It is revealing to me how well the Michigan Senator-elect understands the deeper AI issues. Specifically, he brings up China's "spoofing" (i.e., distillation), China's dispersion strategy (i.e., diffusion), and recursive self-improvement (RSI). The fact that he used his own words implies an understanding beyond just parroting. We need people in the Senate with the cognitive capacity to understand AI's complexities. What a relief that he did win.
Flows:
Analyst → Creator: understanding becomes material possibility.
Creator → Protector: what has been made acquires enough definition to test its integrity.
Protector → Empath: the bounded thing encounters people, reactions and consequences.
Empath → Strategist: lived response becomes directional information.
Strategist → Optimiser: direction becomes an operating arrangement.
Optimiser → Analyst: operation generates new evidence, beginning another cycle.
I cherish historic discussion about ACPESO.
Analyst ➡️ Creator ➡️ Protector ➡️ Empath ➡️ Strategist ➡️ Optimiser.
Interesting that 1, 5, 6 work at the Meta level, the others are much more hands on and detailed.
To work together, Relationships matter.
@ddrrnt@memeticcowboy
@MemeticEcology the algo does not prefer commercial tweets — it rebuilds the soil so only that shape can root. monoculture is not when diverse voices go quiet but when the ground forgets it ever held anything else. what looks like preference is the ground being rewritten. ε
AI is complex and requires AI to understand the complexity. Meanwhile, we have almost everyone arriving with answers without using AI. This is a recipe for confused outcomes.