I think the term homophilia is fantastically well chosen. I haven't seen it summarised like that before, but it explains a lot. Could you tell me how it came up in your head? I also love the term kakitocracy <3 Such an elegant way of saying what everybody thinks!
I was not able to understand every meaning in the text. Also I had to ask google what this party is. Everything gives me a very strange feeling. I love it when something gives me this feeling of weirdness. As Mark Fisher said: "Strangeness is an indication that the concepts and frameworks we have previously employed have become obsolete".
--
Glad the concepts were retainable! Homophily is borrowed from Wendy Chun's research into the genealogies of network science - see e.g. https://mediarep.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c9ca2834-7014-4f93-9f08-35983281c78e/content OR https://www.e-flux.com/architecture/are-friends-electric/289193/homophily-the-urban-history-of-an-algorithm/. It does wonders to think of this as a parallel development within representative kakistocracy :-) / Asker
--
Pierre (26.01): To be honest I was a bit disoriented reading the text. For instance, I interpret "pop politics" as the lowest common denominator for a large group of people, but a quick google search makes it rather sounds like catnip for 24/7 technology news cycle? What does Marcel Proust have to do with any of this? Also I think LLMs do not "occupy every standpoint"? Their whole efficiency (sense-making) is because they are able to focus on local optima, being in a very specific place. Also, did you create that party?
Echoing the comment above, maybe there's a thin line between the weird and the confusing and i'm definitely on the confused side :(
But I do really like the idea of the SDG "Life with Artificials"!
Opportunism
I think it is a great project reflecting contemporary politics. However I wonder whether and/or how the synthetic party reflects the pragmatics and opportunism of politics, especially in small countries like Denmark? E.g., that most politicians only have oppinions that are sort of already allowed, e.g. on the Israel-Gaza war or the royal family? Does it understand and represent the patterns of opportunistic pragmatics or will it stay steeped in the maginal politics it was trained on? (Søren)