[Note: This is the last 7-item listicle for now, promise. I also apologize for the cheems mindset on display in this post.]
In a footnote to my summary of 2021 I complained about how irritating it’s becoming to have a boss.
I struggle to be motivated to do things when I don’t get to do them the way I want to and in my own name. It’s draining to subsume yourself under some employer’s banner and not have your work be your own — not legally, not socially, and not psychologically. It just seems improper for an actual adult. It’s textbook alienation and this is probably the most Marxist I’ve ever sounded. If you live with your parents you’re not fully an adult. And to me it’s looking increasingly like if you’re not self-employed you’re not fully an adult either. Having a boss is like having your parents telling you what to do. Proper adults don’t have bosses. Proper adults don’t get “evaluated” on their “performance”. I realize this is completely unreasonable, by the way, but I’m just feeling it, regardless of how much my superego tells me to stop.
It’s become increasingly clear that the only route forward if I’m ever to be satisfied with my work situation is self-employment. Find something to do. Find something to sell.
Too bad I hate a few things about as much as I hate answering to an employer — things like admin, sales, and taking risks. But I can deal with those, I think, as long as the basic idea is strong. Shouldn’t be too hard. I’ve got a lot of ideas, right?
Unfortunately most projects come up with are small and unprofitable. I have ideas for novels, infographics, pieces of music, puzzles and games, and decorative objects. The ROI on such things tend to be small and you need to focus on building your skills for a long time to get good enough at those thing to even have a slight shot — and I’m terrible at sticking to things without constant external validation.
Some project ideas have a different problem. They’re more creative and interesting but unrealistically ambitious and/or with little economic value. Most of them is some version of “make something that’s way more interesting to make than valuable to use”, and the remainder can be summed up as “not (to me) worth doing unless done so well that the cost becomes absolutely prohibitive”1.
A few of those has stayed with me for years, popping up now and then. “Maybe I should try to do it? Or do some simplified version?” but of course not. Instead I just fantasize a little about having the time, resources and focused resolve to take a sufficiently sustained stab at any of them. That has its advantages, like not having to do any of the difficult or boring parts.
Still, I want to share them, because for some reason that feels rewarding.
In no particular order:
1) The artistic taste landscape
I’ve been fascinated by recommendation engines since I first came across one about 20 years ago. In the mid-00’s I had quite serious plans of building one — well, several. The fascinating thing about finding patterns in what kind of movies, music or books people like is that it’s like finding the structure of thought itself. People who like this also like that? It’s like getting a glimpse of a hidden order, and I desperately want to see more of it.
The big problem with recommendation engines, as they exist, is that the data they have to work with isn’t very good. Good enough to make recommendations, perhaps, but not good enough to map out the true structure of artistic preference. You’d need much more detailed, complete, and reliable information. You’d need to know every movie/book/piece of music every user had ever consumed, when they did, and what they thought of it, along several dimensions. And ideally you’d also know what they’d come across and chose not to partake in, and why.
Then you’d might be able to find the big, hidden structure underneath it all, and not just pull out this or that useful tidbit or crude correlation. The fact that it’s impossible to get this material, or anything near it, saps away about two thirds of my passion for the project.
I did have a pared-down idea I was quite intent on going for around 2009-2010 or so. I tried to “decide” I was going to do it, force myself commit and pull myself out of my lack of focus and motivation. I held on for a few days and made some notes in a pad I still have in a drawer somewhere.
The main idea was to focus on taste in stories, regardless of whether movies, tv series or books was the medium, and to not rely on data so much for extracting a pattern or model, but to work it out from (entirely guessed) first principles.
I hypothesized that people’s taste in stories depended on their personalities, as described by psychologists (the Big 5 model plus Simon Baron-Cohen’s Empathizing-Systemizing spectrum). In an effort to confirm this I looked for academic research on the topic, which was underwhelming. There’s not a lot of it, and what does exist suffers from that well known lack of good, precise data. Results tend to be about as detailed as everyday intuitions and stereotypes (often on the “genre” level). Thanks for nothing.
But you can try to get further, right? You can just make wild assumptions and see where they take you. I started on a model where I’d translate personality traits into qualities of stories, largely determined by whether it made sense to me. Then I would (but I never got that far) mark stories based on whether they had those qualities. In the end you were supposed to take a personality test and then get a list of stories that would fit your personality profile. It could’ve worked if these personality-trait-inspired qualities actually do correspond to what people like or don’t like in stories. I don’t know if they do.
Introversion/extraversion could translate to a taste for stories from one person’s perspective (think Taxi Driver or Crime and Punishment) or about relationships among a group of people (think Pride and Prejudice, or any soap). “Openness to experience” could mean fanciful vs. realistic stories, or (more like Myers-Briggs “sensory vs. intuitive”) abstract or idea- and theme-driven vs. sensory stuff like action, beautiful scenery, , nice costumes/cool spaceships, evocative prose or cinematography, etc.
I had less clear thoughts about other personality traits but agreeableness and neuroticism could be connected to enjoyment of conflict vs. cooperation (naivety vs. cynicism), or enjoying titillation by upsetting themes and events vs. wanting happy endings. High conscientiousness might lead people to enjoy stories where people are competent, composed and serious about their tasks, as opposed to say, a typical teen drama or dysfunctional relationship story.
The empathizing/systemizing axis could be used to distinguish between those who want logical plot progression with clearly established rules and strong quasi-mechanistic sense of cause and effect (think murder mysteries, spy stories or hard SF) and those who are looking for vicarious experiences, who want to identify with characters having strong feelings, follow them on their journeys, and share their sorrows and triumphs second hand (think coming-of-age stories, family chronicles or misery porn)2.
In reality you’d want many more axes and story attributes, and a lot of bright, dedicated people to score stuff accurately.
2) The validity web
The whole of academic research is one giant cluster of partially deferred credibility. A paper argues that perhaps, under certain circumstances, X is true, and backs it up with some evidence the authors have produced. To support their argument, and to set up the whole conceptual system in which the claim makes sense, they also cite papers A through P.
The credibility of any one paper, or textbook, or popularization, therefore relies both on the quality of cited papers and the correctness of the citations themselves — i.e. if cited stuff actually says what it supposedly says. Cited papers in turn depend on its own citations being correct, and so forth. The whole thing becomes impossible for anyone to check.
Peer-review is supposed to deal with this, but it doesn’t and of course can’t3. There’s not nearly enough time nor will to be as thorough and critical and you really need to be to fully assess the value of a piece of research, and by extension everything else it’s later used to support through citation.
Psychology, for example, tries hard to be science but struggles to outperform our already fiercely perceptive social intuitions by using scientific methods that barely work because running sufficiently controlled experiments in sufficiently natural environments is impossible for reasons of practicality, costs and ethics. Its often weak results become the object of speculation far beyond their validity, and escapes into public discourse a lot more than say research on worm metabolism or Minoan script does.
The replication crisis is well-trodden ground by now. Lots of things we used to believe was solid enough put in textbooks and thinkpieces and God knows how many Powerpoint slides turned out to be flimsy bullshit. Wouldn’t we want a way to determine the damage done whenever something turns out to be ~worthless? And I’m not just talking about the fraudulent or non-replicating. I’m talking about shit that’s just weak. Surveys with bad, vague questions (which is most of them, I say partly as a professional survey-wrangler). Words that get redefined enough to lose their normal meaning; Nutrition and lifestyle studies based on self-reports (please); Clear political/ideological bias; Obvious confounders unaccounted for.
Peer-review isn’t necessarily enough to weed out weak research because often the people doing the review are guilty of the same sins, and if weak methodology was actually banished it would take too much of research output with it. The pseudonym Literal Banana (@literalbanana on Twitter) wrote The Extended Sniff Test as an example of how to evaluate research as a nonspecialist. Written in an imitated academic style, it’s an absolute gem.
The Extended Sniff Test (EST), introduced here, is a formalization of the practices the author uses when volunteer-fact-checking scientific claims. It is performed after an initial sniff is taken of the claim to be studied, if the sniff reveals the possible presence of bullshit. The EST contains three parts: Double Contextualization of the claim in question (DC), a Noun Abuse Assessment (NAA), and a lay literature review.
And some lovely one-liners:
General claims have often experienced traumatic amputation of their contexts.
A word is being abused if ordinary intelligent readers would take it to have a particular
meaning, but upon investigation, the meaning is found to be missing or changed.
I imagine an institution full of smart generalists (and specialists when needed), who do Extended Sniff Tests on published research with relevance to society at large (psychology is a good starting point). And I don’t just mean giving every paper a credibility score, but rating it on various dimensions like construct validity, robustness, vulnerability to alternative interpretations, etc. And each edge in the network would have to be judged as well, on several dimensions, like how pivotal a a citation is to the conclusion, and how well represented the cited claim is, etc.
With this, whole clusters or subfields — branches on the tree of Science, if you will — could automatically be identified as rotten if enough corruption spreads through it. It would make it harder to do knowledge laundering by exploiting illegibility and obfuscation, and it would reduce the incentive for weak research.
Citation network projects do exist, and perhaps there are even examples trying to let “badness” found in one paper propagate to other papers that cite it, but this unworkable idea is more ambitious, considering the size of the institution required. I consider it unworkable because of how much research is produced. It’s not just papers but popular articles and books too, and it takes a lot of work to evaluate things4. It’d be very hard and expensive to find enough people with the right skills and sufficient integrity, and then pay them. It’d also be extremely hard to not introduce political or ideological bias into the review process itself — safeguards against that would add another layer of complexity.
3) Modern temple
Perhaps the most ridiculously expensive project I fantasize about is a modern temple — a secular building that nonetheless manages to create a sense of the eternal. It would have to be very large, and built very carefully to evoke and preserve a sense of awe, reverence, and mystique.
It’s not an unusual fantasy. Krishnan Rohit at Strange Loop Canon has defended modern architecture from commentators (like me) who lament its lack of beauty, but even he has to admit that while “the buildings I wrote about are undeniably amazing, one difference from the olden styles is that most modern buildings feel expressly prosaic”. He goes on to say that even though many of today’s skyscrapers are incredible, they are indeed “built for quotidian reasons, as office buildings or homes”.
Today I think we all too often feel unsettled to build large things without a utilitarian purpose. Worship isn’t as favoured as this purpose any longer either. So we hedge. We make museums with lovely gift centres as a sort of compromise. And it doesn’t work.
No it doesn’t. The sublime is fragile. Otherworldiness collapses upon contact with the mundane, the utilitarian, or the administrative. The greatest challenge for a modern temple5 would be to achieve the right mood, the right vibe.
The skills needed to design evocative environments do exist. Game designers and other artists are very good at it. It only took me a few minutes to find these pictures of gorgeous spaces.
Is anything like this easy and cheap to build, in a solid and authentic enough manner to not make it feel plastic and fake? Noooope. And you’d have to erase all visible intrusions of practicality, like electrical wires or light switches, toilets, signs, garbage bins.
However, the physical environment is only part of it. There would have to be rules. Weird and draconian ones. You don’t want it to be like an overcommodified church or museum with hordes of tourists sauntering around, wearing backpacks and snapping photos. In fact, no pictures at all. No cameras or electronics of any kind allowed in. No bags, no coats or jackets. Maybe no talking, even.
No pictures because you don’t want people to know in advance what it looks like inside. There should only be descriptions. The place should be large and complex, with many different spaces — from a glass tower to dark catacombs, labyrinthine systems of rooms with hidden reading nooks — and no maps. You have to explore.
Obviously breaking any rules would get you banned. And time inside would have to be rationed to keep it from getting crowded. You’d have to apply for a slot. Maybe there could be a more everyday, liminal section near the entrance, like a café everyone can visit, and keep restricted areas further inside, maybe even some special places you could only access on your second or third visit, etc.
Unless I become a multibillionaire, and armed with the power to ignore things like building codes that stand in the way of my vision, I guess I’ll have to keep fantasizing.
4) A simulated world
As a teenager I enjoyed playing strategy games like Civilization III and Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri. Not, however, quite as much as I enjoyed fiddling with and modifying them, changing the names, looks, stats and effects of technologies, policies, buildings and military units6. More than once I spent quite a lot of effort on a new mod design only to find out that playing it once it was done was not the fun part.
I read forums too. I especially enjoyed discussions about what changes people wanted for future iterations of Civilization. More realism was popular, which stood against the mantra that it was “a strategy game, not a simulation”. Maybe, but the fact is that many of us who enjoyed Civilization were more attracted to the simulation aspect than the competitive game aspect. To be honest, some of my own thoughts for the ideal version would, if taken to their logical end, have eliminated the actual players.
No wonder I spent the years in the beginning of my university education thinking I should’ve picked something with more programming in it, so I could complete a massively unworkable project: en entire simulated world. It’d be in the style a strategy game but far more complex, pulling a lot of known mechanisms together into a single system.
The physical world would be created randomly, and simplified but understood models of plate tectonics would form mountains and volcanoes; climate zones would form, including rainfall patterns and with it rivers, lakes and deserts. On that world little societies would emerge, based on where food would be plentiful. They’d grow and shrink based on known models for demographic dynamics, disease, war, etc. Their languages would develop, branch, drift and borrow words from each other, again based on known mechanisms.
Transport infrastructure would determine were cities spring up: rivers, natural harbors, roads and eventually railway junctions. City plans and architecture could be dealt with using some of the naturalistic street plan generators that existed already 15-20 years ago7.
You’d be able to explore your world in many different ways, zoom in through a Google Maps-like interface and study roads and cities. You’d see how trains, planes and ships cris-crossed the planet, you’d get stats on population, wealth, military might, education, and so on. You could see the flags of countries, perhaps hear their national anthems, written by music-producing AI:s. And so on.
The hardest would be capturing cultural values, social roles and the resulting politics and their effects on economics and technology (including feedback loops), but existing research could be used to create at least serviceable (if basic) models, I thought. The idea wasn’t to copy the real world as such, but to just have an artificial world — a toy — that felt dynamic, interesting, unpredictable and “alive” in the way strategy games never can because they have to work as games (i.e. they have to be fair and sufficiently under the players’ control).
What’s that? You’d want to know what the point would be? The use case? Well there’s the problem I have a lot of the time… its grotesque effort-to-value ratio is like that of a Rube Goldberg Machine and its raison d’être would be the same: the mere joy of building it and setting it off. Putting down the rules for a complicated simulation, pushing the start button and seeing spring alive and sit right on that sweet spot of being just recognizable as what you made but also so much more… it’s exhilarating. One of life’s great pleasures.
Could it be done? Well enough to be an interesting and inspiring work of art, theoretically yes. Could it be done well enough to produce valuable insight, and at a cost not orders of magnitude more than it’d be worth? No.
5) Exploring networks as an art medium
Speaking of the joy of seeing a system you’ve created “come alive” and surprise you in interesting ways:
Early in my career I worked on building a custom analysis application for the small company I worked for. Because there were advantages to getting exactly what we wanted and nothing but, and also because I had engineer’s disease (“I’ll build this myself instead of adapting some off-the-shelf solution because that’s totally better, and more fun for me”) with no one to call me on it, I coded it all by hand. One of the things I built, and in the process learned to experiment with, was a network simulator using force-directed layout algorithms.
You said what? Pretty pictures of complex networks tend to be the result of simulations, where every node in the network repel every other node, while edges act like springs or rubber bands, pulling nodes towards each other. Implementing such an algorithm means going through each node in turn and adding up all the forces acting on it: every other node pushes a little (in most versions they push harder when closer) and every attached edge pulls a little. You get a resulting force for each node and move them a little bit in that direction. Repeat until everything stabilizes.
The end result is often pretty but the process itself is perhaps even more mesmerizing, as clusters of densely interconnected nodes clump together and unconnected strands are blown apart. Intricate structure is gradually revealed and perfected in something that reminds you of embryogenesis.
It’s mostly (~exclusively) used as data visualization, but I’ve always thought it has great potential as an artistic medium. Think of the core mechanism as a raw material. Construct artificial datasets that create effects you likely wouldn’t see with anything natural. Add, remove or alter nodes or edges on a preprogrammed — fixed or probabilistic — schedule, or make them respond to what happens to them or near them (or to user input!). The possibilities are nearly endless. With the right programming node clusters can get molecule-like properties, producing a quasi-chemistry.
I think of it as fertile ground because the possibility space seems too vast to get an idea of from the start. And that’s the case for incipient art forms. They take a long time to mature, as practitioners slowly learn what works and what doesn’t, build upon what they’ve learnt and what they’ve seen others do. They acquire a lexicon or toolbox of techniques and mental shorthand that makes it possible to push forward, far beyond what anyone was capable of in the beginning. Only our own brainpower and accumulated experience stand in the way of creating truly hypnotic visual marvels out of this.
Conway’s Game of Life is dead simple: it’s just a grid of cells that can be either living or dead and whose status is determined by three short rules. Given that, the vast potential inherent in it is just astounding. It spawns a menagerie of phenomena, explored over decades, and by carefully selecting initial conditions you can create almost anything, including a computer that can implement the Game of Life inside itself.
Force-directed layout algorithms can do even more, and with more visual flair. The greatest problem might be that the possibility space for such networks is so vast that it gets completely unworkable to explore in a methodical way. It has so many degrees of freedom that unless restricted in some way, it risks blending seamlessly into “generally pretty patterns”.
You could set them to music, make’m pulsate to complex beats, with movement and color. That’d be cool.
6) Name translator
When my kids were watching PJ Masks I noticed that the character names had been translated in the dub. The green kid, called “Greg” in the original, had been renamed “Jens”. I snickered a little and thought the translator had done a good job — “Jens” does have a very similar feel in Swedish as “Greg” does in English.
It made me think about translating names. Sure there are versions of the same name in different languages — Charles, Karl, Carlos or Karol etc. — but that’s an overly literal way of looking at names. I remember a comic strip making the observation that “Kurt” is a much cooler name in English than it is in Swedish, and it showed that the associations people have with names are much richer and thicker than what you could figure out by just looking at etymology.
People don’t give their kids random names. There are so many factors that go into it, and this has an effect on what names “mean””. They suggest age, since names are subject to fashions. A few explode onto the scene and burn out in a few years (hello “Khaleesi”), and others stay put on the top-100 list for generations (“James”).
Some names are plain, others make you take notice. Some are posh and others are trashy. Some are stodgy, some are pretentious, and others smell of incense. There are male and female names, of course, plus a small numbers of unisex ones (a few change over time), but even within those categories there are spectra of stronger or weaker masculinity/femininity. Other spectra are cool vs. dorky, attractive vs. unattractive, etc.
If you want to know what name would match yours the best in another language and in another country, you’d need to take all this into account. You’d have to collect information on many, many names from many countries, through long and boring surveys where people tell you their feelings about various names. You’d complement this with public statistics that may or may not be available and/or comparable across countries (as a data analyst this gives me anxiety). And you’d have to do it again every few years to keep up with changes.
And for what? You’d have a toy that could be a bit of fun. Maybe it could even be somewhat useful for marketing and artistic purposes to know the connotations of names in different countries and languages. But the workload and cost to ensure decent data quality would be prohibitive, although perhaps not as severely as other items on this list.
7) The mind graph
I thought about this 20 years ago after walking home after a History of Ideas seminar (don’t know why I remember that). It’s in the same vein as most others on the list, in that it combines personality, meaning, and visualizing complex information. It would be a big, near-complete picture of a person’s mind, as revealed by a very detailed questionnaire.
It’d be a huge collection of little dots. Artfully connected, they’d look like a giant bundle of grapes. Each blot would be either present or missing based on whether a thing/interest/preference etc. had been selected on the questionnaire. Do you like peanuts? A little spot right here. Symphonic doom metal listener? That’s right over here. Oh, you play guitar and speak Polish and Greek? Little spots for those too. Hundreds, or more likely thousands, of little dots in one very big, and very personal, work of art.
It was before I knew how to program so in my mind I’d make it by hand. I’d customize based on the answers, but there’d be a basic template determining the placement and connection between dots. Basically, large differences between people would correspond to large differences in how the picture looked, and once you’d learn how you could get a feel for what kind of person someone was by just looking at it.
This was also before I’d learned to abandon ideas immediately (the “fail fast” strategy of self-motivation), so I actually started. I planned the overall layout: music taste here, food likes over there, sports and activities on this side (sorted by individuality/team-orientedness, physicality etc.). I tried to make areas next to each other line up by having something in common, for example making physicality in sport line up with danceability in music, and having cerebral interests like science and art line up with music like classical and jazz.
Starting with food and music preferences made it clear right away that I needed varying levels of resolution. Maybe you just like “pop” or “science” or “meat” and are satisfied with large, low-def blobs showing this — or maybe you want to specify “eastern European bubblegum pop”, “biophysics” and “venison” because that’s specifically a big part of your identity somehow. It couldn’t just be a set of equally sized, present-or-absent dots but also show what areas of personality space that you personally had mapped out in high resolution.
At this point I began to realize that this wasn’t going to work. Not as a little side project, anyway. The task of building and organizing a library of options to choose from, that captures everything that anyone thinks is important about themselves, and keeping it up to date, is daunting enough to make the project unworkable — at least sufficiently unworkable that it clearly wasn’t the best option to spend effort on, among a host of other similarly ambitious ideas. I would still love to make something like this, but I’m not optimistic about being able to do it. I really envy monomaniacs who can spend their entire life on a single obsession.
- Perhaps if I’d been a trained, credentialed artist I could’ve called it art and been taken seriously. ↩︎
- Lost was and remains so controversial because it initially appealed to fans across this whole spectrum, but ended up satisfying only the “empathizer” standard of storytelling and giving the “systemizer” view a giant middle finger. ↩︎
- The more I hear about peer-review the worse it looks. I feel I should justify this more but for the moment I won’t. It’s just an impression I’ve picked up from reading a lot about how the scientific process works and hearing stories from friends in academia. ↩︎
- For example, blogger Alexey Guzey spent a year on a very critical review of claims in Matthew Walker’s Why We Sleep, and AFAIK they have not been addressed. I don’t know how correct they are, I haven’t read the book and I haven’t read all the cited research (obviously). It’s an excellent example of how essential 1) skill, 2) time, and 3) trustworthiness would be for a project like this. ↩︎
- Modern as dedicated to individual contemplation rather than communal worship. ↩︎
- Same with the classic Liero that I played to bits in high school. Once I had the tools I spent more time than I’d like to admit building new levels and designing new weapons. ↩︎
- Even more software like that exists now and I’m little sad I haven’t been in a position to be working on that kind of stuff. I see Townscaper and I’m mesmerized. I don’t actually play it (because I always prefer making to using), but just the fact that it exists makes me happy. ↩︎
Did you enjoy this article? Consider supporting Everything Studies on Patreon.
21 thoughts on “7 Unworkable Projects”
Some interesting ideas here! I particularly like #1 & #3. I wonder if some of these might have more of an audience than you think (not that I have any ideas about how to find out or find it…)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Peer review is a value-add when it’s possible to do a cheap back-of-the-envelope replication. (That is to say, pure math, and also fields where you can run their code yourself or do some statistical tests on the raw data.)
Other than that, it’s a content filter consisting of the reviewer’s priors and (plausibly deniably) shallow heuristics, especially author reputation / reputation of their connections.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Re your “recommendation engines since I first came across one about 20 years ago. In the mid-00’s I had quite serious plans of building one”
…may be here now, as this implementation may eclipse a recommendation engine. And it is voice driven. Don’t think just voice, every keystroke, booking, web page, history etc. Digital life, captured. No seri for me!
Think every query ever spoken in the next n years enhancing it’s recommendations. Training the training set, with every query.
“Dashbot turns unstructured, noisy, inter-related and often tangled conversational data into operational and actionable insight, in real-time. Our customers include Intuit, GoDaddy and Travelers. We provide insights for over 25K bots and 90 billion messages have been processed to date.”
Dashbot seems a bit creepy to me. Yet the pull of progress will see Dashbot reach every corner of the rich and young, then as with all tech, melded into the ecosystem – (see who it is licensed to!). Dashbot will slowly overcome your negation – “The fact that it’s impossible to get this material, or anything near it” – slowly slowly, tid bit by tid bit is now to become a monetized recommendation reality imo.
Dashbot’s founder Jesse Hull goes back a way. He set up virtual casinos – on fb. Wealthy now with tech startup pedigree.
A bit of his history :
” Update (22 May 2000): Jesse Hull has proved that Toads and Frogs is NP-hard, using a program that automates simple induction proofs involving Toads and Frogs positions. Specifically, his program found the following identity, which by results of Yedwab and Moews is enough to show NP-hardness:Tn_TFTm_TF = m+n-1||n|2 for all m>0 and n>0″
Dashbot even has your last paragraph covered! “In reality you’d want many more axes and story attributes, and a lot of bright, dedicated people to score stuff accurately”. Even a “live query funnel” query answer feature. How long will this last except for the wealthy.
See: “Dashbot digs deep into conversations to provide insights such as sentiment analysis to shed greater light on how engaged users are with AI assistants. The Dashbot platform also provides full transcripts of conversation threads, as well as a “message funnel” reporting function that maps out user activity flows, to help developers understand where bots fall short and how to optimize AI systems to respond to users’ needs more effectively.”
And, I hope you see me at this point as the messanger!
Dashbot seems to have 5) & 7) covered also, as an emergent feature I doubt they have considered – I’d suggest you tell them you are the right person to do this asap:-
“5) Exploring networks as an art medium … “a network simulator using force-directed layout algorithms.”.
“7) The mind graph”.
As I said, a bit creepy, 90bn queries and rising, serious money, no privacy. Massive buy out soon ish. Gulp.
I hope after your 5 & 7 project implementations at Dashbot, you build a: “3) Modern temple”.
I too am with you, re my ideas. i nearly got up a linked web aware simulation tool in “system dynamics” causal diagram paradigm in 1996. And had the first color laser printer in Australia, didn’t get traction as “Canon”! & too early. And pitched to Australian Olympic Committee in 1999, a social media lite messaging fb-esque tool. Way too early.
Thanks and appreciation. And keep creating. You never know if Dashbot will fund you – send Jesse Hull this post. Serendipity may arrive.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It reads a little spammy but I’ll assume you’re legit. I don’t see how what you describe is particularly similar, but I’ll look it up. I appreciate the effort.
#3 and #4 are wonderful! Did you watch the movie Free Guy? It’s a really similar premise, the conflict between commercialization and the original game designer’s desire to create a game that… simply plays itself… and where the pleasure is seeing the game do its own thing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hm no I’ve not seen it. Maybe I should.
It’s a fun movie, but extremely shallow in a technical sense (like a LOT of VR/simulated-world fiction).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Victoria 2 to a small extent (and hopefully Victoria 3 to a large extent) capture some of what #4 is talking about with their systems that try to simulate every part and their participation in global cultures and economies.
Acoup talks more about it here : https://acoup.blog/2021/08/13/collections-teaching-paradox-victoria-ii-part-i-mechanics-and-gears/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh yes, I’ve been very fascinated by what Paradox is doing.
One of the best simulation games has got to be Dwarf Fortress, which generates worlds with ecosystems and lore, and is very open-ended with emergent gameplay. It’s also very silly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes! I was going to mention Dwarf Fortress too.
It’s an ongoing project mostly by a single person that’s spanned 12-15 (?) years already. The original version is all ASCII graphics, but there’s a healthy modding community and a good bit of the best are nicely packaged together to provide various graphics alternatives to ASCII as well as other quality of life improvements. They’re working on a nice Steam version of the game at the moment.
One of the three main ‘modes’ of the game is purely for perusing the copious amounts of simulated world history. The generate-new-world screens aren’t lying when they display thousands of “historical figures” having been generated!
Another game that John might enjoy – if only reading about it – is Ultima Ratio Regum. I’ve only played it for a few minutes, but I’ve enjoyed reading about it for dozens of hours. One really cool aspect of its procedural generation is that the possible options are ‘structured’, i.e. instead of every dimension being chosen randomly and independent of every other, each ‘determined’ dimension constraints the options for others, so that there’s a kind of ‘structure’ of possibility, instead of a kind of homogeneous ‘wackiness’ to everything.
It’s not impossible to make a living developing one of these games – and basically for forever too. Just give away a playable game and regularly publish updates and grand plans (which, this blog post proves, this blog’s author is eminently capable of doing) and, if you’re lucky, enough people will chip in for you to get paid to keep working on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
#3 almost exists in the form of, on the one hand, Disneyland, and on the other hand, architecturally beautiful state buildings (pre-20th-century parliaments).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Honestly I think it’s pretty far off, Disneyland is utterly profane and commercial. Some older buildings are closer, but I mean leaning into mysticism and awe like an order of magnitude more than that. Most of all in fantasizing of designing it myself rather than it just existing 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, that’s how I meant the “on the one/other hand”. Disneyland is more about the practical aspect. They bought enough land to get to write their own building code. They hide the utilitarian necessities in any number of ways (outside sight-lines, in darkness, by painting them “go-away green” and having more interesting things for people to pay attention to). In the entire setup, both in the “static”/architectural environment and in the employees (from their dress to their behavior) they pay a lot of attention to detail to evoke the right state of mind in most visitors. I think they are quite grumpy about people taking pictures.
Now, they do this because their business model (where it diverges from an ordinary amusement park) is to sell that sacredness. As you point out, this is indeed very inefficient, the possibility of buying it for non-painful amounts of money destroys much of it, nor is there a lot of societywide support for it (or for anything else much; see Christmas).
By contrast, state buildings — parliaments will be my example — have different kinds of sacredness.
1) They have social acknowledgement, like the flag.
2) We could live in a world where the presiding Speaker has a small budget with which to book a convention center, thus twice a year the parliament convenes in a rented conference room, usually in a different building — often in a different city — than the previous time. That we don’t, that due to the logistical constraints of previous centuries parliaments chose to build themselves a permanent office building and this became an unquestioned habit, is a lucky coincidence. This results in something genuinely powerful and mysterious (a section of the state’s administrative machinery) being inside the building, and, er, the customariness of its presence makes the aura of power rub off and linger even when the actual thing is on recess. Visiting specifically the dragon’s cave is interesting even if you know the dragon is away.
3) It is a memorial to all historically significant events that are associated with it, despite not being explicitly built to commemorate those events (since most of them hadn’t happened by then). Generally the longer the building has existed, the more and greater events have happened that can be associated with it.
4) Availability heuristic. If it is inconvenient to visit, it must be valuable. Since the building is not open to members of the public at all for much of the year, has odd opening hours the rest of the year, often has policies where e.g. graduating high school classes are given priority, has a bunch of security theater, but generally isn’t interested in asking for money, visiting is mildly difficult. To the extent we personify this, the policy corresponds to the institution being high-status (as also established by the other elements) and allowing visits at its own pleasure, for reasons you can try guessing but don’t expect any kind if unambiguous evidence. “The master gives lessons for his own amusement, for free; you couldn’t afford them otherwise.” Buying entry with an inconvenient policy is roughly an exchange between peers, where the seller does need your money but they have a particular thing they make, which is what you will get, because you need it, even if you know that something else would have been even better for you. The seller bending over backward to make visiting more convenient is, economically, a reflection of the situation where the seller has the inferior negotiating position and is almost begging; the ample optimization that went into it makes it beyond obvious that their motive is to get visitors’ money, and if the public wanted to buy something slightly different, they would be selling that instead. “Consumerist businesses have no taste, no artistic/engineering vision, no honor where they would refuse to humiliate themselves even if it paid to do so.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
All very good points, thank you! Where is that last quote from?
Non-verbatim quote from https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/taste-and-consumerism/ .
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really enjoy my own projects – many of them practically unworkable, if only because I have so many altogether.
For , I suspect ‘taste’ might be ‘path dependent’. I also find my own is pretty heavily ‘situational’; just for music:
I can (honestly) appreciate lots of music I don’t enjoy or never choose to play.
When I’m ‘listening to music’, the set of music I deliberately play is very different than the set of music I enjoy, or the set I appreciate. (There’s some overlap occasionally.)
I can (honestly) enjoy almost any music if it’s part of video (for which it is good/great).
The kind of music I spontaneously play is a whole other set of music.
I really want  as well. I’ve thought of a few subsets of the overall challenge, but even those are big hard projects, and sometimes existing (unused) versions too. On the one hand, sometimes people do do this kind of work – often as papers itself.
Have you ever thought about ‘reversing’ ? What if you could, instead of validating the current firehose that is Science (and, e.g. journalism, too), you try to build up a body knowledge from scratch … and nevermind. I was thinking that might be easier, but I think either ‘direction’ is approximately just as Vast.
 reminds me of a part of The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Have you read it? I’m curious as to what you think about that part of the book.
For , I, as I commented above, recommend checking out Dwarf Fortress (DF) and Ultima Ratio Regum (URR) if you haven’t. I’ve played a good bit of DF, only a tiny amount of URR, but I’ve read all kinds of things about, or ‘generated by’, the two games in a way I think you could appreciate. For DF in particular, a really interesting (and fun) product of various player communities are the various stories people have made based on (VERY detailed) games played. “Boatmurdered” is a wonderful introduction to the genre.
I think  is pretty doable – there are existence proofs! – and it’s totally a thing for people to just work on one piece of software forever now, especially games. (It’d be great for some smaller open source software projects to have paid maintainers too.)
I’m also working on my own version of  now, hopefully someday with plate tectonics too, but I’m totally fine with it remaining a ‘forever project’ forever. It’s fun just working on it – finishing it is very much besides the point. (I do want to play it tho.)
 – hmmm. Have you read “A New Kind of Science” by Stephen Wolfram? It’s available free on the web too. It’s … controversial, but not technically wrong AFAIK. (Mainly, many people seem to think he’s an arrogant asshole.) But the pictures in the book are really cool and very similar to project  I think. Wolfram has also been working on some kind of ‘network physics’ thing too – I find it interesting, if not exactly ‘scientifically compelling’. There’s some really cool visualizations of pretty big networks that he’s published in blog posts related to the physics stuff too. I think Wolfram’s ‘Types 1-4 systems’, and what they ‘look like’, might be an interesting way to think about .
 also seems eminently workable – just start making some network art! The barrier to entry is, at most, a few hours.
 reminds me of Douglas Hofstadter. He has done a lot of really cool AI work kinda along these lines. His book “Le Ton beau de Marot” is, basically, all about ‘translation’ in exactly the sense you describe. I think you could work on , but it would be slow, probably way to slow to update it and keep up with changes in large-scale language usage. You could certainly never ‘finish’, or ever account for every possible factor. It might be unworkable too just in terms of designing a feasible architecture.
“Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies”, also by Douglas Hofstadter, covers some of his AI projects. A lot of them are weird ‘visual artist’ AIs: number sequence guessers, word jumblers, word puzzlers. I suspect the various architectures might be fun to play with for
 seems like the purest example of running up against the Vastness of Concept Space. (And then having to fold it somehow into 2D/3D, or implement some kind of crazy ‘hyper’ geometry rendering/navigation.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry for leaving this hanging, I do appreciate getting this detailed feedback. The funny thing is that part of the reason these things are unworkable (at least for some of them, mostly the later ones) is that I can’t get myself to commit to working on one of them. I really need ~constant positive feedback to stay focused on something because the opportunity cost of my time looms so large (especially now that I’m nearing in on 40, yikes).
No worries about “leaving this hanging” – async communication is generally superior! (And ‘thread necromancy’ is mostly fine!)
I know exactly what you mean about ‘workable except for the temporal opportunity cost’ – I have a LONG list of my own projects that fall into that category myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Love the idea of the artistic taste landscape! I’ve been working on a (much) less ambitious and more personal version to try and create something that recommends books for me to read based on as many factors as I can systematize.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Glad to hear it. It seems like there’s more to read, see and hear now than ever, yet the biggest “hits” take a greater and greater share (?) and I can’t help but feel that that was the kind of thing that recommendation systems were supposed to help with.