Abstract

The ontological presupposition of artificial intelligence (AI) is the liberal autonomous human subject of Locke and Kant, and the ideology of AI is the automation of this particular conception of intelligence. This is demonstrated in detail in classical AI by the work of Simon, who explicitly connected his work on AI to a wider programme in cognitive science, economics, and politics to perfect capitalism. Although Dreyfus produced a powerful Heideggerian critique of classical AI, work on neural networks in AI was ultimately based on the individual as the locus of intelligence. Yet this conception of AI both fails to grasp the essence of large language models, which are a statistical model of human language on the Web. The training data that enables AI is the surveillance and capture of data, where the data creates a model to approximate the entire world. However, there is a more hidden ideology inherent in AI where the goal is not to perfect a model but to control the world. As prompted by an argument between Mead and Bateson, social change is prevented by the application of cybernetics to society as a whole. The goal of AI is not just to replace human beings, but to manage humans to preserve existing power relations. As the source of intelligence in AI is distributed cognition between humans and machines, the alternative to AI is collective intelligence. As theorized by Licklider and Engelbart at the dawn of the Internet, collective intelligence explains how computers weave together both human and non-human intelligence. Rather than replace human intelligence, this produces ever more complex collective forms of intelligence. Rather than meta-stabilize a society of control, collective intelligence can go outside individualist capitalist ontology by incorporating the open world of the pluriverse, as theorized by Escobar. Collective intelligence then stands as an alternative ontological path for AI which puts intelligence at the service of humanity and the world rather than a technocratic elite.