sen-no-sen wrote:Intelligence is a pretty flattering term, but we don't get it wrong, intelligence is above all a function aimed at adapting to the environment. to maximize their future choices.(due to the second principle of thermodynamics).
I wouldn't say animals are "intelligent", yet even cockroaches and earthworms adapt to their environment.
Man has done the opposite, he has subjected the environment to his wishes, and this since the beginnings of agriculture or the domestication of animals in the Neolithic era. This is where we see intelligence.
Therefore it is advisable to be careful with the use of this term, human intelligence is one thing, anthropotechnical intelligence another.
If the essence of human activity has consisted in increasing our chances of survival, anthropotechnical intelligence * for its part creates more problems than it solves, in no way through incompetence but only as a motor for its evolution. future, so it would be silly to think that more AI would mean less problem.
The feedback at work now tends towards the emancipation of technology, it is for this reason that we speak of artificial intelligence.
This although still weak locally is sufficiently configured globally to act on its future.
Our current society plays the role of useful idiot by opening wide a pandora's box that it will be impossible to close when the time comes, because AI like all evolutionary forms will have little empathy for its predecessors,"she will want to persevere in her being".
Human intelligence should therefore wake up and not rely on technologism to configure the future for us.
* It is still too early to talk about AI strictly speaking, it is fairer to mention anthropotechnical intelligence, a sort of threshold between human and technological intelligence.
1) To catalog intelligence by claiming that there would be different forms, of which human intelligence would necessarily be an incomparable specificity, and the others of ersatz probably not very recommendable or limited, is the pure act of faith of a reasoning tautological. Artificial intelligence, we do not yet have it, at least not at the level of human intelligence, just a technical question as long as the point of singularity is not reached, which will not be long. Intelligence is a capacity to grasp relationships, to understand the nature of things, to organize them mentally ... When one is endowed with it, artificial or not, its field of application is wide, it is not limited to technology, or rather technology, is only a tool for purposes which may and generally are higher (why do you think Marie Curie was working hard to extract radium?).
2) The idea of an intelligence which "creates more problems than it solves", aimed at science and technology, is a leitmotif. For me it is wrong. We solve more than we create, or at least as much (I'm talking about essential problems such as food, education, justice, health ...). It is also what makes the interest of existence. If intelligence were to be able to create happiness, and without the need for "anthropotechnical intelligence", it would be much simpler since the idea would take precedence over the means, and this would have already been done since homo-sapiens have existed. But we do not see the color.
We do not advance by drawing plans on the comet but by solving over time the problems of our times. No matter that it created new problems, there were the first ones to be solved, and no one is soothsayer able to predict a result with certainty. You must try.
For my part, I thank my ancestors for all they have done, which allows me today in the 21st century, at the cost of relative pollution, to live comfortably, in a heated accommodation which I do not even have to worrying about trimming or cutting wood, having schools for my children, having electricity that lights me up with a click, being treated efficiently, being able to have glasses, to have a great cultural reservoir that is the Internet, where I can find literature, science, music and all the distractions and human knowledge, which allows me to communicate with anyone in the whole world ... etc etc The middle ages Does not interest me. But those who are loath to techno may well return, in unsanitary housing, not or badly heated, in filth, in ignorance, at the mercy of the goodwill of the prince or epidemics, occupied 12 hours a day in survival the next day. Thank you, without me. Between the two paintings I have just presented, would there be others? Well let those who believe in it show them to us, not by palaver but by example.
