intelligence

Intelligence as a Shotgun: Brute Force, Curiosity, and the Distributed Nature of Problem-Solving

Standard

Nature is a problem solver.  The whole of which is intelligent.  

I have been turning over some thoughts on intelligence lately, and the more I reflect, the more I see intelligence not as elegant precision but as something that is much messier, more improvisational, and deeply pragmatic.  In this age of AI, there is reason to consider how our own problem solving ability works—to gain a better perspective on ourselves and our limitations.

Intelligence is natural and distributed to all creatures.  But it is often expressed through biology rather than brain power—in genetic variation allows at least a few survivors.  I mean, your own chances of yelling “bingo” go up with the amount of numbers read.  More shots gives a higher probability of success.  This is why a shotgun is preferable with a small or elusive target, it requires a far less precise aim to be the right firing solution.  And this crude analogy applies to all intelligence—we arrive at the correct answer mostly on the basis of having enough tries.

Indeed.

General intelligence—the kind that humans possess in greater measure than with other creatures—is fundamentally an adaptation to an unpredictable world. When the world environment can shift so dramatically and without warning, the special ability to solve a diverse set of problems (rather than just relying on slow change through the shotgun blast of genetic expression) is the ultimate survival trait.  Our curiosity and imagination aren’t luxuries; they’re our exploration tools. They let us scan the horizon of possibilities for potential threats or opportunities before we ever encounter them in reality.

Specialization, by contrast, is just ruthlessly efficient—up until it isn’t.  A creature that is finely tuned to a narrow niche will be able to thrive spectacularly in stable conditions.  It is adapted, not adaptable.  And introduce a radical environmental shift, and that perfect adaptation can become a death sentence. Evolution’s answer for most organisms isn’t individual brilliance but something broader and more distributed.  Other animals and living systems often solve the problems of sustaining life at the collective level.  Or, in other words, through a staggering genetic and behavioral diversity, populations throw countless variations at existence. This is a shotgun approach at problem solving: put enough lead downrange and something is bound to hit the target. One subset of the population will carry the traits that survive the next drought, predator, or disease. The intelligence of the species emerges from the swarm, not the single organism.

Human intelligence, for all its appearance of sophistication, works much the same way—albeit at the individual level. Our brains don’t usually arrive at perfect or precise solutions on the first try. No, instead, we will generate the possibilities, daydream many different scenarios, run mental simulations, and iterate. Think long or hard enough, explore enough angles, and your brain may eventually stumble onto the correct answer.  So, yes, it’s still brute force—a massive parallel search through the space of ideas—rather than crystalline precision.

Intelligence is finding a solution.

What truly sets humans apart, as a species, is the software layer that’s built on top of the biological hardware: culture and language.  While animals transmit knowledge primarily through instincts encoded in genetics or their limited behavioral imitation, us humans have collective memory transmitted in our words. It is the development of language that allows us to pass many insights, discoveries, and lessons across many generations with fairly high fidelity. One person’s hard-won realization—therefore—can become everyone’s inherited advantage.  Writing, storytelling, teaching, and now digital networks have turned this into an exponential adaptation accelerator. Our “intelligence” isn’t just what’s inside any single skull—it’s the compounding archive of everything our species has learned.

This makes humans strangely adorable at the individual level. We’re very neotenous, playful, socially wired creatures who retain childlike curiosity and vulnerability well into adulthood. While a lone human is far from being a match for the strongest or fastest animal, individual charm and dependence on one another fuel the social bonds that make cultural transmission possible.

Thomas Edison didn’t invent the light bulb in the sense that he sat there in contemplation with absolute understanding of the science involved.  No, he was merely building off the multitude of discoveries accumulated over time—running thousands of experiments in order to find a better filament to make the application of a phenomenon more practical.  Many human advancements in technology have come by accident and not through a precise process or intentional pursuit.  Oftentimes we found a question we did not even know existed until we stumbled upon the answer.

Huh?  We can do something with this!

I was not proficient at my own job of truss design at birth.  Instead, a natural curiosity and a little spatial reasoning aptitude, with my dad’s career in construction—as well as an affirming comment from him about my understanding the blueprints he brought—gave me courage to pursue engineering.  It got me the opportunity (by an acquaintance who recommended me) and even then my progress with the software was through a lot of training follow by trial and error.  My having the right solutions, quickly, comes down to memory and knowledge that has been accumulated over time.  Is my design intelligence more than just matching tools to problems until one works and keeping a memory of the success?

In the end, intelligence across the scales—genetic, neural, cultural—seems to rely on the same underlying strategy: by generating enough variation, exploring broadly enough, and letting selection (or our insight) find the winners. Evolution is intelligence that does it blindly across populations. Our brains do it consciously within a single lifetime. And human culture does it cumulatively across time.  Our intelligence is innate in the ability to map our world, aquire language, pattern recognition and memory to keep a catalog of proven solutions.

Limits of human cognition are greater than we often realize.  It’s a distorted picture, one that centers on an ego, fails in the direction of confirmation bias, takes a large amount of mental shortcuts (call them stereotypes and prejudice), which is not to mention delusion and hallucination.  All of this because there is only so much power that can be packed into our skull and we’re optimized for mere survival rather than creating a 1:1 model of reality.  So long as we are not running off of cliffs or eating the ‘wrong’ berries, living long enough to produce offspring, we achieved the purpose of our intelligence.

Our anxiety, our existential dread, are simply a byproduct of a brain geared to a survival mechanism that tries to interpret data, find patterns, create models, project and predict the future so we’re better prepared.  The world we inhabit remains wildly unpredictable.  Perhaps the real edge, then, belongs not to those who optimize perfectly for today, but to those who maintain their curiosity and flexibility to keep firing shots into the unknown tomorrow.  This is one place where diversity is our strength—or so long as we can appreciate those who have gotten past a bottleneck or choke point in our progress.

Wisdom comes with understanding that our intelligence is a crude instrument at best.  It helps us navigate and even temporarily help simplify a complex environment—up until it doesn’t.  The systems we built, the designs we have made to create ease—including creation of AI as a tool to help synthesize—all rest upon a foundation of assumptions.  Ours is a purpose built intelligence.  If the world we are in was to ever move too far from what familiar dilemmas our intelligence would become disoriented and lost.

In the end us humans are a rudimentary data crunching pellet shot out in hopes of being the answer that carries on life.  We’re a focused part of the overall computational power of universe.  Clever for our environment and yet, if we fail, nature will simply load another shell and fire into the future.  Our intelligence is a blast in a direction of where the generically determined parameters, with momentum of generations, expect the viable path to be.  Our brains help us to fine tune survival, civilization our collective intelligence, while our more animalistic instincts drive us forward into the maze.

Three blasts into an unknown future.

What do you think?  Are humans truly a kind of general intelligence or simply a creature with quirks in our hardware and software? Is human intelligence truly distinct, or just biology’s most egotistical hack of shotgun method?  I’d love to hear where your randomly generated thoughts on this topic land. 

Data Centers as Dual-Use Scaffolds

Standard

The book of Esther tells us the story about Haman—a man who was so obsessed with destroying a rival that it cost him his own life in the end.  It could be read as being a cautionary tale against ambition when it is at the cost of others.  The devices we build to solidify our own power might instead be our own undoing.  

In the same way Haman didn’t anticipate Mordecai being related to queen Esther we can’t always imagine how our own plans will play out and never actually know how the scaffolds we build to deal with others will be used.  There’s a principle about such plots found in Proverbs 26:27, “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it; if someone rolls a stone, it will roll back on them.”  Jesus explained this concept of reciprocation and told Peter “those who live by the sword die by the sword.”  The things we bring into the world can easily come back on us.

We Must Beat China!

A few years ago, policies like confronting China and large-scale deportations of illegal immigrants seemed right to me. I saw them as necessary for national security and for preserving our country’s character. It was never about skin color or the language people spoke. For me, it came down to basic fairness—everyone playing by the same rules—along with the belief that China was acting as a bully in its region and that the U.S. should put the interests of its own people first. Back then, I still trusted that our institutions and the character of the American people, though imperfect, would generally do the right thing.

Fast-forward to today, and—for multiple reasons that go beyond the scope of this post—I no longer trust the government to reliably serve our best interests.

After I’ve watched multiple administrations say one thing while doing another, the actual needs of the American people clearly aren’t a priority in Washington DC or amongst our elites.

A race towards the abyss?

So, when Kevin O’Leary says we need more data centers to beat China, I’m skeptical.  Is all this massive AI infrastructure being built as a tool of protection from a foreign power or is it simply about control, in general, for a few elites?  There’s actually no way to know for certain how this plays out, but there’s no reason to believe that this tool of war and of mass surveillance won’t eventually be used on us.  China may be the excuse.  However, AI is the ultimate dual use technology and as easily domestically employed as it is against an alleged foreign threat.

What Is Actually Coming?

My initial response to data centers was a response to NIMBYism.  It was so ironic to see people, on social media, using ChatGPT to construct arguments against a proposed data center.  Maybe this was just a typical fear of change Luddite response and what is built or not built a matter of the property rights of a land owner.  And yet sometimes a rule is true until it isn’t.  The formula that has worked since that 1800’s invention of the power loom, that technology frees up labor to do other beneficial things, doesn’t work with a machine that does everything at less cost than a human.

Even if the current intent of O’Leary is not to destroy your future, we need to consider the law of unintended consequences.  The rule is that a complex system will often react in unpredictable ways.  And not necessarily an AI going rogue either.  Sure, issues like the paper clip problem must be discussed, but it’s more the tendency of humans given too much power that should be considered.  So even if a leader now is opposed to using AI tools in a way that violates our rights—the next guy to take the reigns may not.  

What sent a chill through me as far as ICE and immigration enforcement was not that it is any different from any other arrest in some regards.  We take criminals off the street all of the time, rip men away from their families simply on the basis of accusations, and this is just an accepted part of civilization.  We have this system to punish the evildoer and it’s better than violent chaos.  But, this only can work when the mechanism is itself bound to law.  What bothers me is how quickly the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were pushed aside for sake of expediency.

Moreover, when U.S. Citizens were killed by ICE the same people who said that we need stronger enforcement to protect citizens did a complete 180 turn and cheered with a FAFO dismissal of those questioning the use of deadly force.

What this tells me is that propaganda from a political regime trumps our Constitutional law.  And it works both ways.  When parents speaking up at a school board meeting can be described as “domestic terrorists” and a Jan 6th rioter be held in indefinite detention, this isn’t about right or left and Democrats versus Republicans.  No, when a partisan sees a legal tool that can be stretched to gain on their enemies they will use it with a completely clear conscience.  There is not a shortage of excuses to abuse power.  That’s why we must stand for civil rights for all, we never know when we’ll be the inconvenience to be eliminated.

Our Hangman’s Noose

In the end, and returning to the thesis (those who plot and build their devices to destroy others end up facing the device they built), there’s been a critical lack of awareness about what we are actually building.  We cheer ICE as surveillance technology developed to kill in Gaza is deployed to our streets.  It is “Homeland Security” and, therefore, this would never be used against the American people, right?

That ‘security’ being the same DHS that a ‘glitch’ had mysteriously as in Tel Aviv, Israel—after X rolled out a feature showing the account location information. 

Strange, huh?

Thankfully our government and the  head of product at X dismissed it as being “fake” or “manipulated media” (it was not) while they took the feature down temporarily and then ‘corrected’ the issue.

So as far as the AI rollout and ICE tactics, what if they’re actually laying the ground work for the surveillance state—manufacturing consent by deploying an acceptable version first (as a trial run) against a population many of us see bad and giving us some tools for free?  We need to ask why are AI companies so willing to lose money (spend three dollars for every one earned) if it’s merely another business venture?  Could we be walking into a trap?  Could those same detention facilities also be used to warehouse American dissidents?

If you’re trying to catch a wild animal you’ll put out a trap.  You will present something for free, lure them into the device you have built to ensnare them, and at an appointed time the mechanism is triggered.  So, think, is there any reason why you would trust the people currently building AI infrastructure?  Are you absolutely certain that this political class that betrays us at every turn is really concerned about illegal immigrants?

Even if this isn’t the plan—what would stop it from becoming the reality?  

Did you see how fast the narrative shifted in Minneapolis?  You know if a Federal agency were to ever raid your home in the middle of the night, ship you away for crimes against the regime, there is nobody coming to save you, right?  If you were to totally disappear few would even care enough to inquire and those who might protest would be quickly drowned out by propaganda that painted you as extreme and dangerous.  Consider this: One moment people praised ICE for protecting citizens, but in the next they’re celebrating when ICE killed two citizens—Alex Pretti and Renee Good.  

Rights that aren’t universal, those which do not exist for everyone, are not long for this world.  We can’t give our abusive elites this kind of surveillance infrastructure and legal power without expecting it to eventually be used against us.  You can’t count on anyone to defend your own civil rights when you do not fight for the rights of others.  For sure, the government will not save you from their own power grabs.  We must see the foot in the door strategy and slam the door on their toes if need be.

We must be wary of those making special exceptions.  And we need to question those who give unexplained gifts.  When—at a flip of a switch—something we build is so easily turned against us, we may just be better off not to build it.  At the very least we should be taking time to consider all possibilities and then create safeguards which are up to the task.  Otherwise we may end up hoisted by our own petard.

A Better Union of Humanity 

We are the only line of defense.  

Our existing institutions are corrupted.

Government and corporations often will serve only the most powerful elites at our expense.

We need a Union of Human Individuals that goes beyond sending a representative to be bought or otherwise manipulated.  We need to address the growing power unbalance—a growing wealth gap that with AI will only be multiplied.  We must put aside old divisions, none of the red team versus blue team stuff really matters where this is all going, so it is time to leave it behind like a middle school clique.  Language doesn’t matter nor does a nation of origin.  Even religious differences are best set aside.  We all have something in common: We’re human.

If we can’t find common ground we’ll be destroyed by our own devices.

The guillotine was eventually used on those who initially used it.  We may build a system aimed at one group of people and yet these things tend to boomerang back at us.  We’re better off to judge as we wish to be judged, forgive as we wish to be forgiven, and stop building infrastructure that can be turned on us as easily as it is used against them.  So let’s do this right, not be a Haman, and just be human to all humans instead.  We don’t need more dual use detention facilities and data centers—we need to complete a more complete and better union of humanity.

Lies, Damned Lies, and AI — The Machine Can’t Replace Mind

Standard

AI is an exciting new tool—kind of like Wikipedia was back in the day, something fun to turn to for those quick answers. But let’s be clear: AI is NOT a replacement for actual research. No, it isn’t an independent mind, and it’s certainly no impartial judge. All it really does is take the content that’s currently acceptable to its creators and then will synthesize it into responses. And it will lie to you outright, with zero conscience, because it has no conscience at all. It’s a sophisticated machine, a tool, nothing more or less, and it can absolutely be manipulated by the agendas of those behind the scenes who run it.

Like Wikipedia or so-called fact-checkers, at best, AI reflects the current bias or the established narrative. A perfect example of this is the lab leak theory for Covid-19’s origins. Back when some of us were talking about it, we were being “debunked” (some even banned), only for things to reverse later. As of early 2025, the CIA has assessed that a research lab origin is more likely than a natural one. So, to all the “sources please” crowd: beware. There’s no substitute for building your own knowledge base and using your own brain to evaluate things independently of official or established organizations.

AI is probably less reliable than your GPS. Sure, the tool works most of the time, but it’s no replacement for your own eyes or basic navigation skills. “Death by GPS” is a real category for a reason—if the machine were totally accurate, people wouldn’t drive off cliffs or into lakes after following bad directions. We need our own internal map, built on some established waypoints and a landmark or two, rather than just plugging in an address and blindly following the device into the abyss. Above all, we need a strong internal BS detector, we need it because the tool belongs to them—and it does what its creators need it to do. And telling you the unvarnished truth isn’t always the priority.

At its very best, AI will reflect the currently available information and most dominant narrative. Imagine, had the technology been available, asking it about the threat of Covid early on—it very likely would have dismissed outlier concerns as rumors, downplayed the disease in comparison to the seasonal flu, maybe even lectured about racism—while echoing the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s encouragement, February of 2020, to visit those crowded streets of San Francisco’s Chinatown in total defiance of emerging fears. (A family member ridiculed me for saying Covid would be a big deal at that time—dutifully citing mainstream media sources saying it was less worrisome than the seasonal flu.)

People have also very quickly forgotten how The Lancet published a deeply flawed study in the critical early weeks of the pandemic claiming hydroxychloroquine was extremely dangerous—only to quietly retract it later because the authors couldn’t verify the authenticity of the data. In short, the data was totally unreliable, and was a study based on falsehoods presented as science. If that was the “reliable” information being fed into an AI system back then, what would it have told you the scientific consensus was? It would have parroted the lie, and made it as unreliable as the retracted paper during the most urgent phase of the crisis. AI didn’t exist in its current form at the time, but its behavior would have mirrored exactly what I describe: reflecting the biased mainstream thought rather than truly act as a functioning as an independent thinker.

AI lags behind reality. A semi-independent mind—one relying on their personal intelligence and a grounded model of the world—can oftentimes do better. When I saw the early images coming out of Wuhan and listened to reports from doctors there (some of whom later died or disappeared), I knew this was not just the seasonal flu. It didn’t matter how many three-letter agencies were being quoted by corporate media; I could make my own judgment. I also quickly realized how terribly politicized even a pandemic can become. People didn’t pick sides based on the evidence—instead, they chased (or even invented) evidence to confirm their partisan narratives.

If AI had existed back then, it would have picked a side based on what its owners wanted. Covid is where I really honed my BS detector and learned that both sides lie—not that I was oblivious before, but seeing it play out in real time was very eye-opening. Partisans would flip positions the moment their preferred politicians did. Suddenly, independent voices raising alarms (with Trump leaning that way) became the target, then Democrats outflanked this with total hysteria after their months of denial when it actually mattered. We saw the same flip with Operation Warp Speed: with the left as vaccine skeptics while Trump promoted them, only for the Democrats pushing hard for mandates while Republicans opposed even masks.

How fast a symbol of oppression/security can become a symbol of oppression/security.  Questions remain about effectiveness in either context.

Now, identity-obscuring masks are back in style as authoritarian right-wing fashion, as ICE agents terrorize, and insurrections are now cool again for Democrats who dislike immigration laws or the last election results. And AI won’t fix any of this partisanship—especially when people use it without understanding how it works or its severe limitations.

At best, AI is a good supplement or starting point for someone who already knows how to ask the right questions. At worst, it will lie and give you exactly what you want to hear. But one thing is certain: AI is NOT an objective truth-teller. Rely on your own reasoning, your own research, your own past experience, the reliable voices you have vetted on your own or your own BS detector first. The AI machine is no substitute. Yes, independent thinking is tough, in practice, and yet we must be smarter than the tool.  Journalism, Wikipedia, or fact-checkers and GPS—all of these things are reliable… until they’re not.