比较人工智能、动物智能和科学智能:与朱塞佩·朗戈对话

IF 2.7 2区 社会学 Q1 CULTURAL STUDIES Theory Culture & Society Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1177/02632764221143513
A. Angelini
{"title":"比较人工智能、动物智能和科学智能:与朱塞佩·朗戈对话","authors":"A. Angelini","doi":"10.1177/02632764221143513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The most recent tool for acting on the world, the exosomatization of cognitive activities, is often considered an autonomous and objective replacement of knowledge construction. We show the intrinsic limits of the mechanistic myths in AI, from classical to Deep Learning techniques, and its relation to the human construction of sense. Human activities in a changing ecosystem – in their somatic and sensible dimensionalities proper to any living experiences – are at the core of our analysis. By this, we stress the key role of the knowing subject, far away from any allegedly objective big collections of data. The production of organized structures of physics, biology and in societal analysis will be compared and distinguished by trying to set on more robust grounds the constructive as well as the disruptive roles of entropic, negentropic, anti-entropic dynamics that are different concepts in different domains, to be handled with care: the use of machine learning and optimization methods as tools and models to analyse and manage human activities in view of their scientific and political ideology of technoscientific governance. They suppose that which they try to produce is objective, that is, standardized and controllable behaviours. In this dialogue we stress a mirror symmetry between the lack of theoretical interpretation of scientific data and the lack of democracy in this fiction of neutrality. Moreover, bad analogies constitute an obstacle to grasp the anteriority of biological and ecological constraints which enable and limit all artificial products of human intelligence. We will thus stress biological specificity, the role of normativity and constraints in evolution, of labour in structuring the human historical construction of sense by common activities.","PeriodicalId":48276,"journal":{"name":"Theory Culture & Society","volume":"12 1","pages":"71 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Artificial, Animal and Scientific Intelligence: A Dialogue with Giuseppe Longo\",\"authors\":\"A. Angelini\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02632764221143513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The most recent tool for acting on the world, the exosomatization of cognitive activities, is often considered an autonomous and objective replacement of knowledge construction. We show the intrinsic limits of the mechanistic myths in AI, from classical to Deep Learning techniques, and its relation to the human construction of sense. Human activities in a changing ecosystem – in their somatic and sensible dimensionalities proper to any living experiences – are at the core of our analysis. By this, we stress the key role of the knowing subject, far away from any allegedly objective big collections of data. The production of organized structures of physics, biology and in societal analysis will be compared and distinguished by trying to set on more robust grounds the constructive as well as the disruptive roles of entropic, negentropic, anti-entropic dynamics that are different concepts in different domains, to be handled with care: the use of machine learning and optimization methods as tools and models to analyse and manage human activities in view of their scientific and political ideology of technoscientific governance. They suppose that which they try to produce is objective, that is, standardized and controllable behaviours. In this dialogue we stress a mirror symmetry between the lack of theoretical interpretation of scientific data and the lack of democracy in this fiction of neutrality. Moreover, bad analogies constitute an obstacle to grasp the anteriority of biological and ecological constraints which enable and limit all artificial products of human intelligence. We will thus stress biological specificity, the role of normativity and constraints in evolution, of labour in structuring the human historical construction of sense by common activities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory Culture & Society\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"71 - 97\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory Culture & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221143513\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory Culture & Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221143513","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

认知活动的外躯体化是作用于世界的最新工具,通常被认为是知识建构的自主和客观的替代。我们展示了人工智能中机械神话的内在局限性,从经典技术到深度学习技术,以及它与人类感官构建的关系。人类活动在一个不断变化的生态系统中——在他们的躯体和感官维度上适合于任何生活经历——是我们分析的核心。通过这一点,我们强调了知情主体的关键作用,远离任何所谓客观的大数据集。物理,生物学和社会分析中有组织结构的产生将被比较和区分,通过尝试在更坚实的基础上建立熵,负熵,反熵动力学的建设性和破坏性作用,这些在不同领域是不同的概念,需要小心处理:使用机器学习和优化方法作为工具和模型来分析和管理人类活动,考虑到他们的科学和政治意识形态的技术科学治理。他们认为他们试图制造的东西是客观的,也就是说,是标准化和可控的行为。在这个对话中,我们强调在这个中立的小说中缺乏对科学数据的理论解释和缺乏民主之间的镜像对称。此外,糟糕的类比构成了对掌握生物和生态约束的先进性的障碍,这些约束使人类智能的所有人工产品得以实现和限制。因此,我们将强调生物的特殊性,规范性和约束在进化中的作用,劳动在通过共同活动构建人类历史意义建构中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing Artificial, Animal and Scientific Intelligence: A Dialogue with Giuseppe Longo
The most recent tool for acting on the world, the exosomatization of cognitive activities, is often considered an autonomous and objective replacement of knowledge construction. We show the intrinsic limits of the mechanistic myths in AI, from classical to Deep Learning techniques, and its relation to the human construction of sense. Human activities in a changing ecosystem – in their somatic and sensible dimensionalities proper to any living experiences – are at the core of our analysis. By this, we stress the key role of the knowing subject, far away from any allegedly objective big collections of data. The production of organized structures of physics, biology and in societal analysis will be compared and distinguished by trying to set on more robust grounds the constructive as well as the disruptive roles of entropic, negentropic, anti-entropic dynamics that are different concepts in different domains, to be handled with care: the use of machine learning and optimization methods as tools and models to analyse and manage human activities in view of their scientific and political ideology of technoscientific governance. They suppose that which they try to produce is objective, that is, standardized and controllable behaviours. In this dialogue we stress a mirror symmetry between the lack of theoretical interpretation of scientific data and the lack of democracy in this fiction of neutrality. Moreover, bad analogies constitute an obstacle to grasp the anteriority of biological and ecological constraints which enable and limit all artificial products of human intelligence. We will thus stress biological specificity, the role of normativity and constraints in evolution, of labour in structuring the human historical construction of sense by common activities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Theory, Culture & Society is a highly ranked, high impact factor, rigorously peer reviewed journal that publishes original research and review articles in the social and cultural sciences. Launched in 1982 to cater for the resurgence of interest in culture within contemporary social science, Theory, Culture & Society provides a forum for articles which theorize the relationship between culture and society. Theory, Culture & Society is at the cutting edge of recent developments in social and cultural theory. The journal has helped to break down some of the disciplinary barriers between the humanities and the social sciences by opening up a wide range of new questions in cultural theory.
期刊最新文献
Latour and the Question of Politics: A Constitutional Reading The Land of the Moderns: The Sense of Latour’s Pragmatism With and after the Inquiry: How Do We Pragmatically Move from the Moderns to the Contemporaries? Bruno Latour and Religion: A Strange Parishioner Artificial Intelligence and the Production of Judicial Truth
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1