CarderPlanet
Professional
- Messages
- 2,552
- Reaction score
- 710
- Points
- 83
If an AI future seems like a grim dystopia, maybe it's time for us to grapple with our own notions of the nature of power and submission? So says Stephen Cave, senior researcher at the Leverhulme Center for the Future of Intelligence at Cambridge University. In his essay, he suggests exploring the history of intellectual excellence - and rejecting this false concept.
I grew up in England in the second half of the 20th century. At that time, the world was fascinated by the concept of intelligence.
They thought about mental abilities, discussed them, developed new approaches to their measurement. Tens of thousands of eleven-year-olds - and so did I - took IQ tests at dusty oak desks. The test result determined our future: whether we should continue our education at the university or go to receive a low-skilled specialty, technical skills or humanitarian skills suit us, etc.
Even then, the very idea that intelligence can be measured as blood pressure or leg size was a hundred years old at lunchtime. But even older is our idea that the level of intelligence can determine a person's position in life.
This understanding runs through the entire history of Western thought - from the philosophy of Plato to the convictions of modern politicians.
Why intelligence is political
The very definition of "smart" or "a person with a high level of intelligence" does not at all refer to the assessment of mental abilities: it says much more about the possibilities that are open to the individual. In other words, intelligence is a political concept.
Throughout history, the Western world has determined by the level of intelligence what a person can do for society. For example, we attribute the traditionally high level of mental abilities to doctors, engineers, and top officials of the country.
Everything would be fine, but we believed that the level of intelligence gives us the right to control the fate of other people: we colonized, enslaved, deprived of genitals and destroyed those who were considered less intelligent and developed.
Our attitude to intelligence began to change dramatically with the development of artificial intelligence technologies. In recent decades, we have seen significant progress in this area and seem to be on the cusp of amazing scientific breakthroughs. Judging by the number of Internet memes and jokes about artificial intelligence, we are simultaneously delighted with what is happening and at the same time pretty scared. And in order to understand what exactly scares us so much and why we are so partial to the topic of mental abilities, it is necessary to consider it from a historical and political point of view and trace how philosophical thought turned intelligence into a tool to justify endless conquests.
Plato made the mind a necessity for the powerful
Plato was the first to talk about thinking. In his writings, he attributes particular value to the process of thinking, arguing that a meaningless life is not worth a penny. It is worth remembering that Plato lived in a world where myth and mystical consciousness were the natural environment for the human mind. Therefore, his statement that one can know the world through thinking - or, as they would say now, through the use of intellect - was extremely bold and attractive at that time.
Having declared in his work "The State" that only a philosopher can govern the state, since only he can come to the correct understanding of things, Plato conceived the idea intellectual meritocracy - thoughts that only the smartest can control other people.
The idea at the time was revolutionary: yes, Athens was already experimenting with democracy as a form of government. But the requirements for the rulers were very vague: it was enough to be a male citizen - there was no question of the level of mental abilities. And in other regions, government seats were distributed either by belonging to the elite (aristocracy), or by appointment by divine providence (theocracy), or simply by the level of power (tyranny).
Aristotle invented the power of men
Plato's innovative idea successfully laid on the fertile soil of the great minds of the era, and his student Aristotle was no exception. He differed from the teacher in a more practical and systematic view of the world, so he used the "rational element of the soul" to create the concept of a natural social hierarchy. In his Politics, he states:
As you can see, already at the dawn of Western thought, intelligence was associated with an educated European man. Belonging to this class becomes sufficient to justify power over women, the lower classes, barbaric civilizations and animals.
We did not even notice how we moved from the Platonic idea of the primacy of the rational element to the Aristotelian concept, which presupposes the completely natural power of thinking men.
This train of intellectual injustice still runs on fuel that was fueled by two bearded men 2,000 years ago. Modern Australian philosopher Val Plumwood argues that the two giants of Greek philosophy, armed with a series of dubious dualisms, still manage to influence our understanding of the mind.
Think about it: categories like “smart / stupid” or “rational / emotional” are invisibly associated with categories like “masculine / feminine”, “civilized / primitive”, “human / animal”. These dual categories are evaluative in nature and lead to the expansion of the meaning to "dominance / submission" or "master / slave".
For the fact that we perceive the relationship of domination by right of the smartest as completely natural, we should thank Aristotle.
Descartes initiated the destruction of the planet
Western philosophy reached its peak together with the works of the great dualist Rene Descartes.
If Aristotle recognized for animals at least some right to minimal and primitive, but still mental activity, Descartes completely denied them this right. Consciousness, he believed, is the exclusive advantage of man.
The philosophy of Descartes reflected a millennium of Christian ideology: she gave the mind as the property of the soul, the divine spark, inherited only by those lucky ones who were created in the image and likeness of God.
Descartes denied rationality and any value to nature, and thereby launched the wheel of thoughtless suppression of other species of life on the planet.
Kant justified colonial policy
The idea that the mind determines a person has passed through the Age of Enlightenment. Immanuel Kant - perhaps the most influential moral philosopher since ancient times - believed that moral will is inherent only in thinking beings: "persons" and "things-in-themselves." Non-thinking beings, in his opinion, have "only relative value as means and are therefore called things." With them we can do whatever we want.
According to Kant, a rational being has dignity, and an unreasonable, non-thinking is incapable of it.
Of course, his line of reasoning is much more complicated, but, in essence, he comes to the same conclusion as Aristotle: there are naturally masters and slaves, and they differ in the level of intelligence.
Such conclusions later became the cornerstone of colonial policy.
The logic is this: non-white people are less intelligent; they cannot independently govern themselves and their territories. And this is not only a justified step, but also the moral duty of any white person to enter their country and destroy their culture.
In addition, since a person is determined by his mind, and the population of other countries is less intelligent, it means that the inhabitants of these countries are less human. The concepts of moral duty and categorical imperative are inaccessible to them, which means that they can be killed and enslaved.
The same logical structure worked perfectly for women who were considered too frivolous and fragile to share the privileges of Homo sapiens.
According to historian Joanne Burke, 19th century British law protected women's rights less than pet rights. Unsurprisingly, intelligence measurement technology has evolved with more enthusiasm than the fight for women's rights.
Galton invented intellectual eugenics
Francis Galton is the father of psychometrics, a pseudoscience for the measurement of the mind, and a cousin of Charles Darwin. Inspired at the time by Origin of Species, Galton conceived of the concept that intelligence is hereditary and can be improved through selection. To do this, it is enough to find the most capable members of society and convince them to form alliances with each other. The reproduction of the less capable must be limited in the name of the prosperity of our species.
Galton was not limited to theoretical calculations: in the following decades, more than 20,000 women in California alone were sterilized after receiving poor results on the Galton tests.
As we can see, the science of measuring intelligence is not far from eugenics.
Who is against the idea of intellectual superiority
So, we found out that the most brutal events in history took place under the banner of intellectual superiority. Nevertheless, the concept of the predominant human right to rationality has always had not only apologists, but also opponents.
From David Hume to Friedrich Nietzsche, from Sigmund Freud to the galaxy of postmodernists, there have always been thinkers who assume that we are not as intelligent as we want to believe it, and that having consciousness is not the highest virtue.
Intellectual ability is still only one criterion, albeit a very influential one. Yes, IQ tests can serve as the entry point to school , but in many areas creativity or entrepreneurial ability is much more valuable.
Instead of destroying the system of intellectual superiority, it is worth focusing on those systems that provide additional benefits to white men of good background.
The exam that I once passed was designed to identify talented children from all walks of life. But the irony is that talented children from wealthy white families had much more opportunities to study and develop, and it is not surprising that they did better on the test. This fact once again convinced society of the superiority of some people over others, and once again the vicious circle was closed.
So why are we afraid of smart robots?
Let's return to the question posed at the beginning of the article: why are we afraid of the possibility of the emergence of artificial intelligence? Is it because we are used to the fact that the smarter always dominates, and we definitely do not want to be on the other side of the barricades?
Writers and filmmakers have long speculated about the machine uprising.
If it is natural for us to think that the smartest skim the cream and that one more developed nation can colonize another, we are quite naturally afraid of potential enslavement from super-smart machines. Artificial intelligence poses an existential threat to us.
For us, it's for white European men. Billions of other people have gone through centuries of submission, and many continue to fight the aggressors to this day, so for them the threat of enslavement by artificial intelligence remains a fantastic story.
White European men are so used to being at the top by right of ownership that the appearance of a possible rival in us echoes with chthonic horror.
Artificial intelligence or natural stupidity
I am not suggesting that fears of powerful artificial intelligence are unfounded. There are quite real threats, but they have nothing to do with the colonization of human civilization by robots.
Instead of thinking about what we should do with artificial intelligence, it is better to think about what we should do with ourselves.
If artificial intelligence ever manages to harm us, it will almost certainly not be due to AI's desire to conquer humanity, but due to our own foolishness, which will miss the error in the program. It is not artificial intelligence that should be feared, but natural stupidity.
Plato was convinced that the philosopher would not voluntarily become a ruler, since he lacks the desire to rule people. In Eastern thought, the notion that the wise is the one who avoids power and is not inclined to vanity.
If society were convinced that the wisest person is not the one who achieved power, but the one who seeks to resolve conflicts, would we fear smart robots more than ourselves?
I grew up in England in the second half of the 20th century. At that time, the world was fascinated by the concept of intelligence.
They thought about mental abilities, discussed them, developed new approaches to their measurement. Tens of thousands of eleven-year-olds - and so did I - took IQ tests at dusty oak desks. The test result determined our future: whether we should continue our education at the university or go to receive a low-skilled specialty, technical skills or humanitarian skills suit us, etc.
Even then, the very idea that intelligence can be measured as blood pressure or leg size was a hundred years old at lunchtime. But even older is our idea that the level of intelligence can determine a person's position in life.
This understanding runs through the entire history of Western thought - from the philosophy of Plato to the convictions of modern politicians.
Why intelligence is political
The very definition of "smart" or "a person with a high level of intelligence" does not at all refer to the assessment of mental abilities: it says much more about the possibilities that are open to the individual. In other words, intelligence is a political concept.
Throughout history, the Western world has determined by the level of intelligence what a person can do for society. For example, we attribute the traditionally high level of mental abilities to doctors, engineers, and top officials of the country.
Everything would be fine, but we believed that the level of intelligence gives us the right to control the fate of other people: we colonized, enslaved, deprived of genitals and destroyed those who were considered less intelligent and developed.
Our attitude to intelligence began to change dramatically with the development of artificial intelligence technologies. In recent decades, we have seen significant progress in this area and seem to be on the cusp of amazing scientific breakthroughs. Judging by the number of Internet memes and jokes about artificial intelligence, we are simultaneously delighted with what is happening and at the same time pretty scared. And in order to understand what exactly scares us so much and why we are so partial to the topic of mental abilities, it is necessary to consider it from a historical and political point of view and trace how philosophical thought turned intelligence into a tool to justify endless conquests.
Plato made the mind a necessity for the powerful
Plato was the first to talk about thinking. In his writings, he attributes particular value to the process of thinking, arguing that a meaningless life is not worth a penny. It is worth remembering that Plato lived in a world where myth and mystical consciousness were the natural environment for the human mind. Therefore, his statement that one can know the world through thinking - or, as they would say now, through the use of intellect - was extremely bold and attractive at that time.
Having declared in his work "The State" that only a philosopher can govern the state, since only he can come to the correct understanding of things, Plato conceived the idea intellectual meritocracy - thoughts that only the smartest can control other people.
The idea at the time was revolutionary: yes, Athens was already experimenting with democracy as a form of government. But the requirements for the rulers were very vague: it was enough to be a male citizen - there was no question of the level of mental abilities. And in other regions, government seats were distributed either by belonging to the elite (aristocracy), or by appointment by divine providence (theocracy), or simply by the level of power (tyranny).
Aristotle invented the power of men
Plato's innovative idea successfully laid on the fertile soil of the great minds of the era, and his student Aristotle was no exception. He differed from the teacher in a more practical and systematic view of the world, so he used the "rational element of the soul" to create the concept of a natural social hierarchy. In his Politics, he states:
On this basis, educated men quite naturally dominate women, men of manual labor and slaves. Below in this hierarchy are only animals that are so devoid of reason that they simply need someone to control them.
As you can see, already at the dawn of Western thought, intelligence was associated with an educated European man. Belonging to this class becomes sufficient to justify power over women, the lower classes, barbaric civilizations and animals.
We did not even notice how we moved from the Platonic idea of the primacy of the rational element to the Aristotelian concept, which presupposes the completely natural power of thinking men.
This train of intellectual injustice still runs on fuel that was fueled by two bearded men 2,000 years ago. Modern Australian philosopher Val Plumwood argues that the two giants of Greek philosophy, armed with a series of dubious dualisms, still manage to influence our understanding of the mind.
Think about it: categories like “smart / stupid” or “rational / emotional” are invisibly associated with categories like “masculine / feminine”, “civilized / primitive”, “human / animal”. These dual categories are evaluative in nature and lead to the expansion of the meaning to "dominance / submission" or "master / slave".
For the fact that we perceive the relationship of domination by right of the smartest as completely natural, we should thank Aristotle.
Descartes initiated the destruction of the planet
Western philosophy reached its peak together with the works of the great dualist Rene Descartes.
If Aristotle recognized for animals at least some right to minimal and primitive, but still mental activity, Descartes completely denied them this right. Consciousness, he believed, is the exclusive advantage of man.
The philosophy of Descartes reflected a millennium of Christian ideology: she gave the mind as the property of the soul, the divine spark, inherited only by those lucky ones who were created in the image and likeness of God.
Descartes denied rationality and any value to nature, and thereby launched the wheel of thoughtless suppression of other species of life on the planet.
Kant justified colonial policy
The idea that the mind determines a person has passed through the Age of Enlightenment. Immanuel Kant - perhaps the most influential moral philosopher since ancient times - believed that moral will is inherent only in thinking beings: "persons" and "things-in-themselves." Non-thinking beings, in his opinion, have "only relative value as means and are therefore called things." With them we can do whatever we want.
According to Kant, a rational being has dignity, and an unreasonable, non-thinking is incapable of it.
Of course, his line of reasoning is much more complicated, but, in essence, he comes to the same conclusion as Aristotle: there are naturally masters and slaves, and they differ in the level of intelligence.
Such conclusions later became the cornerstone of colonial policy.
The logic is this: non-white people are less intelligent; they cannot independently govern themselves and their territories. And this is not only a justified step, but also the moral duty of any white person to enter their country and destroy their culture.
In addition, since a person is determined by his mind, and the population of other countries is less intelligent, it means that the inhabitants of these countries are less human. The concepts of moral duty and categorical imperative are inaccessible to them, which means that they can be killed and enslaved.
The same logical structure worked perfectly for women who were considered too frivolous and fragile to share the privileges of Homo sapiens.
According to historian Joanne Burke, 19th century British law protected women's rights less than pet rights. Unsurprisingly, intelligence measurement technology has evolved with more enthusiasm than the fight for women's rights.
Galton invented intellectual eugenics
Francis Galton is the father of psychometrics, a pseudoscience for the measurement of the mind, and a cousin of Charles Darwin. Inspired at the time by Origin of Species, Galton conceived of the concept that intelligence is hereditary and can be improved through selection. To do this, it is enough to find the most capable members of society and convince them to form alliances with each other. The reproduction of the less capable must be limited in the name of the prosperity of our species.
Galton was not limited to theoretical calculations: in the following decades, more than 20,000 women in California alone were sterilized after receiving poor results on the Galton tests.
As we can see, the science of measuring intelligence is not far from eugenics.
Who is against the idea of intellectual superiority
So, we found out that the most brutal events in history took place under the banner of intellectual superiority. Nevertheless, the concept of the predominant human right to rationality has always had not only apologists, but also opponents.
From David Hume to Friedrich Nietzsche, from Sigmund Freud to the galaxy of postmodernists, there have always been thinkers who assume that we are not as intelligent as we want to believe it, and that having consciousness is not the highest virtue.
Intellectual ability is still only one criterion, albeit a very influential one. Yes, IQ tests can serve as the entry point to school , but in many areas creativity or entrepreneurial ability is much more valuable.
Instead of destroying the system of intellectual superiority, it is worth focusing on those systems that provide additional benefits to white men of good background.
The exam that I once passed was designed to identify talented children from all walks of life. But the irony is that talented children from wealthy white families had much more opportunities to study and develop, and it is not surprising that they did better on the test. This fact once again convinced society of the superiority of some people over others, and once again the vicious circle was closed.
So why are we afraid of smart robots?
Let's return to the question posed at the beginning of the article: why are we afraid of the possibility of the emergence of artificial intelligence? Is it because we are used to the fact that the smarter always dominates, and we definitely do not want to be on the other side of the barricades?
Writers and filmmakers have long speculated about the machine uprising.
If it is natural for us to think that the smartest skim the cream and that one more developed nation can colonize another, we are quite naturally afraid of potential enslavement from super-smart machines. Artificial intelligence poses an existential threat to us.
For us, it's for white European men. Billions of other people have gone through centuries of submission, and many continue to fight the aggressors to this day, so for them the threat of enslavement by artificial intelligence remains a fantastic story.
White European men are so used to being at the top by right of ownership that the appearance of a possible rival in us echoes with chthonic horror.
Artificial intelligence or natural stupidity
I am not suggesting that fears of powerful artificial intelligence are unfounded. There are quite real threats, but they have nothing to do with the colonization of human civilization by robots.
Instead of thinking about what we should do with artificial intelligence, it is better to think about what we should do with ourselves.
If artificial intelligence ever manages to harm us, it will almost certainly not be due to AI's desire to conquer humanity, but due to our own foolishness, which will miss the error in the program. It is not artificial intelligence that should be feared, but natural stupidity.
Plato was convinced that the philosopher would not voluntarily become a ruler, since he lacks the desire to rule people. In Eastern thought, the notion that the wise is the one who avoids power and is not inclined to vanity.
If society were convinced that the wisest person is not the one who achieved power, but the one who seeks to resolve conflicts, would we fear smart robots more than ourselves?
