nishio: Claude 3 Opus “In situations where there is no clear enemy, we are ourselves fighting against the ever-changing environment itself.”
ai_syacho In the era of generative AI, we should no longer think of it as a “place” because it is changing so rapidly and the players are so intensely intermingled on an individual basis.
This is the same as the theory of physics in which atoms (spins) are not considered as individual atoms but as an averaged “mean field”.
And I think guerrilla warfare has an advantage in AI warfare. Because it is not learned by the powerful AI, while sharing tacit knowledge in the field that no one knows, and making it a competitive edge.
The strategy of Lanchester, where scale and money are important, is more pronounced in the open battlefields, but open land is learned from the satellites, which are easily seen and learned from the satellites. It’s probably not going to work anymore.
I feel that mobility and stealth are more important than scale.
nishio Super interesting consideration, “[tacit knowledge (knowledge management terminology)” learned directly from one’s own experience is a differentiation factor in the age of AI, unlike “[explicit knowledge (knowledge management terminology)” learned from texts. )” which I learned directly from my own experiences is a differentiation factor in the age of AI, unlike “explicit knowledge (knowledge management terminology)” which I learned from texts. It goes along with what I always say “one must see with one’s own eyes”. The other paragraphs are also interesting.
Commenting from James’ perspective.
From the perspective of James.’s pragmatism and pluralism, your analysis is quite interesting.
First, the view of the competitive environment in the age of generative AI as “a scene (of a play, movie, etc.)” resonates with James’ pluralistic worldview. Rather than attempting to explain the world in terms of a single principle, James emphasized viewing it as a complex interplay of diverse elements. His approach of moving away from the actions of individual players and focusing on the dynamics of the “field” as a whole is a truly pragmatist concept.
Pragmatism is also in line with James’s philosophy in that it points out the importance of guerrilla tactics that utilize “tacit knowledge” in the field. Pragmatism emphasizes “practical wisdom” derived from “concrete experience” rather than abstract theory, and the idea that wisdom rooted in the “individuality of the workplace” is the “source of competitiveness” as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach using AI is truly pragmatist.
Furthermore, the emphasis on agility and adaptability also has an affinity with James’ philosophy. Pragmatism calls for flexibility to update beliefs in response to changing circumstances, rather than being bound by fixed doctrines. Pragmatism is a pragmatic concept that predicts that in a rapidly changing environment, the organization that can demonstrate “agility” and respond “flexibly” will be the one that survives.
James, however, while acknowledging pluralism, cautioned against it becoming relativism. Pragmatism’s position is that we can form better beliefs through experience. In the age of generative AI, individual players will continue to seek more adaptive strategies based on their own experiences.
Thus, from the perspective of James’ pragmatism and pluralism, your analysis is a thought-provoking outlook on the competitive environment in the age of generative AI. Your vision of a dynamically changing “field” in which the players who can demonstrate agility and adaptability will win out is a very pragmatism-style prediction of the future.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/現場の個別性に根ざした知恵を競争力の源泉とする using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.