Category: systems

Audrey Watters’ Amazing Piece: AI Grief Observed

Click here and read this gut-wrenching, inciteful and devastating piece on AI’s impact on education and beyond, by the transcendent Audrey Watters.

Here is a snippet from the end of the piece. But please, don’t read it here, click into the full piece. Slow down. Read every word. If you are not in education, just think about it in your domain. I sure think about it as a person who deeply values community. My take away from Audrey is to pay attention to what gives rise to AI, not AI itself. Read it, please.

We grieve because we love. We grieve because we care. We grieve because we know that the machines do not, and that the community we try to foster — on campus, in the classroom, in our scholarly works — is threatened with erasure. We grieve because we fear forgetting; we worry that people will forget what is beautiful and what is difficult and what is joyous and what is horrible about education. We worry that, if we do not grieve, we give up the struggle to go on, to persevere, to live.

But we do not, we should not grieve alone. We should not be made to feel alone, feel crazed by our grief, feel crazed for grieving. We can, we should grieve together, grieve in public, grieve in protest. Such is comfort – “com” + “fort,” a word that means “with” + “strength.”

Technologies are often wielded in ways meant to imply that humans are weak, messy, slow, stupid, replaceable.

We are strong, messy, awkward, flawed, irreplaceable. All of us.

Our strength comes, in part, from this vulnerability, from our humanity. Together in the flesh. Not isolated, individualized thru some algorithm. We cannot allow systems and practices and machinery to foreclose this humanity, to automate the decisions, the expressions, the explorations that we turn to and that we struggle with in education, in this imperfect but liminal space of learning.

“There is no good way to say this” but to say this: AI is the antithesis of education. It is the antithesis of the future. As such, it is a kind of epistemological death, and I recognize — thanks to capitalism and neoliberalism and imperialism and racism — we have long been surrounded by such efforts; we are grieving already. And yet, we go on.

One final note that I think I’d be remiss not to state, even though there is no good way, or rather no polite way to say this:

Some men (and I do mean mostly men) would rather spend trillions of dollars on an idea that is financially, technologically, morally, and environmentally unsustainable, they’d rather destroy democracy and destroy education and destroy the planet than just get therapy.

Connecting Infrastructure and Power

I was intrigued by a post from my wonderful friend and colleague, Eva Schiffer, on LinkedIn a while back. Coming off a conversation with the creative Gianluca Gambatesa, Eva quoted him with something that opened up a lot of questions in my mind about power. Gianluca said “There is a tight link between power structure and infrastructure. By making infrastructure more accessible, we can destabilize and open up power structures. Oh. So. Much. To. Unpack! Then Eva went on to ask for examples.

Before I can mine examples, I want to understand what we mean by infrastructure and power structure. In my group process work most often the aim is to distribute power out to engage everyone and support work that distributes agency and responsibility across a group. It is rarely a goal to destabilize power, but to distribute it. So the idea of “opening up” power structures resonates.

Decision making can be a good place to test ideas. In practice that might look like clarity of decision making (as opposed to fake consultation – I’ll listen to you but I already made up my mind), clarity of how power is exercised and by whom in decision making processes. Power structure is expressed in this case by who makes what decisions, how they are communicated and enacted.

So what is infrastructure in this case? In the LinkedIn thread most references were to collaboration tools: Google drive, Slack, etc. Accessibility to tools requires they are available, properly configured to distribute control of the tools, backed up so useful experiments don’t risk mass destruction of stuff, and skills for people to use those tools. Who can choose and mess with the tools is super important – something we learned in our research for Digital Habitats.

I immediately wondered about the role of transparency of tools, how they are configured and who controls them as one sort of accessibility. There are other layers of accessibility: is a tool friendly for those who cannot hear or see? Is it free of embedded bias? Are the use practices built on shared values and goals or is it a free for all? My bias here is finding the sweet spot between over control and under control. For a diverse group, is the tool accessible ENOUGH to allow access and support diversity? Eva, in a latter comment, noted “Transparency is part of it. But also: Does this structure make it easy for me to fully contribute if I’m not highly privileged?”

That takes us to the less visible side of tools-as-infrastructure – the processes we use with the tools, each other and our shared work. Who has the power (there is that word again) to, as Eva called it, “fully contribute” regardless of one’s priviledge and power.

Process is infrastructure. Lack of process is infrastructure. Workarounds to avoid or change process is part of infrastructure as far as I’m concerned. Yet it is rarely noted in ones “infrastructure plans,” eh? It is the place where power is exercised with little visibility, or perhaps little accountability.

Some other stuff:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2019/08/08/facebook-and-electio
n-influence-will-history-repeat-itself/

Renee Diresta gave a superb talk at Long Now about the difference
about social media which Long Now retweeted about:

"When people say propaganda has always existed, they're absolutely
right. But what has not always existed is inexpensive,
sophisticated, precision targeting."
- Renee DiResta (@noUpside) on how social media algorithms help
spread propaganda on altogether new scales.

https://twitter.com/longnow/status/1518706648730140672

From the Blog Archives: Stewardship

Blue door locked with a ladder leaned against the wall to the right of the door.
Blue door and ladder in Tunisia

David Schmaltz wrote an amazing blog post back in 2013. It took me a while to track it down. (I suspect that many of us with WordPress have a problem that somewhere along the line permalink URLS changed, so finding things can be a bit challenging.)

Below is a quote from his longer post. Worth a read. I think now, more than ever and particularly in the US we need to shift our mindsets and behaviors to be more accountable, to initiate public good and to get out of our own self-absorbed ruts. Here David writes about Stewardship.

I believe that attributing Stewardship to an organization qualifies as a mistaken attribution, because Stewardship can only belong to individuals. And, I believe it doesn’t matter what an organization’s underlying organizing principle might be. Stewardship might thrive anywhere. It requires no permission, for permission would render Stewardship into just another form of paternalism. Stewardship has to be the sole and personal responsibility of individuals like you and me.

Thinking about how I exhibit Stewardship popped the funky trance. I am nearly incapable of passing an abandoned shopping cart. I consider it my responsibility to return to its proper place every one I find. I feel offended when I see one left to block traffic or rudely shoved up onto a median strip. Clearly, whomever abandoned it there lacked a sense of Stewardship.

The Muse makes the distinction between what she calls Renter and Owner mindset. The Renter mindset knows it’s not getting any appreciation in the value of any real estate, and easily justifies letting the yard go to seed on their watch. The Owner mindset embodies the practice of Stewardship by assuming full responsibility for the ongoing well-being of whatever they engage with, whether they actually own the property or not.

This house we’re presently renting gets cared for as if it were my own. The neighbors can’t quite understand why I would dig out that stump and improve the quality of the soil at my own expense, and why I mow to more exacting standards than the owners on the block. Stewardship explains it. I feel a deep need to care for whatever’s in my charge.Trying to create an organization that values Stewardship seems to discount Stewardship, and withholding Stewardship until it’s sanctioned and safe might sour any possibility of experiencing it. Stewardship isn’t difficult once the Owner mindset kicks in. The challenge might be to shift my own mindset first. I always have opportunities to care about what follows after me, and I can even see them when my head’s screwed on Stewardship straight.

I’m learning that my sense that I should wait for permission prevents me from practicing wise Stewardship. Stewardship thrived even under Nazi occupation, where it was deadly dangerous to care about preserving civil culture. I think we might be hard-wired to prefer it, though frequently short-circuited by the distracting demands of modern life.

Don’t ask when your company will wake up, wake up yourself. Own yer own shit, Man. Stand up even when nobody’s counting because you’re counting on you. And so are we all.

Here’s a link to a YouTube recording of this Webcast.

via Stewardship | Work | Pure Schmaltz.

Bev Wenger-Trayner Place, Pulse, Party

Beverly Wenger-Trayner’s old Eudaimonia blog post “What makes something a place?” is no longer online but in my archives of draft blog posts, this bit of text was saved. It seems to elegantly follow the words of Gardner Cambell in yesterday’s post, that I’m adding it into the slip stream. What do you think, Bev? Your description still resonates for me

Funny, I have been thinking about “place” related to another line of inquiry, and that is place as a recognizable border when I feel I am shifting between community and network. In my networks, I don’t feel the absence of place, but instead focus more on PULSE. In community, and even moreso in TEAM when I am intricately reliant on my partners, place becomes MUCH more central.

In communities of practices, I think I slip between place and pulse. Hm, I think I need to think about this concept some more and blog about it. After I do more housecleaning. (On a roll. Painting.)

Network. Resonance. Place. Pulse. There is something there….

Pen and ink doodle with lines, eyes, hearts, hands, flowers and words.

Hey Networks! Don't underestimate relationship

In strolling through the archives of unpublished blogs posts, I came upon one which was simply a link to a great blog post from the Interaction Institute in 2017. And boom, it is still resonant today.

Network members making sense of their own data…

The wonderful author, Curtis Ogden, offered 10 principles for thinking like a network. I want to pull out a few things in each one to share with folks in some projects I’m working on. So why not share it here too? This is dynamically incomplete… be forewarned!

The groups I have been and am working with are quite different in some ways. One is an internal organization. Another is a tripartite collaboration that is ready to grow into a network. A third is a group that has done amazing F2F training and capacity building and has had to regroup in a COVID-Virtual world. All three, however, are motivated to act their way into their purposes in new ways. So first is the mindset and practices. In a later blog post I want to explore snap-back, the falling back into our old ways of being and doing.

Curtis’ intro to the article is great context:

Over the past several years of supporting networks for social change, we at IISC have been constantly evolving our understanding of what is new and different when we call something a network, as opposed to a coalition, collaborative or alliance. On the surface, much can look the same, and one might also say that coalitions, collaboratives and alliances are simply different forms of networks. While this is true, it is also the case that not every collaborative form maximizes network effects, including small world reach, rapid dissemination, adaptability, resilience and system change. In this regard, experience shows that a big difference maker is when participants in a network (or an organization, for that matter) embrace new ways of seeing, thinking, and doing. 

https://interactioninstitute.org/thinking-like-a-network-2-0/

I think we all confound different forms of collaboration, try to be all things to all people and then we are frustrated when our ambitions are cut short. Working in new ways requires two things: discernment about what is possible, and a repertoire to make the possible real. I think these principles from Curtis support both these things. I encourage you to read the original article, because below I’m short cutting into some specifics.

Adaptability instead of control

This shows up so strongly in “strategic planning.” We tend to equate a detailed, task descriptive plan as a proxy for strategic action, especially in grand funded projects where plans, and executing on the plans, are key points for accountability. Yet, most work these days is in complex and changing contexts. Can we shift to adaptive planning which defines the purpose, direction and then iterates forward with strong accountability during, not just at the end?

Contribution before credentials

Equity has been in so many conversations. What seems to constantly block equity and its precursor, access, is that we continue to worship at the alter of credentialed expertise, rather than tapping all kinds of expertise. Whoops, look at the word “tapping!” We have extractive approaches to knowledge generation. How do we move to more contribution versus extraction that honors all, regardless of the title certain parts of society wish to attach to some and not others?

Giving first, not taking

See above about extractive mindsets!

Resilience and redundancy instead of rock-stardom

See above regarding stepping away from single views of expertise for the rock stardom stuff, but the resilience and redundancy needs a post of its own. The practice-based approach I’ve been working on for this is that we backfill for each other across departments, organizations, networks. No one these days can afford to hire all the skills they need at any one time. Trading labor across our networks builds redundancy and a sense of mutual support. There is a limit to this — we can’t keep ADDING work without taking something away.

Diversity and divergence rather than the usual suspects and forced agreement

This is why we work in networks!

 Intricacy and flow not bottlenecks and hoarding

I struggled with this one until I went back and read Curtis’ words on this one. The word that emerges for me is abundance. (In all senses of the word, including mindset.)

I’m running out of steam, so I’ll leave the last four for YOU to flesh out, annotate, expound upon. If I leave this as a draft for another year… well, you know what happens!

Self-organization and emergence rather than permission and the pursuit of perfection

Shift focus from core to the periphery

From working in isolation to working with others and/or out loud

 From “Who’s the Leader?” to “We’re the Leaders!”