Well, partly my mistake and ignorance - and thanks for pointing it out. But not
entirely, I think. There seems to be an unresolved mix in the article (which is
v. interesting) and perhaps in all the efforts referred to there, between
collective intelligence as technology, (which covers things as diverse as robot
swarms and the open-source movement), and the scientific study of collective
intelligence. In fact I suspect I'm right - and I stand to be corrected again -
that there isn't a scientific field devoted to it as such - and if not, there
certainly could and should be. I note that the main theorists referred to are
nearly all of the last 15 years.
And if this whole area is not newish to you, how come your arguments showed no
awareness of it? Obviously the "social criticism" of AI has been touched upon
before -
"Skeptics, especially those critical of artificial intelligence and more
inclined to believe that risk of bodily harm and bodily action are the basis of
all unity between people, are more likely to emphasize the capacity of a group
to take action and withstand harm as one fluid mass mobilization, shrugging off
harms the way a body shrugs off the loss of a few cells."
P.S. That popular recent work was The Wisdom of Crowds.
Ben: Well put. (BTW as perspective here, I should point out that what I've
raised
calls for a whole new branch/dimension of social psychology - the study of
collective intelligence.
Not new to everyone ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=59208723-fcd8a0
