Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Initiative 5

Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Initiative 2
Re: Mathstodon • Joeri Sebrechts

That’s not how it works.  The model lacks agency.  It is a machine whose gears are cranked by the user’s prompt.  It can ask questions, but only when prompted to.  It is not doing anything at all when it isn’t being prompted.

Sure, I understand that.  The hedge “as it were” is used advisedly for the sake of the argument.  (I wrote my own language learner back in the 80s.)

Speaking less metaphorically, the program and its database are always in their respective states and the program has the capacity to act on the database even when not engaged with external prompts.

Is there any reason why the program’s “housekeeping” functions should not include one to measure its current state of “uncertainty” (entropy of a distribution) with regard to potential questions — or any reason why it should “hurt to ask”?

As it were …


cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Inquiry Driven SystemsMathstodonLaws of FormOntolog Forum

This entry was posted in Anthem, Initiative, Inquiry and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Inquiry Into Inquiry • On Initiative 5

  1. Pingback: Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.