thanks to ICP for publishing this part:

We uncover fault lines within western decision making approaches that worsen when driven by #autonomous #ArtificialIntelligence.

This can destabilize and inject #fragility into an increasingly uncertain world The problem of #WesternUniversalism will be felt even more acutely in the #AI era. Rather than being swept away by #TechnoEuphoria, there's a need to pause and ask *why* this trajectory is followed and what the implications are. fault-lines in modern decision theory and AI is visible in the debate between the two. Followers of one camp explored explicit knowledge, the other focused on the implicit. Both camps employ some methods that were originally developed in ancient India.
for example, compare AI/ML/RL approaches with #Ganita framework in #VedangaJyotisha
"great expectations" of AI has been grossly oversold by media and this is harmful to the field. Practitioners who've experienced both successes and painful failures know how fragile current AI is.
"Nobody really thinks that driverless cars are ready to drive fully on their own in cities or in bad weather, and early optimism has been replaced by widespread recognition that we are at least a decade away from that point— and quite possibly more." -Rebooting AI [Sep 2019].
Future of AI has always been great.

"Within a generation,” Marvin Minsky famously wrote, in 1967,“the problem of #artificialintelligence will be substantially solved.” 50 yrs later, those promises still haven’t been fulfilled, but they have never stopped coming."-Rebooting AI
A major goal of AI in recent times has been to sell AI
[but full respect to practitioners who tackle real world problems & take field forward]

"In a truly open-world problem devoid of rigid rules and reams of perfect historical data, AI has been disastrous."
-Range [ May 2019]. what AI's up against: a #Vedic world whose deep truths are Rahasya.

West view of Tacit knowledge (TK) is from related #Polanyi's paradox: "human knowledge of how the world functions & capability are, to a large extent, beyond our explicit understanding." this is a great example. If machine decisions even in cricket is so problematic, imagine the mind boggling uncertainties for AI driverless cars in real life.
It's not just conjecture. In #Antifragile, Prof. Taleb explains the limit to deciphering uncertainty:

"randomness in the Black Swan domain is intractable. I will repeat it till I get hoarse. The limit is mathematical, period, and there is no way around it on this planet." we arrive at first binary fissure in western decision making: tacit v explicit.
Tacit helps us survive black-swans w/o predictions whereas explicit AI predictions work great in benign domains but its output *real-world decisions* are generally poor.
setting autonomous AI aside, a lot of *real business* AI is really 'TK-AI'. #SyntheticUnity of antifragile tacit human skills plus automatable-but-fragile data-driven AI. The former is 80-90% of the critical work, yet the latter is what's marketed.
the western quest for "pure AI" unsullied by human touch is reminiscent of their pure math.

This "Look ma, no hands" reflects some Jesuitical-Euclidean notion of 'order' by eliminating the 'chaos' (and #antifragility) of the tacit from the loop.
Like a potent new big pharma drug with long-term side effects, commoditized AI is cheaper upfront precisely because it transfers all hidden fragility to the end user.
An alternative approach to decision making under uncertainty discussed in part-1 ('From #Arthasastra to #AI') is to focus on consequences. Entirely tacit decisions (TK). see this thread
As explained, any tacit decision making (TK or TK-AI) that does not prioritize #dharma offers only local #antifragility (at best) at the expense of a more global #fragility.

#dharma makes Hinduism an ultimate antifragile

#BeingDifferent is critical.
TK is gained through 'doing' rather than "thinking". e.g., in #cricket, good batsmen figure, by doing, the best combination of (mostly) solid defense and selective offense in a match. See how naturally the bimodal #antifragile portfolio of #Kautilya #Arthasastra emerges!
so, second version of binary split in western decision making:
'orderly' explicit model builder (Type M) vs 'chaotic' Tacit doer (Type D).

Type M: Top-down theorizing, reductive modeling based on reasoning, rationality, and past models

Type D: largely inexpressible way of doing
a most important example of 'type D' #tacit knowledge is Indic farming - #Krishi #Shastra Modi ji's farm reforms give economic freedom (brilliant) but over-mechanization and "modernity" for "scale" injects #fragility and will be disastrous in the long run
Vedic (original) TK operates at deeper level than the western versions. This makes a huge difference to the western vs Indic decision making approach.

decentralized TK > Type M model building, especially for decisions under high uncertainty
AI decisions are also driven by reductive models directly abstracted from TB of historical data. This is reductive *by design* as it primarily records happenings, not non-happenings or stuff deemed irrelevant.

#Asymmetry excluded facts can cause longer-term harm than fake data.
Racial bias, #Hinduphobia are practically assured in such AI. #BigData can't fix this & *accelerates* harm by increasing spurious correlations:
"in large data sets, large deviations are vastly more attributable to noise (or variance) than to information (or signal)." -N. Taleb
**Theology of #ArtificialIntelligence**

Western universal AI and decision making under uncertainty is both driven and divided by its Hebraic-Hellenic #SyntheticUnity. This union collapses when it faces uncertain consequences that can only be managed through inner transformation
Key observations of part-2 on Indic decision making

Fragility of #ArtificialIntelligence is due to its history centrism and is forever in the thrall of future expectations while Tacit Knowledge in its authentic Yogic form resides in the present.
#Hinduphobia, automated and scaled to cut down 100s of H voices. Recall how Big-tech once sold 'only machines read your messages'. Reality is that the more hands-free AI becomes, the more such harm (see this thread on AI decision making).
Proof-driven Jesuit-Euclid Math is becoming a global pain in the neck. Next few tweets on Ganita (based on doing via Yukti, Pramaana) vs Mathematics (Type-M). Some respected US mathematicians want to turn it into science- which would take it closer to its #Ganitashastra roots.
Great example of this divide:

"Type M" pure mathematicians asked to vote picked Euler's equation as 'most beautiful' and Ramanujan's 1/π equation (1914) as the 'ugliest'. To #Ganita practitioners, the vote would be the exact opposite as explained below.
#Ganita vs #Mathematics. now this was a stunner for me.
(from #Antifragile book)
"according to the medieval science historian Guy Beaujouan, before the 13th century no more than five persons in the whole of Europe knew how to perform a division." + @sgurumurthy @rvaidya2000
+So barely a century before Madhavan Empranthri arrived at #calculus in Kerala, the west was getting started with division. The western narrative sold to the world is that in ~4 centuries they moved from division to inventing calculus. #Ganita airbrushed out of historical data
facts are coming out due to internal Hebraic-Hellenic tussle within Xty:

Hebraic ~doers vs Hellenic ~naive rationalists

AF-book attributes major inventions of Industrial revolution to European 'uninhibited doers' who turn out to be *clergymen* with much spare time..
While doer's history in the west gets upgraded, Western Indology downgrades dharmika ways of knowing.

Sheldon Pollock asserts a practice-first innovative culture for the west while denouncing Sastras as top-down static texts that kill innovation
Western Indologists like Sheldon Pollock mistake what is opaque and unintelligible to them as actually incoherent and unintelligent

result is layer upon layer of reductive modeling and theorizing of other's practices.
AF Book:
role of #dogma & mythos versus #kerygma & logos

- Abrahamic #dogma (unexplainable part of religion) and myth are *helpful* to doers

- Kerygma (explainable and teachable part) and logic lend themselves to a theorizing, narrative building
how is dogma conducive to doing?
shutting the door on cognitive ability for deep understanding (e.g. "black swan" events) opens the door to Tacit doing-driven antifragility and longevity.

Sans dharma, this is *ego-driven* doing that ultimately transfers fragility elsewhere
works of key western 'philosopher-doers' in 2k years reveal their quests initially follow Indian concepts but end with duality intact. Fall short of integral unity, so unity must be synthesized. Remarkably consistent; supports findings of Rajiv Malhotra's #BeingDifferent.
"..the reliance on historical and prophetic revelation ties humans to the past while the lure of salvation keeps them fixated on the future, resulting in dissonance in the present moment." - Rajiv Malhotra

note eerie similarity between religion and #ArtificialIntelligence hype
Western alternative to predictions via tacit is also rooted in history-centric dogma. #ErnestRenan, known for his attack Aristotelian logic, was an orientalist who learned from Hindu texts. known for views on Indian origin of Xn concepts. was rooted in Judeo-Xn history-centrism
Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) the Isl. scholar deserves study by IKs. His quest is fascinating, even if the end was predictable. 'His 'Incoherence of the Philosophers' (Tahafut al falasifa) is an key work that supports inexpressible doing over explicit reductive modeling. full story:
1. medieval Arabs superficially digested non-translatable Vedic concepts (sans understanding of dharma), leading to incoherence.
2. West re-digested this Arab digestion, producing 2nd order western incoherence.
for a complete story, requires piecing together of ancient Greek digestion of Vedic thought. evidence there is being built up. It looks like multiple direct and indirect superficial digestion of Vedic, Sanskrit non-translatables has produced incoherence in Abrahamic ideologies.
Finally, #Wittgenstein (Jewish ancestry). This philosopher-doer has been studied more by dharma scholars due to the similarities in his work with ancient Indian traditions including H/B/J. But "eagerness" to find similarities cannot ignore crucial differences.
Some of Wittgenstein's remarkable insights into tacit and inexpressible resemble what our dharmic seers have stated for ages. Quote thread will list some of them.
Wittgenstein's arguments about the way we perceive reality through language may have implications for 'rebooting AI'. Also reminds us of the importance of #Sanskrit nontranslatables
Wittgenstein's #duckrabbit for example:
"..we can also see the illustration now as one thing now as another. —So we interpret it, and see it as we interpret it.".
Now see the deeper unifying dharmic perspective can be found within the transcendental cow-elephant depictions in our ancient Hindu sculptures and paintings.

like this
and this sculpture
#Wittgenstein's ideas fall short of integral unity. He was was "100% Hebraic".
"Postmodern thought in the West has gone to great lengths to deconstruct normative categories, but in the absence of the notion of purna (or Brahman), the end-result, as I have said elsewhere, is narcissistic and nihilistic, or leaves a vacuum.." - Rajiv Malhotra #BeingDifferent
Western Tacit Knowledge lacks #EmbodiedKnowing of #dharma civilization. Fragility studies promote TK for external robustness. Missing in this worldview is that our inner #fragility manifests in our external decisions, priorities, and systems we build.
You can follow @IntegralUnity.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.