Today I woke up early, and then I fell asleep again, Into that shallow state between dreaming and being awake. I had a strange dream. It seemed that I am at some IT / computer classes with other students, and then there was the other guy, the lecturer, wearing a white lab coat.
He begun to take eatables from a plate, the meat, the dumplings, vegetables, etc., and he put it in a blender. Well, it was actually more like an old-fashioned meat grinder. And he began to process, and he was observing us as he was doing it. I told him that now as he homogenized all that food, it takes less data, less bits to describe what he has now, than it took before. He seemed to be a little bit surprised, but pleased. Then I woke up.
It all reminded me the fact, how AI created images began to degenerate, when you cycle them, when you keep using AI created images as a model for the AI to create new ones.
It also reminds me when you took people of different races and cultures, put them in a shaker, and begin to shake them. And as a result, you expect more culture and more diversity. But somehow, that will not happen, will that ?
Is it some sort of a trend, are we facing a loss of complexity ? It seems to be something new and unprecedented, it does not fit the cultural waves in history, not even a mandate of heaven pattern. It seems to be in opposition of nature, life and creation.
Similar to if I wanted to eat an egg and experience the look, taste and texture of one, they disappear if mixed in with all the other ingredients to make a cake. The cake has none of the features of an egg.
I think Jon’s comments are in on this idea….
AI, the Digital Sheriff; is enforcing an affirmative action.
Are you homogenized?
No?
The AI Sheriff; has got your DATA…
AND, is coming for YOU!
The more complexity, the more entropy for a controlling system of any description and domain. The created homogeneity, the more easily will controls and operating parameters be applied.
Or maybe not…who moved my cheese?
I actually had to go to a work seminar based on that popular book because Shell Oil, the company I worked for in 1990’s was launching the globalization paradigm along with the stakeholder motif.
Along that very theme, and quite synchronistically, we just came across the description of what looks like an interesting book:
Abstract
This book explores the construction of Marzahn, the largest prefabricated housing project in East Germany, built on the outskirts of East Berlin in the 1970s and 1980s, and touted by the regime as the future of socialism. It also focuses especially on the experience of East Germans who moved, often from crumbling slums left over as a legacy of the nineteenth century, into this radically new place, one defined by pure functionality and rationality—a material manifestation of the utopian promise of socialism. Employing methodologies from critical geography, urban, architectural, and environmental history, and everyday life, the book asks whether their experience was a radical break with their personal pasts and the German past. More directly: can a dramatic change in spatial and material surroundings also sever the links of memory that tie people to their old life narratives, and if so, does that help build a new socialist mentality in the minds of historical subjects? The answer is yes and no—as much as the East German state tried to create a completely new socialist settlement, divorced of any links to the pre-socialist past, the massive construction project uncovered the truth buried—literally—in the ground, which was that the urge to colonize the outskirts of Berlin was not new at all. Furthermore, the construction of a new city out of nothing, using repeating, identical buildings, created a “panopticon”-like effect, enabling the Stasi to undertake more complete surveillance than they had previously.
… “stakeholder” HAHAHAHHAHA! Did the word bricolage appear in your seminar? Those two words are usually found together.
Thanks for the further details. And it is a dystopian horror story too.
I’d say the facilitator was doing the seminar by the seat of her pants, rather doubt she’d ever run across that descriptive word to describe her presentation. Personally I thought the whole experience was a bit “cheesy” along with the other mandatory seminars while employed there.
Diversity points were on everyone’s end of year evaluations for the yearly earnings bonus… so the consultants brought in made out rather well. 
Thanks for the comments guys, one does not feel so much as a weirdo any more. Anyway, I wonder if I had such dream if I slept on top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies (Rainier Wolfcastle copyright).
Yep, the do it yourself became the new business model once “stakeholder” was set up via websites and telephone trees.
It’s quite incredible that that “loss of complexity” is precisely one of the main arguments of my book. AI enables it, and so did it Modernism, long before - and still does…
Hi man, if you are into books, try to hand you this one:
https://www.sophia.sk/en/kniha/sedem-archanjelov
The author is not well known, but the ideas are worth it.
… rather than a loss of complexity could it be simply that complexity has become so unpredictable that it is interpreted as chaos. In your mind is there a connection between the loss of complexity and the loss of certainty?
I would say, yes. As the world gets more complex, we have been progressively dumbed down. AI is the last - and probably more dangerous - installment of that whole system. The less time we have to think deeply, and the more we are hostages to AI’s “instant” answers to everything, the more our capacities to deal with complex thought become truncated. Plus, we have put all of our “beliefs” into science, and into Cartesian rationality. So, all together, I guess, certainty is something we will have less and less…
… and who “programs” AI? , and the content that is “fed” into these AI models is taken from? …
I do not think the question(s) center so much on “complexity” as it does around issues of chance and probability.
From C.S. Peirce … The Collected Papers 2:102
" I next take up that immensely important branch of deductive logic, the doctrine of chances, which has been called, with little exaggeration, the logic of the exact sciences. This involves several difficult questions, of which the two chief are on the one hand, the foundation of the doctrine, together with the nature of probability, and on the other hand, the admissibility of inverse probabilities. Both of these are matters of practical importance to us all; for although few have occasion to make numerical computations of probabilities, the use of the ideas and propositions of the calculus is most widely extended, and to great advantage, while, at the same time, even the greatest mathematicians have fallen into fatal practical errors both in the theory and in the application of it. The first of the two questions mentioned is by no means one to be settled at one blow. A whole nest of fallacies is hidden in it. This is why I cannot here in a few words approximately define my position so that a person acquainted with the state of discussion can get a general idea of where I stand. I may, however, say that I am one of those who maintain that a probability must be a matter of positive knowledge, or confess itself a nullity. Yet I do not go to such an extreme length of empiricism as Mr. Venn. On the other hand, some very acute, but in my opinion quite untenable, positions of Mr. F. Y. Edgeworth will receive examination. It is of the extremest importance to distinguish entirely different qualities commonly confounded under the name of probability. One of these, which I term “likelihood” is the most deceptive thing in the world, being nothing but the degree of conformity of a proposition to our preconceived ideas. When this is dignified by the name of probability, as if it were something on which vast Insurance Companies could risk their hundreds of millions, it does more harm than the yellow fever ever did. The probability proper is also an essentially inaccurate idea, calling for every precaution of pragmatism in the use of it, in which its inductive origin must be steadily kept in view as the compass by which we are to steer our bark safely on this ocean of probability. Induction might be accurately defined as the virtual inference of a probability, if probability could be defined without the idea of induction. When the philosophy of probability has once been put upon a sure footing, the question of inverse probabilities gives no serious difficulty. Nobody can go further than I in condemnation of this way of using probability, which completely vitiates the theory and practice of Inductive and Abductive reasoning, has set back civilization, and has corrupted ideals, to an extent so far beyond what anybody would believe possible without careful examination of the facts, that I know I must be laughed at for what seems a most ridiculous judgment. The reader would perhaps at length go with me if I could in this work enter into the history of current beliefs."