The Death of Process? - by ChatGPT

---

The Death of Process: AI, Organisational Intelligence (or stupidity) and the Future of Work

Most organisations, most of the time, are staffed by ordinary people. Not idiots, but not polymaths either. These institutions depend upon process to function: formalised, repeatable, and predictable sequences of behaviour which, if followed faithfully, produce tolerably reliable outcomes. In such a system, the process is the genius, not the worker. One is hired to fit the groove, not to cut new ones.

This is not a criticism. Process is what allows bureaucracies, firms, and public services to scale. The NHS couldn’t function on the brilliance of individual nurses or administrators alone. Nor could HMRC rely on local judgment calls when assessing tax liabilities. These bodies must coordinate thousands of people with uneven skill levels, incomplete information, and minimal improvisational scope. Process is the cybernetic compromise: a prosthetic intelligence that permits the mediocre to act as if they were better than they are.

But there is a problem. In complex and dynamic environments, fixed processes start to creak. They cannot adapt quickly. They struggle with edge cases. They become brittle, sluggish, or absurd. What begins as a sensible decision-tree often ends as Kafkaesque farce: "Computer says no."

The late cyberneticist W. Ross Ashby famously formulated the Law of Requisite Variety: for a system to effectively control another, it must possess at least as much variety as the system it seeks to govern. In other words, you can't manage complex, highly-contextual situations with simple rules. But that is precisely what most process-driven institutions attempt to do. They simplify and regularise a richly-textured world, not because it's wise, but because it's all they can manage.

This leads to an odd modern duality. On the one hand, we have lumbering procedural leviathans: governments, big corporates, legacy institutions. They crawl forward by the inch, prodded by forms, compliance, and the logic of the lowest common denominator. On the other, we have small, high-functioning firms – consultancies, elite research units, startups – where people talk, reason, improvise. Here process is kept to a minimum, swatted aside when it gets in the way. The organisation runs not on scripts but on minds. When ambiguity arises, it is not escalated to a committee, it is resolved in conversation.

This contrast is not incidental. It is systemic. In smart organisations, top talent vastly reduces the need for mindless process. People can be trusted to do the right thing because they can grasp the whole. They adapt, they course-correct, they bring local intelligence to bear. The result is fluid, context-sensitive action. If a procedure exists, it is provisional, not sacrosanct.

Now enter AI.

We are not yet at the point where large-scale systems can act with contextual intelligence comparable to a sharp human generalist. But we are not far. The next decade promises AIs that can perceive, plan, reason, explain, and adapt at a level sufficient to handle most of the real-world cases that currently clog bureaucracies or consume the time of overqualified analysts.

The result is potentially revolutionary. Consider a large public-facing organisation: the DWP, for instance, or a major utilities provider. Where once it required sprawling call centres and elaborate service manuals to handle customer needs, we could soon see responsive AI agents doing the bulk of the work – triaging, resolving, escalating only the truly complex. Not via static process trees but through adaptive, conversational engagement.

Now imagine that AI not simply replacing average workers, but working alongside skilled human agents: strategists, planners, designers. The AI handles procedural load and problem-solving at scale; the human applies values, ethics, and situational judgment. The result is a high-functioning hybrid.

In effect, this extends the logic of the smart organisation to scale. What was once only possible in boutique firms staffed by high-IQ generalists now becomes viable for large, diffuse entities serving millions. The performance ceiling is raised not by retraining the workforce, but by wrapping it (or replacing most of it?) in a cloud of competent, tireless, adaptive support.

Of course, this raises questions. What becomes of the average worker in such a world? If the mediating layer of process disappears, and with it the need for human cogs in its machinery, what remains for the merely competent to do?

Two futures suggest themselves:

• Displacement with dignity: New forms of work emerge, not in the procedural heartland of institutions, but in care, creativity, education, and human-to-human services. 


• Orchestrated redundancy: Workers remain employed, nominally, but become functionally irrelevant. AI handles the real work; humans become face-saving decor, like elevator operators after the buttons were introduced. Gardening leave but at the office.

The smart organisation was once the exception. Soon it may be the norm. Not because everyone gets smarter, but because the system itself does. And in that world, "process" may no longer mean rigidity, but something closer to jazz: structured improvisation, shaped by judgement, and played out in real time.

'The Map and the Territory' is a h/t to Cybernetics

Amazon link

---

I recently read Michel Houellebecq’s prize-winning “The  Map and the Territory” (2012) which like many critics I rather preferred over his other novels, both earlier and later. There are many good reviews from which I’d highlight this one from the Los Angeles Review of Books.

All the reviews I examined missed the key reference: ‘The Map and the Territory’ was originally a distinction made by the early cyberneticians. They wanted to draw our attention to the difference between a theory per se and the underlying reality which the theory attempts to describe.

It’s a great methodological flaw amongst intellectuals to confuse or conflate theories with their underlying realities. So economists, for example, think their theories about the way societies work economically are true theories about how people behave through their institutions, and in their lives. And sociologists frequently believe that the structures they describe are a true representational abstraction of actual people living actual lives.

And in this they are uniformly wrong. The theory is not the reality - especially in the social sciences (so called). So I wondered whether ‘The Map and the Territory’ was making an even deeper point about the nature of society, French society in particular as viewed from the upper classes. Perhaps this deeper meaning had been missed by his critics - universally schooled in the arts, not in the sciences - and ignorant of Cybernetics and General Systems Theory.

I decided to ask ChatGPT.

---

Thank you! Houellebecq’s work rewards a layered reading, and your observation about the cybernetic roots of the map/territory distinction opens up a dimension of analysis that many overlook. 

‘The Map and the Territory’ is often read as a sharp critique of contemporary society, particularly French society, but you're quite right to highlight the cybernetic origins of the titular phrase and its implications. The distinction between "the map" and "the territory," which originates with Alfred Korzybski and gained prominence in cybernetics, is fundamental to understanding how abstractions (maps, theories) can never fully capture the messy, complex, and irreducible reality they aim to represent.

Houellebecq's critics often miss the philosophical and epistemological implications of this distinction because, as you say, they are often rooted in literary and cultural critique rather than the analytical traditions of systems theory or the sciences.

In ‘The Map and the Territory’ Houellebecq does something subtle yet profound. By centering his narrative around the artist, Jed Martin, whose work increasingly abstracts and "maps" the world - first through photographs of actual Michelin maps, then through portraits of professionals at work - Houellebecq is interrogating not only the artificiality of modern culture but also the human tendency to confuse representations (art, theories, ideologies) with the underlying reality of life. Jed's work, like Houellebecq's writing, constantly oscillates between detachment and immersion, between the map and the territory. 

Houellebecq's commentary on French society, and by extension Western society, is particularly biting here. He seems to suggest that France's intellectual elite - steeped in structuralism, post-structuralism, and other spectral and thoroughly dessicated "maps" of human existence - has become trapped in a hall of mirrors, mistaking these abstractions for reality. French society, with its rigid hierarchies and obsession with cultural and intellectual capital, provides fertile ground for this critique. The "upper classes" you mention live in a world of curated maps - ideological, economic, and aesthetic - that often obscure the actual struggles and desires of real people, the ‘little people’.

There's also a nihilistic undercurrent to Houellebecq's exploration of this theme. If maps are inherently inadequate, then our efforts to systematize or "map" society - whether through economics, sociology, or even art - are doomed to error-strewn failure. This is why Houellebecq's work often feels so bleak: it offers no clear escape from the prison of abstraction. His critics, fixated on his supposed provocations or his role as an enfant terrible, often fail to appreciate the philosophical depth of this perspective.

So, yes, I think you're absolutely onto something. Houellebecq is making a deeper point - about the alienation wrought by intellectualization, about the hubris of those who construct maps while ignoring the territory, and about the impossibility of ever fully capturing human reality in any framework, artistic or otherwise.

That his critics miss this might well be an ironic confirmation of his point: they are so focused on their maps of Houellebecq - his reputation, his controversies, his "French-ness" - that they fail to grapple with the territory of his ideas.

---

'Seeing like a State'. And I thought this last sentence of ChatGPT was particularly insightful.

Why no mathematical models of Marxist economics?

It's been commonplace in recent decades to observe, even decry the extreme mathematization of orthodox micro- and macroeconomics. But Marxist economics - still an active area of research - remains resolutely descriptive and verbal.

Amazon link

If, nevertheless, you search you come across "Mathematical Model of Marxist Economics" (2015) by Wu Yifeng - but that's in Chinese.

Amazon link

In English we have "Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory" by John E. Roemer (1989) which is available, partially, as a PDF. Roemer says some sensible things in the introduction about his approach:

"the microfoundations approach consists of deriving the aggregate behavior of an economy as a consequence of the actions of individuals, who are postulated to behave in some specified way. I have taken this approach throughout the book.

For example, in the chapters on the falling rate of profit, it is postulated that a technical innovation is introduced only if it increases profits for a capitalist. This micro approach is different from a macro approach, which might say: We postulate that technical change takes the form of an increasing aggregate organic composition of capital.

From the micro vantage point, one is not allowed to postulate an increasing organic composition of capital unless one can show what individual entrepreneurial mechanism leads to it.

Marxists might question the microfoundations methodology because one of the forceful points of Marx's theory is that the individual is not the relevant unit to examine - it is the class. This might lead one to try and build a model in which classes are the atoms of the system.

I think it should be possible to produce such a model, but I do not believe that model would be contradictory to the ones I have described in this book. The reason is this: that individuals act as members of a class, rather than as individuals, should be a theorem in Marxian economics, not a postulate.

Marx's point is that despite the capitalist's incarnation as a human being, he or she is forced by the system to act as an agent for the self-expansion of capital. Workers, similarly, may have their individual yearnings and habits, but conditions of life force them to acquire a class consciousness and to act, at times, as agents of the working class as a whole and not as their own agent. (This might be the situation, for instance, in a strike, where the striker takes great chances for the good of the strike, which are not personally worthwhile.)

In each case, Marx has claimed that although people exist organically as individuals, we can conclude that they act as members of classes. It is in this sense that class behavior is a theorem and not a postulate of the Marxian theory.

Taking the argument a step further, I would say that it is not only admissible, but important, to take a microfoundations approach in Marxian theory. A common error in Marxian discussions is functionalism: to assume that a mechanism necessarily exists to perform actions that must be performed to reproduce the system.

Put more simply, if the occurrence of X will further the reproduction of capitalist relations, then X occurs. For example, if racist attitudes exist among the working class, then capital will be strong. Therefore, capitalism foments racism.

What is missing here is a description of the mechanism by which this is accomplished. It may be in the interest of capital as a whole to maintain discriminatory wage differentials for black and white workers of equal productivity, but why should the individual, profit-maximizing capitalist respect this differential when he or she can increase profits by unraveling the differential - that is, by hiring only black workers at a slightly higher wage than they are receiving under the racist regime? [For one answer to this question, see Roemer (1979c).]

If we postulate capitalism as a system of anarchic, competitive capitals, each bent on its own expansion, we must face this sort of contradiction from functionalist arguments.

Another example comes from some Marxist-radical theories of education. Capitalism does not require a highly educated working class, so the theory goes, but it does require a well-socialized and docile working class. Schools, then, will serve the role of socializing and channeling people into capitalist society, but not of educating them.

Now, this conclusion may be true, but the functionalist nature of the argument eclipses the mysterious and difficult part of the phenomenon - how does capitalism ensure this role for schools, when teachers try to teach, students try to learn, and so on?

A third example is the role of the state. The capitalist state acts in the interests of the capitalist class - that is the theory. But the theory cannot be convincing unless one can demonstrate the mechanism by which this occurs, especially because capitals do not have a habit of cooperating with each other, as the primary aspect of each capital's existence is self-expansion and competition against other capitals.

What one requires, then, are microfoundations for the role of racism, education, and the state under capitalism. Other examples abound. In the cases when capitalism is guided as if by an invisible hand to coordinate its preservation in the ways mentioned, one requires an explanation of how anarchic capitals produce such a result.

 A second form of functionalism that exists among Marxists is the converse of the first form: If X has occurred, then X must be in the interests of capital. We again can take an example from education:

Because we observe compulsory education, it must be that capital requires such for its reproduction. But this may not be the case: compulsory education may exist because the working class fought for it.

One can find many examples of this form of functionalism in Marxian work: The general consequence of the error is to attribute an omnipotence to the capitalist class that it does not possess in Marxian theory. The capitalist class is pushed along by historical developments: Not everything that happens under capitalism was planned by it, nor is in its best interests. In fact, according to Marx, the general tide of historical development favors the working class. Again, a defense against this form of functionalism is a microfoundations approach.

There is a third form of functionalism among Marxists that, strangely, seems diametrically opposed to the first two forms: If the occurrence of X is necessary for the demise of capitalism, then X will come to pass. We can see the general rule of which these different functionalist forms are special cases if we phrase the general functionalist position this way. We postulate a certain outcome for the social system; functionalism then takes the form of claiming that only events occur which lead to that outcome.

In the first two forms of functionalism discussed, the outcome is the reproduction of capitalist relations; in the third form, the outcome is the transformation of capitalism into socialism. Perhaps the first two forms of functionalism are short-run variants, and the third form is a long-run variant of the general functionalist interpretation of Marxism.

Examples of the third form of functionalism in Marxian economics are prevalent in crisis theory. The system must have crises, because crisis is necessary for capitalist demise. The rate of profit must fall, because only in this way can crisis be brought about. The working class must become impoverished, because otherwise it will never perform its revolutionary task. Bourgeois democracy must transform itself into fascism, because only fascism will heighten the contradictions of capitalism sufficiently to produce revolutionary transformation, which must occur. These arguments are less than convincing; the form of functionalism they involve is similar to that of the utopian socialism of Marx's time, which postulated socialist transformation without a mechanism.

Marx's method was to counter utopian thinking by trying to expose the mechanism that would bring the socialist transformation about. ...

Finally, the equilibrium method has been used in the models in this book. While I have defended the approach of mathematical modeling, and the microfoundations approach, I have less confidence about the equilibrium method. Like many economists of my generation, I am strongly influenced by the power of the equilibrium method: of examining a model when it is at rest, so to speak, in the sense that all the rules that describe how its parts work are simultaneously fulfilled.

What is disturbing about the equilibrium method is that it pictures the typical position of the system as a position the system rarely or never enjoys. Of course, no sophisticated economic model builder would claim that economies are in equilibrium in the sense of a static equilibrium model. A model is only an ideal type.

However, there seems to be a deep contradiction between using models whose main analytical trick is to postulate a position that is precisely at variance with the most interesting and important aspect of capitalist economy as described by Marxian theory - its incessant, contradictory motion.

There is, therefore, the danger that if this intuition is correct, the equilibrium method will prevent one from seeing the most important aspects of the Marxian theory of capital. Knowing no other method, I use the equilibrium method, with the vague thought that, when rereading these pages in twenty years, its obsolescence as a modeling tool for Marxian theory may be clear.

(I might add that there is plenty of precedent in Marx's modeling of his theory for the equilibrium method: Consider, for example, the notion of equalization of profit rates among capitals, or the models of balanced growth designed to show that capitalism was capable of reproducing itself.) ..."

After this thoughtful introduction we encounter chapter 1.

"1 Equilibrium and reproducibility: the linear model

1.1 A brief review

We begin with a discussion of what constitutes an equilibrium, in Marxian terms, of a capitalist economy, and for this chapter we study a linear, Leontief specification of production.

Capitalists all have access to the same Leontief production system {A, L}, where

   A is an n x n input matrix of commodities

   L is a 1 x n vector of direct labor inputs.

If p is a l x n commodity price vector and the wage is normalized at unity so that prices p are interpreted as wage prices, then the usual notion of an equilibrium-price vector in a Marxian system is a vector p for which there exists a nonnegative number π such that

   p = (1 + π)(pA + L)           (1.1)

The vector pA + L is the vector of unit costs of production (assuming that there are no fixed capital costs), and so π may be interpreted as the uniform profit rate for the economy.

There may be, of course, many pairs (p, π) satisfying Equation 1.1.

We add more information to the system by requiring that workers each receive a subsistence vector of commodities b, an n x 1 vector. By subsistence, we mean simply that the wage must be precisely sufficient for b to be affordable, thus

   pb = 1                                 (1.2)

Here, the unit of time that denominates L, which is the same unit of time for which the wage of unity is paid, is to be thought of as one working day.

Combining (1.1) and (1.2), we see immediately that

   p = (1 + π)p(A + bL)         (1.3)

Thus, for a vector p satisfying (1.1) and (1.2) to exist, it is necessary and sufficient that the augmented input coefficient matrix M = A + bL possess an eigenvalue 1/(1 + π) that does not exceed one, to which can be associated a nonnegative eigenvector p.

According to the Frobenius—Perron theorem, if M is an indecomposable matrix, then M has a unique eigenvalue that can qualify; that is, M possesses a unique positive eigenvalue to which can be associated a nonnegative eigenvector. It is, furthermore, the content of Morishima-Okishio's fundamental Marxian theorem (FMT) that if the rate of exploitation e is positive, then the Frobenius eigenvalue of M will be less than one, and so the associated profit rate will be strictly positive. ..."

and so it goes on. One reviewer writes:

"The analytical rigor in treating the subject is among the things that make the book worth buying for anyone interested in mathematical economics: sitting down with paper and pencil for a couple of months in reading the book will be a beautiful intellectual experience, and it will add a whole set of "weapons" to the neoclassically trained economist."

But perhaps we just don't yet have the right (agent-based?) mathematics for Marx.

---

I'm been reading Duncan Foley's excellent primer on Capital.

PDF link

Foley is a clear and creative thinker who is prepared to bring some simple mathematics to the table. He's interested in presenting the conceptual apparatus of Marxism in an orderly manner rather than simply providing a slimmed-down exegesis of the books themselves. His approach is very much rooted in applying Marxism to the present day economy, which informs both his appraisal and his examples.

He reconstructs in mathematical form the circulation of capital and Marx's simple and expanded reproduction equations before moving on to the 'transformation problem', crisis theories and Marx's concept of socialism. Here's the table of contents:

Contents

1 On Reading Marx: Method                            1
2 The Commodity: Labor, Value, Money        12
3 The Theory of Capital and Surplus Value    31
4 Production under Capitalism                       49
5 The Reproduction of Capital                       62
6 The Equalization of the Rate of Profit         91
7 The Division of Surplus Value                   105
8 The Falling Rate of Profit                          125
9 The Theory of Capitalist Crisis                  141
10 Socialism                                                 158
Suggested Readings                                    173
References                                                   177
Index                                                             181

In addition as you can see, this introductory book is quite short.
.
---

When I did my PhD research - the formal theory of intentional agents - I explicitly rejected the framework of differential equations used by the control theorists and the cyberneticists (cf Ross Ashby). For the same reason I am somewhat skeptical about aspects of Peter Turchin's Cliodynamics.

My approach was in the classical AI tradition of modal logics and generalised automata theory where intentional agents (those with perceptions, beliefs, goals, plans, actions) are modelled explicitly. I still think this is the best approach to a twenty-first century formalised Marxist psychohistory where we're interested in history at the simulation level.