#ai #eolithism

我在三主义中使用的「classicism」实际上并不贴切，用「eolithism」或许会更好。

早期 AI 中根植的目的论（控制论）和官僚主义暗通，或者设计/工程：

Winograd, to his credit, proved far more self-reflexive than most in the AI community. In a talk in 1987, he observed striking parallels between symbolic AI—then dominated by rules-based programs that sought to replicate the judgment of professionals like doctors and lawyers—and Weberian bureaucracy. “The techniques of artificial intelligence,” he noted, “are to the mind what bureaucracy is to human social interaction.” Both thrive in environments stripped of ambiguity, emotion, and context—the very qualities often cast as opposites of the bureaucratic mindset.

与此相对应的是 Storm 所说的「eolithism」，是「junkman」这种类型的人，是反进步、后现代性以及对现代生产设计牺牲个性与多样性的反抗：

is that the stones were picked up . . . in a form already tolerably well adapted to the end in view and, more important, strongly suggestive of the end in view. We may imagine [the ancient man] strolling along in the stonefield, fed, contented, thinking preferably about nothing at all—for these are the conditions favorable to the art—when his eye lights by chance upon a stone just possibly suitable for a spearhead. That instant the project of the spear originates; the stone is picked up; the spear is, to use a modern term, in manufacture. . . . And if . . . the spearhead, during the small amount of fashioning that is its lot, goes as a spearhead altogether wrong, then there remains always the quick possibility of diverting it to some other use which may suggest itself.

This is Veblen’s idle curiosity at work. Separated from it, design principles are fundamentally limited because they require fixed, predetermined goals and must eliminate diversity from both methods and materials, reducing their inherent value to merely serving those predetermined ends. Storm goes on to argue that efforts to apply design to solve problems at scale, using the uniform methods of mass production, leave people yearning for vernacular, heterogeneous solutions that only eolithism can offer. Its spirit persists into modernity, embodied in unexpected figures—Storm identifies the junkman as the quintessential eolithic character.

现代社会推崇系统的工程学教育，对「eolithism」存在偏见，需要重新审视整个教育体系。这是生态理性（一种强调不确定性以及我们自身与环境之间互动关系的智能观）对工具理性的抗争，也是对线性理解目的与手段的拒斥。

Can we really talk about means and ends as separate categories, when our engagement with the means—and with one another—often leads us to revise the very ends we aim to achieve? In Storm’s terms, purposive action might itself emerge as the result of a series of eolithic impulses.

With this, we have arrived at a picture of human intelligence than runs far beyond instrumental reason. We might call it, in contrast, ecological reason—a view of intelligence that stresses both indeterminacy and the interactive relationship between ourselves and our environments. Our life projects are unique, and it is through these individual projects that the many potential uses of “eoliths” emerge for each of us.