@uriel yes, very nice, thank you.

The whole #AI thing is quite interesting from a Social experience design perspective. #SX has Humanity and Freedom as intrinsic values, and the aim is to develop unobtrusive, harmonious, and humane technologies that serve people's needs.

From that perspective I am anti #LLM as the disruptive introduction in society is totally irresponsible, making it inhumane technology. Yet unlike with blockchain there are also undeniable upsides, numerous positive applications of the technology too.

I think the biggest near-term risk is the dehumanization and further erosion of social fabric between humans, which is to the benefit to festering #hypercapitalism and the #EpsteinClass who ultimately owns the technology.

SX defines #CALMculture, for Constructive activism-led movements. I think the way I see most people conduct #activism against AI, closing ears and ostracising AI fans, is doomed to be ineffective. CALM involves cocreating pathway towards solutions.

@codinghorror @glyph

That's it then. Sun Tzu. Strike where the enemy is weakest. Human connection. Humanness. #Humanity

I keep a scrabbled SWOT, and in the past tooted that LLMs, or more importantly and accurately its Big Tech creators, have retracted as it were from 'serving' people in these areas. Throwing more layers of indirection between us, that can only serve to further erode the social fabric of society.

If you turn that perspective around you may also say:

Hey, they really have left market space now, made it unoccupied territory again. Opened niches where new #opportunities exist for small parties to jump in the gap, to find, or more like rediscover, the USP's of offering reall human-to-human services.

Backdrop to my SWOT is Social experience design #SX and the urgent need that Humankind starts to #ReimagineSocialNetworking.

Which entails of course much more than mere #SocialWeb tech: Bridging the huge gap between tech and people. Yet more USP's!

https://social.coop/@smallcircles/116368803389082089

@reiver

Yes, I know. And endless strife.

SX separates #FOSS from the movement of people that creates it. FOSS is code/software + an open license. Period.

Under SX, where solution development involves software creation, FOSS is the end of the supply line. FOSS software is a SX artifact. Its only purpose is to serve the formulated solution that was the reason to start programming. And that solution in turn is only meaningful to the extent it fulfills people's needs.

Including the creator, if they need sustenance to continue their good work. This is the crux. It isn't there for FOSS creators, its an inherently unsustainable field.

Separating FOSS software from those creating it allows focus on healthy processes, that do not burnout their participants and they leave.

Here SX defines #SOSS, Sustainable open social systems..

https://coding.social/blog/reimagine-social/#sustainable-open-social-systems

#SX #SocialCoding #SocialWeb

@arclight @johannab

Interestingly, in the case of #SX the term "external stakeholders" is more likely to constitute Storytelling than formal design language.

It is storytelling for ICT folks who are used to such language. They are the ones working in countless institutions and organization entities that practice agile and all that jazz.

> misguided austerity policy decisions

I perceive our world, in particular society here, as mostly made up of chaotic emergent structure, and within that countless specs of top-down organization is possible. But this is kinda artificial, against natural force, and requires continuous energy to be put in to uphold these centralization points. At certain scale they fall apart, and are notoriously difficult to organize well at scale.

If you live under healthy democratic rule, much has been achieved with such top-down organization.

But easily things start to crumble, when too much top-down rigour is overlayed. Chaos chimes in then, uncertain outcomes.

@arclight @johannab

> "victims" is not a great word but it's clearer than "indirect stakeholders" or some other bloodless term for people don't directly use the system _with agency_ but are otherwise affected by the system's results.

Totally agree with you. "Affected" might be a better word.

Other than that, when looking at #SX methodology specifically, in a holistic approach multiple things must come together:

0. Center. Knowing where to go. Desire.
1. Think. An underpinning philosophy.
2. Act. A formal design approach.
3. Feel. A translation to real-world practice.

In the last bit, bullet 3) the formal design language in 2) has a concept of Storytelling.

If you explain to a government institution that it is vital to subsidize fediverse development, to ensure ecosystem health and growth, you use different storytelling for that audience, than when you rally the grassroots forces for a multi-disciplinary hackathon for all fedizens to participate in.

@arclight @johannab

Yes, that is the most unaddressed group, suffering the externalities if they are negative. But they can also be positive, bring indirect benefits, it all depends. So victims is not the best word.

Umm, let's see..

In the most general sense #SX distinguishes between #commons and the #public. "The public" is then the word, the wider public, everyone touched. But that's not very useful other than talking handwavingly.

In many cases I suspect it is best to refine to a domain-specific stakeholder name. E.g. if you are the Lung Health Institute you may have "The public affected by Smokers" and then divide the public into Non-smokers, Asthma patients, Covid patients, etc. either direct or indirect stakeholders who suffer the externalities when in close proximity to a Smoker direct/indirect stakeholder.

Btw, I posted on @aral observations on "user" and started practicing my avoidance from there on, though gradually at first, takes practice.

https://discuss.coding.social/t/humane-design-avoiding-the-term-user/61