IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v114y2017icp35-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creatures of the semiosphere: A problematic third party in the ‘humans plus technology’ cognitive architecture of the future global superintelligence

Author

Listed:
  • Lenartowicz, Marta

Abstract

Contrary to the prevailing pessimistic AI takeover scenarios, the theory of the Global Brain (GB) argues that this foreseen collective, distributed superintelligence is bound to include humans as its key beneficiaries. This prediction follows from the contingency of evolution: we, as already present intelligent forms of life, are in a position to exert selective pressures onto the emerging new ones. As a result, it is foreseen that the cognitive architecture of the GB will include human beings and such technologies, which will best prove to advance our collective wellbeing. This paper aims to nuance and problematize this forecast by offering a novel combination of several existing theories: Kauffmann's theory of adjacent possible, Lotman's concept of the semiosphere, Luhmann's theory of social systems, and Heylighen's theory of intelligence. The resulting framework allows for a reinterpretation of the history of the human species in a way which suggests that it may not be individual humans, but our social systems, who are the most advanced intelligence currently operating on Earth. Our unique social systems, emerging from as early as the Neolithic out of mutual interrelations of the occurrences of symbolic communication of humans, are argued to be capable of individuating into autonomous, intelligent agents. The resulting distributedness of the currently dominating form of intelligence might challenge the predicted cognitive architecture of the Global Brain, as it is likely to introduce additional powerful sources of selective pressures. Since the rapid evolution of interconnecting technologies appears to open up immense emancipatory possibilities not only for humans, but also for the intelligently evolving ‘creatures of the semiosphere’, it is concluded that in the context of the rapidly self-organizing Global Brain, a close watch needs to be kept over the dynamics of the latter.

Suggested Citation

  • Lenartowicz, Marta, 2017. "Creatures of the semiosphere: A problematic third party in the ‘humans plus technology’ cognitive architecture of the future global superintelligence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 35-42.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:114:y:2017:i:c:p:35-42
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516301500
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sniezek, Janet A. & Henry, Rebecca A., 1989. "Accuracy and confidence in group judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-28, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Blanco Rivero, José Javier, 2019. "The fractal geometry of Luhmann's sociological theory or debugging systems theory," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 31-40.
    2. Roth, Steffen, 2021. "The Great Reset. Restratification for lives, livelihoods, and the planet," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roland W. Scholz & Ralf Hansmann, 2007. "Combining Experts' Risk Judgments on Technology Performance of Phytoremediation: Self‐Confidence Ratings, Averaging Procedures, and Formative Consensus Building," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 225-240, February.
    2. Koriat, Asher, 2008. "Alleviating inflation of conditional predictions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 61-76, May.
    3. Demont, Matty & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Verbeke, Wim & Seck, Papa Abdoulaye & Tollens, Eric, 2012. "Experimental auctions, collective induction and choice shift: Willingness-to-pay for rice quality in Senegal," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126861, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Keller, Jonas & von der Gracht, Heiko A., 2014. "The influence of information and communication technology (ICT) on future foresight processes — Results from a Delphi survey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 81-92.
    5. Julia A. Minson & Jennifer S. Mueller & Richard P. Larrick, 2018. "The Contingent Wisdom of Dyads: When Discussion Enhances vs. Undermines the Accuracy of Collaborative Judgments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4177-4192, September.
    6. Lukas Meub & Till Proeger, 2018. "Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 117-150, August.
    7. Laurence Aitchison & Dan Bang & Bahador Bahrami & Peter E Latham, 2015. "Doubly Bayesian Analysis of Confidence in Perceptual Decision-Making," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, October.
    8. Benbasat, Izak & Lim, John, 2000. "Information Technology Support For Debiasing Group Judgments: An Empirical Evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 167-183, September.
    9. Christos C Ioannou & Gabriel Madirolas & Faith S Brammer & Hannah A Rapley & Gonzalo G de Polavieja, 2018. "Adolescents show collective intelligence which can be driven by a geometric mean rule of thumb," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, September.
    10. Bonner, Bryan L. & Sillito, Sheli D. & Baumann, Michael R., 2007. "Collective estimation: Accuracy, expertise, and extroversion as sources of intra-group influence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 121-133, May.
    11. Prather, Larry J. & Middleton, Karen L., 2006. "Timing and selectivity of mutual fund managers: An empirical test of the behavioral decision-making theory," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 249-273, June.
    12. Whyte, Glen & Sebenius, James K., 1997. "The Effect of Multiple Anchors on Anchoring in Individual and Group Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 74-85, January.
    13. Peterseim, Juergen H. & White, Stuart & Tadros, Amir & Hellwig, Udo, 2013. "Concentrated solar power hybrid plants, which technologies are best suited for hybridisation?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 520-532.
    14. Henry, Rebecca A. & Kmet, Jill & Desrosiers, Erica & Landa, Alyson, 2002. "Examining the Impact of Interpersonal Cohesiveness on Group Accuracy Interventions: The Importance of Matching versus Buffering," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 25-43, January.
    15. Hugo Mercier, 2011. "What good is moral reasoning?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 10(2), pages 131-148, December.
    16. Anita Williams Woolley, 2011. "Playing Offense vs. Defense: The Effects of Team Strategic Orientation on Team Process in Competitive Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1384-1398, December.
    17. Bonner, Bryan L. & Bolinger, Alexander R., 2013. "Separating the confident from the correct: Leveraging member knowledge in groups to improve decision making and performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 214-221.
    18. Joel B. Predd & Daniel N. Osherson & Sanjeev R. Kulkarni & H. Vincent Poor, 2008. "Aggregating Probabilistic Forecasts from Incoherent and Abstaining Experts," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 177-189, December.
    19. Denise Lewin Loyd & Cynthia S. Wang & Katherine W. Phillips & Robert B. Lount, 2013. "Social Category Diversity Promotes Premeeting Elaboration: The Role of Relationship Focus," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 757-772, June.
    20. van Knippenberg, Daan & Mell, Julija N., 2016. "Past, present, and potential future of team diversity research: From compositional diversity to emergent diversity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 135-145.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:114:y:2017:i:c:p:35-42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.