I remember when the big deal was whether their emotion manipulation study was ethical. Over a decade ago.

They have been doing psychographic monitoring for a very long time.

If there's something they don't know, it's because they choose not to know.

But we can slip accidentally into it?

If human beings are relationally constituted, they are in part relationally constituted by the legal systems in which they dwell. If the legal system treats them as autonomous beings, then that is, more or less, the case, even if they have very complex gut biomes.

At some point in either analysis or operations, distinctions must be drawn. Relations distinguished from other relations, their subjects, and objects.

There are relational liberal theorists -- feminist inspired, etc. It's good work. But the body reemerges at the intersections of (A-B) and (A-C)

As for Eastern philosophy, Varela spent time at Naropa and was one of the people who connected Eastern meditation to Western neuroscience through e.g. the Mind and Life Institute. Rosch and Thompson who developed the embodied mind theories with him are also Buddhists.

Haraway is great at unassailable fancy rhetoric, and is a good foil to Luhmann in that unassailability.
But taking Maturana and Varela as denying the relationality and entanglement of life is a misread, as both were in engaged in the ethical and phenomenological implications of their theory.

So I would be interested to know what additional value add a holobiontic view offers over an enactivists or Luhmannian one. I think you are saying there's more hierarchical complexity in the substrate. Ok. But identity is about operational closure and reproduction of systems at every level.

I.e. an "autopoietic" system is never "atomic" but always dynamically constituted from a substrate in a way that its identity is precariously maintained as an emergent property.

The "boundary" is stable at the system level but permeable at the substrate level in Maturana's biology etc, which is quite profound and subtle. Point being that I'm not sure Harroway improves the expressivity of the theories of autopoiesis, which arguably already contain the critique of liberalism.

In this line of thinking, an autonomous or autopoietic system is constituted by/within a substrate, and part of that process of constitution creates the system/boundary/environment distinctions.

"autopoiesis" has its original definition from Maturana, biological systems, and its later definition from Luhman, for social systems. There was a rift between the two over this.

Later enactivists like Varela moved away from it towards a "constitutive autonomy" which encompasses both contexts.

I think this is all correct. This paper reaches a similar conclusion through a different route sbenthall.net/papers/aipss... So, sound statistical social science requires a computational economics that takes artificial life, not artificial intelligence, as it's modeling metaphor.

This is my agenda!

Sampling issue, right? This is from a subpoena that was for trump related materials?

I think it's good now.

I was worried about the endless shutdown -> SNAP riots -> martial law scenario for a bit there.

But instead we are getting the beginnings of a robust countermotion.

If and only if the crisis is really really really bad, there might be actual structural reform later.

They are saying this is reciprocal
US isn't sharing intelligence either.

I am not aware of the V-model and will now look it up. Thanks!

This version isn't paywalled if that's the issue: [2308.02435] Designing Fiduciary Artificial Intelligence share.google/Eygrth3wVIY0...

I'm short, I agree. We address this somewhat in the article. The corporate person that operates the AI has the duties. Then there is a question of how they can design automated systems that are compliant.

Thanks for noticing.