My recent deep dives into all things AI put me on the scent of this item. The standard sequence in liminal circles is modern → postmodern → metamodern. This is very definitely an alternative view.
Part of me is thinking “ha, ha - told you so!”, having just done a faculty preso last week on “Futurism in the Age of AI”. TL:DR - it was all about prediction, risk management, and chaos navigation. Another part of me is saying, “yeah, this author needs to revisit our talk a couple weeks ago about Gabriel Marcel and problem vs. mystery.” @Martin This article comes from the land of tech bros who want to problematize everything and monopolize the resulting solutions. Not exactly my approach.
To sum up, there are both attractions and repulsions for me in this article. I’d be curious to hear other reactions.
I’m not sure how to write this sound … eeurrghhh … hope that captures it. Yes, LLMs are quintessentially prediction machines. Yes, spot on prediction ability is a way to make money—potentially a lot of it. And, of course, thereby to perpetuate an elitist world where I am better than you because my predictions were better (luckier) than yours.
On the other hand, prediction is one of two things.
Guesswork or hunch.
Based on a model, conscious or unconscious. Which could merge into (1.)
I’m afraid I personally see not a jot of distance separating either of these from modernity. To me they go backwards, not forwards, back to a world where we pretend we aren’t lost, and credit lucky success to some magic formula, in a classic case of maybe overfitting models; maybe survivor bias; maybe just some version of witchcraft. (Nothing against witches, by the way!)
Feels like a futile and rather desperate attempt to justify some kind of credibility in the face of complexity that is unmanageable by individuals.
Still in the sad, debilitated hands of individualism. Sigh.
“eeurrghhh” indeed! In metamodern circles, this perspective would likely be classified as hypermodern. As you point out, the hypermodern is something like modernity trying to transcend postmodernity by doubling down on modernity itself. In the end, it’s stuck in one of Schmachtenberger’s attactor basins, and not in an especially pleasant one.
That said, devils need their due, and there are some things that speak to me here. This I can work with:
Guesswork or hunch.
Based on a model, conscious or unconscious. Which could merge into (1.)
Among other things, such techniques are involved in matters like helping young people select a college major, choose to avoid college entirely, select a career path, or more generally identify purpose in life. The subtle difference between my approach and that of Andreessean Horowitz is my futurism at its core is oriented to mystery. (Shout out to @Martin and Gabriel Marcel!). My version is not so much about predicting and controlling the future. It’s more and sensing into and aligning with cosmic telos. That said, though, empirical mapping of past and present manifestations of that telos process can and do involve a lot of the same technologies wielded by Andreessean Horowitz. They want to be techno-barons. I want to be a techno-mage. Same world, different cosplay.
Thanks @RobertBunge for the mention . I actually enjoyed the article - I read it on the plane just after listening to the interview with Jim Rutt and his long definition of the Game A…. Will comment on it tomorrow. Oh, that reminds me - I was quite surprised by the 5 attractors that Jim listed…
. I actually enjoyed the article - I read it on the plane just after listening to the interview with Jim Rutt and his long definition of the Game A…. Will comment on it tomorrow. Oh, that reminds me - I was quite surprised by the 5 attractors that Jim listed…