Vienna School

Lots of time has gone into getting the econoblog going. But, the viewpoint being established here will still have a basis and will need foundational work.

Actually, it still fundamental, to boot. Take undecidability, for example. It's a term that will be thrown in the mix with underdetermined and more.

One way to look at it here, though, since the Vienna School somewhat stresses its importance, is the old conflict between two views that seem polar but are not really. That is, we can know bottom up and top down.

Over here, in the manifest destiny part of the west, we see bottom up as more important. Some of us do so anyway especially in its support of middle-out. There are those here who are like the old aristocracy (that side of the pond) and really love top down.

Well, being bottom up, we like what we can know and learn. We're so enthusiastic about it that we then accumulate and think that our little collection of pieces goes together nicely. In fact, we're so sure that we're correct that we force ourselves on the rest of the world.

On the other side of the pond, with their longer history, they know what a mess bottom up can be. Too, though, they know top down to an extent that we, over here, haven't had a chance to appreciate yet.

Yes, top down is a mess, too. That's where undecidability comes in. The bottom up guy will adapt his measures to see what he needs. Ah yes. As if this were some revelation that we all need to accept. But, the real top down view, that rides on the bottom up, knows that no collection of pieces is a whole.

Ever. Science really knows that; anyway, those who get beyond their gaming (you see, gaming is the essence of the human existence; though, I'm not talking von Neumann, necessarily.).

Actually, one way to look at this is that nothing is until it is. What? Yes, don't you see those computational people talking about their little prognostications (of many variety) as if they were real and already established (see 700ps7 and outhoused).

Trouble is, as we discuss these things, there are those who daily grind out more mis-balance as they have the okay (for now), the access (for now), and the computational prowess to do their deeds (move monies into their pockets out of those of the hapless). One would hope that, at some point, we can 'truth engineer' some type of daily accounting.

Well, used the Vienna School, more or less, as a marker for the analysis, somewhat analogous to using Minsky to talk about how the unstable comes about in our financial affairs.

Remarks:

03/23/2012 -- Renewal of the idea (and related energies) via Cooper and CiE.

11/02/2010 -- A year later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'von' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

09/08/2009 -- See Econoblog II.

09/02/2009 -- Let's put undecidability on the table, please.

Modified: 03/23/2012

Overview of AI

The gist of this post is a recap, somewhat, that is being done briefly. I have been working in Quora, for the most part, but intend to get back to this blog.

The recent CACM of the ACM published an overview of AI by the head of CompSci at UCLA. His view resonated real strongly with me. So, I want to provide a quick look at some of the key items.

First, the article: Human-level intelligence or animal-like abilities?  Author: Adnan Darwiche.

Adnan starts by summarizing some of the recent successes (if you can call them that) that got so much attention in the press. The computer (AI driven) winning in Go. The computer learning how to play a game and beating expert humans. The list goes on. And, the basis is the neural net approach that is not new. Marvin Minsky wrote of these one-half a century ago.

But, too, people got upset. Some are believing in the coming singularity. I say, worry about the current crapularity. Oh, the robots are coming. Just like there was a warning 200 years ago about the invasion of the Brits who wanted to spank the free Americans.

Adnan mentions some of the mainstream areas of AI that have been ignored in the rush after the numeric paradise that is being given us by machine learning. He mentions "knowledge representation, symbolic reasoning, and planning" in short. Adnan was there when the AI winter came about from the mania of the '80s. He was student.

I would tell him that knowledge based engineering came out of that thrust and went fine for decades doing great things. I can (and will) point to writings about this. However, let's continue with Adnan's look from his lofty position.

He reminds us that AI had a reasoning approach, from the beginning. The recent work? No, it's numeric processing, pure and simple. Now, he mentions that particular neural nets (NNs, of which there are many variety) are doing some type of representation of a model. Given that, we can understand these supposed black-boxes with the proper approach. He uses two concepts: model-based and function-based. The former was (is) a huge part of AI, in general. You know, the latter was seen in engineering, too.

So, what we are talking is that the tried-and-true of science and engineering somehow got lost in the rush after the search for the magic function (oh yes, there ain't none). The main argument for the NNs is the advancements that we see in "sophisticated statistical and optimization techniques" that do seem to have amazing results.

But, as Adnan said, it seems to be that we're chasing what animals already do well. And, not doing as well as they. The article provides sufficient examples. But, consider this: no animal can make a computer.

Too, there seems to be a huge divide between the true believers here (chasing after money, power, fame, what have you) and those more scientifically oriented. Besides, the whole of the atmosphere has been polluted with out-of-control hype. Adnan uses 'bullied by success' (let's talk some type of innoculation, shall we?).

What is real here? Well, Adnan has the answer. He says that we're dealing with 'function engineering' where one goal is to approximate cognitive functions. There are more. In fact, Adnan's position is strongly influenced by Judea Pearl who recently wrote on the subject (The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect).

To me, Adnan is talking the old middle-out technique that has been the reality of complicated systems all along. We could think of the NNs as supporting bottom up. But, be aware that there are more areas of technology awaiting attention. The top-down would be somewhat assisted by the traditional approaches. Albeit, we are really talking the human expert rising to the challenge. Per usual.

However, NNs might just be universal as some have claimed from the beginning (not Marvin as he was a critic to his death) in some simulation sense. Guess what? Physics and reality might be closely mimicked by our computationalist's approaches, however being is there irregardless. The 'crap' from extensive computer work (and there are whole bunches to denote) grows. Unfortunately, that whole bit of accumulating residue gets no (or little) attention.

Throughout the paper, Adnan quotes anonymous sources. There is good reason to not get into the cross-hairs at this time. What is really at stake? Well, truth engineering has been dealing with these issues from its inception (my work of the past two decades). So, our pace has (might have) been that of a snail, yet it's tied into other than gaming. Oh yes, we have a whole lot of work to do in reviewing the just past decade and one-half.

Remarks: Modified: 10/16/2018

10/16/2018 -- As Adnan suggested, since there is little scientific thinking going on, I see that we have raging imagination causing the 'running amok' atmosphere. And, we forget the past. This little study has major importance: Carnegie Mellon is Saving Old Software from Oblivion. Those who know have been concerned that experiments (heavily reliant upon computers) cannot be repeated due to technology due to several factors. One is the flash push (wow factor) versus sustainable science. 

Mind over matter?

Is that not a big-T issue?

The Atlantic, last month, had an article on a recent Turing test. Until of late, this challenge seemed to favor the human. However, computation has really evolved. Note that the article mentions human computers. You see, it was not so long ago that scores of people did the hard work of solving problems that now take less time than a blink of the eye by computer.

Are we thereby smarter?

To boot, the main issues are still avoided, in the debate, due to many reasons We'll get to that, eventually. But, to be shown, mind precedes matter. Yep.

The real kick? The emerging prowess of things cyber (at least, the cloud, but more) will be the basis for the demonstration.

And, truth engineering will be at the core. How? Again, we'll get to that.

Remarks:

12/13/2012 -- Is it time to move beyond the Turing Test?

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog. 

03/28/2011 -- See on March madness.

03/24/2011 -- In part, rant: It's obvious that some have talents and some have insights (not mutually exclusive). The former can show us marvels like a golden touch. Is that what we're seeing with Warren Buffett? Or, is it the latter? Or a combination? Whatever it is, my argument is this: lasting business success (or any type of success) does not come about from solely playing luck - that is, the whole gaming-metaphoric jargon that business has descended to (yes, advisedly used) is very much degrading to human dignity (and, no apologies necessary to Las Vegas or other realms of legalized pocket takings). Nor does success come from unconscionable exploitation of others (which, by the way, we see with many types of globalization - the new colonialism). Now, what does that might mean? Well, all of mankind want to pull themselves out of the hole. Guess what? The best-and-brightest (yes, Harvard, to boot, probably in more cases than some would allow us to know) want to preserve their status of walking over others, of using the resources of others (after all, slavery, in many forms, is there, folks -- corporate serfdom, included), of being fed without due effort (yes, as in management, in many case), and a whole lot more. Don't worry, we'll continue to discuss this. Our ancestors did not come over here (the majority, I would venture) to carry forward the whole notion of aristocratic butts to kiss, etc. So, some have remarkable insights and talents. Some less so. Are the latter any less human? Do the former deserve to trample the rights of the latter? Of course, do the latter, by design, need to pilfer from the former? But, where to start in understanding the mess that we're in? Middle out, of course. Some type of national, even international, service is imperative to set the ground for each generation (cohort) to relate peaceably, fruitfully, et al, on this limited planet of ours. And, computation will be an enabling beast (that term used since we see many bad side-effects of the social media, plus a whole cohort of zombies seems to have emerged causing dire straits for themselves and those unlucky enough to be around them, and, like Made-off showed, the supposed wizards of the ether (e-m) can demonstrate an endless means in monkeying with the works (that are ours, collectively)). Does it need to be so? Well, we can try to back off from the gaming viewpoints (except where apropos), even if we do have to deal with uncertainty. We're not saying that we ought not express likelihood and such. Rather, the whole notion of multiple expansions (yes) could help temper those of the type who said a mere three years ago: oh, we have risk in check, never again a downside. Idiots that they were. The suffering continues, despite the chimera.

03/15/2011-- As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint. Paul brings in the 't issues' quite well.

03/13/2011 -- Let's put it this way. Everyone who is successful knows that they have powers behind their good fortune. That is, we can see those who are lucky. But, if that were the only factor, success would not persist. Now, what exactly are those 'powers' that are support gainful efforts. We'll look at those. And, we also have not changed from the position that 'wealth' is NOT the best of measures. That is, some of the successful (too many to name) are plagues upon the earth and it citizens. If we're going to deal with truth, we'll, by necessity, have to look at these issues, to boot.

Modified: 12/13/2012

Money and truth

This topic will be regularly addressed as we go along. As we have already seen, these financial things always move through some progression that includes hedging, speculation, and ponzi-ness (Minsky's model). It's inevitable, even if some arrangement fills a set of pockets with oodles of money. As, those oodles are from the pockets of the hapless.

As an example, let's listen to an expert in these matters talk about evaluating a set of tranches (find the source for this) to some financing manager. So, here is what the expert said: "well, sir, we can tell you the value of bottom level and the top level, but anything in-between would be very difficult."

Yes, that is being honest, but it didn't go far enough. Any managers, and investors, ought to know that the bottom is where those things are that support this house-of-cards (the method probably has a reasonable motivation, yet it's operational aspects can stink - as we've seen recently - if only due to the effect that the method was said to essentially eliminate risk) are. Unfortunately, in many cases, they are junk, yet they could very well be okay if used in their own right.

And, the top-level is some estimate of what just might be attained out of the junk. It's like, everything has some beauty it. But, in a better sense, think of the junk's value as having a range from low to high. The idea is to allow that high aspect to be exploited for marketing which, if it's done correctly, will cover up the junkiness.

But, putting it another way, the bottom is what we can actually count (perhaps not, if the underlying foundation is itself suspect - so, we should say, ought to be countable). The top-level is a goal which, in this case, is illusory (even though, when these things work - as said before - some pockets bulge). And, as we all know, going from now to some goal is not a given (we can look at recent projects for examples- they abound).

Yes, the middle is problematic. With programs, middle-out may be a preferred view to control design and build issues. How would that happen with the tranche?

Well, the types of games, as we see with the tranche and more, result from a lack of reality that can be traced back to money decisions. It is probably unfortunate that 'gold' played this role. There has to be a basis; that ideal of the market (what the wisdom of crowds?) has its own operational issues.

Nature, in which we live and work, is the best source for this basis, not mathematics (which, in this case, would only be the tool and not the truth). Now, how is all this to be done?

Remarks:

04/03/2011 -- Tis tranche and trash.

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

02/18/2009 -- We can look at why securities become toxic, almost by necessity.

12/17/2008 -- We'll use made-off in lieu of ponzi, henceforth.

10/26/2008 --

That the gaming is insane goes without mention, except many expect otherwise (old Marx had it somewhat right, fictitious capital). So, not only is there the Minsky issue, we have abuse of mathematics. Very interesting, indeed.

08/01/2008 --

It's not enough to rant and spout off. So, let's start something constructive by looking at money and what it is.

Modified: 04/03/2011

Our basis

Every so often, there will be a post that can relate across the blogs. The subject of this post is an example, as was the train (7oops7, trutheng, fedaerated).

As a reminder, the following list the motivations for the blogs.

• Truth engineering - the modern conundrums brought by success applying the artificial methods are wide and deep. Of course, this is debatable as many viewpoints attempt to cover these themselves. Yet, none seem sufficient, except that may be due to the variability inherent in the human. One role for computation will be augmentation, or filling in where we fail (or just don't want to perform) due to either complication or difficulty. It's not laziness, folks, rather many times reluctance is insightful. Watson, of IBM, suggested (paraphrase) that he looked for improvements to alleviate tasks that were repetitious and boring. That is, the 'necessity as the mother of invention' moral applies here. Yet, any accumulation of innovation has side-effects. These appear to have an interminable source. Computation exacerbates the problem due to the speed of change and the vastness of the domain (the ever-growing cloud, for example).
• 7oops7 - any endeavor ('oops) requires talent and resources in a continual stream (loops), yet managing side-effects (oops) is key. Some call this risk management. Turns out that finance and engineering have similar traits in this matter, though the latter has more of a claim for invoking science. That is, engineering does have a test bed framework that is more real than anything that we've seen possible with finance. But, failures can still lurk.
  
• FEDaerated - our current situation has a basis that is flimsy, for several reasons. Mind you, the flimsiness is not inherent, rather it deals with understanding the issues that truth Engineering tries to address. Unfortunately, wizards (yes, quants, I mean you, in part) run the necessary realms with little oversight. Of course, there is always the blustering of those with top-down power; however, what bottom-up, or middle-out, considerations do we need to address to resolve some of the issues. Not easy to say.
  

Each blog is to provide a different perspective on a matter so as to fill in a more thorough discussion. That is the hope.

Now, truth engineering gets to look at the fun stuff such as talk about what's mentioned in the Aside on the 'Our basis' post. Some may wonder if the topic can be expanded without resolving, or at least addressing, t-issues. No problem there. In the beginning, there may be more metaphor than fact, yet, so what, as science itself deals both top-down and bottom-up. One thing constant, and consistent, is quasi-empirical approaches of which Lakatos' method of thought experiment is part of the tool kit. Too, the whole dynamic behind the clouded web applies here; we'll see many types of experimentation available now. Analogous efforts, such as business intelligence, are just a little mole hill, so far.

Remarks

08/03/2011 -- The relationship to economics is important.

Modified: 08/03/2011

Ten years

Ten years ago, I started this blog. The first post was "Truth, can it be engineered?" Overall, there have been 284 posts. The topics have followed the times.

Early on, there were posts about engineering. The key topics were 'earned value' and 'middle out' which are constant issues. Then, the topics changed to finance due to the downturn, its consequences and the long road. We still are in jeopardy.

Prior to starting the blog, I was doing Wikipedia edits. I pulled this little graph that shows edits by year. It can be broken down further, but the timeline shows interrelationships.

Summary -- My edits on Wikipedia, starting in October of 2005. By 2008, I was involved with two blogs, 7′oops7 and truth engineering. In 2009, I started the Fedaeratedblog. These are still going and are apropos. Then, Wikipedia activity started up again in 2010 due to involvement with the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. After an initial bit of activity, the work moved to another site and was quite extensive for a while as I had to dive into history. On Wikipedia, I spent a lot of time editing pages related to medieval Europe and New England as an example of a later colony. Then, I did my first Quora answer in July 2015: What happened in the British North American colonies during the English Civil War?.

---

Truth engineering started under the auspices of working in a knowledge-based engineering (KBE) environment. With all of the emphasis lately on AI (due to machine learning and deep diving of data), one wonders what is the basis for all of this. Well, KB, and its offshoot of KBE, were there from the beginning. And, they will continue. We will address this more here as we go along.

In the meantime, on a related page in Wikipedia, there was a request for real examples. I briefly sketched two recently. See . Talk:ICAD (software) for the examples.

Also, in terms of getting a plane to fly, it is more arduous than making a little smart phone. And, it demonstrates going up against nature big time. Nature is the chief guide. We have to conform and do so smartly. Nothing new there, as engineering has been around from the beginning.

What is new is the computer? What? And, social media and fake news. Don't blame the media, rather we need to look at this stuff from a new angle. Hence, truth engineering, for one thing.

---

Post note: There was no reference in this blog to KBE over the years. Why? There were two in the related blog: Out on a limb and Here we go again, III (only a cursory mention). I suppose that I was looking at truth beyond the computer. Guess what? Jobs and his mobile gift has changed the landscape (and his cohorts with their various clouds, too). And so, can we go forward without knowing that 'truth' is computational, albeit with natural or artificial resources?

Remarks: Modified: 12/30/2018

12/30/2018 -- 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 (missing), 2018.

It is or it is not

I would have used 'tis and tain't but for the taint that might come forth. So, what is this about? Well, we're going to look at issues raised by a growing set of people, such as the late Christopher Hitchens. You see, this type of discussion is central to truth engineering, especially as it relates to T-issues.

--

As well, we see both sides of the arguments claiming to know. On the one side, it's phrased in terms of having fact at hand (to wit, discussions at the Dawkins site), as we expect with science (except, evidence has become increasingly wrapped within computational/mathematical modeling that requires us to put into place the necessary filters/lens, etc. -- recursive issues) as it has evolved in the past few centuries. On the other side, there are statements about material obtained via various types of means, with revelation (whole slew of sacred literature) being one of these.

So, it's like a fence for the reasonable folks. There are two sides, yet one may (ought to be allowed to) waffle on both sides (actually, operational effectiveness may require us to do just that). Too, nuances come into play on both sides. All of this is relevant to the discourse, however we are using an 'engineering' ontology, so that means the following assignment.

• It is not -- argues this: any claims that might have theistic leanings are basically bonkers, as in delusional (look it up on Google). We can wrap ourselves in the Mystery (see Krauss, et al) or Evolution (see Dawkins) or ... 
• It is -- the converse, in a sense: there is a whole lot to look at here as this is an age-old issue. From our viewpoint, though, we'll just say that there exists a meme (or set of memes) that follow Anselm's argument of the ontological nature. Or, in other words, we have times when something outside of the human limits (mind you, only offering the use of a symmetric entity to which we can project) has a role to play in our decision processes. For now, the use of  'meme' means that we can draw benefits (potentially quite remarkable -- hence, the motivation) without taking the discussion to the nth degree (that cannot currently be resolved for many folks - okay?).  

Before we proceed, there needs to be a statement of a disclosure nature. That is, on which side is the blogger? Well, it may be that using 'It is not' as the basis for argument may imply something about that. But, then, again, that question will remain unanswered, for now, in an attempt to be balanced. 

---

Now, again, one might ask if an a-theist (some say, the 'It is not' side) can claim to be scientific (and that might imply a position on the part of the blogger). You know, science does not provide answers in an ultimate sense. There is always a provisional platform that grows in size. Too, that increase in size does not diminish what is not known (at least, from the viewpoint of the less strident mind). If science cannot at this time disprove the meme (or its metaphysical analog), how can one claim to make the decision via science? 

---

On the other hand, if one were to argue for the 'It is' claim, why does it have to take the ultimate leap to describing what exactly is being labelled? You see, the meme would be an operational flavor; nowhere within the context of its use would there be any requirement to subsume the essence (that which is labelled) within some limited sensibility. Look, if science has increasing boundaries, so too will this argument.  

---

Okay, we'll be going back and forth on this. Mind you, the meme mentioned above is a type of closure. As a joke, one could say it deals with compactification (use any sense that you want). Yet, the issue is that we have to assume closure, in many cases, since we have undecidable regions (in both time and space) lurking. You know, we do that anyway with our common sense. Lots of times, it works. 

With computational complexity being a core issue with 'truth' (only one of many other things, so don't leap too far in trying to extract implications here), we cannot use the 'omniscience' approach (though, one wonders how the 'It is not' side is going to look at this -- we'll look at this later) that seems to underlie some notions (those who ponder such things do not know how we can know the truth behind any modern situation with having our arms around the whole thing -- oh yes, some have taken mathematics as the basis meanwhile ignoring quasi-empirical issues). I say 'underlies' as it seems to be that we have a basis moving about down there. Truthfully? Many seem to just jump right over the matter; my hope is to show that they're straddling the fence when they do so.

That brings up the first requirement. Show that there is a fence. At the same time, discuss the symmetry related to this fence's dynamics.

---

How long will this take? Why would there be a rush? Mankind has fought over these matters for thousands of years. My interest is trying to set a framework that will allow increased insights (as well, will provide for some interesting discussions and experiments).

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- The site referenced in a below Remark took down my comment about dreaming of Hitch (ah, can't believe that he's in heaven?). Yeah. So, here it is: Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).

05/30/2012 -- See dreams of Hitch comments at the It is or it is not post. These were written at the Daily Hitchens site (and deleted). They'll be re-posted here at some point. Recent Krauss tribute.

05/04/2012 -- Alan's 100th. We need to look at Computability in the World.

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.

01/31/2012 -- Blind or delusional.

01/15/2012 -- Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

01/15/2012 --  Hitch lives on. In more ways than one. ..., One might say that this is the middle way (variously characterized throughout our history on the planet). From the viewpoint of product development, middle out is the only way that finds success.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Assessments, in general

We have done this blog, in concert with 7'oops7, since 2007. We started Fedaerated in 2009. Then, in 2010, we started the TGS blog (last post, Technology assessments ...). For the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. (TGS), as well, we had some publications (Gardner's Beacon). In 2015, we went over to Quora and have been there since. Various excursions were related to using other modes, such as WordPress. 

But, we're back to Google and its Blogger. Why? Of all of the xnn/LLM systems that we looked at (granted, the survey was not exhaustive), we liked Bard the best. So, we'll work in that environment. At the same time, we'll touch all of the to other resources on a regular basis. It's just that we'll use this for publishing where we want to support mobile devices. 

Of late, we have tried LinkedIn's approach which we look at below. There we published the first of a series. We just completed the third piece what is expected to be five pieces. What we call AIn't is the motive. Truth engineering has been on our table for a long while but was problematic. What did it mean and for what motive is it necessary and why just this? 

2023 brought the answer to the questions. Answers have been embedded within these posts all of this time. So, the effort was right on. Let's just say that I was being exhaustive in a way that can only be understood in the academic sense as being highly multidisciplinary. I was retired and had the time and the interest and the ability. 

There is no hubris in that comment; rather, it's a nod to a continuation of what I was doing anyway - advanced computional systems - without having the time to be thorough. So, it's time to pull all of the factors together so that we can analyze and perhaps predict and propose changes. For me, being successful at the complete survey of the western civilization's influence on the world is enough of a motive. However, the world is large, so we need to bring into the discussion all other cultures. 

Notice that the TGS is based upon the history of the U.S. as an offshoot of the U.K. Be that as it may, we know that New England was not alone. Too, we know the prior history of these regions. Albeit, lessons learned or not over 400 years require attention. BTW, the U.S. started 250 years ago, almost, so that event will get regular mention. 

Okay, after seeing ChapGPT and noting the issues, I began discussion with Larry Walker who had run the Knowledge Systems Center for Sperry Univac for which I worked. The focus on "knowledge" was strong for both of us. That was not what we were seeing with the machine learning systems being pushed out. We can discuss that at any level. For now, these posts will be setting the stage for discussions that are pending and necessary. 

I became aware of ChatGPT in February of 2023 which was late. I wrote several posts on it and its cohorts and other topics that relate. But, in December, I published on LinkedIn the 1st of a series. It was also presented in PDF and at WordPress. The title: Artificial intelligence, not solely machine learning (AI, not solely ML). The 2nd of the series continued the theme: Knowlege and truth. 

Neither of these seemed to be of importance of the work that went into xNN/LLM. Why say that? It's been by career to work with these issues operationally (real time, industrial environments); at the same time, my private work (autodidact, by nature) covered the bases with respect to what's at play and of scope. Essentially, "theoretical" is my middle name. 

I just finished the 3rd of the series: Physicalness and mathematics. There will be one more (4th) that deals with the emergence, and surgence, of machine learning during the past two decades. As well, we have to look at data and decisions as a key topic with regard to computing and technology. That is, people, in general, need to know. Experts? We'll address their issues, too. After the 4th, we'll do a 5th which will deal with "What's next?" with all of this stuff. 

The series is based upon experience in KBE as it functioned as the basis for truth engineering. So, it's more oriented toward those operationally involved with engineering and science. I'll turn around and write this series (condensed) for the general public. 

So, here is the series: 

• 1st - AI, not solely machine learning (Blog post, Linkedin**)
• 2nd - Knowledge and truth (Blog post, Linkedin**) 
• 3rd - Physicalness and mathematics (Blog post, LinkedIn**)
• 4th - ML’s emerge/surge and data/decisions ()
• 5th - Where do we go from here?

Notes: 

* "truth engineering" coined by David E. Jakstis in discussion of a white paper by John M. Switlik on their joint work with computational modeling for fabrication of forgings and castings. 

** This is open to public read. Some Linkedin pages may require account.       

--------------------------------

In tems of history, the U.S. D.O.D. supported early work in artificial intelligence. As well, data science was a common program. It is of interest to future discussion to point to the recent guidelines for digital enginering. We have made reference to "digital twin" which is an important concept that must be brought into the discussion related to advanced computing. We will have this document a major piece of our bibliography. 

Digital engineering

Remarks: Modified: 02/04/2024

02/04/2024 --  Linked this to 7'oops7 (AI, not ML solely) which will bear directly on the 777 project underlying KBE which relates to truth engineering as AI when it matures. Notice: Shattered dreams. 

Viewpoints

Truth deals with viewpoints. When we need to assess truth in a processing sense, viewpoints would help set control, such as with parameters, filters, and so forth.

Today, I happened upon Beck's book, having to do with "pants on fire." Normally, I would not have paid attention to the book, however there were none other available to me at the time. Besides, I have always randomly chosen books to read. As well, these times are not normal (or so it might seem).

Well, in his book, Glenn was writing about progressives (a Wikipedia page: Progressivism). I took note of some historical references. For instance, he mentioned Phillip Berrigan who was well known, with his brother, as a peace activist, especially during the Vietnam War. Glenn devotes space to Phillip's experiences during the Battle of the Bulge. He touches upon Hegel and others.

The idea of the book is to lay out how the elites are those who reign, not that we don't see the same sort of thing with the other side of the fence. What caught my eye was the quiz. Here it is.

Are you a progressive?

The questions are phrased so as a high score would put you in that group. What ought to interest us is that there are many discussion that could be had with each of these questions. Too, some of that analysis might lead to a middle position. The scoring allows for that with a range from Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders.

Neither of these names need explanation in the U.S., given the times.

What is impressive is Glenn's collection of notes. I'll give him a lot of credit on that.

In this day of technology, I wonder if we might see some supposed smart system rating people with quizzes like this. Then, you would get your badge for the day.

I'll take being accused of getting up on the wrong side of the bed, anytime, to such an quizzical endeavor.

Back to Glenn, though. I don't know if he understands Hegel. At the very least, Glen misconstrues what Hegel was about.

Remarks: Modified: 09/07/2016

09/07/2016 --

Doers II

In reviewing some old posts (2008), I ran across this one (Doers and speculators). Sheesh, we think those types that deal with abstractions as being so smart. Like, how many idolize Warren, as if he is some epitome? Then, Big Ben has his following, too.

Now, reading this post made me recall the motivation. Too, I see that it is right on three years later. For some reason, there has been a little digression but not really.

Let's, first, pull together posts related to this theme from the past few years.

• Criticism and truth (October 26, 2007) - if one looks at sports, for instance, it's really apparent. How many arm chair quarterbacks are there each monday night throughout the NFL season? In baseball, there are nine on the field for any team at any point in the game. Forgetting the few, coaches and staff and such, that support the team, how many are involved (fans: at the game, watching on tv, etc.)? So, we have only a small collection of doers and a whole lot of watchers. Trouble is, the economy is like that, too. Just as people bet on games, the markets (as currently defined) allow a whole lot of gambling that is really not of much usefulness (crowd sourcing notwithstanding).
• Justice and truth (November 10, 2007) - as the workers toil, they diminish to naught. As the watchers gain, fat cats grow unbounded. Part of that is the belief that business has to be ruthless (to wit, article about Warren's recent misstep - see Remarks 04/30/2011).
• Free and fee (August 27, 2008) - something for nothing seems to be the underpinning motivation of greed (or more for less, etc.). That this cannot lead to realistic, and sustainable, economics is what we need to look at.
• Truth and toil (September 16, 2009) - of course, there is always the 'classism' that is the basis of capitalism (which is one big factor in the emergence of the ca-pital-sino).

--

What is the point of all this? Well, there are two things. For one, problems with handling abstractions cause more than just the map-territory mishap in which we see the model becoming more real, in the minds of some, than that which is modeled. Pity the poor sucker caught in the jaws of the six-sigma tightening belt.

Secondly, many, who are in the positions of power, never did a lick of 'real' work (as in, dirty hands, of course). Now, we may consider that excelling at some sport may be considered 'work' in this context. A joke that one heard prior to the wedding of last week was that some, within the ranks of the royals, were aghast that Kate had actually worked for a living.

Perhaps, if some of those who are the diapered CEO types had been forced to work their way up (in senses to be discussed), they would not fall so much under the weight of their egos into hubris. The military model works in this case. There are few higher-order officers who have not come up through the ranks (O-series, sufficient, okay?). That is, one does not fall into a position of command via family or appointment (though, some politicos would probably want this).

In terms of exhausting their resources, some top-down thinkers would know more about the reality of what can be accomplished if they had the proper experience. But, no. Management has taken itself to be above differentiation by domain as it operates from universals (or, almost).

The whole out-housing phenomenon is predicated on a never-ending pool of potential exploitees. But, that is a whole another subject to be addressed.

---

Of course, the whole system is awry in this sense and has been for some time. After all, it was several 100s years ago that the first insurance minds cast lots in betting on the success of the doers (people like those who produced goods and those actually moved them from one place to another - in many cases, facing storms on a raging sea). Then, we have funny money which has no basis in reality, at all.

Remarks:

03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit.

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

05/09/2011 -- Milking the system, something from nothing, ... (analogous to perpetual motion).

05/06/2011 -- Good engineers are doers.

05/05/2011 -- New America Foundation: Middle class under siege.

Modified: 03/25/2013

Carvers and carvees

Or, I might have titled this: Thanksgiving thoughts.

-----

We have a lot to be thankful for. Itemizing these things can be interesting and, even, beneficial.

That we saw a pepper applier, recently, work with such efficiency and zeal brought to mind several questions. Such as, are we any better now than we were 400 years ago? Why do the carvers (and the burners and the hangers -- as in Iran, ever see a squadron of cranes used to dangle bodies by the neck?) put so much effort into getting efficient?

Consider, please, this example of quartering. We can thank Edward III for letting the mode become commonplace. 'Put the people in their place' sort of strategy, using tactics like the Treason Act.

The image shows Sir Thomas Armstrong being worked on, posthumously.

This? In 1684 which is a mere eight years before the madness descended upon Salem. Can we be thankful that we have progressed beyond such things?

Some think that the evidence against Sir Thomas was doctored. Have we not seen that sort of thing in our times?

Why does all of this still have some ring of truth (the core focus of this blog) to it in these modern times?

Remarks:

10/15/2013 -- Pre-Halloween thoughts brought me to this post. I ran across an example from Essex County, Massachusetts related to a family during the turmoils of 1692 (behind Salem's prominence as the spooky/witch place). The image shows those who were accused, some of them executed who are part of an extended family.

01/20/2013 -- State of affairs: business per usual, kill lists for drone targets, and much more. The Marines want to use "mindfulness" (some Buddhists wouldn't step on a bug); not being critical, but is not there a chance that they could get inspired to be more peaceful?

12/16/2011 -- This guy is a national treasure, almost. Everyone ought to see this wateboarding video (from two years ago). Gosh, Dick, how would you fare? Hitchens explains more on this sign of barbarism running rampant.

12/08/2011-- Does it not appear, perhaps, that some of the 1% would be very much appreciative if this type of law were to be brought back?

"In 1536 a more severe law was passed stating that those caught outside of their parish without work would be punished by being whipped through the streets. If caught a second time they could lose an ear and if caught a third time they could be executed."

12/07/2011 -- Looks like Isabella (Hugh Despenser) was as bad as her son, Edward III.

12/06/2011 -- Congress wants to clean up its act.

11/27/2011 -- Further comment.

11/23/2011 -- Salem? Yes, yearly look back.

11/23/2011 -- Though the topic is somewhat troubling, it does represent several things that we will discuss here and in the other forums. Much has been written, and debated, about life, liberty, and more. The U.S.A. is a couple hundred years or so into its unfolding of a framework for peaceful, progressive living. And, there has been no end of troubles, both internal and external.

As well, new things have emerged. For instance, who rules, why they might rule, and how they ought to rule are points that need attention. Of late, power and money have intertwined to create a top-down mess; yes, one successful lobbyist in D.C. says that some problems arise from too much power in Washington that is easily manipulated by the monied set. That is, politicos, in my words, salivate at the sight (or even the thought) of a buck (going into their pockets). There was a recent article about insider trading making some rich.

Yet, at the same time, these types do not properly compensate those who are serving their country. This is another story that we'll look at.

---

That leaders are elected probably naturally trends toward the mess that we see now (the un-workings of the super-committee, for instance). But, we don't want tyrants assuming control, either. What a quandry!

So, who ought to rule? The best-and-brightest? How is this determined? Those who now get such labels have surely made some things worse in many ways. Let me count the ways (Harvard figures). So, that'll be a topic of interest. The recent downturn has so many culprits that it would be funny except that the consequences are dire and real.

---

But, let's consider the royalty and its problems. That is, the old order, in some view.

Why look at these types (beyond the fact that we've had 1000s years of experience with the bumblers)? What has emerged, with the advances in systems (all types), are planetary institutional views (yes, the corporation, that which has been given the rights of an individual by those gowned persons who sit at the bench) that are above any country and really have no control (besides that provided by the egos at the top - and, we all know their motivations).

This reality leads to the need for us to look at the Magna Carta, and the like, as being necessary to rein in the reign of these super types (0.001% or less --- 100% minus 99% is just too gross of a measure). Even the consumer, the supposed backbone of the economy has little power. Why? Bucks have been sucked out of their pockets.

---

What else can we learn from royalty? Well, Edward III, mentioned earlier, is an example. His desire for total control (and we've seen innumerable examples of these types) needed some support, so, of course, we get the divine right of the kings. We'll be looking at this, too.

---

What about the people and their rights? Oh, you mean the common man and woman? If they have any rights, they'll be God given. Was that not stated in one of our documents? The 99%'ers know this and are expressing some deep intuition. However, how do we establish this notion in more than just words on paper?

---

From time to time, there is a harmonious state that comes about. Some of these have even been more than short-lived. Prick the skin of some old hippies (who may now be of the suited class) and there'll be the old blood. Some claim that general education (hey, thanks, early New Englanders) supports a trend that is upward. The educated man does not make a good servant. We all know how slaves (has very many meanings) are kept from their rightful opportunities.

But, does education lead toward money grabbing mindsets? Oh God, please not that. We know that this is not the case; to wit, any of the middle-class scientists who have worked and contributed, any of the economic worker whose remuneration is less than 'rent' (we'll go into this further), and very many more.

For that matter, take any of the enlisted military persons (yes, E series, as in underpaid, under-appreciated, and under the Os whose egos are without bound) who risk life and limb despite the poor treatment (Walter Reed, remember? -- ah, that just barely scraped the surface).

---

Why bring up the Os? Well, the upper ranks there have their royal attitudes (we'll go into this, to boot). Now, there is no cause to misunderstand the intent here. Of course, we need hierarchy for order (perhaps, one could argue that non-uniform distributions of wealth is a natural outcome, to boot -- somewhat). That whole environment is top-down and command driven. Nice. It works; to an extent.

Where have we ever seen a real bottom-up attempt? The modern environment has developed enablers that will allow such a view to become a reality. One of the enablers would be the 'cloud' (though, there are several issues to address -- undecidability, for one).

---

Some have been fortunate enough to have found a bottom-up working experience. These are rare. In some cases, it goes too far as what we see is a coddling of a pampered set (as if they are not replaceable).

---

Aside, what's worse? A pampered (diapered, actually) boss man (or woman) who throws their weight around, has tantrums, and essentially disembowels (see above) their workers or some worker who has the needed talents in some specific framework so as to be cowtowed to by their companies (excessive pay, et al)?

---

There are many ways to carve and oodles in the set of those who can undergo carving. The trait of a wise person? Even if one finds oneself in a carving role, there is a choice about whether or not to fill this role. All sorts of moral arguments can come into play here.

But, a core issue is the following of orders that are wrong, or unconstitutional. So much to discuss there, to boot.

---

So, we're back to something that relates to intelligence, whatever it is. Those who are at the top of the top-down do have talents. Can these be measured a priori? Too, some slough through life as if there is nothing between their ears. However, in the vast majority there is a substantial subset of those who are of sufficient talent to do the roles of the topper-most. Ah, is that so?

Yes, and we do see some upward movement when the environment allows this. In fact, the meritocratic push demonstrates this reality.

Aside: it is atrocious that some allowed gaming of the student financial system in order to line the pockets of fat cats while enveloping students into indentured servant-hood; there were all sorts of this type of gaming that is not necessary nor desirable to a sustainable system.

---

The military does demonstrate the issue, to boot. That is, the uppermosts are not, by need, out of the military academies. Too, rising in the ranks implies successful experience and making the most of the opportunities (mind you, not equivalent to being an opportunist). Somewhat, one might make this claim for a company.

Yet, the latter is too political (we'll get into this). Some who rise in business are good at directing others; in trying situations, some could not wipe their own behinds (ah, that trait of being ineffective in real ways needs a lot of characterization -- fortunately, I've seen enough up close to have a lot of material to use).

---

A group of professionals that I know passed the leadership hat around. When they could, as those who want business per usual could not fathom such a thing (did I mention shallow -- short-term -- thinking (disguised with mathematics -- atrociously) as being an attribute that seems to have been rewarded of late?).

'leadership' (what is that? isn't it sickening hearing 'leaders' brag of themselves?) -- ah, what about leading oneself? It's like the saying of neither a borrower nor a lender be (neither a leader nor a follower be). So much to discuss here.

---

What role can a 'free' man take? How about being autodidact? This role, people, is going to be the most important one in the future that is emerging. And, it will involve 'know how' that is related to more than just collecting money, fame, or other spiritually detrimental assets.

Modified: 10/15/2013

Beats and more

A recent The Atlantic article asked something like this, can bankers behave? Well, no, given that we let them play the game in an unfair way (no wonder old Marx used "fictitious" capital); it was, at one time, the reality that the allowance for bankers was due to power; now, the computer (and applied mathematics) has muddied the waters beyond possible cleaning (not! - why else, truth engineering?).

Actually, research has shown that there are serious moral gaps within the characters of a whole lot of those who fill banker-type roles. That little glitch, plus the largess that they get (from the likes of Ben and Janet), compound the problem.

---

Recently, though, I ran across a page where some from the Beat generation were shown with Mary Beach that reminded me of a proper viewpoint that is antithetical, somewhat, to that of the rapacious bankers. I need to pay a little more attention to her life.

GEK III 

My involvement with the counterculture goes way back, as I was, sort of, forced there by the system (long story). By the time that GEK III was my roomie at KU, I had met a few, knew of some aspects of the life, and, generally, looked at it in my own autodidact sense (extreme state of not having a mentor - long story too). GEK III and I had our discussive moments (not always from the same end of the spectrum - I did end up marrying a cousin which we joked about); he was very much on the list of major characters that I have known.

A few days ago, on FB, George Laughhead, who has the Beats in Kansas (imagine) site, pushed out something that Charles Plymell wrote (a decade or so ago). Gosh, Charles' little thing spoke to me on many levels. The main point, apropos to this blog, is that these levels have to do with truth which is never simple (except under certain circumstances - to be discussed).

When you read Charles, note the mention of his ancestors. Also, recall that one model for the work here deals with the evolution (devolution, many times) of life and kind here (the beacon on a hill and dreams thereof) from those early days in the northeastern region (we have a tabla raza situation with which to ponder the true American citizen - and, where the hell did we go wrong?).

If it is not clear, many of the counterculture are more truth based than those of the major culture (at least, more so than those of the power set); too, though, we find good people everywhere. That is meant to imply that we all have dealt with all types over our years (however many). I mostly have applied the rule: when in Rome, do NOT, by any necessity, do as the Romans ;-). We all are responsible for our own selves (and those who depend upon us).

---

If you bring Emerson to mind, you are partly right. Reading Charles of late struck me as did running across RWE in my very early days of trying to cope with the solitude of knowing one's own mind and to deal with the reality that we all face up to the music by ourselves.

Truth engineering has a core that is strictly scientific and mathematical; however, in the larger realm, we have to have humans in the loop (all sorts of discussion here); of human kind, we have a whole lot to learn from the Beats and their times (blip on that large evolutionary screen).

Remarks:   Modified: 08/21/2015

04/26/2015 -- What is it that the Beats represent? Lot of stuff has been said about this. Good art? Freedom? One of my interests would be the historical beginnings of the views. Plenty interest abounds nowadays, so no doubt there will be academic views and analysis. But, I'm after more. On this side of the pond, one of the first true-free societies might have been in Cape Ann, prior to Conant's arrival. In a brief moment in time (well, over a year), the people were friendly within their group, peaceful with the natives, well-stocked with supplies and tools, led by a capable male who really needs to have more known about him and his children, no church (they did not have any religious representative within the group - again, not until Conant arrived, dragging along Lyford), no state (England was a long way away; Standish tried to come up and muscle his way - not), they were healthy (did not lose a soul over their winter - that came with Endicott and too many bodies for the available resources), and a whole lot more. ... One of the things that Charles wrote about was of working; that rang a bell since I have been working (chores included) from an early age; did any of the Beats work (well, I did see GEK III with a hammer once)? Oh, perhaps, it's the Maynard character that I'm recalling. ... In short, it may be that the counterculture has a greater impact (we'll have to look at that) through time.

04/29/2015 -- Added a knowledge map for GEK III which links to CP. We can use the Gaslight Tavern which was next to the Abington Book Shop as a analytic loci. ... About older sisters, my family had five girls in a row; then a boy was born, my older brother. I have, then, more male siblings, after that (the proverbial middle, pivot position, ...). But, there are many more (other) simpatico themes.

04/30/2015 -- While writing of his "belief" systematic and adopted position, CP uses belonging and joining as typical human modes in which he does not chose to partake. I can relate to that, several ways. This is not a re-phrase, but the same issue can be discussed in terms of neither a leader or follower be (mis-use of lender or borrower?). The latter? Well, the sheepish people that we see everywhere are indicative of the pervasiveness of the problem (problem or just a human characteristic?). The former? Ah, so many of those Type-A (such big idiots) jerks with which any insightful person has to cope, daily (everywhere dense, again; both uncountable?). ... The slow (well, quick scan) reader, me, just realized that Pam (CP does mention this twice) is Mary's daughter.

05/01/2015 -- Just did a knowledge map for the Maypole work of Hawthorne (cousin-in-law) with this note: the best example of an early representation of what America could be (still is not - no religious, or other, bigotry, peaceful relations, resourceful people, respect for the environment, ...) was the experience at Cape Ann, pre-Conant. But, it, somewhat, continued untll Endicott had the great house moved to Salem. Now, having said that, I went through parts of the 50s section by CP, which motivated the NH reference. Too, though, I want to thread through that whole bit of retrospective by CP by decade (time to call the chillun home?). For instance, CP was at SFS. On that same Hayakawan day, I was working my shift at Zim's (at the time, janitor, busboy, dish washer) just a few blocks away. Too, I was collecting more credits at SFCC, all of which I transferred (with accumulations from UCLA, KU, too) to UA (Tucson) a little later. Of note, though, post the madness, I knuckled under and graduated magna cum laude (Phi Kappa Phi). Yet, CP's view resonates (to be explained; has to do with a lesson that we did not learn from Albert - our wild-haired friend). Later, I worked two blocks from the Capitol (Maryland SW) in a white collar position; I can claim to have seen the American belly from about any angle that is possible (want to know what I think? the childishness of the beats, hippies is much to be preferred to that of the modern CEO - yeah, Jamie - and others of the ilk that think that we ought to love their leadership - see yesterday's Remark).

05/03/2015 -- ... which way does the beard point tonight? ..., AG, of course. ... From this Wiki page, I found a modern (somewhat) link, Cherry Valley.

07/06/2015 -- 4th anniversary, RIP, GEK III, whom I met 49 years and 11 months ago (so, the 50th is coming up - that year, 1965). ... There is some irony here. "Moral" was used early in this post. Then, the theme transitioned to a profligate generation's bit of fun. Not to be relativistic, but we can take a more broad notion of the concept. "broad" would apply across all sorts of dimensional views.

08/21/2015 -- What's it like to be poor? The Beats adopted this state, albeit, many did so volunteer'ly. Perhaps, that helped some gain understanding of the mode of life (usually imposed rather adopted).