[FRIAM] Modeling 4chan: roles, topics, beliefs, strawman, anonymity, etc.

[Marcus Daniels]

I think generative learning (e.g. for deep fake videos) could capture Hendrix or Page.   Studying the deviations from the likely governing equations could be interesting (and probably could be quantified) but it also just could be some idiosyncratic bit of developmental history that means nothing.   With governance, I want to get some evidence of the rough features of where they stand and how they are likely to act.   I don't see it as relevant how they interact with their friends or their children because I am not looking for a friend or a parent.   In technical conversations, I don't see it as necessary to pre-approve or seek pre-approval to segue from topic to topic -- to know the discussants role.

On 1/28/19, 4:04 PM, "Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣" <friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

    Hm. As shallow as I think Trump is, or as much as I think Warren is a gaming politician, I don't think any of it is (merely) a distraction.  I'm rather fond of the concept of code switching (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching) and it's extrapolation into other domains (e.g. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/).  It would be a stretch to believe in the Freudian Slip.  But such things do have meaning and can help understand deeper layerings of messages.
    
    This is one of the reasons I'm saddened by the category of things that includes instant replay refereeing, hyper-realistic animated movies, deep fake videos, technically perfect guitar playing, etc.  The very reasons I like Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page better than Joe Satriani (or even Stevie Ray Vaughn) are those little *errors* where the implementation doesn't quite match whatever "governing equations" you might infer they're trying to implement.  The kerfuffle about the Saints' loss is a symptom of our being poised between the real and the fake.
    
    And to deny our political transition from newspaper/radio into TV, where any candidate must be somewhat telegenic would miss the social impacts of technology on politics (and every other social aspect of our lives).
    
    So, these are not distractions, at all.  I'd claim they are indicators for deeper messages, waiting to be interpreted.
    
    On 1/28/19 1:57 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
    > Or they can just be a distraction, like Elizabeth Warren showing that she drinks beer.   If the actor creates a rich dictionary to bind the symbols of the story to, then that can add value.    Other actors like Donald Trump only have the performance art, and no actual story.   
    
    
    -- 
    ☣ uǝlƃ
    
    ============================================================
    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
    to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
    archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
    FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove