Thank you for this post, Kyoung-Cheol. I like how you have used Deep Mind’s recent work to motivate the discussion of the consideration of “authority as a consequence of hierarchy” and that “processing information to handle complexity requires speciality which implies hierarchy.”
I think there is some interesting work on this forum that captures these same types of ideas, sometimes with similar language, and sometimes with slightly different language.
It also looks like Kaj Sotala is having some similar thoughts on adjustments to game theory approaches that I think you would find interesting.
I wanted to share with you an idea that remains incomplete, but I think there is an interesting connection between Kaj Sotala’s discussion of non-agent and multi-agent models of the mind and Andrew Critch’s robust agent-agnostic processes that connects with your ideas here and the general points I make in the IBS post.
Okay, finally, I had been looking for the most succinct quote from Herbert Simon’s description of complexity and I found it. At some point, I plan to elaborate more on how this connects to control challenges more generally as well, but I’d say that we would both likely agree with Simon’s central claim in the final chapter of The Sciences of the Artificial:
“Thus my central theme is that complexity frequently takes the form of hierarchy and that hierarchic systems have some common properties independent of their specific content. Hierarchy, I shall argue, is one of the central structural schemes that the architect of complexity uses.”
Glad you decided to join the conversation here. There are lots of fascinating conversation that are directly related to a lot of the topics we discuss together.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments, Dr. Bullock!
I agree that exploring various viewpoints and finding similarities and discrepancies can be crucial for advancing the philosophy of science and improving our understanding of complex systems like AI and organizations. Your approach of considering the development of AI and its utilization within the configurations of societal works, lying somewhere between centralization and game theory situations, is indeed a nuanced and well-considered perspective. It acknowledges the complexity and discretion that hierarchical systems can have while incorporating game theory’s relevance in multi-agent systems.
Considering organizational frameworks in the context of AI-human interactions is essential, as it sheds light on how we can effectively work with AI agents in such systems. The concept of authority, being a cognitive phenomenon for humans, is indeed distinct from how machines perceive and handle information to process complexity.
I share your belief that organization theories have significant potential in contributing to these discussions and becoming crucial for governance experts. It’s exciting to see how interdisciplinary perspectives can enrich our understanding of AI development and utilization. I look forward to further engaging with your ideas and seeing more valuable contributions from you in the future!
Thank you for this post, Kyoung-Cheol. I like how you have used Deep Mind’s recent work to motivate the discussion of the consideration of “authority as a consequence of hierarchy” and that “processing information to handle complexity requires speciality which implies hierarchy.”
I think there is some interesting work on this forum that captures these same types of ideas, sometimes with similar language, and sometimes with slightly different language.
In particular, you may find the recent post from Andrew Critch on “Power dynamics as a blind spot or blurry spot in our collective world-modeling, especially around AI” to sympathetic to core pieces of your argument here.
It also looks like Kaj Sotala is having some similar thoughts on adjustments to game theory approaches that I think you would find interesting.
I wanted to share with you an idea that remains incomplete, but I think there is an interesting connection between Kaj Sotala’s discussion of non-agent and multi-agent models of the mind and Andrew Critch’s robust agent-agnostic processes that connects with your ideas here and the general points I make in the IBS post.
Okay, finally, I had been looking for the most succinct quote from Herbert Simon’s description of complexity and I found it. At some point, I plan to elaborate more on how this connects to control challenges more generally as well, but I’d say that we would both likely agree with Simon’s central claim in the final chapter of The Sciences of the Artificial:
“Thus my central theme is that complexity frequently takes the form of hierarchy and that hierarchic systems have some common properties independent of their specific content. Hierarchy, I shall argue, is one of the central structural schemes that the architect of complexity uses.”
Glad you decided to join the conversation here. There are lots of fascinating conversation that are directly related to a lot of the topics we discuss together.
Thank you very much for your valuable comments, Dr. Bullock!
I agree that exploring various viewpoints and finding similarities and discrepancies can be crucial for advancing the philosophy of science and improving our understanding of complex systems like AI and organizations. Your approach of considering the development of AI and its utilization within the configurations of societal works, lying somewhere between centralization and game theory situations, is indeed a nuanced and well-considered perspective. It acknowledges the complexity and discretion that hierarchical systems can have while incorporating game theory’s relevance in multi-agent systems.
Considering organizational frameworks in the context of AI-human interactions is essential, as it sheds light on how we can effectively work with AI agents in such systems. The concept of authority, being a cognitive phenomenon for humans, is indeed distinct from how machines perceive and handle information to process complexity.
I share your belief that organization theories have significant potential in contributing to these discussions and becoming crucial for governance experts. It’s exciting to see how interdisciplinary perspectives can enrich our understanding of AI development and utilization. I look forward to further engaging with your ideas and seeing more valuable contributions from you in the future!