tegwick
3fb1f5b443
The compendium keeps the digest. The exploration notes live in nudges/ and are not work records. Assistant: grok Assistant-Session: 01a106a5-fc07-78c2-b64f-8e04cea25daf
88 lines
6 KiB
Markdown
88 lines
6 KiB
Markdown
> Imported exploration, 2026-09-13. Source claims have not been independently verified by this repository. See [integration review](../docs/integration-review.md).
|
||
|
||
# Maps of intelligence
|
||
|
||
Version 0.1 · 13 September 2026
|
||
|
||
Humans have invented several mutually incompatible but productive ways to talk about intelligence. Intelligence Radar treats them as **maps**, not as a single territory.
|
||
|
||
## 1. Psychometric / difference map
|
||
|
||
**Claim:** Cognitive performances covary. A general factor *g* plus group factors (verbal, spatial, processing speed) describe individual differences.
|
||
|
||
**What it is good for:** Predicting educational and occupational outcomes; grounding “general” as a statistical regularity rather than a slogan.
|
||
|
||
**Limits:** *g* is a covariance structure, not a mechanism. It does not say how a brain or a model produces competence. Transfer to machines is metaphorical unless the same battery is used.
|
||
|
||
**2026 note:** Network Neuroscience Theory treats *g* as a property of global connectome topology (distributed processing, weak long-range links, modal control hubs, small-world communication) rather than a single region. That is a live empirical program, not settled doctrine.
|
||
|
||
## 2. Cognitive-architecture map
|
||
|
||
**Claim:** Intelligence is a set of processes — perception, working memory, attention, planning, learning, language, motor control — arranged in an architecture (ACT-R, SOAR, dual-process, global workspace, predictive processing).
|
||
|
||
**What it is good for:** Task analysis and decomposition. This is the map the Task Router inherits when it splits a job into subtasks.
|
||
|
||
**Limits:** Architectures multiply. “System 1 / System 2” is a useful cartoon that current reasoning models have made commercially real without proving the cartoon.
|
||
|
||
**2026 note:** Complementary-intelligence programs distinguish *cognitive AI* (built to model human processes) from *machine AI* (optimized for scale). Integration routes being discussed: shared embeddings, instruction encoding, training agents on cognitive-AI data, and coevolving agents.
|
||
|
||
## 3. Computational / Bayesian map
|
||
|
||
**Claim:** Intelligence is approximate rational inference under resource limits: priors, likelihoods, programs, search.
|
||
|
||
**Champions:** Tenenbaum and the probabilistic-programs tradition; the “language is not all you need” line that wants LLMs as *language modules* attached to a world-model / program-induction core.
|
||
|
||
**What it is good for:** Explaining few-shot concept learning, causal reasoning, and why pure next-token prediction still fails some structured tasks.
|
||
|
||
**Limits:** Full Bayesian program learning does not yet scale to frontier product systems. The engineering winning streak is still large transformers plus RL and tools.
|
||
|
||
## 4. Connectionist / scaling map
|
||
|
||
**Claim:** Competence emerges from gradient-trained networks at sufficient scale of data, parameters, and compute, plus the right post-training (instruction, preference, RL, tools).
|
||
|
||
**What it is good for:** Predicting that many new skills appear as a function of scale and that evaluation sets saturate. This is the map the AI industry actually ships against.
|
||
|
||
**Limits:** Poor sample and energy efficiency versus brains; weak accounts of agency, grounded world models, and long-horizon reliability; benchmarks leak.
|
||
|
||
**2026 note:** Alternative architectures (latent-space recurrent “brain-inspired” models such as Pathway BDH) are trying to move reasoning *off* the token tape. Watch these as potential cost-curve breakers, not as proven replacements.
|
||
|
||
## 5. Neuroscientific / mechanistic map
|
||
|
||
**Claim:** Intelligence is what certain recurrent, sparse, multi-scale biological circuits do — especially prefrontal control interacting with specialized systems — under severe energy and developmental constraints.
|
||
|
||
**2026 note:** Proposals for a “foundational brain model of intelligence” want connectome + cell types + recurrent dynamics + multi-task training, with PFC as the control core. Separate work (Ganguli and others) calls for a science of intelligence that unifies physics of complex systems, neuroscience, and AI.
|
||
|
||
**Limits:** We still lack a causal, multi-scale model that predicts both a mouse navigating and GPT-class language.
|
||
|
||
## 6. Consciousness / sentience map (disputed)
|
||
|
||
**Claim variants:** Integrated information; global workspace broadcast; higher-order thought; life-first / enactive views that deny substrate-neutral computation.
|
||
|
||
**Radar rule:** Track the *dispute* and any policy consequence (welfare of models, “critical” capability designations). Do not treat a lab’s anthropomorphic demo as evidence of sentience.
|
||
|
||
## 7. Collective / economic map
|
||
|
||
**Claim:** A lot of “what humanity knows” lives in institutions, prices, papers, and code, not in individual skulls. AI changes the cost of contributing to that collective.
|
||
|
||
**What it is good for:** The weekly digest’s economic, legal, and political sections. Capability without deployment, capital, chips, or permission is not a social fact.
|
||
|
||
## Working synthesis used by this facility
|
||
|
||
For routing work to models, Intelligence Radar uses a **capability stack**, not a theory of mind:
|
||
|
||
1. Perception and representation
|
||
2. Knowledge and retrieval
|
||
3. Reasoning and search
|
||
4. Tool and environment action
|
||
5. Planning over long horizons
|
||
6. Coordination (multi-agent / human-in-the-loop)
|
||
7. Reliability under distribution shift and adversarial pressure
|
||
|
||
A task is scored by which layers it actually needs. Benchmarks are chosen to hit those layers. Theories from sections 1–7 explain *why* a layer is hard; they do not replace the score.
|
||
|
||
A 2026-10-04 research lead, [Richard Socher and *The Eureka Machine*](04-socher-eureka-machine.md), describes scientific discovery as a loop of records, physical models, simulation, and laboratory measurement. It is an engineering recipe for collective intelligence. It is not a revision of the seven layers above. Two secondary accounts of Socher's own dimension list disagree with each other. Neither account replaces this stack.
|
||
|
||
## Changelog
|
||
|
||
- 2026-09-13: v0.1 initial map.
|
||
- 2026-10-04: pointer to the unverified Socher lead. The seven-layer stack is unchanged.
|