I particularly appreciate the questions that ask one to look at a way that a problem was reified/specified/ontologized in a particular domain and asks for alternative such specifications. I thought Superintelligence (2014) might be net harmful because it introduced a lot of such specifications that I then noticed were hard to think around. I think there are a subset of prompts from the online course/book Framestorming that might be useful there, I’ll go see if I can find them.
I also have this impression regarding Superintelligence. I’m wondering if you have examples of a particular concept or part of the framing that you think was net harmful?
Speed, collective, quality superintelligences is the one that sounds most readily to mind, but quite a few of the distinctions struck me this way at the time I read it.
I also thought the treacherous turn, and the chapter on multipolar cooperation baked in a lot of specifics.
I really worry about this and it has become quite a block. I want to support fragile baby ontologies emerging in me amidst a cacophony of “objective”/”reward”/etc. taken for granted.
Unfortunately, going off and trying to deconfuse the concepts on my own is slow and feedback-impoverished and makes it harder to keep up with current developments.
I think repurposing “roleplay” could work somewhat, with clearly marked entry and exit into a framing. But ontological assumptions absorb so illegibly that deliberate unseeing is extremely hard, at least without being constantly on guard.
Are there other ways that you recommend (from Framestorming or otherwise?)
I particularly appreciate the questions that ask one to look at a way that a problem was reified/specified/ontologized in a particular domain and asks for alternative such specifications. I thought Superintelligence (2014) might be net harmful because it introduced a lot of such specifications that I then noticed were hard to think around. I think there are a subset of prompts from the online course/book Framestorming that might be useful there, I’ll go see if I can find them.
I also have this impression regarding Superintelligence. I’m wondering if you have examples of a particular concept or part of the framing that you think was net harmful?
Speed, collective, quality superintelligences is the one that sounds most readily to mind, but quite a few of the distinctions struck me this way at the time I read it.
I also thought the treacherous turn, and the chapter on multipolar cooperation baked in a lot of specifics.
I really worry about this and it has become quite a block. I want to support fragile baby ontologies emerging in me amidst a cacophony of “objective”/”reward”/etc. taken for granted.
Unfortunately, going off and trying to deconfuse the concepts on my own is slow and feedback-impoverished and makes it harder to keep up with current developments.
I think repurposing “roleplay” could work somewhat, with clearly marked entry and exit into a framing. But ontological assumptions absorb so illegibly that deliberate unseeing is extremely hard, at least without being constantly on guard.
Are there other ways that you recommend (from Framestorming or otherwise?)
I think John Cleese’s relatively recent book on creativity and Olicia Fox Cabane’s The Butterfly and the Net are both excellent.