Liking the black blobs metaphor and symbiotic relationships with algorithms, particularly the idea that "you are the second settings panel". This is why I believe a better way to conceptualize protocols is existing on a spectrum of flexibility, from weak protocols (more adaptive and interpretive) to strong protocols (more structured and formalized). Human agency and acumen play a role in how protocols actually function. When you write about "squishing and poking" black blobs or "puppymaxxing the algo", you're describing human judgment and interpretation at play. Protocols aren't just rules to be followed or ignored (hard vs soft), but structures that require different degrees of human interpretation and adaptation. Your own examples support this, from "breaking tolerance" to "triangulating". You are suggesting varying degrees of structure and flexibility rather than fitting neatly into a hard or soft binary. A spectrum also better aligns with how protocols evolve. When you say that "protocols must remain fluid" because black blobs change based on user patterns, you're acknowledging a process of adaptation rather than a binary. The weak vs strong framing recognizes the importance of human acumen. Our ability to interpret, adapt, and influence black blobs (and even AI-mediated strange protocols ;).
Thanks for the exercises at the end here, extremely helpful and succinctly explained.
Love this, I’m playing out what that will mean for daily life in the near and far future https://earthstar111.substack.com/p/earth-star-vision-daily-harvesting
Thanks John!
Liking the black blobs metaphor and symbiotic relationships with algorithms, particularly the idea that "you are the second settings panel". This is why I believe a better way to conceptualize protocols is existing on a spectrum of flexibility, from weak protocols (more adaptive and interpretive) to strong protocols (more structured and formalized). Human agency and acumen play a role in how protocols actually function. When you write about "squishing and poking" black blobs or "puppymaxxing the algo", you're describing human judgment and interpretation at play. Protocols aren't just rules to be followed or ignored (hard vs soft), but structures that require different degrees of human interpretation and adaptation. Your own examples support this, from "breaking tolerance" to "triangulating". You are suggesting varying degrees of structure and flexibility rather than fitting neatly into a hard or soft binary. A spectrum also better aligns with how protocols evolve. When you say that "protocols must remain fluid" because black blobs change based on user patterns, you're acknowledging a process of adaptation rather than a binary. The weak vs strong framing recognizes the importance of human acumen. Our ability to interpret, adapt, and influence black blobs (and even AI-mediated strange protocols ;).