On Intelligence

Analysing intelligence is co-evolution. It changes my thought process and as a result my behaviour patterns every single time I do it. I don't think this is what happens when you only analyse information. I would say analysing information is a precursor to analysing intelligence. I can vouch for that because that is what I did for over a decade as an analyst. So I would say it is a simple act of allowing yourself to be proven wrong or and right and be constantly surprised by what you find.”

I guess as human beings we are always analysing some kind of intelligence. At least that is my experience. We are emotional beings. For the longest time human civilisation has operated where humans played all parts of the system. Kind of like a weirdly lonely Ensemble cast. So I would say we have always operated in social hierarchies made up of varying degrees of intelligence arranged in a particular configuration. So I think I didn't cross from one to another. It was closer to be able to apply the emotional intelligence to machines rather than just humans. I feel in the process I realised that the nature of intelligence is topological.”

I mean it is not a fixed thing like a number or a constant. It is a flow. The flow of rivers automatically tells you about the flow of the terrain. The flow of the river and terrain combined tells you whether you can irrigate the land. The flow of emotions tells you whether someone is receptive to what you are trying to communicate. But in the education system it is measured through marks and benchmarks. Which is absurd. A score of 90/100 in history tells me nothing. It has no information encoded in it about the nature of the thing it is marking. You know what I mean. So what I feel what I mean by intelligence is topological is that topology encodes the shape of the energy flow. The shape encodes the information. A land will never say it is water because it is not. It is obvious when you interact with it. But if we put a label on it saying call it water, eventually over time the perception of that will change but not the nature. So that is what I mean. Intelligence doesn't live in labels but in geometries.”

You got me. It's a good question. I feel it is to make it trackable. When something is intangible you have to give it some anchor so that you sense the flow. The point is not to measure it but to measure the rate of change. Something that can be continuously tracked to keep sensing the flow. Measurement frameworks make intelligence intractable. But I feel it is more of an old school thing which I am transferring here. I don't think AI market should be measured the way I am doing in SIRA. The ideal answer is to lead with intuition. But we are currently in a phase change. The market structure is still lagging in 2019. AI's true potential lives somewhere closer to 2030. So this is the in-between state of helping out the market to get to where it needs to be.”

A new kind of present state that always operates in the present. Present is where the intuition lives and also ironically the AI. We do away with old school market tracking methodologies. Bar graphs, etc. I mean they are useful. We could still use them to represent concepts where applicable. But they are outdated in terms of being the default mechanism to sense the flow of uncertainty.”