MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398167535 · doi:10.3366/dlgs.2024.0554

Go Nomadism, Evolutionary Computation and Natural Selection: A Reply to Jay Lampert

2024· article· en· W4398167535 on OpenAlexaff
M. D. Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueDeleuze and Guattari Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of King's College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceMathematical economicsArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to a 2023 article by Jay Lampert in Deleuze and Guattari Studies, this paper develops the question of what Deleuze and Guattari might make of AlphaGo, the artificial intelligence developed by Google which defeated one of the top human Go players in 2016. It approaches the question in a way that supplements and complements Lampert’s analysis, by noting the well-worn analogy between computer programming and evolutionary biology and then cross-referencing it with Deleuze and Guattari’s attitude towards the latter in A Thousand Plateaus. The results reinforce Lampert’s conclusion that AlphaGo is not ‘nomadic’, but they show that this is precisely because AlphaGo’s algorithms are reminiscent of Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeleuze and Guattari StudiesSame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207