Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that popular misrepresentation of the nature of AI has important consequences concerning how it should be regulated. Viewing AI as something that exists in itself, rather than as a set of cognitive technologies whose characteristics – physical, cognitive, and systemic – are quite different from ours (and at times from each other) leads to inefficient approaches to regulation. It limits our ability to anticipate the consequences of its foreseeable developments and social diffusion. It undermines attempts to protect ourselves from the social and political dangers it presents. After a short introduction, section 2 retraces rapidly the history of the idea that intelligence is essentially a quality, one that AI shares with human intelligence and that this resemblance trumps the differences that exist between artificial and natural cognitive systems. Section 3 reviews two approaches to the dangers of AI that reflect the illusion that AI exists in itself. Section 4 turns to the proper understanding of regulations and what is their main goal and purpose. Section 5 analyses three central characteristics of artificial cognitive systems which section six compares with corresponding characteristics of natural cognitive systems. Finally, section 7 draws some conclusions regarding how we should regulate artificial intelligence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".