mike_hales 💔*!?¿*
Including @band @ckohtala
@bhaugen wrote
@mike_hales
Do you assume economic networks can be operated without being mediated by computer networks?
I don't beyond the size where everybody meets regularly in the same room. And even then, beyond the complexity of outputs & organizational relationships & work-in-process that can be manually diagrammed & tracked on a whiteboard in that room.
I lived thru the getting-to-be-too-complicated-for-our-whiteboard stage in several situations.
@lynnfoster
mike_hales 💔*!?¿*
@bhaugen
Access is fine 🙂
Your proposition looks fine too: economic and social media should be hybridised. So, I guess, economic interactions - and specifically contracts or formal agreements - require a participant to drop into a 'special' language space, within the broad space of the medium/platform/protocol. For example, using Valueflo.ws descriptions, and using CfA tags.
Folks do this all the time, in life? Sometims we talk tech, sometimes we gossip and chat?
@ckohtala @lynnfoster @band
bhaugen
@mike_hales @ckohtala @lynnfoster @band
Ok, got a read link to that document about the combination of conversational and formatted economic statements that we have in mind:
this is the doc: https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/view/64P7o1b-7n8WCppvlhlHoC6xqs6TYqgfuQsE7rrMxn8/
Let me know if you can't access that.
bhaugen
@mike_hales
That all makes sense to me but is more complicated than we will do it.
I'm looking for a document describing the combination of conversational and formatted economic statements that we have in mind, but my new computer can't access it yet, so after breakfast....
@ckohtala @lynnfoster @band
mike_hales 💔*!?¿*
@bhaugen
WAY back, I recall a debate involving Mike Robinson, around The Coordinator, including a paper in an early CSCW journal, early 90s. I think he argues for provision for 'second level language' - basically an escape from the rule-organised Winogradian channel of conversations for action, into a free-text free-flow channel.
Haven't got that 🙄 All I do have is a working paper on 'representations' by Liam Bannon & him, from ECSCW'91
https://owncube.cloud/index.php/s/KQoKrc9EBJmT9YL
1of2
@ckohtala @lynnfoster @band
bhaugen
@mike_hales
Conversations for action can be (and often are) conducted purely by humans, or even more often via email or chat messages. It's a protocol (in the sense of a set of rules for engagement) that can be followed in many ways. If an economic engagement between people and their organizations fits that frame, it will most like use some variation on conversations for action.
mike_hales 💔*!?¿*
@bhaugen
In those toots, many of the places where I say 'social practice' are places where your conversational machinery gets mobilised - eg Winograd-style conversations for action.
But that's AN Other computer-tool layer, so the same design-of-practice questions must get asked for THAT tooling too
- its algorithm-machinery aka rules
- its representations of data aka conversational inputs, its read-outs and
- its reading situations and consensuality
@ckohtala @lynnfoster @band
bhaugen
@mike_hales
Thanks for adding those other people. And making the conversation public. I wanted to give you a chance to go private if you wanted. I don't care for myself.
mike_hales 💔*!?¿*
@bhaugen
I don't feel there's a deep difference in expectations. The complexity of meso-scale systems is beyond 'simple' representation. Some kind of computational modelling/mapping will be required.
I do place emphasis always on the 'social' (practical) forms thro which algorithmic models are built, populated, animated & read. It's the translations, between practical-world and model-world, in and out, that are critical.
Always the problem with Beer's sexy models!
@ckohtala @lynnfoster @band
band
@mike_hales @bhaugen @ckohtala @lynnfoster
re: "Folks do this all the time, in life? Sometimes we talk tech, sometimes we gossip and chat?"
sometimes we mix the two; many conversations are an improvisation, and this makes them fun, spicy, and sometimes frustrating.
@mike_hales why is entering into a contract and special language space? we have already defined what a contract means in our everyday language. I think I am missing something in this project.
band
@bhaugen @mike_hales @bernini @ckohtala @lynnfoster
thx for the note; i think we are in agreement regarding machine-processable actions. (n.b.: i will read up on Smart Sentences)
For me, @mike_hales questions (if I understand him) on "free, fair, exploitative, open-hearted, visionary, conservative, blinkered, etc." social relations, are not going to be captured in machine-processable text. Of course, I may be wrong about that. Is this what is being talked about? or is the topic more bounded?
bhaugen
@mike_hales ok if I respond to
@band on this question? You can disagree later.
> why is entering into a contract and special language space?
It's not if all you want to do is use plain text. If you want your contract to be recorded by computers and made operational and the resources tracked and be accounted for, then it helps to use a somewhat formatted language. @bernini 's Smart Sentences make that easier. Or you can re-enter everything...
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.