AI and Collective Intelligence
Discussion
Pierre Levy:
"By its very name, Artificial Intelligence naturally evokes the idea of an autonomous machine intelligence that confronts human intelligence, to simulate or surpass it. But if we look at the real uses of Artificial Intelligence devices, it becomes clear that, in most cases, they augment, assist or accompany the operations of human intelligence.
Back in the era of expert systems – during the 1980s and 1990s – I observed that the critical knowledge of experts within an organization, once codified in the form of rules that animate knowledge bases, could be made available to the members who needed it most, responding precisely to current situations and always being available. Rather than supposedly autonomous Artificial Intelligences, these were means for the dissemination of practical knowledge, the main effect of which was to increase the collective intelligence of user communities.
In the current phase of AI development, the role of the expert is played by the crowds that produce the data, and the role of the cognitive engineer, who codifies the knowledge, is played by neural networks. Instead of asking linguists how to translate, or recognized authors how to produce a text, statistical models unconsciously ask the multitudes of anonymous editors on the web and automatically extract patterns of patterns that no human programmer could have clarified.
Conditioned by their training, the algorithms can then recognize and reproduce data corresponding to the forms they have learned. But because they abstract structures rather than recording everything, they are able to correctly conceptualize forms (of images, texts, music, code, etc.) that they have never encountered before, and to produce an infinite number of new symbolic arrangements. This is why we speak of generative Artificial Intelligence. Far from being autonomous, this AI extends and amplifies collective intelligence. Millions of users contribute to the improvement of the models by asking questions and commenting on the answers they receive. We can take the example of Midjourney (which generates images), whose users exchange instructions (promptly) and constantly improve their skills. Midjourney’s Discord servers are now the most populous on the planet, with over a million users. A new stigmergic collective intelligence is emerging from the fusion of social media, AI, and creator communities. Behind the “machine” we must glimpse the collective intelligence it reifies and mobilizes. AI offers us new access to the world’s digital memory. It is also a way of mobilizing that memory to automate increasingly complex symbolic operations, involving the interaction of heterogeneous semantic universes and accounting systems.
I do not believe for a second that the work is done. Automation is making certain professions disappear and giving rise to new ones. There are no more blacksmiths, but mechanics have replaced them. Water carriers have given way to plumbers. The complexity of society increases the number of problems to be solved. “Smart” machines increase cognitive work, automating what can be automated. There will always be a need for intelligent, creative and compassionate people, but they will have to learn to work with new tools."
(https://www.pucpress.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/CADERNOS_DO_CONTEMPORANEO_0000_P.pdf)
The Flynn Effect: Is There a Lowering of Cognitive Capacity Due to AI or Digital Technology
Q by Fabiano Incerti and Douglas Borges Candido
- "Some authors talk about the reversal of the “Flynn effect”, suggesting that future generations will have a lower cognitive level than their parents. How do you see this issue in the context of emerging technologies? Do you think that the intensive use of digital technologies can contribute to this trend or do they offer new ways to expand our cognitive capacities?
Pierre Levy:
The decline in cognitive (and moral) levels has been deplored for centuries by each generation, while the “Flynn effect” shows precisely the opposite. It is normal to see a stabilization of Intelligence Quotient (IQ) values: the hope of a constant increase is never very realistic and it would be normal to reach a limit or a plateau, as in any other historical or even biological phenomenon. But let us admit that today’s young people have lower IQ scores than the immediately preceding generations. We must first ask ourselves what these tests measure: primarily academic intelligence. They do not take into account emotional intelligence, relational intelligence, aesthetic sensitivity, physical or technical skills, or even practical common sense. So we are not measuring something limited here. On the other hand, if we focus on the adaptation to school functioning that IQ tests measure, why blame technology first? Perhaps families are resigned to the task of education (particularly because families are falling apart), or schools and universities are failing, becoming increasingly lax (because students have become customers to be satisfied at any price). When I was a student, an “A” in exams was not yet a right… Today, it has almost become a pure and simple substitute for human intellectual activity. Finally, and this needs to be repeated constantly, “the use of digital technologies” does not make much sense. There are uses that are mindnumbing, which slide down the slope of intellectual laziness, and uses that open the mind but require personal responsibility, an effort of autonomy and – yes – work. It is the role of educators to encourage positive uses."
(https://www.pucpress.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/CADERNOS_DO_CONTEMPORANEO_0000_P.pdf)