Artificial Intelligence and Natural Stupidity
Einar N. Strømmen and Tor G. Syvertsen, professors emeriti of Structural Engineering, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
Few would dispute that the human nervous system is intelligent. The brain comprises numerous components, which are specialized neuronal brain cells. The human brain has about 85 billions of them. Each neuron is not particularly intelligent: it performs a rather simple electro-chemical function which can now be imitated quite well in a digital computer or biologically by artificial neurons.
The intelligence is, however, not located to the neurons, but in the system formed by connections between neurons. Each neuron has some million connections (axons and synapses) to other neurons, and are continually trying to stimulate or suppress each other. We have probably 1000 trillion connections, which give an immense capacity of processing and “storing” of states (recalling states is often confused with “memory”).
Marvin Minsky defined the basic principle underlying intelligence:
“Unintelligent components with effective communication can create an intelligent system.”
This principle also works for other intelligent systems like anthills and beehives; many simple components form an intelligent entity. World Wide Web may be regarded an intelligent system in a well connected mixture of automata and humans (more or less stupid).
Some believe that artificial intelligence can be created based on this principle. Among them is Ray Kurzweil, who in his book “How to Create a Mind” describes both neurological and technical possibilities. There are, however, significant differences between a brain and a mind, probably related to consciousness; the mind is conscious about the brain, but not vice versa? The central nervous system is supposed to display two curious phenomena that are unable to locate: the will and the soul. An explanation may be that these can exist as abstract relationships. They are not entities and hence escape detection although they are as real as the mind?
One of the greatest thinkers in the history of digital computers, Alan Turing, said: “If we wait for a machine to be infallible, it can not be intelligent”. This statement applies to most bureaucrats that are entirely governed by rule; They are “infallible” and thus definitely not intelligent.
We denote the opposite principle of artificial intelligence “The principle of natural stupidity.”
It reads: “Intelligent components with ineffective communication will create natural stupidity.”
Our favorite example is a committee of university professors: highly intelligent members who are unable to communicate in any prolific way. The result is usually an illegible report concluding with more options than members of the committee. This is a standard “problem solving” procedure in academia.
An extreme variant of natural stupidity is found in public administration, where any problem (usually denoted by the euphemism “challenge”) is attempted solved by appointing a committee of unintelligent bureaucrats with impaired communication skills. The result is an intricate regulation that is so extensive and incomprehensible that nobody can bear to read it. Sir Winston Churchill said: “This paper, by its very length, defends itself from ever being read.” Behind a facade of intricate bureaucratic newspeak they feel safe. They are sure nothing will happen and that they can continue their pottering in perpetuity.
Franz Kafka noted: “It’s only because of their stupidity that they’re able to be so sure of themselves.”
At best, they establish a directorate for some dubious purpose, and a corresponding audit authority where their children and relatives can become directors or highly salaried consultants.
This kind of bureaucratic regulations fall in the category of modern verbosity; a proliferating phenomenon when words are inexpensively produced without any thinking (copy-paste). History displays the “evolution”:
The ten commandments consist of approximately 230 words and intend to regulate most aspects of peoples life. They may be understood and remembered by repetition in church once a week, and most of us remember a few, probably:
-Thou shalt not kill.
-Thou shalt not commit adultery.
-Thou shalt not steal.
Cutting regulations in stone stimulates frugality and precision.
The American Constitution comprises no more than 4400 words, and states some basic principles that can be understood and applied to a variety of situations in the disparate states of America.
The Norwegian Law of Planning and Building is in comparison quite verbose and complicated. It is accompanied by a Technical Regulation that is so entangled that an explanation is required. More and more words are used to describe what used to be obvious: The introduction to the explanation to the technical regulation to the law of planning and building comprises more than 3000 words, quite longer than the Norwegian constitution.
There should be no surprise that Norwegian buildings have become poorer and more expensive.
Even worse is a Directive imposed by the European Union on Import of Caramels. It is presumably 26911 words (unconfirmed) and is the premium example of natural stupidity. The directive is required to be translated to the approximately 25 official languages of the European Union, and one can hardly imagine what kind of bureaucracy is required to impose the directive. The ultimate morons are, however well paid and have plenty of fringe benefits! This kind of system is the breeding ground of lawyers, economists and other bureaucrats that otherwise are in chronic lack of meaningful work. It should be regarded as a kind of employment measure for morons, paid by us.
Natural stupidity is used actively to obscure problems. That is what politicians are doing by issuing public reports. The select committee will gladly accept an incomprehensible mandate, take a long time to do nothing, and deliver a report with a mixture of proposals for policy measures which are either not implemented or has no effect at all.
As someone has commented: “A committee is a group of the unwilling chosen form the unfit, to do the unnecessary.”
For people to work fruitfully together and create an intelligent entity, they need a common goal that everyone understands and keep in mind. Humans need visions and dreams that they can jointly strive for.
On September 12, 1962 in a the US President John F. Kennedy launced the Apollo program with an ambitious objective: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely two the Earth.” This simple statement was not only understandable, it was motivating for an entire nation. Nearly 400,000 people worked hard for eight years until the goal was attained: Neil Armstrong took on July 20., 1969 the first step on the moon, and landed in the Pacific four days later. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Today, NASA would probably not be capable of sending a man to the moon becaudse of bureaucratic formalities and legal hair-splitting?
By contrast, we recall the Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg’s puny attempt at a “Norwegian moon landing”; CO2-cleaning at the Mongstad Oil Refinery. It was a massive failure after billions spent for nothing. There was no common goal, no vision, just a huge moneybag for consultants to grab for “environment”.
Few politicians dare to talk about the visions that matters. In Norway it is hard to find anyone at all who have vision for scientific work at the universities, in a time where significant challenges are abundant.
Albert Einstein told us: “The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.”
All major social, economic and environmental problems are approached with the common old procedure: committees and plans, all of which just increase the existing problems.
The great libertarian thinker Murray Bookchin told us “Until society can be reclaimed by an undivided humanity that will use its collective wisdom, cultural achievements, technological innovations, scientific knowledge, and innate creativity for its own benefit and for that of the natural world, all ecological problems will have their roots in social problems.”
Could it be time to apply more effort to eradicate natural stupidity than to produce artificial intelligence? The work of André Spicer and Mats Alvesson suggests so, and we strongly believe that the effort would be worthwhile. In the meantime apply this simplerecipe: THINK FOR YOURSELF AND DO THE BEST YOU CAN
