it's artificial (produced through artifice/indirect process) it's an intelligence (self-enhancing process)
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
-
the problem is that individual wars and bubbles normally come to an end, in a way that capital doesn't, so I guess my take would be that to the extent that they are intelligent, they are so as part of the larger process of capital
-
why is that a problem? are you saying that a process cannot be considered to be an artificial intelligence unless it goes on forever?
-
let me put it this way, the more it goes on, all the while self-sophisticating, the intelligenterer it obviously is or, alternatively: if it stops, it also stops being intelligent (unless its beginning and end are just part of a larger process, that is)
-
where do you fit humans into this schema? are humans intelligent beings?
- 14 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.