Excentric Humanism and the Artlessness of Artificial Intelligence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the defining feature of the human capacity to think? One answer to this vexing question, the dominant one is our technological era, is to conceive this faculty as mind-centered or egocentric. Thinking here is taken fundamentally to be a mental act. The project to artificially recreate human thinking is premised on this arguably concentric reading of thinking, one in conformity with a code-dependent and calculative understanding of what constitutes intelligence. An alternative reading underscores the extent to which the human capacity for reflection is excentric, or displaced from the center that is the cogito. Jean-Francois Lyotard, Byung-Chul Han, and Jean Baudrillard are recruited as contemporary proponents of the excentric paradigm. Their analyses are marshaled as a means of underscoring the fact that despite recent advances within the realm of artificial intelligence, the project to replicate human intelligence is structurally incapable of duplicating its defining feature--an embodied and open-ended relationship to the world.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it