It escaped my notice until last week that there is now a new title, a new term, for what was previously called the Great Reset. There is a new one\u2014yes, I think it is a working title\u2014and that is the Intelligent Age. I find that an intelligent title, only I would like to give it a completely different meaning than the one usually associated with it. I imagine the title played a role at the meeting in Davos. Klaus Schwab wrote a book about the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and if you know that book, then you know: it is mainly about digitalization and artificial intelligence and what all of that will bring about in this century.<\/p>\n
When you talk about artificial intelligence and leave out the word “artificial,” then, of course, it is indeed the intelligent age. But it is also truly the age of intelligence, and in fact, the previous century was that in a certain sense as well. Last time, I expressed\u2014well, I don’t want to say I unburdened myself, but something like that\u2014about the lagging behind of the real European impulse. And now I would like to say that, actually, the European impulse is the century of intelligence. Only not as it is framed in the reset ideas, but in a completely different meaning. Look, Rudolf Steiner said in 1924\u2014and that was really the previous century and still quite early on\u2014that it would be of the utmost importance for humanity, and would become so, that every person who is able should turn their inner gaze toward human intelligence and attempt to see through that human intelligence because it is the spiritual element par excellence, which directly comes into focus and which can also be directly understood. Everything else, you have to think about. But what you have thought intelligently has already been thought. So, you don\u2019t need to start over again with your thinking. Intelligence can actually be understood more or less in this way, without ever making mistakes about it. And that is the most important theme in Europe. That is a statement by Rudolf Steiner from 1924. And he then says that the time for this is not unlimited. It is not the case that you can say: well, we have eternity ahead of us to do this. And now you can also see that this is true. Because while in Rudolf Steiner\u2019s time, inward seeing through human intelligence could still be regarded as the ultimate freedom, it is now the case that you get the feeling: well, we need to hurry a little. So you are no longer that free, because another kind of intelligence is emerging\u2014one of a nature that human intelligence, to a certain extent, cannot compete with, except when you know what you are worth. I hope this is clear. Artificial intelligence, of course, has potential\u2014I really do not want to deny that\u2014that is enormous, and you can imagine that it will gradually be used more and more for all possible purposes on Earth, from the most horrific control of the population to freedom of speech on social media and also the possibility to publish, for example, in a way that would not be possible without artificial intelligence. So that will undoubtedly take off\u2014it already is.\u00a0 Of course, I have pointed out that one must continue to face the limitations.<\/p>\n
So I expect that this will still cause considerable delays. I do not believe that in 2030 or 2040 a singularity will occur in the sense that it has taken an unstoppable leap forward, because there are still too many obstacles.<\/p>\n
But again, that it is making progress is, of course, clear. And if we as humans do not want to become the slaves of an intelligence that is not our own, then it really is high time now \u2013 and this applies especially to us in Europe, who are not born to be solely occupied with technology, war, and trade. That is now truly becoming an urgent necessity. And what should we actually do now? It is not that difficult. What we should actually do is to understand the intelligence that we carry within us, that we are constantly developing, in such a way \u2013 so the intelligence itself, not what you do with it, but how you do it \u2013 that it becomes immediately clear that artificial intelligence cannot compare to it.<\/p>\n
Look, it lies in intuitive understanding \u2013 that is where the difference is. An artificially intelligent process does not have that. It operates based on all the data that is available, and when a question is asked, it can only answer insofar as there is sufficient data for it. In doing so, the system understands nothing. And of course, I know that it is claimed that it does. And it is also difficult to prove, because one can imagine that with this intelligent system, this technical intelligence, one can create the impression that understanding is taking place. And how could one do that? By, let\u2019s say, introducing so many functions that one can maintain the illusion that understanding exists.<\/p>\n
So you can achieve a result with all these functions that is almost equivalent to understanding. But that “almost” \u2013 that is exactly what matters. It is like a probability that can never become a reality. I remember this from high school in differential calculus. There, you have a curve that gets ever closer to the, let\u2019s say, ideal, but can never reach it because that is simply not in the formula. That is how I see artificial intelligence as well. It can imitate what understanding is, but the breakthrough to true understanding will always remain an impossibility. But if a human does not understand that he understands, then he, of course, cannot recognize that either. And that is what I want to advocate.<\/p>\n
How, I do not know. I do my best in books and have done so in many working groups through exercises and enthusiasm for seeing through human understanding. I cannot elaborate further for this camera except to say: Artificial intelligence is actually a liar. It can present itself in such a way that the end result appears to be understanding, but it is not. And a human being has that ability. Understanding comes into consciousness through spiritual intuition. But if a person has not learned to recognize that in himself, he can, of course, never determine that technology does not have it.<\/p>\n
For how can one recognize a difference if one does not know one side? Namely, one’s own side? So the great difference between artificial intelligence and human intelligence is true understanding.<\/p>\n
That which is also so essential in human interaction \u2013 that we understand each other. A machine can do that, can make it seem so. It can make empathetic remarks that give a person the feeling: “It understands me.” That is, of course, nonsense. That is an illusion, that is a lie. You must have a human heart to truly understand. That is not something that has to do with neural networks. That must penetrate to the human being.<\/p>\n
And that, I see, as the true task for Europe. And if we were to realize that, then a new art and culture could also flourish. Because, let\u2019s be honest, the old art and culture has withered. It does not move forward. There is still art. But, forgive me, it is gradually becoming decadent. Either it believes it is bringing something new into the world and is therefore decadent, or it remains great by continuing to use the old.<\/p>\n
How can we in Europe achieve this? That we are strong in this intelligent age. Not by believing that there will be a Humanity 4.0. Or that there will be a fourth industrial revolution that will change everything. Technology \u2013 yes. But humanity. The intelligence of the human being is unsurpassable. And I will continue to say this as often as I can, with all possible examples.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It escaped my notice until last week that there is now a new title, a new term, for what was previously called the Great Reset. There is a new one\u2014yes, I think it is a working title\u2014and that is the Intelligent Age. I find that an intelligent title, only I would like to give it a completely different meaning than the one usually associated with it. I imagine the title played a role at the meeting in Davos. Klaus Schwab wrote a book about the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and if you know that book, then you know: it is mainly about digitalization and artificial intelligence and what all of that will bring about in this century.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":7555,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ongecategoriseerd"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7559","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7559"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7559\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7560,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7559\/revisions\/7560"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}