4 comments on “The Connectivist

  1. The difference is that with relations (connections between dots) you can construct patterns which you can match with expected patterns. Words, syntax and semiotics are quite differently handled in the brain from patterns & flows. AI has fruitlessly studied tge former for ages but only in recent years discouvered patterns. Ps correlation can be done very fast in parallel and in the orthogonal transformed space.

  2. Not sure what you mean by “the difference” – those first two sentences are exactly what I could / would say too.
    (And yes, I agree, once we’re talking about focussing on relations, we can use network language entirely, nodes and edges etc. Juts a question of our current audience.)

    Not sure it’s true to say AI has been ignoring patterns. I’m sceptical about “AI” as something to overtake human intelligence (I can say more about AI … ) but it seems to me all of us working in information, decades before anyone called-it big data, have been focussing on patterns. Every project I’ve ever had anything to do with has. Speed (and strategies) of processing can discover patterns ever faster, but attaching significance to them requires intelligence. The AI field is as full of idiots as any other human endeavour 😉

    You may have to elaborate on “orthogonal transformed space”?

  3. Thepoint is not whether oor not you and II agres Nd if it is new. Theooint is that the economists, lawyers and politician dickheads a d their generals update their simplistic outdated chessboard maneuvring and nuke threats.

Leave a Reply