Why We Fear Diverse Intelligence Like AI | NOEMA

🌈 Abstract

The article discusses the philosophical and practical challenges of recognizing and relating to diverse forms of intelligence, including AI, biological systems, and hybrid entities. It argues that the traditional "human vs. machine" dichotomy is outdated and that we need to develop a more nuanced understanding of the continuum of cognition across different embodiments.

🙋 Q&A

[01] Resistance to Viewing Cognition as a Continuum

1. What are the two main reasons the author believes underlie the resistance to viewing cognition as a continuum?

• A widespread belief that our current limitations are not the product of evolutionary forces, but of a benevolent creator whose intelligence we should not dip into.
• A fear of a zero-sum game for intelligence and self-worth, where people feel their own intelligence and worth would be diminished if others are also recognized as intelligent.

2. How does the author respond to the view that natural evolution has an eternal monopoly on producing systems with preferences, goals, and intelligence? The author questions this view, asking how we know that engineered systems cannot also have emotion, intelligence, and an inner perspective. The author argues that the algorithmic picture of a "machine" is no more the whole story of engineered constructs than the laws of chemistry are the whole story of human minds.

[02] The Project of Diverse Intelligence

1. What are the three components of the cycle the author supports for the Diverse Intelligence effort?

1. Philosophize
2. Engineer
3. Modify both the philosophical and engineering aspects to work better together, facilitate new discoveries, and create more meaningful experiences.

2. How does the author view the goal of the Diverse Intelligence effort? The author sees the goal as fundamentally ethical and spiritual, not just technological. The aim is to learn to recognize unconventional minds, relieve biomedical suffering, and lift limitations so that everyone can focus on their potential and development.

3. What is the author's view on computationalism in the context of the Diverse Intelligence project? The author explicitly states that the project is not a form of computationalism. The author argues that terms like "computers," "Turing machines," and "robots" are interaction protocols and frames used to organize our relationship with a system, not statements about its objective reality.

[03] A Better Path Forward

1. What does the author see as the key to overcoming the resistance to expanding the "cone of compassion" to unconventional minds? The author suggests that basic education should include the background needed to think about emergent minds as a deep, empirical question, not one to be settled based on feelings and precommitments. This would help people overcome the scarcity mindset and superficial barriers between "us" and "others."

2. What is the author's call to action for those writing, reviewing, or commenting on work in this field? The author calls on people to:

• Be explicit about their stance on the cognitive status of various systems (e.g., paramecia, cyborgs, aliens).
• Investigate the idea that there may be something in living beings that goes beyond machine metaphors.
• Question their confidence in what "mere matter" can do and entertain the humility of emergent cognition.
• Transcend scarcity and redistribution mindsets, and help grow the "pot" of compassion and possibility for future generations.