Yep! Love the term "mysterianism" - it's one of the precepts of the paradigm that builds Moloch. "Transparency" and "opacity" are not only subjective (as you note), but here when we are talking explicitly about differential cybernetic & sense-making capability, it's arrogance.
-
-
I call this a "metaphysical inversion" not b/c I particularly want to use high-rent terms, but b/c that's ACTUALLY the paradigmatic challenge. A strict subject-object metaphysics tends (in the Western tradition) to privilege the Observer, the Subject, as "in control".
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
But when it comes to actual discussions of ML-in-the-wild, everyone MUST ask "are you watching the box, or is the box driving you?" Also, to take this even further: transparency isn't purely subjective either. It's a condition of relationship where OODA loops are phase-locked.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
"[D]ata practitioner Vicki Boykis responded" and "Peter Wang finally exploded" are both examples of writing I'd like to keep reading.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.