weighing of words within a compound concept— are dimensions and vectors of what makes us human, well beyond the state of mathematical, engineering and scientific reductions we have access to for the moment. As with the statement “oxygen isn’t enough for humane life,” one without it would be equally challenging as thinking without reductions. And yet, that does neither exclude going beyond either.
Let me elaborate: non-sense, or nonsense, makes us human. Think of a snail intending nonsense; or of a lion. Perhaps a lion cub, or a dolphin might seem to have their moments and yet one might suspect the transposition of human features or human needs for sense-making onto non-human inanimate or animate others. Nonetheless, one might also wonder whether it is humans as a species who take non-sense to very diverse depths or heights. If so, one might assume this is since nonsense can be defined as acts (of which thoughts are a subset) lacking sense, for sense must be there to outlie nonsense away from its median, mean or mode’s stances.
Let us play with sense and nonsense via a loose interpretation of a neurolinguistic concept of “concept blending” while contextualizing the hypes, utopias and dystopias veining the public narrated peripheries of the field of AI. (That’s where this ignorant author roams).
For instance, ‘algorithmic’ we can agree is an adjective. It intuitively asks for another word to follow. Likely a noun. This sensation is very much as with playing musical chords or sequences that create an anticipation in the listener for some specific chord or note to follow. As it is with bird song. And so it follows…
In this case, let us imagine ‘algorithmic’ is followed by ‘fairness.’ It follows that this would result in the concept (a compound of two words) ‘algorithmic fairness’ just as, for instance, if ‘Odin’ were followed by ‘chicken’ would most likely result in ‘Odin’s chicken.’
Secondly, let us now assume that ‘algorithmic’ can be followed by a number of nouns. This creates a set of concepts that start with the adjective ‘algorithmic.’ For instance, another one is ‘algorithmic governance.’ Sure, one could play a surreal game and suggest ‘algorithmic potato’ or ‘algorithmic chocolate chicken.’
Here thus an intuition is introduced where the weight or the probability of one is higher than the other. And, where the “closeness” of one is closer than the other. ‘algorithmic’ is closer to ‘fairness’ than it is to ‘potato’ or ‘chicken’ and perhaps, to some, less so ‘chocolate.’
This is partly due to one (e.g., ‘fairness’) having been used by other humans (perceived as leading voices or as voices echoing leading voices) while the other is not or probably is not (i.e., ‘chicken’).
In the ‘algorithmic’ set of concepts with the adjective ‘algorithmic,’ we (too) often decide not to include concepts such as ‘algorithmic potato.’ And yet , the set could still have a number of concepts within it.
One could decide to notate these concepts differently than how they are traditionally read. So instead of populating this set with constructs such as ‘algorithmic fairness,’ they would be populated with constructs such as ‘fairness, algorithmic_’ and not with ‘potato, algorithmic_’
Though some concepts give the intuition that this notation would not be entirely proper. (Yes, yes, really) Possibly because the link between the word ‘algorithmic’ and the following word or words is stronger or closer.
For instance: ‘Algorithmic Decision-Making Systems (ADMS)’ It feels as if this concept is less open to be notated in the structural style of ’fairness, algorithmic_’ It might be due to the fact that there is an acronym ‘ADMS’ and its capital letters or it might be something else. It might be because the concept is not only two words and rather three.
A similar intuition occurs with ‘algorithmic outrage deficit.’ And yet a different intuitive oddity occurs with ‘potato, algorithmic_’ let alone ‘chicken, algorithmic_’ and even more so ‘chick, algorithmic_’ not to mention ‘chocolate chick, algorithmic_.’ Earth shattering stuff this is.
These intuitions introduce inconsistencies into the set. The set which could contain ‘fairness, algorithmic_’ and ‘governance, algorithmic_’ and ‘harm, algorithmic_’ and ‘manipulation, algorithmic_’ and ‘oppression, algorithmic_’ and ‘persuasion, algorithmic_’ and ‘profiling, algorithmic_’ and ‘suggestion, algorithmic_’ and ‘transparency, algorithmic_’ and so on.
Therein lie, to this ignorant mind, the juices of a type of “concept blending” and perhaps, who knows, of fountains of discomfort and perhaps even anger in they who oppose such human-made blends. Who knows, who’s to chirp about it?
The above might have been conceptually blended (behind the scenes) with a list of bird names translated from German into diverse sets of language, triggering imaginations of sense-making in human sense-making reshuffling, and that in manners that seem to defy sensibility and functions or matrices of probabilistic processes.
‘Transparency, algorithmic_’ is thus questionable here.
—animasuri’24
if the friendly colors
and beautiful things as
a prompt injection risk
are concerned with models
for data in the nude
dating toxic hallucinations
thus lies spread before me
spanning space:
handing visualization
and lying with statistics
there is physical harm to be had
when revealing confidential points
on the data corpus
and its improper usage
if junkmail were colored
by the numbers and decaying paper
self-publishing at the input
of recycled sensuality
of a naked typo
of style collage flippantly
inject and sort a snort
it is all the hype again
—-animasuri’24
—
triggers
Levy, D. A. (1969). the Buddhist Third Class Junkmail Oracle. August 1969. Online: Ubuweb.
https://ubu.com/media/text/vp/buddhist_third_class_junkmail_oracle_aug_1969.pdf
IBM. (2024-03-27). Prompt injection risk for AI. IN: IBM Documentation. IBM Cloud Pak for Data 4.8.x. AI risk atlas. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/cloud-paks/cp-data/4.8.x?topic=atlas-prompt-injection
Reality as an illusion
—when disembodied—
turns into a submission
to artifices as constructs
of illusion upon illusion upon soothing
“you will find me if you want me
in the garden unless…”
where the simulacra are formed
by those with control over their weights
then truth becomes a shaking of fists
but a setting seeding intention against fate
she loves me, she doesn’t, she loves me, she
“what the hell is he building in there…
he’s hiding from all the rest of us….”
are disconnects of intelligences
undoing interaction of flesh and senses
presenting enslavement as mesmerization
of feedback loops and reductions
to the digital reshuffling agents reassigning values
“happiness is…” poco allegro elongated
can liveliness, yes, in minor fifth’ed be canned
fire, wheel, electricity, one artifice for
kings thrown to dust by creative destruction
and yet dust holds one consistency:
absence of water with water stilling fire,
crackling electricity, conducting artifice
“no, it’s a body of water…
the monuments have been brought down to earth….”
as sediments and sounds of water
from the old pond swooshing,
water creaking, rushing, soothing,
water, whirling, sloshing, water drowning
becoming the overshot water wheel
“Se necesita mucha fortaleza
para levantar….”
bubbles pop as balances between
observations and constructions
distractions away from confident doubt
readily available to anyone
into the puppetry of the happy few
be they chords, be they hursts
Clickedeecklick dripping upwards
onto your sandy banks: immer mid stream
—animasuri’24
—-•
some triggers
Abou-Khalil, Rabih. (1992). Sahara. IN: Blue Camel.
van Beethoven, L., Pollini, M. ( ). 33 Variations in C Major, Opus 120 on a waltz by Diabelli: Variation II (Poco Allegro)
Einstürzende Neubauten. (1996). The Garden. IN: Ende Neu.
Garcia-fons, Renaud. (2010). Fortaleza. IN: Méditerranées
Fitzgerald, E., Pass, J. (1976). Nature Boy. IN: Fitzgerald and Pass…Again
Lhamo, Yungchen. (1998). Happiness is… IN: Coming Home.
Mingus, Charles. (1963). Myself when I’m Real. IN: Mingus Plays Piano.
Namchylak, Sainkho. (2016). So Strange! So Strange! IN: like a Bird or Spirit, not a Face.
Vito, Acconci. (2001). The Bristol Project.
Waits, Tom. (1999). What’s he Building? IN: Mule Variations.
Yesterday I pulled a hair of yours
from the GPU no longer processing
what it was for: the hair,
a single visual of virility, once golden lock
I desire for accuracy, and proper process
I demand cleanliness and method
I own tools in proper Goldilocks zones
yesterday I pulled a hair of yours
it prompted a visual of how I see you
output hidden from alien invasion, how I saw you
within the cranial privacy of my neuro-being
a crack, a rift, the hemispheres appeared
the polis that is my mind partisan’ed
now multidimensional making of truth
conflicting as love-making that nightly chess game
yesterday I pulled a hair of yours from the mainframe
Yesterday I pulled you from the motherboard
one strand one hand one rip one slip
calculations halted, output fuzzed logic
principles and agendas shivered
positivist poles discovered
a third repulsion choreographing
a fourth attraction directing
multitudinous memory of a plucked string resonatingly yours
Yesterday was the day
you were no more, that many years ago, and yet
and yet and yet: here you are my dear:
here you show.
—animasuri’24
Jacobus was looking for a friend.
Someone who could understand.
Someone, or anything really,
who would share their own experience
Someone Jacobus could relate to.
For years now Jacobus has been living.
Living with hiccups.
It’s interruptive
and jolting joy.
It is a serious matter.
At times Jacobus’ fist
is planted onto the table’s surface.
Cracks occurred,
and that while having a background in engineering
as well as having a degree in medicine:
with a specific focus
on computer science
and then these latest learning technologies
of machines,
anthropomorphically deep
—deeper then the mucosal surfaces of Jacobus’ larynx, glottis and all
—with a specialization in diaphragm irritations and spasms.
with a confidence of authority and funds on call
with pitched, intense unquestioned interest and hypes and
with thrall
Incisively, Jacobus set out to invent a model
one that could generate output
interrupted by hiccups.
Incessantly, incessantly, multimodally: hiccups;
while hurling all water from the soil.
“Drink a cup of water,” said Jacobus,
“take it in.” Knowing full well that didn’t work
for him to date, not at all.
None of that brought him any closer
to that one, idealized breath of peace.
—animasuri’24
—-•
a trigger
Fuchs, T. (2024). Understanding Sophia? On human interaction with artificial agents. IN: Phenom Cogn Sci 23, 21–42 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-022-09848-0
Howick, J., Morley, J., Floridi, L. (2021). An Empathy Imitation Game: Empathy Turing Test for Care- and Chat-Bots. IN: Minds and Machines 31 (3): 457–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09555-w.
McKeown, G. (2015). Turing’s menagerie: Talking lions, virtual bats, electric sheep and analogical peacocks: Common ground and common interest are necessary components of engagement. IN: International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), Xi’an, China, 2015, pp. 950-955, doi: 10.1109/ACII.2015.7344689.
Selinger, E., Dreyfus, H., & Collins, H. (2007). Interactional expertise and embodiment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.008
The voice of conscience
it modulates at supersonic frequency
for Fluffy, a Dobermann, to hear
snipping her ears ‘n’ tail clipping her nails,
trimming her fur
The voice of the people
it escalates at fringes to scalability
for Establishment, a Status quo, to pedigree
piling human utterances into machinery
spitting out lookalikes, generically for all to see
The voice of reason
it observes in method and model
for Reality, an Ontology, to bark or be
confusing sciences for quick buck application
caring for pillage, and artistry for sophistry
The voice of sewage
it gushes at high pressured forces
for daring delegation, ‘n’ trust, wagging away
segregating minds onto shriveling islands sneaking squinting gazes for white broidered curtains to hide in front
onto your reflectively overheating asphalt ocean
I wave: come and join me
for a simple, silently-slow slurped cup of tea
—animasuri’24
Why if it is in the little themes
as little as a granule
fitting between two toes
needle-like discomfort socked in a shoe,
in a finance meeting
that a self-judging reusable rocket
promised to Mars inspires thought
Why is it of all the little themes if
minutia as a pattern
as a gnome as a reconnaissance
in the marvel of the marble
on the bathroom floor, remind one
that DNA editing toward Dodos
and Mammoths inspires symptoms
Why, in the little themes overlooking the Thames
few lines organized together
to be misunderstood as a poem
in the shadow of world literatures
and mass floods opinionated
that geo-engineering scheme
to coolness inspires transpiration
Why it is in the abundance of little themes of, if it were
a gentle crossing of eyes unfitting
the length of lived relations
love is still spoken
confidently unheard
that social robots trigger conversation
while we mumble enacting meaningless barbarisms
Why if of beings tiny grand
if undefined if muddled,
of so-ever this and that
if filled with why
yet more with digital chat
that with persistence and grit under one’s mindful feet
disturbed, inspires a procrastinating walk
Why if it is themed small,
circling a celestial bending of water
still demanding the nonchalance
and the surreal
of a genuine smile
that I yearn and act beyond this end
unheeding what inspires cause:
that is why: there is no pause.
—animasuri’24
