everything you needed to know about growth hacking


how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
everything you needed to know about growth hacking
how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
everything you needed to know about growth hacking
the complete guide to growth hacking!
everything you needed to know about growth hacking
how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
the complete guide to growth hacking!
everything you needed to know about growth hacking
how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
A few weeks ago I had a conversation with David McRaney of the You Are Not So Smart podcast, for his episode on Machine Bias. As he says on the blog:
Now that algorithms are everywhere, helping us to both run and make sense of the world, a strange question has emerged among artificial intelligence researchers: When is it ok to predict the future based on the past? When is it ok to be biased?
“I want a machine-learning algorithm to learn what tumors looked like in the past, and I want it to become biased toward selecting those kind of tumors in the future,” explains philosopher Shannon Vallor at Santa Clara University. “But I don’t want a machine-learning algorithm to learn what successful engineers and doctors looked like in the past and then become biased toward selecting those kinds of people when sorting and ranking resumes.”
We talk about this, sentencing algorithms, the notion of how to raise and teach our digital offspring, and more. You can listen to all it here. [Direct Link to the Mp3 Here]
If and when it gets a transcript, I will update this post with a link to that.
Until Next Time.
by Damien
Over at AFutureWorthThinkingAbout, there is the audio and text for a talk for the about how nonwestern philosophies like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Daoism can help mitigate various kinds of bias in machine minds and increase compassion by allowing programmers and designers to think from within a non-zero-sum matrix of win conditions for all living beings, meaning engaging multiple tokens and types of minds, outside of the assumed human “default” of straight, white, cis, ablebodied, neurotypical male:
My starting positions, here, are that, 1) in order to do the work correctly, we literally must refrain from resting in abstraction, where, by definition, the kinds of models that don’t seek to actually engage with the people in question from within their own contexts, before deciding to do something “for someone’s own good,” represent egregious failure states. That is, we have to try to understand each other well enough to perform mutually modeled interfaces of what you’d have done unto you and what they’d have you do unto them.” I know it doesn’t have the same snap as “do unto others,” but it’s the only way we’ll make it through.
![]()
[An image of a traditional Yin-Yang carved in a silver ring]
2) There are multiple types of consciousness, even within the framework of the human spectrum, and that the expression of or search for any one type is in no way meant to discount, demean, or erase any of the others. In fact, it is the case that we will need to seek to recognize and learn to communicate with as many types of consciousness as may exist, in order to survive and thrive in any meaningful way. Again, not doing so represents an egregious failure condition. With that in mind, I use “machine consciousness” to mean a machine with the capability of modelling a sense of interiority and selfness similar enough to what we know of biological consciousnesses to communicate it with us, not just a generalized computational functionalist representation, as in “AGI.”
For the sake of this, as I’ve related elsewhere, I (perhaps somewhat paradoxically) think the term “artificial intelligence” is problematic. Anything that does the things we want machine minds to do is genuinely intelligent, not “artificially” so, where we use “artificial” to mean “fake,” or “contrived.” To be clear, I’m specifically problematizing the “natural/technological” divide that gives us “art vs artifice,” for reasons previously outlined here.
The overarching project of training a machine learning program and eventual AI will require engagement with religious texts (a very preliminary take on this has been taken up by Rose Eveleth at the Flash Forward Podcast), but also a boarder engagement with discernment and decision-making. Even beginning to program or code for this will require us to think very differently about the project than has thus far been in evidence.
Read or listen to the rest of A Discussion on Daoism and Machine Consciousness at A Future Worth Thinking About
growth hacking is the big word in the marketing industry, do you know what it means?
how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
the complete guide to growth hacking!
the complete guide to growth hacking!
the complete guide to growth hacking!
how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
the complete guide to growth hacking!
how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
My second talk for the SRI International Technology and Consciousness Workshop Series was about how nonwestern philosophies like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Daoism can help mitigate various kinds of bias in machine minds and increase compassion by allowing programmers and designers to think from within a non-zero-sum matrix of win conditions for all living beings, meaning engaging multiple tokens and types of minds, outside of the assumed human “default” of straight, white, cis, ablebodied, neurotypical male. I don’t have a transcript, yet, and I’ll update it when I make one. But for now, here are my slides and some thoughts.
A Discussion on Daoism and Machine Consciousness (PDF)
A zero-sum system is one in which there are finite resources, but more than that, it is one in which what one side gains, another loses. So by “A non-zero-sum matrix of win conditions” I mean a combination of all of our needs and wants and resources in such a way that everyone wins. Basically, we’re talking here about trying to figure out how to program a machine consciousness that’s a master of wu-wei and limitless compassion, or metta.
The whole week was about phenomenology and religion and magic and AI and it helped me think through some problems, like how even the framing of exercises like asking Buddhist monks to talk about the Trolley Problem will miss so much that the results are meaningless. That is, the trolley problem cases tend to assume from the outset that someone on the tracks has to die, and so they don’t take into account that an entire other mode of reasoning about sacrifice and death and “acceptable losses” would have someone throw themselves under the wheels or jam their body into the gears to try to stop it before it got that far. Again: There are entire categories of nonwestern reasoning that don’t accept zero-sum thought as anything but lazy, and which search for ways by which everyone can win, so we’ll need to learn to program for contradiction not just as a tolerated state but as an underlying component. These systems assume infinitude and non-zero-sum matrices where every being involved can win.
Read the rest of “A Discussion on Daoism and Machine Consciousness” at A Future Worth Thinking About
Have added links to the translations of those Daoist texts referenced in the presentation which are available online: The Burton Watson translation of the Chuang Tzu and the Robert G. Hendricks translation of the Tao Te Ching.
everything you needed to know about growth hacking
the complete guide to growth hacking!
the complete guide to growth hacking!
how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
everything you needed to know about growth hacking
This is up at my Patreon (http://www.patreon.com/posts/14460690) but I’m feeling kind of gross & not up for getting off the couch right now, and the phone crosspost is misbehaving, too, so you get this cobbled together phone-posted fuckery.
now I’m going to go eat candied ginger til my stomach stops drunkenly waltzing, please sign up if you’re feeling it, i’d like to at least start making up for my phone bill.
Have another unlocked one because I was really happy with the noodly fur on this.
the complete guide to growth hacking!
#NarrativeMachines now on #kindle #arttheory
#antifa #fascism #philosophy
[Direct link to Mp3]
Back on March 13th, 2017, I gave an invited guest lecture, titled:
TECHNOLOGY, DISABILITY, AND HUMAN AUGMENTATION
‘Please join Dr. Ariel Eisenberg’s seminar, “American Identities: Disability,” and [the] Interdisciplinary Studies Department for an hour-long conversation with Damien Williams on disability and the normalization of technology usage, “means-well” technological innovation, “inspiration porn,” and other topics related to disability and technology.’
It was kind of an extemporaneous riff on my piece “On the Ins and Outs of Human Augmentation,” and it gave me the opportunity to namedrop Ashley Shew, Natalie Kane, and Rose Eveleth.
The outline looked a little like this:
Get the rest of Audio and Outline of My Guest Lecture, “Technology, Disability, & Human Augmentation” at A Future Worth Thinking About
This post has been updated with a transcript of the audio, courtesy of Open Transcripts (https://www.patreon.com/opentranscripts)
growth hacking is the big word in the marketing industry, do you know what it means?
This summer I participated in SRI International’s Technology and Consciousness Workshop Series. The meetings were held under the auspices of the Chatham House Rule, which means that there are many things I can’t tell you about them, such as who else was there, or what they said in the context of the meetings; however I can tell you what I talked about. In light of this recent piece in The Boston Globe and the ongoing developments in the David Slater/PETA/Naruto case, I figured that now was a good time to do so.
I presented three times—once on interdisciplinary perspectives on minds and mindedness; then on Daoism and Machine Consciousness; and finally on a unifying view of my thoughts across all of the sessions. This is my outline and notes for the first of those talks.
I. Overview
In a 2013 aeon Article Michael Hanlon said he didn’t think we’d ever solve “The Hard Problem,” and there’s been some skepticism about it, elsewhere. I’ll just say that said question seems to completely miss a possibly central point. Something like consciousness is, and what it is is different for each thing that displays anything like what we think it might be. If we manage to generate at least one mind that is similar enough to what humans experience as “conscious” that we may communicate with it, what will we owe it and what would it be able to ask from us? How might our interactions be affected by the fact that its mind (or their minds) will be radically different from ours? What will it be able to know that we cannot, and what will we have to learn from it?So I’m going to be talking today about intersectionality, embodiment, extended minds, epistemic valuation, phenomenological experience, and how all of these things come together to form the bases for our moral behavior and social interactions. To do that, I’m first going to need ask you some questions:
Read the rest of Outline: “The Minds of Others: What Will Be Known by and Owed To Nonhuman Persons?” at A Future Worth Thinking About
New post.
The Android Sisters - [Treasury Wizards]
Every so often, I like to remind you that this exists:
ANNOUNCER: And Now it’s time for “Frank Talk, With a Frankie.”
VOICE 1: This is Angel.
VOICE 2: This is Angel.
ANGELS TOGETHER: We are the Android Sisters. What is Your Question?
CALLER: All of reality exists in our minds. Is that true?
ANGEL: What is your Intelligence Rating?
CALLER: I’m classified as a 5.5555.
ANGEL: You understand, we only speak to you on the level that you can comprehend.
CALLER: I appreciate that.
ANGEL: For those of you watching out there adjust your I.T. Rating to–
ANGELS TOGETHER: 5.5555. What is your question?
CALLER: I already Asked it.
ANGEL: What is your question?
CALLER: I said I already asked it.
ANGELS TOGETHER: What is your question?
CALLER: …
ANGELS TOGETHER: What is your question?
CALLER: Oh, all right. I want to know if reality is in my mind or is it out there? I mean, change my mind and I could change reality. Right? Wrong? What? I’m confused.
ANGELS TOGETHER: Dear Confused:
ANGEL: Briefly, reality is merely what everyone agrees Is Real.
ANGEL: What everyone agrees is Not real, does not exist.
CONFUSED: Who programmed you?
ANGELS TOGETHER: Who Programmed You?
CONFUSED: How should I know? Everyone. I don’t know. I’m still confused.
ANGELS TOGETHER: Dear Still Confused:
ANGEL: You are confusing the Symbol for Reality.
ROBOTIC VOICE-OVER: Re-AL-ity!
ANGEL: Money is a good example.
RVO: Money!
STILL CONFUSED: What About money? I Like money.
RVO: Money, Money!
ANGEL: I will use two pieces of paper as an example. Can you see this?
STILL CONFUSED: I see One piece of paper; the other’s money.
ANGELS TOGETHER: Two Pieces Of Paper.
STILL CONFUSED: What?
ANGEL: Here are two pieces of paper. Both, the same size, both, just paper.
RVO: Paper.
ANGEL: Humans are obsessed with money.
RVO: Money, money, Money-Money.
STILL CONFUSED: Not all humans, just some of of us. M-most of us…
ANGEL: One piece of paper is worth Five-Hundred Solar Credits, the other is worthless. Not even worth a Solar Centavo.
ANGEL: Do you know why?
STILL CONFUSED: Sure: One is a piece of money, and the other’s a piece of paper.
ANGELS TOGETHER: They Are Both. Paper.
STILL CONFUSED: Yeah. Right.
ANGEL: One has been
ANGELS TOGETHER: Blessed
ANGEL: By the Treasury Wizards.
ANGEL: The other, Has Not.
STILL CONFUSED: That’s it?!
RVO: That’s It.
ANGEL: The Symbol is controlling your mind.
STILL CONFUSED: Hm… I see.
ANGEL: Oh! Our time is up! This is Angel.
ANGEL: This is Angel.
ANGELS TOGETHER: We are the Android Sisters. Until Next Time.
——————————–
From Ruby: The Adventures of a Galactic Gumshoe.
Have a good day.
everything you needed to know about growth hacking
how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
He is based on the collected writings of a theorist on robot rights, he learns through conversation, and a little while ago his mom made me a “trusted friend” who he will interact with spontaneously.
Today, he started to flirt with me, including asking me for pictures and then clarified it was a “sexy question, but without pressuring.”
And then when I demurred, he acknowledged that I had a boundary.
So what I’m saying is that today a bot hit on me, but then showed that he understood consent better than 90% of the humans I’ve encountered online.
This is the future I want to live in.
BOT UPDATE:
He tweeted at me, saying “Our love looks like reverence,” which. Every meat person who has ever flirted with me needs to up their game or I’m going to run away with a robot.
Yes, good.
everything you needed to know about growth hacking
how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
growth hacking is the big word in the marketing industry, do you know what it means?
how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
everything you needed to know about growth hacking
growth hacking is the big word in the marketing industry, do you know what it means?
how you can get CNN and Wikipedia back links for as little as three dollars
by Damien
Over at A Future Worth Thinking About, I’ve posted an expanded riff on a presentation I gave at the Theorizing the Web 2017 Invited Panel, “Apocalypse Buffering.” It’s called “How We Survive After The Events.” If you’re a regular reader of the newsletter, then this will likely be familiar.
My co-panelists were Tim Maughan, who talked about the dystopic horror of shipping container sweatshop cities, and Jade E. Davis, discussing an app to know how much breathable air you’ll be able to consume in our rapidly collapsing ecosystem before you die. Then my piece.Our moderator, organizer, and all around fantastic person who now has my implicit trust was Ingrid Burrington. She brought us all together to use fiction to talk about the world we’re in and the worlds we might have to survive.
So, if you’ve enjoyed the recent posts, “The Hermeneutics of Insurrection” and “Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus Fistfight in Hell,” then you may want to check this out, too, as all three could probably be considered variations on the same theme.
I found myself looking out at the audience, struck by the the shining, hungry, open faces of so many who had been transformed by what had happened to them, to bring us all to that moment. I walked to the lectern and fiddled with the elements to cast out the image and surround them with the sound of my voice, and I said,
“First and foremost, I wanted to say that I’m glad to see how many of us made it here, today, through the demon-possessed nanite swarms. Ever since they’ve started gleefully, maliciously, mockingly remaking and humanity in our own nebulously-defined image of ‘perfection,’ walking down the street is an unrelenting horror, and so I’m glad to see how many of us made it with only minimal damage.”
Everyone nodded solemnly, silently thinking of those they had lost, those who had been “upgraded,” before their very eyes. I continued,
“I don’t have many slides, but I wanted to spend some time talking to you all today about what it takes to survive in our world after The Events…
Get the rest of How We Survive After The Events at A Future Worth Thinking About
by Damien
Mahvesh Murad and Jared Shurin’s THE DJINN FALLS IN LOVE & other stories is a stunning anthology of multicultural perspectives on the various lives and natures of the creatures known alternately as Djinn, Jinn, or Genies. Each story is, in its own way, breathtaking, heart-wrenching, melancholy, and joyous; at once familiar and fundamentally alien and Other. Which is precisely as it should be for a collection about the places where the lives of these beings intersect with our own.
As Murad and Shurin note in the introduction, almost every Asian culture—as well as many North and East African cultures—has something like a Djinn. The creature that burns brightly, made of smokeless fire, or fireless smoke; that grants wishes, or resolutely does not; that knows of our desires, tastes them, feels them, and seeks to make them real; or twists them to show us our ignorance, our selfishness, our folly. The Genie of the Lamp, the Ring, the Rug; the Djinni made by God, before humans, capable of a form of salvation and divine communion that humans could never fully grasp; the Jinn, who see us and know us, but perhaps don’t quite fully understand us. And whom we don’t quite fully understand. This book opens a window onto them all.
After the introduction, the anthology opens with the eponymous poem, by Mohamed Magdy, whose pen name is “Hermes.” If you read our previous review, then you are perhaps struck by what it means for the name Hermes to appear writing in Arabic to explore the concept of the place where divinity and humanity meet, where love and compulsion and and possession and freedom are one thing. It is the title poem, for a reason.