Seekers.

There’s a light that shines for the tiny.

When you keep the goals in mind to the direction that you play towards, your playbook seeks the same grid that you continue to succeed on with your assigned or chosen heralded team-mates. That map of sorts, or grid continues to evolve, as you reward co-workers and bring light to the store- rooms that enable the smallest detail, and the half hearted attempts at finding self, by taking a real un-faint stab at life. A pantry of sorts that keep your wares, and help feed you through storms and layer on the protective fat that insulates you from all the future cold blistering winters of your years. And you start with the tiny to-do list.

We tend to arrange ourselves in a group existence that supports all of our “hashtags”- a way we stache information in our life, a way to organise how we store and recover information in our minds, very instantly with an intelligence that tries to mirror how our brains work. This is the operating system in which we survive the stacks and multiple editions of stuff we have hanging about in our ethos.

There are usually the outer ethos - the collaborative ethos, and the inner personal ethos. The ancient methods usually compare and contrast other people’s minds, ergo ethos, to ours. But a new way of looking and thinking entails a comparative on the side, and not as a way to socially mine other people’s information, stacheing them as our own. We usually continue on with a natural way of thought-trails so the AI foundations would be more authentic, and (untangentially) accurate. The organic intelligence usually ascribes the total sum of our peer-to-peer learning, which describes what has occured and where it will be featured next. Not to be predictors of our own sad fate, but instead learn from our mistakes - and “become smarter”.

One would argue, if this was organic intelligence, what would constitute a artificial in an outer-to-inner ethos scenario. We suppose that the ecosystem Programmes the learning from group to individuated choices, but corollarily, submit our own inputs to the models that will stand with, and not simply bewitch and baffle the minds. (That is a side effect of a nuanced feature sometimes, and will be helped when new things become normal.)

For today’s purposes, we organically subject our ethoses to the primal feat of self-learning - a calculation which can upend itself in time of stress, indignation, frustration and other socially peer-learned coping. If you are encased in a non-social entity, your learning subjects your goals to inputted factors, not circumstantial. Like a computer, pretty much.

So what do we seek?

We seek confirmation, a model to abide by, a signal or stress relief of a ritual that we can turn to reliably as a fail safe that at any point in time, at any level, we can learn exit from and rehash to our every choice and beckoning. It sounds like an affirmation of the cognitive, but Scientists believe that the real dangers to society isn’t a peer into thinking process, and a delve into argument and real review of social mechanisms that might endanger the many. It submits that there is a bench mark to thought, and these have a system break that needs a repair - like a cognitive break, that unchecked will run into errors, and in the long-run a system breakdown.

I am putting human inputs into a malevolent advocating of future intent reviewing the thought evolution, and how humans think, as shared via the Internet, and later, via an intelligence that gathers every waking thought, occured, whether it was volunteered or solicited. Issues of policy and privacy would be reviewed and circumvented by those who needs information as a mainstream rite of passage, like a trick into every API, a password that will tap into every thought, feeling, membrane dysfunction and real-time break of the choice chain. All random thought will be traced, indexed, dissected and figured out. In the hands of the archivist and archeologist, this is merely from the observation deck of truths to be put away in minidisks labelled and shelved. In platform owners and major tech players, there is more to seeking that is meeting that eye.

It ideally will help in finding yourself - a peer into your fears, erase negative reactions to societal human reactions of envy, guilt, wrongdoing, - usually a moral conduit for our souls to adhere to, and make humans whole. Now, the non spiritual will argue, there is AI for that. This is not a two sided argument, coined by just the naysayers and tech makers. This provokes all societal inter-generational discussion that submits all implications of hot might turn into “freaky science”, and run away with your thoughts, in an integrated system might become a runaway chariot instead of an instrument of preventative to all forms of chaos in the “free world”. With all this freedom of speech, there is empowerment to an individual monasticity of thought, but in future, the frames become evolved into a multiplicity instead of a random factor that corners into a mathematically modelled iteration that would help existing systems, step into integration with other systems already doing its jobs.

This could be a slower, but more sure way of creating a foothold into different diverse thinking minds, to create a large ecosystem of brains, but slowly submit its potentially unstable conduits to change, a monster to hold back.

(Attributing the fabulous picture to the February exhibition of The National Museum of Singapore)