Source Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLzvoEHkK4
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLzvoEHkK4&lc=Ugy5txsuzVcC6cYTPEZ4AaABAg
1:17:24 No, we don't have the content and the tools, we rarely have anything! We only have a carefully crafted illusion that we have it while in fact somebody else has it, exclusively.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLzvoEHkK4&lc=Ugyb2x5i48SKbDiPdQd4AaABAg
1:01:51 The data needs to self-declare what it is, so clients/agents can interpret and react to it. At the moment, the machine is guessing or needs the human to tell it what it might be.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLzvoEHkK4&lc=Ugz7pPVisrAlPYbYnXp4AaABAg
1:00:04 By the way, semantics of identity for reasoning is a lot more difficult (if not impossible) than the more simpler semantics of type/category for augmentation. I don't see why/how we can start with the former as long as we don't even get the latter solved, which doesn't get any attention because the AI hype is about reasoning of the human domain instead of the augmentation support provided by the machine domain. But yeah, you're probably not talking about what it is for and what to do with it, but the capability to disambiguate to be automatically brought up for the human to decide, as an approach/example/design principle.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLzvoEHkK4&lc=UgzGvYLG5pD2Jurt-XF4AaABAg
57:15 The human experience is subject to the individual, and there's no way to influence it directly except through artifacts and communication, plus individuals can refuse to let their experiences being influenced, so how would anybody, including industry, influence the human experience of the individual other than through artifacts and communication? But I think I understand that the "human experience" is less replacing humans with machines with the effect that humans wouldn't experience those activities any more, but give the human powerful tools that know what they are and what they can do, so the human continues to do all the activities he's used to or cares about, but is busy with expressing his wishes/intent for the machine to figure out how to realize it, as opposed to explicitly telling the machine how to do the things, telling the machine the what instead of the how. Unfortunately, to make this happen, quite some "how" is needed to be told to the machine as well, that doesn't work by itself out of magic somehow, as machines are very dumb and not human indeed.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLzvoEHkK4&lc=UgwchKZ2VOl6jgIc_kp4AaABAg
53:51 I'm not aware if that is particulary Engelbartian, I think he had more a specialized knowledge worker in mind, which people can become by training, but it's probably not for everybody.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLzvoEHkK4&lc=UgxQ0MVyGL51c3itxiF4AaABAg
45:57 So if you invest the time for another one, just make sure that there are social, legal and technical preservation mechanisms are in place, like open formats, libre-free licensing and a stewardship/curator community around it.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLzvoEHkK4&lc=UgxV-JBAVp0p3ezxbbl4AaABAg
25:08 The mechanics of physical goods (scarcity) don't apply to immaterial goods, therefore immaterial goods hardly can be property once they've been shared with somebody else, hence something that has been shared can't be exclusive property any more and therefore can't be “protected” (from what and whom, anyway?). Exclusive control can only be exercised over immaterial goods if they never have been shared (have been made available/accessible to a second entity as that second entity is independent/sovereign and can slip out of whatever social, legal or technical control mechanisms were put in place at any given time). As the GNU GPL is mentioned a little later, its copyleft is reverting the default “all rights reserved” as imposed by copyright law and turns the drastical restrictions a creator is allowed to impose on his users the other way around by drastically protecting the essential, fundamental digital rights and freedoms every computer user deserves. It's not “protecting” the interests of the creator against the actions of the users, but it's “protecting” the users and creators from each other, so they can have a community after all, but only to the extend to which copyright is enforceable, to the extend “protection” can be effective for immaterial goods, which is against the very nature of digital and therefore can't be granted in an absolute sense.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLzvoEHkK4&lc=Ugxc4WpOsKDULdADyGp4AaABAg
1:16:07 There's no shortage of ideas or diagrams, but a lack of good execution, that additionally has to arrive at the right time in the right place. LinkedIn as a centralized, proprietary online service also isn't something particulary attractive to strive for, in a general as well as in an Engelbartian context.