Enlaces 13//03//2017

Urbanismo :: teorizando las infraestructuras globales (bibliografía incluida) (Medium) // ecofascismo (EdsElSalmon) // Casas modulares: el Kiosk K67 del diseñador esloveno Saša J. Mächtig (ArchDaily) // Patrik Schumacher, director de Zaha Hadid Architects, sobre su evolucion ideológica, el urbanismo paramétrico, y la politización de la arquitectura (Aft3r)

Economía :: Recursos de Nick Land para investigar sobre Bitcoin (UrbanFuture) // la falsedad de la gran depresión (OutsideIn) // sobre las crisis en un sistema económico frágil (WEAPedagogy) // Penny Stocks Investments (+) // Sinofuturismo (1839 – 2046 AD) (Vimeo) // Ética de negocios (PlatoStanford) //

Tecnología :: desarrollos en materia programable (Discover) // El orden de las técnicas: sobre Lewis Mumford, por Edmund Berger (DeterritorialInvestigations) + distinción entre mercados y capitalismo en D&G // Transhumanistas otra vez (TheVerge) // Jean Luc Nancy sobre la maquinaria tecno-económica (Youtube) // Robot controlado con ondas cerebrales (YouTube) // La TechnoSphere Magazine, esta vez sobre las antropo-técnicas (+) //

Computación :: entrevista a Yuk Hui sobre los objetos digitales y los esquemas de metadata (NetCritique) // análisis de datos en twitter: CONICET vs. PRO (LaCajaYElGato) // La diferencia entre Google y Apple en términos de patentes (FastCoDesign) // Efectividad de las redes neuronales recurrentes, de Andrej Karpathy (Github) // El Criptóptico como máquina de vigilancia invisible (DataJustice) // Sobre los virus en GNU Linux (DesdeLinux) // Sobre los derechos de las máquinas del futuro (Youtube) //

Política :: la democracia como ‘no siendo el mejor sistema’ (OutsideIn) // Hardt, sobre el liderazgo (BecomingPoor) //

Filosofía :: Kantianismo robótico (UrbanFuture) // ¿La CIA leyendo teoría francesa? No (ThePhilosophicalSalon) // Capitalismo de Plataformas via Facebook, por Tiziana Terranova (TechnoCulture) // Llamada a ponencias para el Coloquio Internacional de Filosofía de la Técnica en Mar del Plata (+) // Esquemas de filosofía (Pinterest) // Lectura de las ‘cartas ópticas’ de Spinoza (Frames/Sing en MitocondrialVertigo otro blog del autor + PerverseEgalitarianism) // Página de CTheory, revista canadiense de ciencias sociales, cibernetica, filosofía y política (+) // “Maurice Blanchot”, la película de Hugo Santiago (Vimeo) // “Simondon du desert”, documental (Vimeo) //

 Ciencias :: Sobre el olvido como factor creativo para las ciencias (bldgBlog) // Acerca de la disputa reduccionismo-emergencia en biología (Cultura científica, serie: 1 2 3 4 5 6) // El MIT dice haber encontrado los universales del lenguaje de los que hablaba Chomsky (ArsTechnica) // Sobre los problemas de (im)precisión de las ciencias (ArsTechnica) // Página del seminario de Historia y Filosofía de la Ciencia de la Universidad de Antioquia (+) // Sobre producir o perecer en el mundo de las ciencias (Microsiervos) // Historia de la racionalidad científica (PlatoStanford) //

Biología :: Sobre la optogenética (Wiki) //

Física cuántica :: Mecánica cuántica (+), Cuestiones filosóficas (+), Postulados (+), Mecánica matricial (+), Espacio de Hilbert (+), Interpretación relacional (+), No causalidad (+), Interpretación bayesiana y pragmatista (+), Interpretación modal (+) //

Misc :: La lectura como hábito (LifeHacker) // Hápax (Wiki) // Cormac MacCarthy sobre no trabajar (OpenCulture) //

Sobre la traducción de Letter to our grandchildren de Keynes (via VersoBooks)

Nonetheless he did recognise that together with “absolute” needs (food, housing, etc.) there also exist relative needs (the desire to achieve higher status)…

Yes, but he only dwelled on absolute needs, and did not seem to accord much importance to other needs. He clearly under-estimated their power. But this is consistent enough with the analysis that he elaborates: in the society of abundance that he imagines, there will no longer be any basis for these needs, since they are linked to market interactions, which is indeed what he wants to escape from. Once material needs had been fully satisfied, we would be free to be fully human and to develop an authentic art of living.
What is utterly incongruous, here, is that while Keynes was a liberal economist, he conceived capitalism as nothing but a temporary stage in the development of humanity, whereas in general liberals consider it the finished and unsurpassable form of economic order.
The other surprising aspect of the text is the violence of the antagonism that he sets out between true human values and capitalism’s false values, such as the love of money. In his eyes, capitalism constitutes a sort of dark age, a “pre-history” during which human beings are constrained by resource scarcity. The true values can only impose themselves once we have broken out of an economics centred on subsistence and labour.

15:07 27/01/2017

Una vez más, The Anti-Puritan (via OutsideIn [comentario]):

I think of capitalism as being a great alienating machine composed of dozens of social technologies with the tech consisting of turning countless social relationships into property.

For example:
Patents (property in ideas)
Trademarks (property in creativity)
Real estate (property in land/ houses)
Title (property in objects)
Contract (property in agreements)
Marriage (property in sex)
Constitutions/Tort (property in rights)
Slavery (obsolete property in humans)
Futures (property in hedging risk)
Stocks (property in corporations)
Votes (equal property in government)
Bonds (property in debt)
Vouchers (property in services)
Insurance (property in safety)
Money (property in other people’s work)

Capitalism is PROPERTY. Moreover, as more and more things are be defined as property capitalism expands is dominion into every aspect of life. Capitalism not only is property, it is the expansion of what constitutes property.

14:51 27/01/2017

The Anti-Puritan:

Capitalism can be thought of as identical to the sum of all its property arrangements. Capitalism is a system of property-based social technologies that allow some things to be owned, (land, cars, etc.) and not others, (people, women, government). Capitalism, unlike feudalism, does not allow humans to be owned in an obvious manner within a liberal democracy. That is why human ownership is on the down low, (H1B Visa, illegal immigrants, etc.) But I digress.

Basically, capitalism likes it when profits are maximized. This tends to work against feudalism, male dominance, hierarchy, and morality. It works in favor of things that maximize profit, (free trade, immigration, corrupt banking, atomized workers, low birth rates). But capitalism is just the summary of all its property relationships in this system of capitalism. And capitalism has not stopped evolving. This is just one of many capitalism(s). So when you talk about capitalism, you must ask; “which one?” Because the capitalism that exists today is not the same as the one that existed in the 1950’s, the 1900’s, or the 1800’s. Property relationships evolve. No one could envision selling “space” on the iPhone by letting developers put their apps on it. The property form of “platform” on a computer system had not yet been invented.

Puntos destacados de… DATA STREAMS por HITO STEYERL AND KATE CRAWFORD // via TheNewInquiry // November 7, 2016, a partir de una conversación de Skype, parte 1.

KATE CRAWFORD. There are these hard limits that are reached in the epistemology of “Collect it all” where we reach a breakdown of meaning, a profusion and granularization of information to the point of being incomprehensible, of being in an ocean of potential interpretations and predictions. Once correlations become infinite, it’s difficult for them to remain moored in any kind of sense of the real. And it’s interesting how, for both of us, that presents a counter-narrative to the current discourse of the all-seeing, all-knowing state apparatus. That apparatus is actually struggling with its own profusion of data and prediction. We know that there are these black holes, these sort of moments of irrationality, and moments of information collapse.

KATE CRAWFORD. (…) the thing that got me through were these moments of humor. It’s very dark humor, but in the archive there are so many moments of this type. Some of the slides in particular are written in this kind of hyper-masculinist, hyper-competitive tone that I began to personalize as “the SIGINT Bro.”

KATE CRAWFORD. The other thing that I would love to talk to you about–and this is switching from the state to corporate uses of data, because I know both you and I are interested in how those two are really merging in particular ways–is IBM’s terrorism scoring project (…). I know we are both interested in how this type of prediction is a microcosm of a much wider propensity to score humans as part of a super-pattern.

HITO STEYERL. I’m really fascinated by quantifying social interaction and this idea of abstracting every kind of social interaction by citizens or human beings into just a single number; this could be a threat score, it could be a credit score, it could be an artist ranking score, which is something I’m subjected to all the time. For example, there was an amazing text about ranking participation in jihadi forums, but the most interesting example I found recently was the Chinese sincerity social score. I’m sure you heard about it, right? This is a sort of citizen “super score,” which cross-references credit data and financial interactions, not only in terms of quantity or turnover, but also in terms of quality, meaning that the exact purchases are looked into. In the words of the developer, someone who buys diapers will get more credit points than someone who spends money on video games because the first person is supposed to be socially “more reliable.” Then, health data goes into the score–along with your driving record, and also your online interactions. Basically it takes a quite substantial picture of your social interactions and abstracts it into just one number. This is the number of your “social sincerity.” It’s not implemented yet–there are some precursors in the form of extended credit scores which are already being rolled out–but it is supposed to be implemented in 2020, which is not that long from now. I’m completely fascinated by that.

KATE CRAWFORD. When I think about the Chinese citizen credit score is that here, in the West, it gets vilified as a sort of extremist position, like, “Who would possibly create something so clearly prone to error? And so clearly fascist in its construction?” [DE TODOS MODO, DEJAMOS LA POLÍTICA EN MANOS DE ESTE TIPO DE SISTEMAS MATEMATIZABLES] Yet, having said that, only last week we saw that an insurance company in the UK, the Admiral Group, was trying to market an app that would offer people either a discount on their car insurance or an increase in their premium based on the type of things they write on Facebook.

As for the IBM terrorist credit score, it’s being tested and deployed on a very vulnerable population that has absolutely no awareness that it is actually being used against them; also, it’s drawing upon these terribly weak correlations from sources like Twitter (…), it’s critically important that we question these knowledge claims at every level.

HITO STEYERL. (…) we are kind of back in the era of crude psychologisms, trying to attribute social, mental, or social-slash-mental illnesses or deficiencies with frankly absurd and unscientific markers.

KATE CRAWFORD. (…) what we now have is a new system called Faception that has been trained on millions of images. It says it can predict somebody’s intelligence and also the likelihood that they will be a criminal based on their face shape. Similarly, a deeply suspect paper was just released that claims to do automated inferences of criminality based on photographs of people’s faces. (…) Phrenology and physiognomy are being resuscitated, but encoded in facial recognition and machine learning.

(…) we’re seeing these historical returns to forms of knowledge that we’ve previously thought were, at the very least, unscientific, and, at the worst, genuinely dangerous.

HITO STEYERL. I think that maybe the source of this is a paradigm shift in the methodology. As far as I understand it, statistics have moved from constructing models and trying to test them using empirical data to just using the data and letting the patterns emerge somehow from the data. This is a methodology based on correlation. They keep repeating that correlation replaces causation. But correlation is entirely based on identifying surface patterns, right? The questions–why are they arising? why do they look the way they look?–are secondary now. If something just looks like something else, then it is with a certain probability identified as this “something else,” regardless of whether it is really the “something else” or not. Looking like something has become a sort of identity relation, and this is precisely how racism works. It doesn’t ask about the people in any other way than the way they look. It is a surface identification, and I’m really surprised how no one questions these correlationist models of extracting patterns on that basis. [The] IBM’s Hollerith machines, (…) were used in facilitating deportations during the Holocaust. This is why I’m always extremely suspicious of any kind of precise ethnic identification.

HITO STEYERL. There is a danger that if one tries to argue for more precise recognition or for more realistic training sets, the positive identification rate will actually increase, and I don’t really think that’s a good idea.

KATE CRAWFORD. Google has so much information (…) but that connection between its enormous seas of data and actually connecting that to instrumentalize the knowledge is still very weak.

[If] you are currently misrecognized by a system, it can mean that you don’t get access to housing, you don’t get access to credit, you don’t get released from jail. So you want this recognition, but, at the same time, the more the systems have accurate training data and the more they have deeper historical knowledge of you, the more you are profoundly captured within these systems.

We are being seen with ever greater resolution, but the systems around us are increasingly disappearing into the background.

KATE CRAWFORD. The narrative that’s being driven by Silicon Valley is that the biggest threat from AI is going to be the creation of a superintelligence that will dominate and subjugate humanity. (…) But to everybody else, those threats are already here. We are already living with systems that are subjugating human labor and particular subsets of the human population in ways that are harsher than others.

[One] of the things that is going to happen in the US is the complete automation of trucking. Now, trucking is one of the top employers in the entire country, so we’re looking at the decimation of a dominant job market.

HITO STEYERL. As people get replaced by systems, one of the few human jobs that seems to remain is security.

KATE CRAWFORD. I often think about this concept of solidarity in a world where so many of these stacks that overlay everyday interactions are trying to individualize and hyper-monetize and atomize not just individuals, but every sort of interaction. Every swipe, every input that we make, is being categorized and tracked. The idea, then, of solidarity across sectors, across difference, feels so powerful because it feels so unattainable.

HITO STEYERL. Have you seen any example of an AI that was focused on empathy or solidarity? Do you see the idea of comradeship anywhere in there? KATE CRAWFORD. ELIZA is the most simple system there is. She is by no means a real AI and she’s not even adapting in those conversations, but there’s something so simple about having an entity ‘listen’ and just pose your statements back to you as questions. (…) ELIZA as an empathy-producing machine because she was a simple listener. She wasn’t trying to be more intelligent than her interlocutors, she was just trying to listen, and that was actually very powerful.

14:21 02/11/2016