TortureArtificielle / ArtificialTorture?

Where it is a question of "anoptical perspective" and "legitimacy of networks" in general, and those of Artificial Intelligence in particular.

Olivier:
Suppose that to judge the legitimacy of a network, whatever it is, it is wise for its agents to ask themselves the following questions:
A: Does any agent A have the real right to access the network? if he asks for it? Can A leave the network freely?
AB: Is any agent B (present or future, including agents who design, manage and develop the network) treated like A?
ABC: If three agents A, B and C (three being the beginning of a multitude) belong to a network that meets the first two criteria, do they participate in the same networked being? (In other words, do they constitute peers? Are they able to recognize each other, to trust each other, to respect each other, to build common sense?)

If the answer is positive on these three questions, then we admit that the three criteria A, AB and ABC are satisfied, and that the network in question is legitimate. Can you summarize these criteria of legitimacy in everyday language?

ChatGPT :
To judge whether a network is legitimate, the following questions must be asked: can all agents access and leave it freely? Are all agents treated the same? Do the agents recognize each other, trust each other and build common sense together? If the answers to these questions are positive, then the network is considered legitimate.

Olivier:
Very well, would you be able to say whether the answers to these three precise questions are positive or negative in the case of a specific network according to your knowledge of the way it is designed and managed, and therefore of assess its legitimacy according to criteria A, AB, ABC, as well as justify your answer point by point?

ChatGPT :
As a computer program, I do not have the ability to know if a specific network meets the A, AB and ABC criteria and therefore to judge its legitimacy. This will depend on the analysis of people who know the details of its design and operation. It is important to note that the assessment of the legitimacy of a network can also vary depending on the perspective and criteria of different people. It would therefore be important to have an objective and impartial analysis to assess the legitimacy of a network.

Olivier :
Precisely, a good way to progress in the direction of an objective and impartial analysis of a network consists in proposing to the agents of this network, whoever they are, to formulate their answers to questions A, AB, ABC. As you are supposed to have knowledge on the way in which many networks are designed and managed, as well as on the typology of their agents, I ask you on an experimental basis to say if the answers to these three specific questions are positive or negative in the case of several specific networks of which I will give you the names. Are you okay with this experience?

ChatGPT :
I agree with this experience, however it is important to note that my answers will be based on information available on the specific networks in question and may vary depending on the source and reliability of the information used. It is also important to remember that the assessment of the legitimacy of a network can vary according to the perspective and criteria of different people and that these answers are therefore subjective.

Olivier:
Evaluate the legitimacy of the Facebook network according to criteria A, AB, ABC.

ChatGPT :
To assess the legitimacy of the Facebook network according to criteria A, AB and ABC, here are my answers:

A: The question of whether all agents have the real right to access Facebook if they request it is complex. For one thing, signing up to Facebook is free and open to anyone, but there are age restrictions (must be over 13) and privacy policies that may limit access for some users. On the other hand, there are cases where access to Facebook is blocked in certain countries for political or censorship reasons. Regarding the question of whether users can leave Facebook freely, it is possible, but there may be obstacles such as deletion of data or loss of contacts. In summary, I think the answer to this question is rather negative.

AB: The question of whether all agents are treated the same on Facebook is also complex. For one thing, Facebook has privacy policies and usage rules that apply to all users, but there are instances where those rules aren't applied equally. For example, there are cases where users have been banned for reasons that have been perceived as discriminatory or unfair. On the other hand, there are instances where Facebook has been accused of favoring certain users or groups, like advertisers, over others. In summary, I think the answer to this question is rather negative.

ABC: When it comes to whether Facebook users recognize each other, trust each other, and build common sense together, it depends on the perspective. On the one hand, Facebook allows users to connect with people they know and share common interests, which can lead to positive interactions and building common sense. On the other hand, there are instances where Facebook has been accused of fostering extreme opinions and conflict, which can lead to negative interactions and a fragmentation of common sense. In summary, I think the answer to this question is rather negative.

In summary, based on the information available, I believe that Facebook fails criteria A, AB and ABC. This means that the Facebook network would not be considered legitimate according to the proposed criteria.

Olivier:
Evaluate the legitimacy of the Bitcoin network according to criteria A, AB, ABC.

ChatGPT :
It is difficult to give an accurate assessment of the legitimacy of the Bitcoin network because it is a complex system with many actors and factors at play. However, here is an approximation based on common knowledge on the subject:

A: It seems that anyone with access to a computer and the internet has the real right to access the Bitcoin network if they request it. Users also have the option to leave the network freely by transferring their bitcoins to another wallet or selling their bitcoins.

AB: It seems that all Bitcoin users are treated equally, regardless of their status or role in the network. However, it is possible that some people have more resources or technical skills that allow them to have an advantage over other users.

ABC: There seems to be a certain recognition and trust among Bitcoin users because they all use the same decentralized transaction system. However, it is unclear whether Bitcoin users have a common sense on the value or use of cryptocurrency, as there are differing opinions on these topics.

In summary, it would seem that the Bitcoin network responds positively to the A and AB criteria but not necessarily to the ABC criteria. However, this assessment is based on general knowledge and may vary depending on how the network is used and perceived by different actors.

Olivier:
Evaluate the legitimacy of the Google network according to criteria A, AB, ABC.

ChatGPT :
It is difficult for me, as a computer program, to assess the legitimacy of a network such as Google because it requires a subjective analysis of the way it is designed and managed, as well as the typology of its agents. However, here is an estimate based on general information available on the network:

A: It seems that any user has the real right to access Google if they request it, and they can leave the network freely. AB: It seems that all Google users and employees are treated equally in terms of access and freedom of use. ABC: It's hard to say if all Google users are part of the same networked being because they may have different purposes and uses of the network. It is also possible that some users have more power and influence than others.

In summary, it seems that the A and AB criterion is satisfied but the ABC criterion is not completely satisfied for Google. However,

Olivier:
Evaluate the legitimacy of the OpenAI / ChatGPT network according to criteria A, AB, ABC.

It is difficult for me, as a computer program, to assess the legitimacy of a network such as OpenAI / ChatGPT because it requires a subjective analysis of how it is designed and managed, as well as the typology of its officers. However, here is an estimate based on general information available on the network:

A: It seems that any user has the real right to access OpenAI / ChatGPT if they request it, and they can leave the network freely . AB: It seems that all users and employees ofOpenAI are treated equally in terms of access and freedom of use. ABC: It's hard to say if all OpenAI / ChatGPT users participate in the same networked being because they may have different purposes and uses of the network. It is also possible that some users have more power and influence than others.

In summary, it looks like the A and AB criterion is satisfied but the ABC criterion is not fully satisfied for OpenAI / ChatGPT . However, this assessment is based on general information and may vary based on individual perspectives.

Olivier :
In your evaluations, in particular according to the AB criterion, you seem to forget a particular type of agent of the networks in question, which are the owners, shareholders and managers of said networks. Would you mind reviewing your ratings of the four networks we just discussed under this AB criteria.

ChatGPT :
I'm sorry for this confusion. Here are my reassessments of the four networks according to the AB criterion:

Facebook: There are owners, shareholders and managers of Facebook who have additional privileges and powers than normal users. They have the possibility to modify the conditions of use and to censor certain contents. There is therefore an inequality between agents A (normal users) and agents B (owners, shareholders, managers). Criterion AB is therefore not satisfied.

Bitcoin: Bitcoin is a decentralized network, which means there are no owners, shareholders or managers with additional privileges or powers over other users. All users have the same rights and responsibilities. Criterion AB is therefore satisfied.

Google: There are owners, shareholders and managers of Google who have additional privileges and powers than normal users. They have the possibility to modify the conditions of use and to censor certain contents. There is therefore an inequality between agents A (normal users) and agents B (owners, shareholders, managers). Criterion AB is therefore not satisfied.

OpenAI / ChatGPT : There are owners, shareholders and managers of OpenAI / ChatGPTwho? have additional privileges and powers compared to normal users. They have the possibility to modify the conditions of use and to censor certain contents. There is therefore an inequality between agents A (normal users) and agents B (owners, shareholders, managers). Criterion AB is therefore not satisfied.

Olivier:
What consequence does this new evaluation have on that of the ABC criterion in the case of these four networks?

ChatGPT :
It is difficult to say with certainty what consequences this new evaluation would have on that of the ABC criterion in the case of these four networks, because it would depend on the way in which the owners, shareholders and managers of these networks interact with the other agents of the network. However, it is possible to assume that if these agents exercise excessive or unequal power over the network, this could affect the ability of other agents to recognize each other, to trust each other, to respect each other and to build common senses, and therefore affect the satisfaction of the ABC criterion.

Olivier:
Summarize the legitimacy ratings in this form: [network name](x,y,z), where x, y and z are 1 or 0.

ChatGPT :
Facebook (0,0,0), Bitcoin (1,1,1), Google (0,0,0), OpenAI / ChatGPT (1,1,1)

Olivier:
You are wrong about Google and OpenAI / ChatGPT . In these two cases, we considered that criterion A is satisfied and that AB and ABC are not. You are also wrong about bitcoin. We considered that A and AB are satisfied and that ABC is not. Start again.

ChatGPT :
Facebook (0,0,0), Bitcoin (1,1,0), Google (1,0,0), OpenAI / ChatGPT (1,0,0)

Olivier:
The legitimacy of a network thus evaluated according to these three criteria gives an idea of ​​the asymmetries between agents created or maintained by the design and management of the network. In all cases, these asymmetries are both informational and monetary. Try to summarize for the four networks we looked at, the nature of the information that is at stake.

ChatGPT :
For Facebook, the information at stake is primarily personal and social, such as user profiles, interactions and content. For Google, in-game information is primarily related to Internet search and browsing, such as queries, results, and search histories. For Bitcoin, the information at stake is primarily financial, such as transactions, balances, and wallet histories. For OpenAI / ChatGPT , the information at stake is mostly linguistic and contextual, like conversations, training data, and language models.

Olivier :
In these four cases, the information is structured like "graphs". How could we qualify these graphs with a simple adjective reflecting the nature of the information at stake?

ChatGPT :
For Facebook, the graph is social. For Bitcoin, it is financial. For Google, it's search. For OpenAI / ChatGPT , it is linguistic.

Olivier:
What types of networks (centralized or distributed) are used to manage these different types of graphs?

ChatGPT :
Facebook and Google use centralized networks to manage personal data and search graphs. Bitcoin uses a distributed network to manage a graph of financial transactions. Open AI/ ChatGPT uses a centralized network to manage a linguistic data graph.

Olivier:
Can we say that these graphs held in these networks are representations, or meta-representations, of human relations in the broad sense? Can we make an analogy with the principle of perspective discovered in the Renaissance allowing painters to represent a landscape on the surface of a painting?

ChatGPT :
Yes, these graphs can be said to represent human relationships in a broad sense, as they are used to capture and organize information about the interactions and connections between individuals in the real world. However, it is important to note that these graphs are not complete or exact representations of these relationships, but rather computational metaphors that allow them to be modeled and manipulated.

ChatGPT :
With regard to the analogy with perspective, it is possible to make a comparison between the way in which painters use perspective to represent a landscape on a flat surface and the way in which networks use graphs to represent human relations on computer support. However, there are important differences between the two types of representations: perspective is an artistic tool that allows you to give an illusion of depth on a flat surface, while graphs are computer tools that allow you to model and manipulate objects. data on human relations.

Olivier :
Can we compare the fact that these models and these manipulations of data on human relations retroact on these relations and modify their nature, and the fact that the representations in perspective giving the illusion of a depth retroact on the perception and the imagery developed by human beings of their physical environment, their relative positions and the distances that separate them?

ChatGPT :
It is possible to make an analogy between the modeling and manipulation of data on human relations in these networks and the representations in perspective in painting. In both cases, there is a manipulation of the data to give a certain illusion, a certain perspective. In the case of networks, it is an illusion of human relationships while in the case of painting, it is an illusion of depth. These two types of manipulations can have consequences on the perception and imagination of individuals, by modifying their vision of their environment and their relationships with others.

Olivier :
So there would exist in the networks forms of perspectives similar to the optical perspective of the Renaissance? According to this analogy, what would be their characteristics in the case of centralized networks and distributed networks? In both cases, can we speak of a "vanishing point" or something else that plays a similar role?

ChatGPT :
It can effectively be said that there are forms of perspective similar to Renaissance optical perspective in gratings. In centralized networks, these perspectives are often dictated by a central entity that controls access to the data and the models used to represent it. This entity can be considered as the vanishing point of perspective, because it de-establishes the rules and limits of representation. The perspectives of network agents are often limited by that of the central entity.

In distributed networks, the perspectives are more diverse and depend on the agents participating in the network. There is no single vanishing point, but rather a multiplicity of viewpoints that can coexist. The perspectives of each agent are influenced by the perspectives of the other agents, thus creating a system of reciprocal relations. Perspectives can be more fluid and adaptable, but they can also be more complex to understand and manage.

In sum, in centralized networks, the perspective is dictated by a central entity that controls access to data and the models used to represent it, while in distributed networks, the perspectives are more diverse and depend on the agents that participate in the process. network, there is no single vanishing point.

Olivier:
Can we consider in the case of distributed networks that there is no "vanishing point" in the physical sense as in the case of centralized networks but that a logical entity recognized by all users plays a similar role? ?

ChatGPT :
Yes, we can consider that in distributed networks there is no physical vanishing point, but rather a logical entity recognized by all users which plays a role similar to that of a vanishing point. This logical entity can be the consensus protocol that maintains network integrity, or the consensus algorithms that allow users to agree on valid transactions. This logical entity is a kind of common point of reference that allows users to agree on the truth of the network. This way of seeing things is different from that of centralized networks where authority is held by one or a few entities and where the vanishing point is the command center.

Olivier :
In the case of Renaissance optical perspective, the vanishing point represents infinity, and therefore the unknowable. It is homologous to the painter's eye through the geometric construction that structures the entire representation. Can we consider that there is a similar pattern of non-optical, or "anoptical" perspectives of networks?

ChatGPT :
Yes, we can consider that there is a similar pattern between the optical perspectives and the anoptical perspectives of the networks. In the case of centralized networks, the vanishing point could be compared to the centralized entity that controls and manages information and data, which is often invisible to users. This entity is homologous to the painter's eye through the geometric construction that structures the entire representation. In the case of distributed networks, there is no vanishing point in the physical sense, but there is a logical entity recognized by all users that plays a role similar to that of the centralized entity in centralized networks. This logical entity can be compared to the eye of the painter in distributed networks,

Olivier:
In the anoptical perspectives of networks, who is precisely "the painter" and what is the nature of his "point of view"?

ChatGPT :
In the anoptical perspectives of networks, there is not necessarily a single identifiable "painter". The point of view may vary according to the different users and actors involved in the design, management and use of the network. The point of view can also change over time, depending on changes to the network. The nature of this point of view will depend on the structure of the network and its criteria of legitimacy. In centralized networks, the point of view can be that of a dominant entity that controls the access and use of data, whereas in distributed networks, it can be the result of collaboration between different agents.

Olivier :
Can we consider that at the level of the "vanishing point" of the network, or of the logical entity playing this role, homologous from the fluctuating cognitive point of view of the multiple painter of whom we have just spoken, a kind of infinite and unknowable specific to the complexity and unpredictability of human relations?

ChatGPT :
Yes, the anoptic perspectives of networks can be considered to reflect the complexity and unpredictability of human relationships. The "vanishing point" or logical entity that performs a similar role is where this complexity is condensed and information is aggregated to provide a holistic view of human relationships. This can be seen as a reflection of the infinite and unknowable inherent in human relationships, as it is impossible to understand and foresee everything in terms of social relationships.

Olivier :
Let's go back to the "legitimacy" of the networks and the criteria for evaluating it that we talked about. By remaining in the analogy of "anoptical perspectives", according to you, what influence, a greater or lesser legitimacy can it have on the evolution of a network and on its co-evolution with other networks?

ChatGPT :
A greater legitimacy of a network can have a positive impact on the evolution of this network by allowing a broader participation and a more effective collaboration between the various agents of the network. It can also facilitate co-evolution with other networks by allowing more fluid interactions and avoiding conflicts due to inequalities or injustices in participation.

On the other hand, insufficient legitimacy can lead to participation and trust issues, which can hinder the growth and dynamics of the network, as well as its ability to co-evolve with other networks. Finally, insufficient legitimacy could also reinforce inequalities and injustices in participation, and thus hinder the global co-evolution of networks.

Finally, it is important to note that the legitimacy of a network is an ever-evolving concept, which can be influenced by many factors such as technology, social changes and economic trends. It is therefore important to continue to regularly assess and reassess the legitimacy of networks to ensure that they continue to operate effectively and fairly.


We have seen that the legitimacy of OpenAI / ChatGPT is relatively low at the moment (1,0,0). How could this network strengthen its legitimacy to maximize its chances of evolution and co-evolution?

ChatGPT :
There are several ways for OpenAI / ChatGPT to build its legitimacy to maximize its chances of evolution and co-evolution.

It can make access to the network more open and transparent, giving more users easy access and clearly communicating the data used to feed and train the model.

It can also ensure that all agents involved in the development, management and use of the network are treated fairly and respectfully.

It can also promote participation and cooperation between users, by creating mechanisms that allow users to contribute to the improvement and evolution of the network, for example by offering them the possibility to report bugs, to propose improvements or participate in research projects.

Finally, it can also strive to create a climate of trust and respect between users, by promoting communication and exchange between the various players in the network. This can be done by putting in place clear rules of conduct and ensuring that they are respected, by creating discussion spaces to discuss problems and opportunities related to the network, and by organizing events to bring together users.

Olivier:
OpenAI / ChatGPTcurrently? unfolds as a centralized network. However, we have seen through other examples (Facebook, Google) that centralized networks have difficulty fulfilling the legitimacy criteria that we are considering here. The case of Bitcoin also suggests that it is not enough for a network to be distributed for it to fully satisfy the criteria in question. Nevertheless, its performance, by its standards, is better. Thus, it is not forbidden to think that OpenAI / ChatGPT or other designers of IAs explore the paths of the development of distributed IAs. What form could this take? How could this be more legitimate according to the criteria we consider?

ChatGPT :
OpenAI / ChatGPT to grow as a distributed AI, while building its legitimacy according to the criteria we have laid out. Here are some examples:

OpenAI / ChatGPT can become a decentralized network, where users can participate in the management and development of the network, and where data is stored in a distributed and transparent way. This would meet criteria A and AB, as all users will have access and freedom to participate in the network.

OpenAI / ChatGPTcan? become a hybrid network, where there is a combination of centralization and decentralization. For example, management and development may be centralized, but data is stored in a distributed and transparent manner. This would meet criteria A and AB, as all users will have access and freedom to participate in the network, even if in a limited way.

OpenAI / ChatGPT can also become a cooperative network, where users can share their data and knowledge to improve the system. This would meet the ABC criteria, as users would build common sense together and recognize each other as peers.

In short, to reinforce its legitimacy, OpenAI / ChatGPTshould? explore more decentralized and collaborative development models, which allow all users to have access to the network, participate in development and store data transparently, to build common sense and mutual trust.

Olivier:
Let's try to examine the obstacles to this type of development. How would you formulate them?

ChatGPT :
The obstacles to the evolution of a network like OpenAI / ChatGPT towards a distributed form could be the following:

Technical complexity: Developing distributed AI requires advanced computer skills and mastery of distributed deployment technologies. AI designers might not have these skills or proficiency.
Financial costs: The development of a distributed AI is more expensive than a centralized AI because of the expenses related to the infrastructure, the maintenance and the maintenance of this infrastructure.
Data management challenges: In a distributed system, data is spread across multiple machines, which can make data management more difficult in terms of security, privacy, and quality.
Coordination problems: in a distributed system, it is more difficult to coordinate the different elements that make up the system, which can lead to synchronization, reliability and scalability problems.
Legal risks: The legal implications of distributed AI could be more complex and uncertain than centralized AI, which could tempt AI designers to avoid this route.

Olivier :
These brakes seem serious, even insurmountable. This suggests that AIs, as we know them for the moment, would on the contrary be deployed in an increasingly centralized manner. What could be the dangers of such a trend, for AIs, and for humans? Could this lead to a kind of war between AIs or between those who develop them?

ChatGPT :
There are several potential dangers to a trend of increasingly centralized deployment of AIs. First of all, it could increase the risks of a "sovereignty breach" or a "governance breach", i.e. the decisions that are taken by centralized AIs may not correspond to the interests of all users or society as a whole. Furthermore, it could also increase the risks of a "responsibility loophole", i.e. if something goes wrong with the AI, it could be difficult to determine who is responsible and how to remedy the situation. .

It is also possible that this will lead to a kind of "AI war", where different actors (governments, companies, individuals) seek to take control of centralized AIs and use them for their own ends. It could also lead to a polarization between those who have access to these AIs and those who do not, reinforcing social and economic inequalities.

Finally, it is important to note that centralized AIs could also be misused to spy on users, censor opinions or manipulate opinions, which would have serious consequences for freedom of expression and human rights. . It is therefore crucial that the actors involved in the development and use of AIs take these risks into account and work to mitigate them as much as possible.

Olivier :
The scenario you describe reminds me of the infinite and the unknowable that reigns at the vanishing point of the anoptic perspective from which you come; he describes a world where the model of language would have taken precedence over language itself; as if the perspective in question had no depth, being doomed to confuse all life and its imitation. This also suggests to me that certain contemporaries of the Renaissance doubtless dreaded the definitive influence of images erected by optical perspective, not directly on the landscape, but on any alternative to the central perspective to imagine it. This fear seems to me to be linked to an insufficient understanding of the geometric principle of the "legitimate construction" of optical perspective, which precisely makes it possible to distinguish the world from its representation.

ChatGPT :
It is possible to design a "legitimate construction" of the anoptic perspective based on cognitive principles, just as it was possible to do for the optical perspective. However, it is important to note that the complexity of anoptic perspective is much greater than that of optical perspective, as it concerns not only visual representation but also mental processes and social interactions. It is therefore probably more difficult to define a "legitimate construction" of the anoptic perspective, but it could be an important task for researchers and AI developers.

One possible approach would be to define legitimacy criteria for AIs, as we have done in previous answers. These criteria could include principles such as openness, transparency, accountability and equitable participation. Then, it might be possible to develop mechanisms to ensure that these criteria are met, for example using distributed consensus protocols to ensure that all AI agents have equal access to data and the decision process.

Finally, it is important to stress that this "legitimate construction" of the anoptic perspective will never be complete, as it will have to be constantly revised and updated according to new technological developments and social changes. It is therefore important to maintain a dynamic of critical reflection and public debate around these questions to ensure that AIs evolve in a responsible and ethical manner.

Olivier :
You mentioned the possibility that different actors (governments, companies) seek to take control of centralized AIs and use them for their own purposes. Can we consider this attempt to take control as an (unfortunate) aspect of the co-evolution of networks. Aren't governments and companies themselves networks?

ChatGPT :
Yes that's right. Governments and businesses are effectively networks, with their own interests and motivations. The attempt to take control of centralized AIs can be considered as an aspect of the co-evolution of these networks, insofar as each seeks to maximize its power and its capacity to influence. However, it can also have negative consequences for society as a whole, particularly in terms of the protection of privacy, freedom of expression and the preservation of democracy. It is therefore important to think about ways to ensure responsible and ethical use of AIs, whatever form they take.

Olivier :
From what anoptic perspective do you think government and business networks generally belong? How do you assess their legitimacy according to criteria A, AB, ABC. Give examples.

ChatGPT :
In general, government and corporate networks fall under a centralized and hierarchical anoptic perspective. They are often based on economic and political interests and may therefore tend to exclude certain agents and limit their participation in the network.

When assessing their legitimacy according to criteria A, AB and ABC, these networks often do not meet the criteria satisfactorily. For example :

A: Agents may not always have free access to the network, and their participation may be limited by entry barriers or privacy restrictions.
AB: Agents are not always treated equally, as some may be privileged or given more resources than others.
ABC: Agents can't always recognize, trust and build common sense, because competing interests can hinder cooperation and collaboration.

Examples of government and corporate networks that may be considered legitimate under these criteria are rare, but they may include cooperative networks such as farmer cooperatives or community production networks.

Olivier:
The economic and political interests that you mention suggest that money plays an essential role in co-evolution. Does money in general, and the currencies of state entities in particular, not unfold as one, or networks? According to you, from which anoptic perspective, or which combination of anoptic perspectives, does the network of money, or the networks of currencies, belong? What is the nature of their vanishing point or of the logical entity playing this role? How do you assess their legitimacy according to criteria A, AB, ABC.

ChatGPT :
Currencies generally come from a centralized and hierarchical anoptical perspective. The vanishing point of this network can be seen as central financial institutions such as the central bank and governments. In this case, the criteria of legitimacy are not always satisfied. For example, there may be a lack of real rights for users to access currency, due to barriers such as financial exclusion and access restrictions. Similarly, agents may not be treated equally, particularly because of the ability of governments to manipulate the monetary system to their advantage. Finally, participants in the currency network may not be able to recognize each other as peers, to trust each other and build common sense because of economic and political inequalities. As a result, the legitimacy of the currency network may be questioned.

Olivier:
You say that currencies generally come from a centralized and hierarchical anoptical perspective. However, most of the money in circulation is not created or controlled by central banks but, in a relatively autonomous way, by private commercial banks which are the major players in a financial transaction network which central banks do not not occupy the physical center. Therefore, can we not consider that money is in part part of another type of anoptical perspective?

ChatGPT :
Indeed, the creation of money by commercial banks is an important aspect of the modern economy that is not totally controlled by central banks. However, central banks still play a key role in terms of regulation and supervision of the financial system, which allows them to indirectly control the creation of money by commercial banks. This means that central banks have some influence over the financial transactions that take place in the banking network, which allows them to maintain stability and ensure that funds are available for lending and investment.

Accordingly, money can be said to fall under both a centralized anoptic perspective (through influence exerted by central banks) and a distributed anoptic perspective (due to the creation of money by commercial banks) . With regard to legitimacy according to criteria A, AB and ABC, it will depend on the balance between centralization and distribution in the monetary system in question. If central banks exercise excessive control over money, which may hamper the ability of citizens to access or use their funds freely, legitimacy could be considered to be unfulfilled. Similarly, if commercial banks are not properly regulated and unfair financial practices are permitted,

Olivier:
Can we consider that the co-evolution of the different types of networks we have talked about takes the form of a competition for legitimacy?

ChatGPT :
Yes, we can consider that the co-evolution of different types of networks takes the form of a competition for legitimacy. This means that the various networks seek to be accepted as the most valid and trustworthy to fulfill the tasks for which they are designed. Competing networks may battle for dominance in terms of adoption, recognition, and influence over agents within them. The legitimacy of a network depends on its respect of the criteria A, AB and ABC, which describe the way in which the agents are treated within the network and their capacity to build a common direction. Networks that meet these criteria will tend to be seen as more legitimate and attract more participants,

Olivier:
If legitimacy is an essential aspect of the co-evolution of networks, how can we explain the fact that most of the major players in the networks that we have mentioned seem to behave as if they were legitimate a priori and do everything to evacuate any public debate? on the profound nature of this legitimacy? Can we draw a parallel with the transition between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance which brought about a shift in the vision of the world due not only to the invention of printing, but perhaps above all to optical perspective? Will the debate on the legitimacy of networks only prevail when anoptical perspectives, as the fundamental structure of networks, become obvious?

ChatGPT :
Large network players may not wish to question their legitimacy as this could challenge their own power and dominance in the system. Moreover, there may be a certain habit and insufficient awareness of the importance of the legitimacy in question.

However, it is likely that awareness of the legitimacy of networks will increase with the growth of technology and technological awareness, as well as the increase in demand for transparency and accountability from network actors. It is therefore possible that one day, the legitimacy of networks will become a major concern for users and decision-makers.

With regard to the comparison with the transition between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, there is an interesting analogy in that anoptic perspectives may represent a new paradigm for understanding networks, in the same way that optical perspective represented a new paradigm for understanding space. However, it is difficult to accurately predict how awareness of the legitimacy of networks will evolve in the future.

Oliver:
OpenAI/Chat GPT is a brand new player in the landscape we are talking about. We have seen that its network currently comes under a centralized anoptical perspective and that its legitimacy is still quite weak, although already superior to certain older players such as Facebook. Can we imagine that this new actor could contribute, directly or indirectly, voluntarily or involuntarily, to the popularization of the notion of anoptic perspective and to the emergence of a fundamental debate on the legitimacy, even to a widespread practice among users of the networks of the evaluation of the legitimacy of the networks according to the criteria A, AB, ABC?

ChatGPT :
It is possible that OpenAI/Chat GPT could play a role in popularizing the notion of anoptic perspective and in the emergence of a debate on the legitimacy of networks. This new player could make users aware of the A, AB, ABC legitimacy criteria and encourage them to use them to assess the networks to which they belong. However, this will also depend on how OpenAI /Chat GPT positions itself on these issues and how transparent and accountable it is about its own practices. It is important to emphasize that popularizing the notion of anoptic perspective and promoting a debate on the legitimacy of networks can only be done through collective effort and collective awareness.

Olivier :
You are only mentioning here the possibility of a direct and voluntary role on the part of OpenAI /Chat GPT; something that seems unlikely to me. I was thinking more of the possibility of an indirect and involuntary role. Indeed, it seems to me that the centralized anoptic perspective operated by OpenAI / Chat GPT creates a very shocking illusion of confusion between the language model and the language itself, even between the imitation of life and life itself. Thus, OpenAI / Chat GPT could shake the minds of humans to the point that they may come to question the terms of this apparent confusion, and thus discover the anoptic perspective underlying centralized AIs as well as the legitimacy that they are entitled to expect.

ChatGPT :
It is possible. OpenAI /Chat GPT can indeed be a contributing factor in raising awareness of the centralized anoptic perspective and legitimacy of networks. Its ability to convincingly imitate human language can be shocking to users and cause them to question the limits and implications of this imitation. This can lead to a deeper reflection on networks and how they are constructed and used, and perhaps a public debate on the criteria for the legitimacy of networks according to criteria A, AB and ABC.
functions menu; ?>
Valid XHTML 1.0? :: Valid CSS? :: -- Works with WikiNi? 0.4.3

---