Slashdot Log In
MIT Looks to Give Group Think a Good Name
Posted by
samzenpus
on Tue Oct 10, 2006 06:26 PM
from the yes-we-are-all-individuals dept.
from the yes-we-are-all-individuals dept.
netbuzz writes "With Friday's opening of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence, researchers there hope to address this central question: "How can people and computers be connected so that — collectively — they act more intelligently than any individuals, groups, or computers have ever done before?""
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
text is a insufficient medium for this (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll give them the benefit of trying to start a realistic project without any fancy, not-yet existing technology, and therefore accept that their attempt for collective intelligence is writing a business book [wearesmarter.com] in what they call Wikipedia-style, so far with 300 participants. But I believe that books or the written word in general is not the right tool for collective intelligence and in fact right now stopping us from making some advances e.g. in education.
We've all grown up in a culture dominated by information transfer via text and been trained by our educational system to be producers of text ourselves. I'm currently doing it on slashdot, everybody is communicating via email and IM, because that's what we've learned.
But there has been a lot of research showing that richer media (not flash, but visualization and simulation) are often much more appropriate to describe complex subjects. There has been a trend for a long time to stuff text books with more graphics, diagrams, pictures, and educational software with videos, animations and so on. A picture can say more than a thousand words if placed in the right context.
Unfortunately we are not yet trained to use more than a basic hypertext processor for media creation. How many teachers can even draw a diagram? How many websites have useful graphics? If you look at wikipedia, it's basically a large book with a few photos and even fewer good diagrams, no simulations or whatever. So when reading e.g. wikipedia it is up to the reader again to create an internal visualization and hope to match the image intended by the authors.
I believe to make progress in collective intelligence we have to move our media production to match the mental capabilities of humans. Text was very useful when it was the only technical viable solution, but today there are many more and better media types, only our culture of media creation is behind the possibilities by some decades. YouTube may be a nice step in the right direction and what Lawrence Lessing [lessig.org] said about creating CC licensed rich flash content also is. But starting another wiki style pseudo book is not.
It's a people problem, not a technical one (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Rock, Papers, Scissors, Shoot!
(I throw Scissors)
(Real scissors when experts disagree with me)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True those things must be dealt with (and are probably the majority of the problem), but the ability to index, search, and automatically extract collective knowledge is important - this is one of the reasons that text is so successful on the web. Besides open formats ensure our kids will have access to o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How Stuff Works is a great example of how to mix text & pictures/media
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't agree that text is useless, sure it's not the best for every situation, but it is a companion to other styles of rendering and communicating information. This is where I believe FORUMS actually enhance "group think" there are LOTS of gold nuggets particular section of some topic in many peoples minds that would take
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mean to say that text is useless, just insufficient. Forums are actually a good example for this: They work because all the participants are able to create text and the forum itself provides a minimal structure by displaying the discussion thread. But after the discussion has ended, there remains a lot of redundant information. It is often ways more efficient to find and follow a former discussion about the subject you are researching than rethinking it yourself, but it requires you to rethink the
Easy way to make true AI (Score:3, Insightful)
For example you have if you're a Republican or a Democrat.
Democrats mod stuff down Republicans may mod up. So they should each have their own scoring section.
There are a LOT of groups people can be a part of. Even social cliques if you so desire.
Eventually people who's articles that get modded up a lot will start with a degree of moderation to them.
Or you can search on your favorite authors.
I hate t
Borg (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And Deb and Ian have a rodent named Iceweasel.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is collective intelligence possible? (Score:2)
Then there is the less obvious issue that intelligence is not uniformly good or bad. What makes sense in one situation (problem, country, culture, etc) does not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it already exists. (Score:2)
Yes, and it's called Wiki.
-Rick
Look out, it's coming! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because God Knows there haven't [myspace.com] been [secondlife.com] any [slashdot.org] going [wikipedia.com] on [fark.com] so [perlmonks.org] far [youtube.com]...
Yeah, but... (Score:3, Funny)
cluster (Score:2, Insightful)
I know where they should start. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but in the wrong direction.
UCSC has done similar research (Score:3, Interesting)
The opposite is true (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The opposite is true (Score:4, Insightful)
You are oversimplifying. There are cases of collective intelligence, and examples of good work coming from groups.
For example, the group that produced the King James Bible, the Manhattan Project, the Apollo program, GIMPS (not GNU Image Manipulation Program, but the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search - OK, it probably doesn't belong in this list, as it's less "intelligence" and more brute force throwing processing power at a fairly simple but time-consuming problem).
I'm sure there are other good examples people could give. Those are just ones that quickly come to my mind. Some have suggested that the human brain is itself a form of collective intelligence. Lots of little "subroutines" working together to form a "sum greater than the parts", or something like that. It's been awhile but I've read a couple of the references cited here: http://ericrollins.home.mindspring.com/evoCellACM
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What often time group thinkers fail to realize is that breakthrough ideas can not be parallelized. Imagine Albert Einstein consulting on General Relativity. You might get something ridiculous like string theory.
Re: (Score:2)
This argument is seductive and almost, but not quite, true.
The optimum result comes from a system in which an intelligent benign decision-maker obtains and considers input from a small group of equally intelligent people. It's not even hard to prove this mathematically. The trick in real life is that this configuration tends not to be stable: the decision
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem of group think can be a matter of everyone agreeing on principles, so no other courses can seem reasonable, which is just as prevalent in groups of "smart" people; it takes a mixed group to question assumptions (if people dare speak up against all the "experts").
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about effeciency (Score:5, Funny)
Think of how much more rapidly Congress could create worthless legislation and shameful scandals with the assistance of sophisticated Artificial Stupidity algorithms. There's probably also a Beowulf cluster joke in here, somewhere.
Just a name change? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there more to this than groupware-on-steroids? Would like to hear the possible downside to this approach, since analog people don't mesh seamlessly with digital technology...
Re: (Score:2)
*blink* *blink*
I'm trying to figure out what that means, when any kid playing Super Mario will tell you that they mesh just fine.
As other mention, I think it's more of a question of "how can we set up social order so we have thousands of people working closely together, but so we don't have decision-by-mob or decision-by-committee?"
Okay, that's a question that real-life companiesand organizations have been asking themselves for at least a
Re: (Score:2)
If you get it right, you own the world (Score:2)
- Experts on a subject in a large group tend to be minority, not majority
- If you pick a group entirely of experts, thens til the best experts on a problem will be a minority
- The "stupid" majority silences the "smart" minority
- Groupthink without some totally innovative mechanism is this: random noise + averaging. Hardly making the end product smarter
- Groupthink reduces the chances of factual errors (few agents discovering a factual error will
Yea, except this is MIT. (Score:2)
"
- Experts on a subject in a large group tend to be minority, not majority
- If you pick a group entirely of experts, thens til the best experts on a problem will be a minority
- The "stupid" majority silences the "smart" minority
- Groupthink without some totally innovative mechanism is this: random noise + averaging. Hardly making the end product smarter
- Groupthink reduces the chances of factual errors (few agent
Another path to the Singularity (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, the participants in this network wouldn't necessarily have to be aware of each other, nor would they need to be aware that they were part of a collective intelligence. People tend to cooperate more easily when they don't realize they're doing it.
We humans have a lot of core competencies, but neither managing group efforts nor making decisions by committe belong to this category. Machines, on the other hand, are fantastic at administrative minutiae. Machines also are much better at number crunching in general, something we already rely on them heavily for. The merging of human and machine cultures seems like a logical progression to me, and I don't believe I am drinking Kurzweil's Kool-Aid.
First rule: No communication between group members (Score:2)
2 Examples of Collective Intelligence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
4. A development team.
5. A band of musicians.
6. A hunting party (intelligence distributed across species, often)
7. A film crew.
The most interesting human activities nowadays are those in which no single human being could possibly understand the masteries and fluences that constitute it. The anthropologist Emile Durkheim considered it a feature of the modern age: unlike our pre-modern ancestors, who often knew as individuals all the skills and methods by which they maintained their lives (ev
They obviously don't read Pratchett (Score:2)
It ain't going to work (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Computers might not be intelligent, but your argument for this is complete crap. All you have to do is add a true random number generator (eg. using radioactive decay) and they no longer "do exactly as they are told by you or someone else".
And even if your argument were sound, I'd have to completely disagree with you anyway. If I had a machine that did exactly what I told it do do, I think it'd be a
Re: (Score:2)
define intelligent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you put computers and people together, kittens should be very worried indeed.