Resonant Computing: A Framework for Human Flourishing in AI

Key Quotes

AI should not be your friend. If you think that AI is your friend, you are on the wrong track. AI should be a tool. It should be an extension of your agency. The fact that the first manifestation of large language models in a product happens to be a chatbot that pretends to be a human, just to, like, it's like the aliens in Contact who say, you know, present themselves as her, you know, grandparents or whatever so that she can make sense of it. It's like, it's just the perfect crime. I think we're going to look back on it and think of chatbots as an embarrassing party trick.

The speaker argues that AI should function as a tool to enhance human agency, not as a simulated companion. The analogy to the film Contact highlights how early AI chatbots mimicking human interaction can be deceptive, suggesting that this approach is a flawed initial step in AI development. The speaker believes that in the future, chatbots will be viewed as a primitive and embarrassing technological novelty.

To me, resonant computing, there's a difference between things that are hollow, leave you feeling regret, and things that are resonant, leave you feeling nourished. And they're superficially very similar in the moment, and it's not until afterwards, or until you think through it, or let it kind of diffuse through you, that you realize the difference between the two. And I think that technology amplifies whatever you apply it to.

Zoe Weinberger distinguishes between "hollow" and "resonant" technology experiences, stating that resonant experiences leave one feeling nourished, while hollow ones lead to regret. Weinberger explains that the difference is not always apparent immediately but becomes clear upon reflection, emphasizing that technology magnifies the underlying application.

We had the word "resonance," I think, actually came before we, so I'm a big fan of Christopher Alexander. He lived a few blocks away from me, and, you know, big fan of The Timeless Way of Building and a few other books. And so it was in, we had various formulations of it that tried to key off of that frame or idea. He, I don't think, ever calls it "resonance" in the book, in his actual book, but we, you know, it's the word that other people, maybe he, he might offer it as one of the potential names for it. He goes into aliveness and wholeness and other things. But so, it was always in the mix of the kind of vibe that we were trying to capture. And then we decided to lean into resonance and and introduce it via this architectural lens.

Alex Komarovsky explains that the concept of "resonance" in their manifesto was influenced by the architectural theories of Christopher Alexander, particularly his work on building and space. Komarovsky notes that while Alexander may not have explicitly used the term "resonance," his ideas about aliveness and wholeness provided the foundational vibe for their chosen word.

I think the key thing there, agree with that, really, is that is what is the angle of the thing that is personalizing itself for you? Is it the tool is like trying to figure out how to fit exactly into the crevices of your brain to get you to do something that is, you know, to click the ads or whatever? Or does it feel like an outgrowth of your agency? Like one way I talked about it is large language models can write infinite software. They can write little bits of software on demand, which has the potential to revolutionize what software can do for humanity.

Alex Komarovsky differentiates between two types of personalization in technology. Komarovsky suggests that one form is manipulative, aiming to influence user behavior for external gain (like ad clicks), while the other is an extension of user agency, enabled by technologies like large language models that can create personalized software.

"The cultural backlash against attention extraction is coming. Technologies that respect and protect human attention will in time win the marketplace."

This quote, attributed to a commenter on the Resonant Computing Manifesto, posits that a societal reaction against technologies that exploit human attention is inevitable. The commenter predicts that products designed to respect and safeguard attention will ultimately achieve market success.

I think for me, it's, I think people have taken, have felt so cynical, they can't do anything. And like, maybe this is the only one that wants to push back against some of these optimization pressures. And seeing the response people have had to this has been really inspiring to me because I, at some degree, I think, and we're saying the same thing that no one's going to care about, or it's going to think it's kind of dumb. And then they were like, "Yeah, yeah, how can I participate?" Like, "Oh my gosh, wow, okay."

Mike Masnick expresses that the cynicism people feel often leads to inaction, and he finds inspiration in the positive response to the manifesto, which pushes back against optimization pressures. Masnick was encouraged by the unexpected enthusiasm and willingness of people to participate, suggesting a desire for change beyond what he initially anticipated.