what's normally referred to as "artificial intelligence" is a good way to produce gadgets that crank capital forward.
is that an important qualification to ur definition, that a process is only intelligent if it produces more of itself *forever*?
-
-
it can cease to be intelligent, of course.
-
Its an interesting way of looking at intelligence biut to call it idiosyncratic would be an understatement
-
There is nothing idiosyncratic about the notion that intelligence must necessarily transcend what an individual human is capable of
-
is there something idiosyncratic about describing capital as an intelligence? war? a housing bubble?
-
to the extent that those are self-sophisticating processes, which admittedly isn't as readily apparent or necessarily true with bubbles and war as it is with capital, no
-
"self-sophisticating" seems slightly different to the earlier definition. what do you mean by it?
-
not really sure if it is meaningfully distinguishable from self-enhancement or intensification tbh, as those terms entail that the process becomes 'smarter', i.e. more efficient and reactive, and better at making itself smarter
-
war is clearly a process that tends towards intensification. Like a housing bubble, it has an escalatory or self-fulfilling dynamic. therefore (according to this theory) war is an artificial intelligence. likewise for asset bubbles
- 18 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.