51吃瓜

No one doubts that Elon Musk is rich, which, according to a fundamental axiom of US culture, suggests that he is smart. Everyone knows the proverbial wisdom often directed at a category of humanity called losers: 鈥淚f you鈥檙e so smart, why aren鈥檛 you rich?鈥�

Musk himself has absolutely no doubt that he is smart. Like any good American (even those born in South Africa), he seems to realize that his expanding wealth is the greatest proof of his intelligence. That may explain why he allows himself to say (or tweet) things that not everyone perceives as smart. For example, he wrote in a last week, 鈥淎liens built the pyramids obv.鈥� 

Can an Indian Family Save Humanity From COVID-19?

READ MORE

In any case, the Egyptians didn鈥檛 perceive that as smart and invited Musk to come and have a look, following the proverbial wisdom that 鈥渟eeing is believing,鈥� at least for smart people.

It is of course possible to be rich without being smart. In a bold thought experiment, one might even imagine the case of a sitting president who inherited his wealth but seems devoid of intelligence. It might even be reasonable for a social scientist to posit the hypothesis that inheritance of wealth correlates negatively with intelligence. But, more fundamentally, Americans really do have difficulty understanding why anyone who is smart is not rich. What鈥檚 the point of intelligence if it doesn鈥檛 produce a steady income stream?

The word 鈥渟mart鈥� itself has always been ambiguous in English. For most Americans, smart simply means intelligent. To Brits, until recently, smart tended to mean well-dressed or what Americans would call 鈥渟piffy.鈥� Thanks to their exposure to American movies, pop music and television, the British now have the intelligence to understand what smart really means.

So, while the status of the idea of smart is still in a slight state of flux, a new problem of ambiguity has emerged. It concerns the notion of intelligence, which now exists in two flavors: human and artificial. The battle between them has become the new match of the century. Who will win? Who deserves to win? As Musk and others have been telling us for several years, it is now time to take sides.

Some see this opposition as an example of US culture鈥檚 obsession with turning everything into a contest between two radically opposed adversaries, each seeking to prove its superiority over the other. All distinctions, even intellectual ones, are subject to the law of competition, which 鈥� whether in sports or academic debate 鈥� offers the public the exciting spectacle of an existential struggle (that nevertheless tends to enrich both surviving opponents).

So, despite his lapse concerning the pyramids, we know Musk is smart. But he wants us to know that he is not just smart, but smarter than other smart people. To bring home the point, with reference to the contest between human and artificial intelligence (AI), he now blames 鈥渟mart鈥� people for failing to understand what only he knows to be the danger. 

Here is how he it: 鈥淢y assessment about why A.I. is overlooked by very smart people is that very smart people do not think a computer can ever be as smart as they are. And this is hubris and obviously false.鈥� Musk, the future master of the solar system, cannot himself be accused of hubris. (Note his use of 鈥渙bviously鈥� that appeared in his comment on the pyramids).

Musk added this: “We鈥檙e headed toward a situation where A.I. is vastly smarter than humans and I think that time frame is less than five years from now. But that doesn鈥檛 mean that everything goes to hell in five years. It just means that things get unstable or weird.”

Here is today鈥檚 3D definition:

Smart:

Intelligent and rich, and as a consequence 鈥� though this need not be mentioned 鈥� influential or permitted to exercise power over other people

Contextual Note

There is a sense in which the idea of smart clearly diverges from that of intelligence in US culture. To be intelligent denotes a person鈥檚 ability to understand complex phenomena. To be smart connotes the use of intelligence to get one鈥檚 way. In a culture that stresses self-reliance, smartness translates as assertiveness. It鈥檚 all about achieving success, fame and wealth. That essentially means that it is better to be smart than intelligent.

At the same time that he is promoting the products of a company he created to produce marketable AI products, Musk has sounded the alarm about the risk of domination by non-human intelligence. This may sound paradoxical, but it boils down to Musk鈥檚 finely-tuned ability in the art of scientific assertiveness some people call marketing.

When Musk says that 鈥渧ery smart people do not think a computer can ever be as smart as they are,鈥� he wants the public to understand that he knows something 鈥渧ery smart people鈥� don鈥檛 know. Musk warned about the dangers of AI back in 2016, predicting at that time that 鈥渉umans risk being treated like house pets by artificial intelligence unless technology is developed that can connect brains to computers.鈥� The Independent鈥檚 reporter, Anthony Cuthbertson, us that shortly 鈥渁fter making the remarks, Mr Musk announced a new brain-computer interface startup that is attempting to implant a brain chip using a 鈥榮ewing machine-like device.鈥欌��

That is a perfect example of what some people would call marketing smarts. Create fear and then offer a solution to the threat. It is worth reflecting on why AI could never be smart enough to accomplish anything similar. AI simply can never become as smart as Elon Musk.

The first reason is that AI, focused on accumulated knowledge and ensuring the efficient treatment of data, cannot decide to be provocative in the way Musk can. He can make statements that have nothing to do with objective reality or existing bodies of knowledge. They sound authoritative because Musk himself is known to be smart.

Making such statements 鈥� whether they concern the future behavior of AI or the construction of the pyramids 鈥� are smart things to do because they assertively advance Musk鈥檚 interests. Those interests simultaneously include the financial health of his companies and his ego. This highlights the problem AI will face in its future competition with human smartness. It will lack the drive associated with financial interest, the force that defines and models 鈥渟mart鈥� people鈥檚 behavior in today鈥檚 consumer society. More significantly, it will utterly lack the notion of ego.

In other words, AI may end up being more intelligent than the brightest scientist, the cleverest lawyer or the most qualified engineer. It may even write books more popular than Harry Potter. It will probably even understand that aliens could not have constructed the pyramids. But it won鈥檛 beat Musk in doing what smartness is all about: being assertive and getting one鈥檚 way.

Historical note

For the ancient Romans, the verb 鈥渋ntelligere鈥� meant something like 鈥渢o realize鈥� or 鈥渢o understand.鈥� But it also includes the sense of noticing, perceiving, estimating and judging. It supposes something that AI by definition cannot possess: proprioception or kinesthesia, a concept that has been as 鈥渢he body鈥檚 ability to sense its location, movements, and actions.鈥�

For the Romans, the notion of intelligence assumed proprioception as its starting point. The Romans even talked about their verbs starting with the idea of subjectivity, in the first person. For a Roman, the verb was 鈥渋ntelligo鈥� (I understand) not 鈥渋ntelligere鈥� (to understand). They assumed there was a subject looking at the world and interacting with it.

As the age of science blossomed in Europe in the 17th century, subjectivity began to take a back seat to a new obsession with objectivity. An entire civilization sought to understand the universe as essentially a sophisticated mechanism. That impelled the scientist and philosopher Ren茅 Descartes to assert 鈥� against the objectivity-oriented trend that he himself was promoting 鈥� that the source of intelligence was the undefinable 鈥淚.鈥� 鈥淐ogito ergo sum.鈥�

Just as 鈥渃ogito鈥� didn鈥檛 require the subject 鈥渆go,鈥� even today Latin languages such as Italian and Spanish do not require stating 鈥渋o鈥� or 鈥測o鈥� to precede a verb. The perceiving subject is understood to be the source. But in English and northern European languages, we simply aren鈥檛 allowed to say, for example, 鈥渢hink therefore am.鈥� We need to hear about the ego.

And just as no one doubts Elon Musk鈥檚 wealth or intelligence, they don鈥檛 doubt that everything he says originates in his ego.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil鈥檚 Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Click here to read more of The Daily Devil鈥檚 Dictionary on 51吃瓜.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.