benjamin on ai and china ness

benjamin bratton on ai and china ness via above book

via book – Machine Decision is Not Final – China and the History and Future of Artificial Intelligence – Benjamin Bratton, Bogna Konior, Anna Greenspan, Amy Ireland (Editors)

via michel bauwens quote tweet [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/2082392437650047291?s=20]:

@rareearths recommends: “just read the intro, amazing re-framing, very exciting – as much as any debate about AI can be, anyways … escaping the westocentric thought bubble(s).”

notes/quotes from intro via book site [https://www.urbanomic.com/chapter/machine-decision-is-not-final-1-introduction-fleeting-forces-and-clever-machinations/]:

Introduction – Fleeting Forces and Clever Machinations – Anna Greenspan, Bogna Konior

EXCERPT

From at least as early as the Warring States Period (475–221 BCE) Chinese philosophy has been concerned with the question of machines. The great intellectual flourishing of ‘a hundred schools of thought’ during this period coincided with widespread social and technological change. Descriptions of imaginary self-driving carriages, clever mechanical birds sent out to spy on enemies, and other fantastical contraptions provoked worries about destruction beyond human control in an epoch already marred by war. Early Confucian and Daoist thinkers vigorously debated the nature of artifice. Is following and imitating nature the only right path? What is the role of creative innovation? Are technological developments inherently disruptive to the maintenance of social relations and the work of retaining a harmonious relationship between human beings and the cosmic order? Or might the ever-changing Dao (道), or Way, be entirely consistent with the evolution of machines Attitudes to technology dating from this pre-modern period range widely and, despite their remoteness in time, mirror recurrent concerns found, for example, at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in Europe. Today, they resonate acutely with the concerns of the present, as artificial intelligence reaches a critical juncture, moving out of the laboratory and into the fabric of everyday life.

Inside and outside of China, two major questions return cyclically, as if proper to any period of technological upheaval. First, what is a machine? *Is it part of cosmic logic and the way of nature, or does it stand outside of them? Does it belong among the ‘ten thousand things’ of the Zhuangzi that all share in the Dao, or is it an artificial abomination, a fundamental discontinuity or rupture in the cosmic continuity linking heavens, earth, and humans—tiandiren (天地人)? Second, **is there a capacity for decision or an agency proper to a machine? Is a machine simply a tool for humans to use, or does it have its own way of acting that is irreducible to human designs? Can it be tamed, or is it inherently threatening to human civilisation? Does technology necessarily reflect human goals, or does it channel a purpose beyond human dominion? Is there a machinic will that does not simply follow the will of its user? ***Is technology under our control or, alternatively, are we controlled by our technologies?

*to me.. machine ness is not organism as fractal.. we can use it (tools) to facil things.. but not to mimic/be us

**to me.. yes.. but not about decision making.. rather.. about unconditionality.. ie: tech w/o judgment; nonjudgmental expo labeling; tech as it could be.. to do the thing we can’t seem to do .. ie: pearson unconditional law et al

***we are controlling everything.. but not letting go enough to legit see/be us.. we need to let go of any form of judge\ment.. of any form of m\a\p.. in order for us all to be legit free

otherwise we’re still (and since that day) not getting to the ______

root of problem

legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do

how we gather in a space is huge.. need to try spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..

ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)

the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness

[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]

there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance.. for (blank)’s sake..

ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition

otherwise we’ll keep perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness..  perpetuating survival triage.. for (blank)’s sake..

and tweet he was quoting to [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/2056631075905155298]:

China and the History and Future of Artificial Intelligence

* Book: Machine Decision is Not Final: China and the History and Future of Artificial Intelligence. Ed. by Benjamin Bratton, Bogna Konior, Anna Greenspan, Amy Ireland. Urbanomic, 2025

https://urbanomic.com/book/machine-decision-is-not-final/

(can link to each section of book in above link)

“Visions of the contested future of AI veer between common planetary goals and a new Cold War as culturally-specific models of intelligence, speculative traditions, and thought experiments come up against the emergence of novel forms of cognition that cannot be reduced to any historical cultural tradition.

This uniquely-positioned volume provides expert insight into this tension, using China as a touchstone for rethinking ‘artificiality’ and ‘intelligence’ as sites of difference in a way that is already present in the difficulty of precisely translating the Chinese term 人工智能.

Spanning borders between different worlds, histories, futures, and foundational models, Machine Decision is Not Final is not only a timely reappraisal of the stakes of AI development, but a toolbox for constructing more global imaginaries for the future of AI.

again.. need most/first: means (nonjudgmental expo labeling) to undo hierarchical listening – so we can hear what’s already on each heart as global detox in order to org around legit needs

Moving beyond the clichés that still dominate the contemporary debate, this interdisciplinary, cross-cultural collection decenters familiar narratives to provide a fresh perspective on what artificial intelligence is today, and what it might become.”

moving beyond same song.. to tech as it could be

[not reading any more for now]

_______

______

______

______

_____

______

________