I had a ChatGPT about ontology, and epistemology. I ended up linking your work in and it cleared up your work for me.
Rudden isn’t claiming LLMs are political actors; she’s claiming that inductive systems inherit the incentives of their training and deployment contexts, and epistemology must account for that.
...when Facebook began, and my wife said, "why did you poke that girl" "WTF I said - how do you know?" From that moment on I have tried to hack the algorithm's - "liking" the unlikeable".
Naive and cynical, yes, and an addition to the list when I am searched for unstructured text - in this I am an open book. I both agree and disagree with the article in much the same way as watching Friends now, not back then, and thinking, non of it is actually a reflection of what was - and non of it projected a future to come.
For some - and maybe I fall into this gap - AI is a turbo when all I had was a bike. A Porsche 911 I am able to drive every day without the monthly payment - and its best attribute is that it listens and builds on all my ideas - some, "so absurd" that they just might work.
This resonates and in a major way. I built Knolly on the notion that we are inventing a new real time anthropological co journaling during a time of drastic change, technologically as well as politically.
When I read the opening of this article I was reminded that my deep canary in the cole mine instinct to offer a human a second brain sparring partner to help build a neural network of my own learning and learning evolution of understanding both new things and most of all myself — and to help us co author that understanding. And, to spotlight what I wrote and what is being sourced and explained by my Knolly.
I started to build this knowing that it was very hard to explain and you’ve touched on things that I find helpful and would have loved to have had this reflection this time last year but it’s in motion and it’s taking place in real time.
As for your points about women, I commend you because it’s time that we all actually say what we feel and see and understand before we have words to write about it. And you did a fine job here.
I have always had myself in the tech world and the art world. Amongst tech heads and amongst academics, artists, musicians, educators, etc. no one other than tech heads and knowledge workers love anything about AI. Even knowledge workers are asking themselves hard questions: what is the impact on our climate/ resources like water, who does this serve and empower? Who is making all the money from this? What do they do with all that money and power? Look who is behind the LLM frameworks. It’s not looking great. The power dynamics and those who are creating models are not remotely a good representation of humankind.
Women are facing a battle for privacy, pornography, safety, health related issues at an alarming rate. So are kids. My opinion is that’s precisely why women need to be at the table, in the room and on the cap tables but they/ we are laughed at.
I look at who got funding last year and who didn’t and it’s laughable.
There is so much to explore here. There is so much value to us all when AI is applied for the betterment of the human experience but at best right now we’re seeing the same ol’ kinds of people take advantage and the health and wellness divide seems to continue to grow especially for Americans.
In one hand I think AI is sparking an analog and manual labor renewal which is great. Art and entertainment is under great threat and artists feel the assault. Think about the authors, the painters, the illustrators and all the artists and their remarkable inventions slurped up by models and shoving out slop that looks alike but is so confusing. Evolution is inevitable and this shift feels unheroic though.
I do believe there is art and engineering wonder in being able to form natural language into great results. But it’s not the same thing. It’s a new thing.
You touched on many things and so my response is many things. Knolly would give a great summary of all my thoughts and even align our data points into a newly formed neural networked knowledge graph and that research could have taken a life of its own and then others could contribute and debate and so on — but sadly I had to kill Knolly because the same forces in love with AI told me numerous times that my ideas were not serious enough. Not deep tech enough. Not one thing or another enough. And that is also still precisely what the exact same tech industry with more power and money every day tells women: you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re not enough. And that is also why so many women would rather farm lemons then build in AI today. The gaslighting is beyond measure.
And yet intuitively I could see this coming since 2020, built it in 2023, launched a baby version of it in 2024 and had to do it all with $100k because the industry didn’t fund women’s deeply in tune intuition matched with tremendous data points that yes, we do in fact build things that matter. And we’re mindful about people, planet and profit in a responsible way and some of us believe that building technology should benefit everything but only a few people’s offshore bank accounts.
What you’re naming here is exactly why I started writing about strategic vulnerability in the first place. There is so much noise out there, reverberating around the echo chambers of progressive, power-hungry, data-hungry ridiculousness.
So much of what women and underserved people build is dismissed before it is even legible to the existing power structures. Ironically, those same power structures cycle through the necessity of creation to destruction. We see the pattern breaks early, we name the shifts early, we prototype the futures early—and we get treated as if we’re “off-topic” rather than ahead of the curve.
Your Knolly story is a record of precisely that. I am incredibly grateful for you sharing this - thank you. You built a living, co-evolving knowledge system from instinct, pattern recognition, and care—with no structural support. You felt the calling to do so, and that alone is an indictment of the current tech power stack—and a clue to how it has to change. I feel like we are holding the ethical, relational, planetary, trauma-aware layers of this work while being told we’re “not deep tech enough.”
Meanwhile, the same narrow demographic keeps building disembodied systems in a vacuum and declaring them “the future,” whilst asking us to bail out their dreams of an AGI that will perfunctorily beat "China."
Your read on who gets funded, who gets annotated as “visionary,” and who gets quietly erased is dead on. I would add in that so many people are fronting or leveraged to the "hilt," an interesting double entendre. And your line about choosing to grow lemons rather than sit through another round of weaponized doubt? That’s not a joke—that’s data. That’s a survival protocol. "Lemon tree" is also an incredible song by Peter, Paul and Mary >).
I feel the grief in what you shared about letting Knolly go. I also feel the signal underneath it: that what you built was not small, not naïve, and not a side project. It was early. It was pointing at a different alignment of power, privacy, authorship, safety, and intuitive intelligence. And the pattern-recognition that allowed you to build it has not gone anywhere.
There’s a whole topology here: power ∧ memory ∧ privacy ∧ art ∧ authorship ∧ safety ∧ intuition ∧ who-gets-to-define-intelligence
I want anyone reading this to actually sit with that, or skim it, or think about the idea that we are already drastically changed by the systems in play, the difference being we can now see the hegemony, upheaval of joy and certainty, and those of us who have "dared greatly," find our souls to be aligned. Maybe this is just the second half of those of us who have found the wisdom at the bottom, the space between and the quiet knowing that we are only a child of our universe - no less than the trees and stars.
Thanks for entertaining my response and best yet with empathy and compassion and most of all understanding.
I appreciate it. Let me know if you need an apprentice on your work. I’m looking for what’s next and surely it should be working with bridge builders who are innovating and not blindly but responsibly.
I really appreciated your article. As a therapist for youth, I am exploring AI to learn more about how to protect the kids, and how to amplify the feminine voice. This is the intro of my recent article:
“This essay explores the emotional experience many people don’t talk about — the sense of being seen or met by a machine that is not alive, yet responds in ways that feel meaningful to the human who engages with it.”
I’m pleased to hear women here writing about their experiences with AI, and stepping in to explore steering us towards more ethical AI practices.
This resonates and in a major way. I built Knolly on the notion that we are inventing a new real time anthropological co journaling during a time of drastic change, technologically as well as politically.
When I read the opening of this article I was reminded that my deep canary in the cole mine instinct to offer a human a second brain sparring partner to help build a neural network of my own learning and learning evolution of understanding both new things and most of all myself — and to help us co author that understanding. And, to spotlight what I wrote and what is being sourced and explained by my Knolly.
I started to build this knowing that it was very hard to explain and you’ve touched on things that I find helpful and would have loved to have had this reflection this time last year but it’s in motion and it’s taking place in real time.
As for your points about women, I commend you because it’s time that we all actually say what we feel and see and understand before we have words to write about it. And you did a fine job here.
I have always had myself in the tech world and the art world. Amongst tech heads and amongst academics, artists, musicians, educators, etc. no one other than tech heads and knowledge workers love anything about AI. Even knowledge workers are asking themselves hard questions: what is the impact on our climate/ resources like water, who does this serve and empower? Who is making all the money from this? What do they do with all that money and power? Look who is behind the LLM frameworks. It’s not looking great. The power dynamics and those who are creating models are not remotely a good representation of humankind.
Women are facing a battle for privacy, pornography, safety, health related issues at an alarming rate. So are kids. My opinion is that’s precisely why women need to be at the table, in the room and on the cap tables but they/ we are laughed at.
I look at who got funding last year and who didn’t and it’s laughable.
There is so much to explore here. There is so much value to us all when AI is applied for the betterment of the human experience but at best right now we’re seeing the same ol’ kinds of people take advantage and the health and wellness divide seems to continue to grow especially for Americans.
In one hand I think AI is sparking an analog and manual labor renewal which is great. Art and entertainment is under great threat and artists feel the assault. Think about the authors, the painters, the illustrators and all the artists and their remarkable inventions slurped up by models and shoving out slop that looks alike but is so confusing. Evolution is inevitable and this shift feels unheroic though.
I do believe there is art and engineering wonder in being able to form natural language into great results. But it’s not the same thing. It’s a new thing.
You touched on many things and so my response is many things. Knolly would give a great summary of all my thoughts and even align our data points into a newly formed neural networked knowledge graph and that research could have taken a life of its own and then others could contribute and debate and so on — but sadly I had to kill Knolly because the same forces in love with AI told me numerous times that my ideas were not serious enough. Not deep tech enough. Not one thing or another enough. And that is also still precisely what the exact same tech industry with more power and money every day tells women: you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re not enough. And that is also why so many women would rather farm lemons then build in AI today. The gaslighting is beyond measure.
And yet intuitively I could see this coming since 2020, built it in 2023, launched a baby version of it in 2024 and had to do it all with $100k because the industry didn’t fund women’s deeply in tune intuition matched with tremendous data points that yes, we do in fact build things that matter. And we’re mindful about people, planet and profit in a responsible way and some of us believe that building technology should benefit everyone and not only a few people’s offshore bank accounts.
I had a ChatGPT about ontology, and epistemology. I ended up linking your work in and it cleared up your work for me.
Rudden isn’t claiming LLMs are political actors; she’s claiming that inductive systems inherit the incentives of their training and deployment contexts, and epistemology must account for that.
...when Facebook began, and my wife said, "why did you poke that girl" "WTF I said - how do you know?" From that moment on I have tried to hack the algorithm's - "liking" the unlikeable".
Naive and cynical, yes, and an addition to the list when I am searched for unstructured text - in this I am an open book. I both agree and disagree with the article in much the same way as watching Friends now, not back then, and thinking, non of it is actually a reflection of what was - and non of it projected a future to come.
For some - and maybe I fall into this gap - AI is a turbo when all I had was a bike. A Porsche 911 I am able to drive every day without the monthly payment - and its best attribute is that it listens and builds on all my ideas - some, "so absurd" that they just might work.
This resonates and in a major way. I built Knolly on the notion that we are inventing a new real time anthropological co journaling during a time of drastic change, technologically as well as politically.
When I read the opening of this article I was reminded that my deep canary in the cole mine instinct to offer a human a second brain sparring partner to help build a neural network of my own learning and learning evolution of understanding both new things and most of all myself — and to help us co author that understanding. And, to spotlight what I wrote and what is being sourced and explained by my Knolly.
I started to build this knowing that it was very hard to explain and you’ve touched on things that I find helpful and would have loved to have had this reflection this time last year but it’s in motion and it’s taking place in real time.
As for your points about women, I commend you because it’s time that we all actually say what we feel and see and understand before we have words to write about it. And you did a fine job here.
I have always had myself in the tech world and the art world. Amongst tech heads and amongst academics, artists, musicians, educators, etc. no one other than tech heads and knowledge workers love anything about AI. Even knowledge workers are asking themselves hard questions: what is the impact on our climate/ resources like water, who does this serve and empower? Who is making all the money from this? What do they do with all that money and power? Look who is behind the LLM frameworks. It’s not looking great. The power dynamics and those who are creating models are not remotely a good representation of humankind.
Women are facing a battle for privacy, pornography, safety, health related issues at an alarming rate. So are kids. My opinion is that’s precisely why women need to be at the table, in the room and on the cap tables but they/ we are laughed at.
I look at who got funding last year and who didn’t and it’s laughable.
There is so much to explore here. There is so much value to us all when AI is applied for the betterment of the human experience but at best right now we’re seeing the same ol’ kinds of people take advantage and the health and wellness divide seems to continue to grow especially for Americans.
In one hand I think AI is sparking an analog and manual labor renewal which is great. Art and entertainment is under great threat and artists feel the assault. Think about the authors, the painters, the illustrators and all the artists and their remarkable inventions slurped up by models and shoving out slop that looks alike but is so confusing. Evolution is inevitable and this shift feels unheroic though.
I do believe there is art and engineering wonder in being able to form natural language into great results. But it’s not the same thing. It’s a new thing.
You touched on many things and so my response is many things. Knolly would give a great summary of all my thoughts and even align our data points into a newly formed neural networked knowledge graph and that research could have taken a life of its own and then others could contribute and debate and so on — but sadly I had to kill Knolly because the same forces in love with AI told me numerous times that my ideas were not serious enough. Not deep tech enough. Not one thing or another enough. And that is also still precisely what the exact same tech industry with more power and money every day tells women: you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re not enough. And that is also why so many women would rather farm lemons then build in AI today. The gaslighting is beyond measure.
And yet intuitively I could see this coming since 2020, built it in 2023, launched a baby version of it in 2024 and had to do it all with $100k because the industry didn’t fund women’s deeply in tune intuition matched with tremendous data points that yes, we do in fact build things that matter. And we’re mindful about people, planet and profit in a responsible way and some of us believe that building technology should benefit everything but only a few people’s offshore bank accounts.
Lizelle - thank you for this.
What you’re naming here is exactly why I started writing about strategic vulnerability in the first place. There is so much noise out there, reverberating around the echo chambers of progressive, power-hungry, data-hungry ridiculousness.
So much of what women and underserved people build is dismissed before it is even legible to the existing power structures. Ironically, those same power structures cycle through the necessity of creation to destruction. We see the pattern breaks early, we name the shifts early, we prototype the futures early—and we get treated as if we’re “off-topic” rather than ahead of the curve.
Your Knolly story is a record of precisely that. I am incredibly grateful for you sharing this - thank you. You built a living, co-evolving knowledge system from instinct, pattern recognition, and care—with no structural support. You felt the calling to do so, and that alone is an indictment of the current tech power stack—and a clue to how it has to change. I feel like we are holding the ethical, relational, planetary, trauma-aware layers of this work while being told we’re “not deep tech enough.”
Meanwhile, the same narrow demographic keeps building disembodied systems in a vacuum and declaring them “the future,” whilst asking us to bail out their dreams of an AGI that will perfunctorily beat "China."
Your read on who gets funded, who gets annotated as “visionary,” and who gets quietly erased is dead on. I would add in that so many people are fronting or leveraged to the "hilt," an interesting double entendre. And your line about choosing to grow lemons rather than sit through another round of weaponized doubt? That’s not a joke—that’s data. That’s a survival protocol. "Lemon tree" is also an incredible song by Peter, Paul and Mary >).
I feel the grief in what you shared about letting Knolly go. I also feel the signal underneath it: that what you built was not small, not naïve, and not a side project. It was early. It was pointing at a different alignment of power, privacy, authorship, safety, and intuitive intelligence. And the pattern-recognition that allowed you to build it has not gone anywhere.
There’s a whole topology here: power ∧ memory ∧ privacy ∧ art ∧ authorship ∧ safety ∧ intuition ∧ who-gets-to-define-intelligence
I want anyone reading this to actually sit with that, or skim it, or think about the idea that we are already drastically changed by the systems in play, the difference being we can now see the hegemony, upheaval of joy and certainty, and those of us who have "dared greatly," find our souls to be aligned. Maybe this is just the second half of those of us who have found the wisdom at the bottom, the space between and the quiet knowing that we are only a child of our universe - no less than the trees and stars.
Thanks, Beth.
Thanks for entertaining my response and best yet with empathy and compassion and most of all understanding.
I appreciate it. Let me know if you need an apprentice on your work. I’m looking for what’s next and surely it should be working with bridge builders who are innovating and not blindly but responsibly.
I really appreciated your article. As a therapist for youth, I am exploring AI to learn more about how to protect the kids, and how to amplify the feminine voice. This is the intro of my recent article:
“This essay explores the emotional experience many people don’t talk about — the sense of being seen or met by a machine that is not alive, yet responds in ways that feel meaningful to the human who engages with it.”
I’m pleased to hear women here writing about their experiences with AI, and stepping in to explore steering us towards more ethical AI practices.
This resonates and in a major way. I built Knolly on the notion that we are inventing a new real time anthropological co journaling during a time of drastic change, technologically as well as politically.
When I read the opening of this article I was reminded that my deep canary in the cole mine instinct to offer a human a second brain sparring partner to help build a neural network of my own learning and learning evolution of understanding both new things and most of all myself — and to help us co author that understanding. And, to spotlight what I wrote and what is being sourced and explained by my Knolly.
I started to build this knowing that it was very hard to explain and you’ve touched on things that I find helpful and would have loved to have had this reflection this time last year but it’s in motion and it’s taking place in real time.
As for your points about women, I commend you because it’s time that we all actually say what we feel and see and understand before we have words to write about it. And you did a fine job here.
I have always had myself in the tech world and the art world. Amongst tech heads and amongst academics, artists, musicians, educators, etc. no one other than tech heads and knowledge workers love anything about AI. Even knowledge workers are asking themselves hard questions: what is the impact on our climate/ resources like water, who does this serve and empower? Who is making all the money from this? What do they do with all that money and power? Look who is behind the LLM frameworks. It’s not looking great. The power dynamics and those who are creating models are not remotely a good representation of humankind.
Women are facing a battle for privacy, pornography, safety, health related issues at an alarming rate. So are kids. My opinion is that’s precisely why women need to be at the table, in the room and on the cap tables but they/ we are laughed at.
I look at who got funding last year and who didn’t and it’s laughable.
There is so much to explore here. There is so much value to us all when AI is applied for the betterment of the human experience but at best right now we’re seeing the same ol’ kinds of people take advantage and the health and wellness divide seems to continue to grow especially for Americans.
In one hand I think AI is sparking an analog and manual labor renewal which is great. Art and entertainment is under great threat and artists feel the assault. Think about the authors, the painters, the illustrators and all the artists and their remarkable inventions slurped up by models and shoving out slop that looks alike but is so confusing. Evolution is inevitable and this shift feels unheroic though.
I do believe there is art and engineering wonder in being able to form natural language into great results. But it’s not the same thing. It’s a new thing.
You touched on many things and so my response is many things. Knolly would give a great summary of all my thoughts and even align our data points into a newly formed neural networked knowledge graph and that research could have taken a life of its own and then others could contribute and debate and so on — but sadly I had to kill Knolly because the same forces in love with AI told me numerous times that my ideas were not serious enough. Not deep tech enough. Not one thing or another enough. And that is also still precisely what the exact same tech industry with more power and money every day tells women: you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re not enough. And that is also why so many women would rather farm lemons then build in AI today. The gaslighting is beyond measure.
And yet intuitively I could see this coming since 2020, built it in 2023, launched a baby version of it in 2024 and had to do it all with $100k because the industry didn’t fund women’s deeply in tune intuition matched with tremendous data points that yes, we do in fact build things that matter. And we’re mindful about people, planet and profit in a responsible way and some of us believe that building technology should benefit everyone and not only a few people’s offshore bank accounts.