Evolving notes, images and sounds by Luis Apiolaza

Category: meta (Page 1 of 7)

The purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID)

This is a popular* dictum by systems theorist Stafford Beer, pointing out that the self-described purpose of a system (or an organisation) is not the same as its actual purpose. I am often reminded of POSIWID when companies or universities state their “values” but then we contrast them with what they actually value, via their applications of carrots and sticks.

Famously, Google used “Don’t be evil” in their corporate code of conduct, but fired employees complaining about the ethics of their AI projects. Or your organisation states that employee wellbeing is a priority, but it uses an “ambulance at the bottom of a cliff” approach; there is no prevention, but instead you are told to use mindfulness and meditation to reduce stress.

I tend to be sceptical about people and organisations insisting too much on their values; I rather see their results, which tend to reflect their true purpose in what they do.

*Popular in the sense of nerd popular, not pop-star popular.

Note: In the early 1970s Stafford Beer was involved in the development of Cybersyn, an attempt to plan the whole Chilean economy from a room connected to industry via 500 telex machines. Replica of Cybersyn in Centro Cultural La Moneda, Santiago.

Questions while watching Netflix

In 2022 28% of New Zealand’s total exports and 53% of the forestry exports (by value) went to China. China’s population is predicted to fall by half (some would say crash) by 2100. How do we create new products and services, and target other markets to replace China?

The problem is not just China, but out of the top ten markets for NZ forestry (China, Australia, South Korea, Japan, United States, Indonesia, Taiwan, India, Thailand and Philippines) four have declining and ageing populations (China, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan). These four countries receive over three quarters of NZ forestry exports (76%).

Population is not the same as consumption, but they are associated. Some of these changes will be gradual, some abrupt, but we need to prepare as soon as possible.

Graph: total population predictions by the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

The AI House of Cards

Many of the people pushing today for AI to be used in all organisations, particularly of the ChatGPT/LLM persuasion, were pushing NFTs and, before that, cryptocurrencies. And the blockchain, of course. How many meetings we had in our organisations (including universities) asking us to think of blockchain applications for research projects or teaching? A few.

Before all that, 2012 was the year of the MOOC (Massive open online course), when Coursera, Udacity and edX were going to disrupt and break universities. Everyone had to spend, sorry, invest on developing online courses because of the fear of missing out (FOMO). MOOCs are popular, but did not affect university attendance at the predicted scale and universities didn’t make money with most courses.

Now “prompt engineers” insist that we are missing out the LLM revolution, that our students are falling behind, as we do not allow our students to use ChatGPT in assignments. The same ChatGPT that uses fake citations (hallucinations, my bad) to inexistent journal articles to write the requested introduction. What are we supposed to teach? How do we infuse critical thinking, ethical dilemmas, discussion, etc in a probabilistic parrot trained violating the copyright of half of the internet?

Can there be real experts on a technology that appeared year and a half ago? If I look at what I do for work, how long did it take me to achieve my current level of understanding? Way more than 1.5 years.

You could think of this text as a rant; yes, I am tired of people pushing AI. There are piles of money being burnt by large companies right now, a field full of grifters, huge environmental issues as these things use as much power as a small country, and plenty of other distractions. Everyone wants to make money before the whole thing collapses.

Now, if you want to read someone much more tired than me, a scathing post, then I Will [expletive] Piledrive You If You Mention AI Again is a great piece.

PS. I crossposted this text in LinkedIn and my WordPress blog. Both of them offered AI to write my post. Sigh. Featured Image: Existential Comics 15

Taylor & Francis made me do it

Today I received an email from Taylor & Francis letting me know that the final volume and pagination for one of our papers was available, and telling me that I should share this paper with the world. I should, as the open access (OA) costs are USD 3,000+. The article is here, by the way.

Today Elsevier sent me an email as well, confirming that OA fees of USD 3,400+ for our new accepted article were covered by our university’s Read and Publish Agreement.

Also today (it was a busy day!), MDPI sent me an email, stating that the authors of a new review were sharing their new OA article with me. It cost them 2,600 Swiss Francs or roughly USD 2,900 to do so. I consider MDPI Forests borderline predatory, so I wouldn’t pay to go there, but “cada loco con su tema”, as we say in Spanish.

I am part of a priviledged group, who works at one of the members of CAUL, an organisation for university libraries in Australia and New Zealand. We have access to big bucket agreements with publishers (the usual suspects like Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, etc). We have a quota of articles, first-in, first-served, that are published open access “for free”. Not quite, the universities pay for that quota, but researchers are not charged individually.

This situation creates funny incentives: OA publishing in journals run by big publishers has no direct cost to me. OA publishing in journals that I like—Annals of Forest Science, for example—but that are not part of my university agreement is unaffordable. I literally have no funding for it. As Annals of Forest Science only publishes OA articles, that’s bye, bye for me. A good alternative, in forestry at least, is to publish for free in an OA journal like the New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science. Give them a  try.

Today I was left with the horrible feeling that we are burning money for no clear purpose in the current publication environment. We could easily pay for better PhD scholarships or postdoc salaries with that money, although is not available for those purposes. We can only use it to keep on feeding publishers with insanely high profit rates. Crazy.

Anyway, if you are interested in essential oils from eucalypts, read the article. I mentioned this work before but now comes with fresh, shiny, cineole-smelling page numbers. Either that or the article smells like burning money.

Keeping track of my links

I have been using internet since 1993, which means thousands of browsed sites, broken links, storing and losing information for over three decades. One obvious point of the exercise is that every time I have relied on someone else’s system I have ended up losing lots of information.

Delicio.us, Twitter, etc. have consumed my data and time without an ability to maintain a good archive of my information. The only data that has remained is the one I have personally stored under my own system/payment. I have been a slow learner in this respect, so I have started another section of this site, Aleph, just to store bits and pieces of information I am collecting while browsing.

The first post in Aleph briefly documents the rationale; actually it just links to Cory Doctorow’s post to that effect.

« Older posts

© 2024 Palimpsest

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑