961
个编辑
更改
跳到导航
跳到搜索
第784行：
第784行： − + − + + − − Tom Atlee reflects that, although humans have an innate ability to gather and analyze data, they are affected by culture, education and social institutions.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/?id=YV4dCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA140|title=In Search of The Black Seed|last=Abdul-Karim|first=Kashif|date=2015-11-23|publisher=Lulu.com|isbn=9781329694897|page=140}}{{self-published source|date=February 2020}}</ref>{{self-published inline|date=February 2020}} A single person tends to make decisions motivated by self-preservation. Therefore, without collective intelligence, humans may drive themselves into extinction based on their selfish needs.<ref name=":21">Atlee, T. (2008). [http://www.communicationagents.com/tom_atlee/2008/05/15/reflections_on_the_evolution_of_choice_and_collective_intelligence.htm Reflections on the evolution of choice and collective intelligence] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080522033150/http://www.communicationagents.com/tom_atlee/2008/05/15/reflections_on_the_evolution_of_choice_and_collective_intelligence.htm |date=22 May 2008 }}, Retrieved 26 August 2008</ref> − 汤姆 · 阿特利认为，虽然人类天生就有收集和分析数据的能力，但是他们受到文化、教育和社会制度的影响。一个人倾向于做出由自我保存驱动的决定。因此，如果没有集体智慧，人类可能会因为自私的需求而将自己逼入绝境。+ − + − + − 菲利普•布朗(Phillip Brown)和休•兰黛(Hugh Lauder)引用鲍尔斯(Bowles)和金蒂斯(Gintis)(1976)的话称，为了真正定义集体智慧，将“智慧”与智商分离至关重要。他们继续争辩说，智力是一种成就，只有在被允许的情况下才能得到发展。例如，早些时候，来自社会底层的群体在聚集和汇集他们的智力方面受到严格限制。这是因为精英阶层担心集体情报会说服人民造反。如果没有这种能力和关系，就不会有建立集体智慧的基础设施。这反映了如果任其发展，集体智慧是多么强大。+ − + − + − 怀疑论者，尤其是那些批评人工智能的人，更倾向于相信身体伤害和身体行为的风险是人与人之间所有团结的基础，更可能强调一个群体采取行动和承受伤害的能力，就像一个体液政治动员一样，无视身体对少数细胞损失的危害。这种思想倾向在《反全球化运动和《拥有属性约翰 · 泽尔赞、卡罗尔 · 摩尔和星鹰的著作中表现得最为明显，他们通常回避学者。这些理论家更可能提到生态和集体智慧以及协商一致进程在作出本体论区分方面的作用，而不是任何形式的”智慧”本身，因为他们常常认为这种智慧并不存在，或者仅仅是”聪明”。+ − + − 基于道德理由对人工智能的严厉批评可能会促进集体智慧建设方法的发展，比如新部落主义者和盖亚人。这些是否可以说是集体智慧系统还是一个悬而未决的问题。有些，例如。比尔 · 乔伊只是希望避免任何形式的自主人工智能，并且似乎愿意致力于严格的集体智能，以便为人工智能去除任何可能的利基。+ 第830行：
第829行： − 与这些观点相反，亚马逊土耳其机器人(Amazon Mechanical Turk)和 CrowdFlower 等人工智能公司正在利用集体智能和众包或基于共识的评估，为 Keras 和 IBM 沃森等机器学习算法收集大量数据。+ − + − + − 全球集体智慧被视为解决人类现在和未来面临的挑战的关键。气候变化是集体智慧目前正在努力解决的全球问题的一个例子。在诸如在线众包等集体智慧应用的帮助下，全球各地的人们正在合作开发应对气候变化的解决方案。+ − −
→Alternative views
团队集体智能是通过自下而上和自上而下的过程的协调而出现的一种特性。在自下而上的过程中，每个不同特性的成员都参与了贡献并加强整体协调能力。而自上而下的过程更加严格，并根据规范，结构和例行程序加以巩固，以自身特有的方式加强小组的集体工作效率。
团队集体智能是通过自下而上和自上而下的过程的协调而出现的一种特性。在自下而上的过程中，每个不同特性的成员都参与了贡献并加强整体协调能力。而自上而下的过程更加严格，并根据规范，结构和例行程序加以巩固，以自身特有的方式加强小组的集体工作效率。
== Alternative views ==
== Alternative views 其他观点==
===A tool for combating self-preservation===
=== A tool for combating self-preservation 打击自我保护的工具===
Tom Atlee reflects that, although humans have an innate ability to gather and analyze data, they are affected by culture, education and social institutions.A single person tends to make decisions motivated by self-preservation. Therefore, without collective intelligence, humans may drive themselves into extinction based on their selfish needs.
Tom Atlee reflects that, although humans have an innate ability to gather and analyze data, they are affected by culture, education and social institutions. A single person tends to make decisions motivated by self-preservation. Therefore, without collective intelligence, humans may drive themselves into extinction based on their selfish needs.
Tom Atlee reflects that, although humans have an innate ability to gather and analyze data, they are affected by culture, education and social institutions. A single person tends to make decisions motivated by self-preservation. Therefore, without collective intelligence, humans may drive themselves into extinction based on their selfish needs.
汤姆·阿特利Tom Atlee反映，尽管人类具有天生的收集和分析数据的能力，但他们同时也受到文化，教育和社会制度的影响。一个人会倾向于自我保护而做出决策。因此，在没有集体智慧的情况下，人类可能会基于自私的需求而使自己灭绝。
===Separation from IQism===
=== Separation from IQism 区别于智商主义===
Phillip Brown and Hugh Lauder quotes Bowles and [[Herbert Gintis|Gintis]] (1976) that in order to truly define collective intelligence, it is crucial to separate 'intelligence' from IQism.<ref name=":28">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/jun/18/socialsciences.highereducation1|title=Capitalism and Social Progress by Phillip Brown and Hugh Lauder (cont... )|date=2001-06-18|newspaper=The Guardian|access-date=2016-12-12}}</ref> They go on to argue that intelligence is an achievement and can only be developed if allowed to.<ref name=":28" /> For example, earlier on, groups from the lower levels of society are severely restricted from aggregating and pooling their intelligence. This is because the elites fear that the collective intelligence would convince the people to rebel. If there is no such capacity and relations, there would be no infrastructure on which collective intelligence is built {{Harv|Brown|Lauder|2000|p=230}}. This reflects how powerful collective intelligence can be if left to develop.<ref name=":28" />
Phillip Brown and Hugh Lauder quotes Bowles and [[Herbert Gintis|Gintis]] (1976) that in order to truly define collective intelligence, it is crucial to separate 'intelligence' from IQism. They go on to argue that intelligence is an achievement and can only be developed if allowed to. For example, earlier on, groups from the lower levels of society are severely restricted from aggregating and pooling their intelligence. This is because the elites fear that the collective intelligence would convince the people to rebel. If there is no such capacity and relations, there would be no infrastructure on which collective intelligence is built. This reflects how powerful collective intelligence can be if left to develop.
Phillip Brown and Hugh Lauder quotes Bowles and Gintis (1976) that in order to truly define collective intelligence, it is crucial to separate 'intelligence' from IQism. They go on to argue that intelligence is an achievement and can only be developed if allowed to. For example, earlier on, groups from the lower levels of society are severely restricted from aggregating and pooling their intelligence. This is because the elites fear that the collective intelligence would convince the people to rebel. If there is no such capacity and relations, there would be no infrastructure on which collective intelligence is built . This reflects how powerful collective intelligence can be if left to develop.
Phillip Brown and Hugh Lauder quotes Bowles and Gintis (1976) that in order to truly define collective intelligence, it is crucial to separate 'intelligence' from IQism. They go on to argue that intelligence is an achievement and can only be developed if allowed to. For example, earlier on, groups from the lower levels of society are severely restricted from aggregating and pooling their intelligence. This is because the elites fear that the collective intelligence would convince the people to rebel. If there is no such capacity and relations, there would be no infrastructure on which collective intelligence is built . This reflects how powerful collective intelligence can be if left to develop.
菲利普·布朗Phillip Brown和休·劳德Hugh Lauder引述鲍尔斯Bowles和金蒂斯Gintis（1976）的观点，为了真正定义集体智能，它们认为将“智能”和智商主义分开是至关重要的。他们争辩说，智力其实是需要经过允许才能够得到发展的成就。例如，早期来自社会底层的群体受到严格限制，它们无法聚集头脑风暴提高它们的智力。这是因为精英们担心集体智能会造成人民叛乱。如果没有这样的资格和关系，就不会有建立集体智能的基础设施（Brown＆Lauder 2000，第230页）。很明显如果任其发展，集体智能将会变得异常强大。
===Artificial intelligence views===
=== Artificial intelligence views 人工智能观点===
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.<ref name=":29">{{Cite web|url=http://www.johnzerzan.net/radio/|title=John Zerzan: anti-civilization theorist, writer and speaker|website=www.johnzerzan.net|access-date=2016-12-12}}</ref><ref name=":31">{{Cite journal|last=Moore|first=Jason W.|date=2001-01-01|editor-last=Arrighi|editor-first=Giovanni|editor2-last=Silver|editor2-first=Beverly J.|title=Globalization in Historical Perspective|journal=Science & Society|volume=65|issue=3|pages=386–397|doi=10.1521/siso.65.3.386.17767|jstor=40403938}}</ref> This strain of thought is most obvious in the [[anti-globalization movement]] and characterized by the works of [[John Zerzan]], [[Carol Moore]], and [[Starhawk]], who typically shun academics.<ref name=":29" /><ref name=":31"/> These theorists are more likely to refer to ecological and [[collective wisdom]] and to the role of [[consensus process]] in making ontological distinctions than to any form of "intelligence" as such, which they often argue does not exist, or is mere "cleverness".<ref name=":29" /><ref name=":31"/>
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. This strain of thought is most obvious in the [[anti-globalization movement]] and characterized by the works of [[John Zerzan]], [[Carol Moore]], and [[Starhawk]], who typically shun academics. These theorists are more likely to refer to ecological and [[collective wisdom]] and to the role of [[consensus process]] in making ontological distinctions than to any form of "intelligence" as such, which they often argue does not exist, or is mere "cleverness".
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. This strain of thought is most obvious in the anti-globalization movement and characterized by the works of John Zerzan, Carol Moore, and Starhawk, who typically shun academics. These theorists are more likely to refer to ecological and collective wisdom and to the role of consensus process in making ontological distinctions than to any form of "intelligence" as such, which they often argue does not exist, or is mere "cleverness".
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. This strain of thought is most obvious in the anti-globalization movement and characterized by the works of John Zerzan, Carol Moore, and Starhawk, who typically shun academics. These theorists are more likely to refer to ecological and collective wisdom and to the role of consensus process in making ontological distinctions than to any form of "intelligence" as such, which they often argue does not exist, or is mere "cleverness".
怀疑论者，特别是那些对人工智能持批评态度的人，更倾向于相信人身体上的行为和伤害是人与人之间一切团结的基础，他们更倾向于强调一个群体采取行动和承受伤害的能力是一种流动物质，就像耸耸肩甩掉细胞一样甩掉所有伤害他们的东西。这种思想张力在反全球化运动中最为明显，约翰·泽赞John Zerzan，卡罗尔·摩尔Carol Moore和星鹰Starhawk的作品强调了这个属性，他们通常会避开学术方面的思考。这些理论家更倾向于提及生态和集体智慧，以及共识过程中进行本体论区分，他们通常认为不存在仅仅是“聪明”的任何形式的“智能”。
Harsh critics of artificial intelligence on ethical grounds are likely to promote collective wisdom-building methods, such as the [[new tribalists]] and the [[Gaianism|Gaians]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://metamorphoptics.blogspot.com/|title=m e t a m o r p h o p t i c s|website=metamorphoptics.blogspot.com|access-date=2016-12-12}}</ref> Whether these can be said to be collective intelligence systems is an open question. Some, e.g. [[Bill Joy]], simply wish to avoid any form of autonomous artificial intelligence and seem willing to work on rigorous collective intelligence in order to remove any possible niche for AI.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/|title=Why the Future Doesn't Need Us|last=Joy|first=Bill|newspaper=WIRED|access-date=2016-12-12}}</ref>
Harsh critics of artificial intelligence on ethical grounds are likely to promote collective wisdom-building methods, such as the [[new tribalists]] and the [[Gaianism|Gaians]]. Whether these can be said to be collective intelligence systems is an open question. Some, e.g. [[Bill Joy]], simply wish to avoid any form of autonomous artificial intelligence and seem willing to work on rigorous collective intelligence in order to remove any possible niche for AI.
Harsh critics of artificial intelligence on ethical grounds are likely to promote collective wisdom-building methods, such as the new tribalists and the Gaians. Whether these can be said to be collective intelligence systems is an open question. Some, e.g. Bill Joy, simply wish to avoid any form of autonomous artificial intelligence and seem willing to work on rigorous collective intelligence in order to remove any possible niche for AI.
Harsh critics of artificial intelligence on ethical grounds are likely to promote collective wisdom-building methods, such as the new tribalists and the Gaians. Whether these can be said to be collective intelligence systems is an open question. Some, e.g. Bill Joy, simply wish to avoid any form of autonomous artificial intelligence and seem willing to work on rigorous collective intelligence in order to remove any possible niche for AI.
出于道德考虑，对人工智能的严厉批评很可能会促使集体智慧的方法建立，例如新部落主义者New tribalists和盖亚主义者Gaians。这些是否可以说是集体智能系统是一个待解决的问题。例如比尔·乔伊Bill Joy等学者希望能避免使用任何形式的自主人工智能，并且似乎愿意研究严格的集体智能，以消除AI的任何潜在利基。
In contrast to these views, Artificial Intelligence companies such as Amazon Mechanical Turk and CrowdFlower are using collective intelligence and crowdsourcing or consensus-based assessment to collect the enormous amounts of data for machine learning algorithms such as Keras and IBM Watson.
In contrast to these views, Artificial Intelligence companies such as Amazon Mechanical Turk and CrowdFlower are using collective intelligence and crowdsourcing or consensus-based assessment to collect the enormous amounts of data for machine learning algorithms such as Keras and IBM Watson.
与这些观点相反，Amazon Mechanical Turk和CrowdFlower等公司正在使用集体智能和众包或基于共识的评估系统来收集用于机器学习算法的大量数据。
=== Solving climate change ===
=== Solving climate change 解决气候变化 ===
Global collective intelligence is seen as the key in solving the challenges humankind faces now and in the future. [[Climate change]] is an example of a global issue which collective intelligence is currently trying to tackle. With the help of collective intelligence applications such as online [[crowdsourcing]], people across the globe are collaborating in developing solutions to climate change.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/crowdsourcing-climate-change-solutions/|title=How Millions of People Can Help Solve Climate Change — NOVA Next {{!}} PBS|date=2014-01-15|work=NOVA Next|access-date=2017-10-31}}</ref>
Global collective intelligence is seen as the key in solving the challenges humankind faces now and in the future. [[Climate change]] is an example of a global issue which collective intelligence is currently trying to tackle. With the help of collective intelligence applications such as online [[crowdsourcing]], people across the globe are collaborating in developing solutions to climate change.
Global collective intelligence is seen as the key in solving the challenges humankind faces now and in the future. Climate change is an example of a global issue which collective intelligence is currently trying to tackle. With the help of collective intelligence applications such as online crowdsourcing, people across the globe are collaborating in developing solutions to climate change.
Global collective intelligence is seen as the key in solving the challenges humankind faces now and in the future. Climate change is an example of a global issue which collective intelligence is currently trying to tackle. With the help of collective intelligence applications such as online crowdsourcing, people across the globe are collaborating in developing solutions to climate change.
全球集体智能被认为是解决人类现在和将来面临挑战的关键。气候变化就是这个全球性问题的例子，目前集体智能正在努力解决这一问题。
== See also ==
== See also ==