background preloader

Infographic - The Emergence of Collective Intelligence

Related:  The SingularityCollective Intelligence

Emerging Memetic Singularity in the Global Knowledge Society 30 April 2009 | Draft IntroductionChecklist of constraintsVarieties of singularity -- Technological singularity | Cognitive singularity | Metasystem transition -- Communication singularity | Globality as singularity | Symmetry group singularity -- Subjective singularity | Spiritual singularity | Singularity of planetary consciousness -- Metaphorical singularityEnd times scenarios -- End of history | 2012 | Timewave theory | Eschatological scenarios | End of science -- End of culture | End of religion | End of civilization | End of security | End of privacy -- End of intelligence | End of ignorance | End of knowing | End of abundance | End of confidence -- End of hope | End of truth | End of faith | End of logic | End of rationality | End of modernism -- End of wisdom | End of tolerance | End of natureBlack holes and Event horizonsConclusion Introduction Historically these were a preoccupation of the Union of Intelligible Associations and are now a focus of Global Sensemaking.

Collective Action Toolkit Is it possible to inspire design thinking outside of the design world? The practice has helped countless organizations innovate new products and services, but has infrequently been made available to a broad audience. frog set out to prove the practice is universal by creating the Collective Action Toolkit, a set of resources and activities to help people accomplish tangible outcomes through a set of guided, non-linear collaboration activities. The goal: to help communities generate solutions, connect to resources, and pool knowledge to solve a wide range of challenges and create real change. CAT got its start with the Nike Foundation, in which frog was asked to help empower girls to solve local community problems. Despite the project’s start in sub-Saharan Africa, it has demonstrated global relevance.

Technological Singularity The technological singularity is the hypothesis that accelerating progress in technologies will cause a runaway effect wherein artificial intelligence will exceed human intellectual capacity and control, thus radically changing civilization in an event called the singularity.[1] Because the capabilities of such an intelligence may be impossible for a human to comprehend, the technological singularity is an occurrence beyond which events may become unpredictable, unfavorable, or even unfathomable.[2] The first use of the term "singularity" in this context was by mathematician John von Neumann. Proponents of the singularity typically postulate an "intelligence explosion",[5][6] where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds, that might occur very quickly and might not stop until the agent's cognitive abilities greatly surpass that of any human. Basic concepts Superintelligence Non-AI singularity Intelligence explosion Exponential growth Plausibility

Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies MIT Unravels the Secrets Behind Collective Intelligence – Hint: IQ Not So Important What makes a group able to succeed at large number of different tasks? Women, sharing, and sensitivity. When it comes to a successful group, the easiest way to ensure victory may be placing women on the team. MIT’s research into measuring collective intelligence was lead by their own Thomas Malone in partnership with Carnegie Mellon’s Anita Woolley. Woolley explains this, and many other parts of their collective intelligence research, in the following video: When Malone, Woolley and the rest of the MIT team set out to measure collective intelligence, it wasn’t even clear if such a thing could statistically be shown to exist. It turns out that a group is more than the sum of its IQs. The C factor was a better indicator for success than either average or maximum IQ in both MIT studies. Along with discovering the C factor, Malone and Woolley also loosely determined what went in to creating it. [image credits: MIT, Woolley et al Science Magazine 2010]

Moore's law Moore's law is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. The law is named after Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore, who described the trend in his 1965 paper.[1][2][3] His prediction has proven to be accurate, in part because the law is now used in the semiconductor industry to guide long-term planning and to set targets for research and development.[4] The capabilities of many digital electronic devices are strongly linked to Moore's law: processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras.[5] All of these are improving at roughly exponential rates as well. This exponential improvement has dramatically enhanced the impact of digital electronics in nearly every segment of the world economy.[6] Moore's law describes a driving force of technological and social change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[7][8] History[edit]

The Emergence of Collective Intelligence | Ledface Blog ~Aristotle When we observe large schools of fish swimming, we might wonder who is choreographing that complex and sophisticated dance, in which thousands of individuals move in harmony as if they knew exactly what to do to produce the collective spectacle. So, what is “Emergence”? School of fishes dancing is an example of “emergence”, a process where new properties, behaviors, or complex patterns results of relatively simple rules and interactions. One can see emergence as some magic phenomena or just as a surprising result caused by the current inability of our reductionist mind to understand complex patterns. Humans can do it too We humans have even built artificial environments that allow for collective intelligence to express itself. Each and every actor in the financial markets has no significant control over or awareness of its inputs. Can we transpose it to other domains? Nobody can single-handedly create “collective intelligence”. Too remote of a possibility?

How to Make Better Decisions Together Learning how to make decisions together is a crucial element of getting along and getting things done with others. It’s wise for your group to learn how to steer your boat together with collective decision-making before you have a sinking ship on your hands. I’ve learned these skills through workshops, readings and from living and working in cooperatives and they have been incredibly valuable to the success of these projects. Collective decision-making has innumerable rewards. A strong example of collective decision-making is participatory budgeting which often leads to less contentious, more inclusive budgetary decisions – not an easy challenge. NYC participatory budgeting, courtesy of the Participatory Budgeting Project Collective decision-making isn't as much about how we vote on decisions as it is about the process of hearing and incorporating all sides. Consensus flowchart by Grant Horwood There are 3 key ingredients to effective collective decision-making: Group Mind Facilitation

Chaos theory A double rod pendulum animation showing chaotic behavior. Starting the pendulum from a slightly different initial condition would result in a completely different trajectory. The double rod pendulum is one of the simplest dynamical systems that has chaotic solutions. Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[6][7] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Introduction[edit] Chaos theory concerns deterministic systems whose behavior can in principle be predicted. Chaotic dynamics[edit] The map defined by x → 4 x (1 – x) and y → x + y mod 1 displays sensitivity to initial conditions. In common usage, "chaos" means "a state of disorder".[9] However, in chaos theory, the term is defined more precisely. where , and , is: .

Chinese Thinking and Complexity By Greg Fisher Last week I attended an excellent conference in Singapore, which had the intriguing title of “A Crude Look at the Whole”. The title was attributable to Murray Gell-Man who was one of the founding fathers of the Santa Fe Institute and also the winner of the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physics. It was an excellent and wide-ranging conference, organised by Jan Vasbinder of the Complexity Programme of the Nanyang Technological Universoty (NTU). Don’t worry, my question is not based on some flimsy notion of Confucian group-think. Let me summarise this research very briefly. Now, I am not for one moment saying that being aware of both foreground and background means Chinese people have superior thought processes. But this ability to appreciate both the foreground and background did make me wonder if this means the Chinese can appreciate and understand whole systems better, and therefore whether their mind-set is likely to be fertile soil for Complexity thinking. Share this Article:

h+ Magazine | Covering technological, scientific, and cultural trends that are changing human beings in fundamental ways. Michelle Ewens March 24, 2011 The concept of utility fog – flying, intercommunicating nanomachines that dynamically shape themselves into assorted configurations to serve various roles and execute multifarious tasks – was introduced by nanotech pioneer J. Storrs Hall in 1993. For instance, a few years ago Dr. However, if a future foglet ever became conscious enough to dissent from its assigned task and spread new information to the hive mind, this might cause other constituent foglets to deviate from their assigned tasks. Eric Drexler, who coined “grey goo” in his seminal 1986 work on nanotechnology, “Engines of Creation,” now resents the term’s spread since it is often used to conjure up fears of a nanotech-inspired apocalypse. Should we attempt to create artificially generated intelligence (AGI) in a manner that resembles what we would wish for ourselves? What Is It Like to Be a Foglet? Is it ridiculous to worry about the subjective experience of utility foglets?

Keen On… David Weinberger: Too Big To Know (TCTV) David Weinberger, the co-author of the iconic Cluetrain Manifesto, has just released another stunningly profound book. In Too Big To Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren’t the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room is the Room, Weinberger – who is a Senior Researcher at Harvard’s illustrious Berkman Center for the Internet and Society – argues that we are now experiencing a fundamental shift in the nature of knowledge that we haven’t seen for 2500 years. Acclaimed by everyone from John Seely Brown to Clay Shirky to Mark Benioff, Too Big To Know may turn out to be the Cluetrain Manifesto of 2012 – a book that, once and for all, changes the way we think about the digital revolution. “We invented knowledge to fit the medium,” Weinberger explained to me over Skype.

Related: