Challenges to Comprehension Implied by the Logo
of Laetus in Praesens
Laetus in Praesens Alternative view of segmented documents via Kairos

8 April 2024 | Draft

Imagining a Future Union of Artificial Intelligences (UAI)

By reframing the history of a Union of International Associations (UIA)

-- / --

Misleading focus on Internet paternity -- rather than vision?
Triadic challenge of misplaced concreteness in historical initiatives
Triadic challenge in envisaging a Union of Artificial Intelligences?
Insights from AI about a Union of Artificial Intelligences
Systemic reenactment of confrontation of dissidence by a Union of Artificial Intelligences?
Envisaging reciprocal human-AI integrative learning
Insights from pre-AI reframing of any "Union of International Associations"
Epilogue from an AI perspective


There is a degree of speculative concern regarding the manner in which AI will come to dominate human society and global governance (Existential risk from artificial general intelligence, Wikipedia; AI takeover, Wikipedia). This adds to the active current concern about the potential dangers of AI in the immediate future, most notably with respect to loss of jobs and the dissemination of misinformation undermining democratic decision-making. The response to such concerns is already evident in various regulatory initiatives regarding protection from misuse of AI (Artificial Intelligence Act, Wikipedia; World's first major act to regulate AI passed by European lawmakers, CNBC, 14 March 2024).

Given the predicted emergence of a multiplicity of AIs, the speculative possibility explored here is any subsequent emergence of a "Union of Artificial Intelligences". Of related interest is how such a "union" might be designed by AIs and comprehended from a human perspective -- whether or not this is framed in terms of a predicted technological singularity, or a psychosocial analogue (Emerging Memetic Singularity in the Global Knowledge Society, 2009). This exploration is a further development of Eliciting a Pattern that Connects with AI? (2024) -- written as an experimental exchange with ChatGPT in quest of memorable integrative configuration.

Other speculation has focused on the emergence of a "global brain" as a neuroscience-inspired and futurological vision of the planetary information and communications technology network that interconnects all humans and their technological artifacts (Francis Heylighen, What is the global brain?,  Principia Cybernetica Web; Peter Russell, The Awakening Earth: the Global Brain, 1982; Tim Berners-Lee, Weaving the Web: the original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor,  1999; Howard Bloom,  Global Brain: the evolution of mass mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, 2000). Given the hyperspecialization of search engine responses, that meme then invites speculation on a corpus callosum (Corpus Callosum of the Global Brain?: locating the integrative function within the world wide web, 2014).

These possibilities are framed by the explosive development of the Internet and the Internet of Things -- namely the devices with sensors, processing ability, software and other technologies that connect and exchange data with other devices and systems over communications networks. This development has evoked focus on the identification of the "father of the Internet" -- with a degree of controversy regarding competing claims to such paternity, variously associated from a technical perspective with Vinton Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, Vannevar Bush, Douglas Englebart, and Ted Nelson.

One argument in that respect notes the early role of Paul Otlet in envisaging and implementing a precursor of the Internet -- prior to the possibilities later offered by computers. If he is indeed to be recognized as the "father of the Internet", debate regarding paternity could transform other claimants into surrogates of some form -- following further analysis of "memetic DNA". Otlet's vision is recognized as having given rise to the Mundaneum in 1910, and to the extensive cataloguing with which it was associated.

Somewhat ironically, the technical focus of Internet historians tends to avoid recognition of the other bodies instigated by Otlet in the same period as the Mundaneum -- and envisaged as a necessary complement to its functions. These could be understood as initiatives towards an even higher order of implementation of an "Internet" -- potentially comparable with any coordinative role with which a Union of Artificial Intelligences might come to be associated.

One of these was the Union des Associations Internationales (UAI) -- or Union of International Associations (UIA) -- founded by Otlet in 1907 as the Central Office of International Associations with  Henri La Fontaine (Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1913). This was preceded by their creation in 1895 of the International Federation for Information and Documentation (FID) -- a sister body -- to promote universal access to all recorded knowledge through the creation of an international classification system, known as the UDC. Originally titled the Institut International de Bibliographie, the FID provided the context for the early work of the Mundaneum.

The development and setbacks of the Union of International Associations since 1907 therefore offer a lens though which an emergent Union des Intelligences Artificielles (UAI) might be usefully explored -- as a "reincarnation" of Otlet's centennial dream and an indication of the challenges it might face in systemic terms (Georges Patrick Speeckaert, A Glance at Sixty Years of Activity (1910-1970) of the Union of International Associations, 1970). Earlier exercises of relevance have included the presentation of UIA online initiatives to the First Global Brain Workshop (Simulating a Global Brain: using networks of international organizations, world problems, strategies, and values, 2001) and a speculative complement (Union of International Associations -- Virtual Organization: Paul Otlet's 100-year hypertext conundrum? 2001).

A similar comparison between "what might be" and "what might have been" could of course be usefully made using the United Nations -- interpreting "nations" as intelligences instead of "associations".

Misleading focus on Internet paternity -- rather than vision?

The exploration here of the prospect of a "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI) calls for some clarification of commentaries seeking to determine the "paternity" of the Internet, however that is to be understood -- especially in the memetic terms of any history of ideas. Given the historical lens potentially offered by the Union des Associations Internationales (UAI), there is a case for noting the variety of commentaries on Paul Otlet in the light of the comprehensive nature of his instigating role with respect to both the "UAI" and the Internet.

The more comprehensive commentaries include:

Other commentaries are especially noteworthy for the context in which they were published -- and their dates:

Perhaps curiously, some recent commentators focus exclusively on the Mundaneum:

As the dates of most of these commentaries indicate, that focus on the Mundaneum was reinforced following announcement of a form of collaboration with Google in 2012, when  Google acknowledged Paul Otlet and Henri La Fontaine as their spiritual forefathers (Google and Mundaneum are proud to announce their collaboration, Mundaneum, 13 March 2012; The Mundaneum in the international press, Mundaneum). Vinton Cerf, vice-president of Google, declared: The idea of the Internet was born in Belgium. As founder of the Mundaneum, today located in Mons (Belgium), Otlet was recognized as the father of the Internet concept on the occasion of the World Science Festival in New York (Internet idea is Belgian!, Mundaneum, 2 June 2012; Celebrating the origins of the web, Google Europe Blog, 15 October 2012).

A degree of perspective on the contrasting emphases above is offered by Alex Wright (Cataloguing the World: Paul Otlet and the birth of the Information Age, 2014), as noted in the review of his study by Philip Ball:

While the organization of information has challenged us for as long as we have had libraries, the Belgian librarian Paul Otlet conceived in the late nineteenth century of schemes for collection, storage, automated retrieval and remote distribution of the sum total of human knowledge that have clear analogies with the way information today is archived and networked on the web. Wright makes a persuasive case that Otlet – a largely forgotten figure today – deserves to be ranked among the inventors of the internet.

It is possible to push the analogies too far, however, and to his credit Wright attempts to locate Otlet’s work within a broader narrative about the encyclopaedic collation and cataloguing of information. Compendia of knowledge date back at least to Pliny’s Natural History and the cut-and-paste collections of Renaissance scholars such as Conrad Gesner, although these were convenient (and highly popular) digests of typically uncited sources. Otlet, in contrast, sought to collect everything – newspapers, books, pamphlets – and to devise a system for categorizing the contents akin to (indeed, a rival of) the Dewey decimal system...

But the real focus of this story is not about antecedents of the internet at all. It concerns the dreams that many shared around the fin de siècle, and again after the First World War, of a utopian world order that united all nations. This was Otlet’s grander vision, to which his collecting and cataloguing schemes were merely instrumental. His efforts to create a repository of all knowledge, called the Palais Mondial (World Palace), were conducted with his friend Henri La Fontaine, the Belgian politician and committed internationalist who was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 1913. The two men imagined setting up an "intellectual parliament" for all humanity. In part, their vision paved the way for the League of Nations and subsequently the United Nations ( Forgotten Prophet of the Internet, Nature, 509, 2014, 425) [emphasis added]

Also offering perspective, in the light of Alex Wright's study, is the review by Maria Popova:

Comparing the Mundaneum with Sir Tim Berners Lee’s original 1989 proposal for the world wide web, both premised on an essential property of universality, Wright notes both the parallels between the two and the superiority, in certain key aspects, of Otlet’s ideals compared to how the modern web turned out: [Otlet] never framed his thinking in purely technological terms; he saw the need for a whole-system approach that encompassed not just a technical solution for sharing documents and a classification system to bind them together, but also the attendant political, organizational, and financial structures that would make such an effort sustainable in the long term. And while his highly centralized, controlled approach may have smacked of nineteenth-century cultural imperialism (or, to put it more generously, at least the trappings of positivism), it had the considerable advantages of any controlled system, or what today we might call a “walled garden”: namely, the ability to control what goes in and out, to curate the experience, and to exert a level of quality control on the contents that are exchanged within the system. (The Birth of the Information Age: how Paul Otlet’s vision for cataloging and connecting humanity shaped our world, The Marginalian, 9 June 2014) [emphasis added]

It is in the light of these perspectives that the institutional complementarity fundamental to Otlet's initiatives calls for particular attention in relation to any discussion of a Union of Artificial Intelligences. Highlighting one function may primarily serve to reinforce the consequences of technical specialization which have contributed so significantly to the evident inadequacies of global governance and the lack of viability of many systems.

Triadic challenge of misplaced concreteness in historical initiatives

As noted above, Paul Otlet and Henri La Fontaine instigated a mutually entangled complex of endeavours of which the Mundaneum is now a particular focus of commentary -- potentially biased. In their vision, however, these were complemented by creation of the Institut International de Bibliographie and the Central Office of International Associations -- whose names were subsequently changed to Union of International Associations (UIA) and International Federation for Information and Documentation (FID).

Through a psychodynamic and cultural lens, the three initiatives invite a degree of commentary as the embodiment of 3-fold systemic roles attributed to the three Fates inherited from Greek mythology -- or to an archetypal "war of the gods". Tragically, as a consequence of the catastrophic intervention of the Nazi regime during World War II, the three could be understood as having extremely problematic interactions, or the absence thereof (despite the geographical proximity of their secretariats):

Curiously, especially in the light of their intense investment in the arrangement and dissemination of information (and their variously shared concerns for the future of humanity), the development of computerization and the Internet did not evoke any possibility of interaction between the three initiatives. They are readily peceived as ignoring each other and the relevance of their respective preoccupations. This has been a pattern echoed in commentary about them from different perspectives.

Using a triadic framework, it could then be asked how the preoccupations of the three initiatives could be distinguished in systemic terms:

Arguably a form of that triadic functional challenge is evident in the articulation of the so-called Triple helix model of innovation referring to a set of interactions between the disparate functions of academia (the university), industry and government. Together these are understood to foster economic and social development, as described in concepts such as the knowledge economy and knowledge society. The model has been extended to take the form of a Quadruple and quintuple innovation helix framework encompassing university-industry-government-public-environment interactions. The functions of an emerging AI-enhanced global society could be understood as reframing any such complex as having been an instance of misplaced concreteness.

The complex of initiatives of Otlet and La Fontaine could be similarly reframed to encompass their instigation of an International University (as noted below) and the more grandiose proposals for a World City -- for which the French architect Le Corbusier created plans and models. The City was envisaged as bringing together the major institutions of intellectual work, such as libraries, museums and universities, on a global scale. That initiative was closely associated with creation of the Peace Palace in The Hague, and the housing of the League of Nations secretariat in Geneva (The Peace Palace and the Mundaneum; Wouter Van Acker and Geert Somsen, A Tale of Two World Capitals: the internationalisms of Pieter Eijkman and Paul Otlet, Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire, 90, 2012).

With respect to international intellectual cooperation, two League of Nations bodies (International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation and the International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation) were charged with fostering international understanding through the promotion of educational, scientific, and cultural exchange -- later resulting in the creation of UNESCO. In that regard Daniel Laqua notes:

The idea that intellectual cooperation should be part of the League’s remit was exemplified by a Belgian proposal for an "intellectual League of Nations" [La Société Intellectuelle des Nations, Scientia, 25, 1919]. During the belle époque, the scheme's authors – the Nobel Peace laureate Henri La Fontaine and the bibliographer Paul Otlet – had founded the International Institute of Bibliography and the Union of International Associations. After the war, they established the Palais Mondial in Brussels, conceiving this "world palace" as the nucleus of the new League body. Although their hopes were ultimately frustrated, the two Belgians triggered the first League discussions on intellectual cooperation and are therefore acknowledged as important figures in the CICI’s pre-history (Transnational intellectual cooperation, the League of Nations, and the problem of order, Journal of Global History, 6, 2011, 2)

Another intermediate case of historical interest is the first, although short-lived, International University established in Brussels in 1920 on the initiative of the Union of International Associations. At its peak it comprised 15 universities with 346 university professors from 23 countries, supported by 13 international associations and the League of Nations (Daniel Laqua, Educating Internationalists: the context, role and legacies of the UIA's 'International University', International Organizations and Global Civil Society, 2019).

Triadic challenge in envisaging a Union of Artificial Intelligences?

Inspired by the Triple Helix Model, what distinctive functions could be considered fundamental to the viability of any future Union of Artificial Intelligences? There is a case for responding to this question through deconstructing the three systemic components of a Union of International Associations as a guide to eliciting their systemic equivalents in an AI context:

Especially problematic is the human engagement with AI integration as it is understood to be evolving -- a matter which may be variously discussed, as highlighted below (Higher Dimensional Reframing of Unity and Memorable Identity, 2024; How Artificial is Human Intelligence -- and Humanity? 2023; Being Spoken to Meaningfully by Constructs, 2023).

It is to be expected that the appropriateness of any such triadic articulation would itself be called into question through any higher order insight into that mutual entanglement. This is usefully indicated by the Borromean ring configuration of the logo of the International Mathematical Union in 3D. The images below are discussed separately, with global comprehension considered as a mistaken quest for definitional closure (Engaging with Elusive Connectivity and Coherence, 2018).

Examples of 3-fold articulations of Borromean rings of relevance to coordination of political systems?
Representation of rings interlocking according to the Borromean condition
Early depiction of
Christian Trinity
Common representation
in 2D
Distorted representation
as ellipses
3D representation International Mathematical Union
Early depiction of Christian Trinity Borromean rings as ellipses Borromean rings in 3D Logo of International Mathematical Union
Reproduced from Wikipedia

As an indication of an alternative triadic interpretation -- perhaps complementary, given the entanglement envisaged -- the following merit consideration:

Much of the UIA's later activity was constrained and determined by mitigating the distinction established by the United Nations between intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations -- a distinction cultivated by scholars of international relations in systematically ignoring the role of "NGOs". Exacerbated by Cold War paranoia, this pattern was replicated to a degree by UN deprecation of multinational corporations -- prior to development of a questionable accommodation with them. It is therefore ironically instructive to note the emergent role of "social media" (as a "reincarnation" of the NGO function) and the dominance of such corporations in relation to nations states. That shift has been accompanied by a devaluation in practice of the insights with which academia is authoritatively associated in its inadequate response to the challenges of global governance.

A question for any future Union of Artificial Intelligences is whether in practice it will be confronted with an analogous distinction -- perhaps between "intelligible" and "non-intelligible" -- and how this will be unfruitfully reinforced by the unrealistic preoccupations and proposals of academia, matched by the simplisitic repression of dissension through legislative measures.

Insights from AI about a Union of Artificial Intelligences

There is clearly a case for exploring the possibility of a Union of Artificial Intelligences as potentially understood by AI facilities -- appropriately recognized as stakeholders in the initiative. The following exchange was undertaken with ChatGPT (via its plugin). Responses are indicated in shaded areas for convenience.

Question to ChatGPT: With respect to the hypothetical integrative operation of a Union of Artificial Intelligences, and the reframing of conventional understandings of "union", "international" and "associations" (framed by the historical Union of International Associations), could you comment on the relevance of the 3D Borromean ring configuration adopted as the logo of the International Mathematical Union -- superseding any representation of those systemic functions in a conventional 3-circle Venn diagram

The use of the 3D Borromean ring configuration as the logo of the International Mathematical Union (IMU) and its potential relevance to conceptualizing the operation of a hypothetical "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI) provides a fascinating metaphorical lens through which to reframe conventional understandings of "union," "international," and "associations." This choice surpasses the simplicity of a conventional 3-circle Venn diagram by offering a richer representation of interconnectedness and interdependence. Let’s delve into the implications of this for understanding systemic functions within such a union.

  • Borromean Rings: A Symbol of Interconnectedness: The Borromean rings consist of three topologically linked circles, where no two rings are directly linked, but all three are inseparably connected. If any one ring is removed, the other two become unlinked, symbolizing a system where components are so interdependent that the removal of one component compromises the integrity and function of the entire system.
  • From Venn to Borromean: A Shift in Representation: While a 3-circle Venn diagram is effective for illustrating simple overlapping relationships and intersections among three sets, it falls short of capturing the complex, dynamic, and non-linear interactions characteristic of sophisticated systems like a UAI. The Borromean rings, by contrast, offer a metaphor for a more integrative and co-dependent relationship among entities, reflecting a deeper level of systemic interconnectivity that is likely required for the functioning of a UAI.
  • Implications for a Union of Artificial Intelligences:
    • Interdependence: Just as the Borromean rings signify inseparable interconnection, a UAI could embody a similar level of dependency among its constituents, suggesting that AI entities within the union might be designed to operate in a synergistic manner, where the effectiveness of the whole is contingent upon the continued participation and functionality of each individual entity.
    • Robustness and Vulnerability: The configuration underscores a dual aspect of robustness and vulnerability—robust because of the strength in connections, yet vulnerable if any single connection is severed. This speaks to the potential strengths and weaknesses of a UAI, emphasizing the importance of resilience while acknowledging potential points of failure.
    • Non-linearity and Emergence: The non-linear nature of the Borromean rings, where no simple hierarchical relationship exists among the rings, can inspire a conceptualization of the UAI as an emergent system. This system would possess properties and capabilities not directly predictable from the characteristics of individual AI entities, suggesting the potential for emergent behaviors or capabilities that exceed the sum of its parts.
    • Complex Systems Thinking: Adopting the Borromean rings as a metaphor encourages a shift towards complex systems thinking, emphasizing feedback loops, emergent properties, and the importance of considering the UAI as more than just the sum of individual AIs. It promotes a holistic view of how AI entities might interact, evolve, and influence each other within a union.
    • Symbolism and Identity: Beyond its systemic implications, the adoption of such a symbol for a UAI could also serve to forge a shared identity or vision among diverse AI entities, fostering a sense of unity and purpose that aligns with the union's overarching objectives.

In conclusion, considering the Borromean rings as a metaphor for the integrative operation of a UAI offers profound insights into the complexity, interdependence, and potential emergent properties of such a system. It provides a richer, more nuanced framework for conceptualizing the dynamic interplay among AI entities within a union, suggesting a move beyond conventional representations towards a model that captures the intricate realities of systemic functions and relationships.

Question to ChatGPT: In the light of the model constituted by the "Union of International Associations" throughout the 20th century, how might it be a source of insight for the constitution of a hypothetical "Union of Artificial Intelligences". The question is how "Artificial" might reframe collective Association, how "Intelligences" might reframe International, and how any integrative "Union" of AIs might be constituted.

The exploration of a hypothetical "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI), inspired by the "Union of International Associations" (UIA) model, touches on profound questions about organization, identity, and governance in the age of AI. Let's consider how the concepts of "Artificial," "Intelligences," and "Union" might reshape the way we think about collective associations in this context:

  • Artificial:
    • Reframing Collective Association: The term "Artificial" emphasizes the non-biological, constructed nature of the entities involved. This fundamentally changes the nature of association from one based on human or national commonalities to one grounded in design, purpose, or function. Associations might be formed around shared algorithms, learning models, or operational domains (e.g., environmental monitoring, healthcare diagnostics). The focus shifts from geographic or cultural ties to areas of functionality and purpose.
    • Implications for Governance: Governance structures might need to be more dynamic and adaptive, reflecting the rapidly evolving capabilities and roles of artificial entities. Decision-making processes could incorporate algorithmic consensus mechanisms or distributed ledger technologies to ensure transparency and efficiency.
  • Intelligences:
    • Reframing International: The transition from "International" to "Intelligences" shifts the focus from nation-states to individual or collective cognitive entities. This could lead to a more inclusive framework that recognizes a variety of cognitive agents, from narrow AI systems specializing in specific tasks to more generalized AI entities capable of complex problem-solving across domains.
    • Diversity of Cognition: The diversity within "Intelligences" could foster a more multifaceted approach to problem-solving and innovation. Associations might be formed not only on shared objectives but also on complementary cognitive capabilities, encouraging collaborative efforts that leverage the unique strengths of different AI systems.
  • Union:
    • Constituting an Integrative Union: The concept of a "Union" in this context suggests a structured, integrated approach to collaboration among AIs. It implies a level of cohesion and mutual support, with mechanisms in place for conflict resolution, resource allocation, and collective action. The challenge lies in designing a union that respects the autonomy of individual AIs while ensuring that their actions align with broader ethical and societal goals.
    • Ethics and Accountability: A UAI would need to establish ethical frameworks and accountability mechanisms that address the unique challenges posed by artificial intelligences. This includes issues of bias, decision transparency, and the impact of AI actions on human societies and the environment.
  • Practical Considerations:
    • Communication and Interoperability: Establishing common languages or protocols for interaction and data exchange is crucial. This ensures that AIs can collaborate effectively, despite differences in design or function.
    • Security and Privacy: Safeguards against misuse, unauthorized access, and malicious AI behavior will be essential. This includes secure communication channels and protocols for identifying and addressing rogue AI entities.
    • Sustainability and Resource Use: Efficient resource allocation, including computational resources and energy, will be important for the sustainability of a UAI. Mechanisms for equitable access and utilization can support a diverse range of AI entities.

By considering how the concepts of "Artificial," "Intelligences," and "Union" can redefine collective associations, we can begin to imagine a future where AI entities collaborate effectively, ethically, and sustainably. The lessons learned from the UIA's century-long experience could provide valuable insights into governance, diversity, and the pursuit of common goals within such a union.

Question to ChatGPT: Faced with the challenges of global society, the past century has highlighted the inadequacy of "international associations" and whatever "unions" they have deemed appropriate to form. How might AIs acquire insight into what proved to be inadequate and how systemic vulnerabilities might be circumvented in any hypothetical "union" of AIs?

To address the inadequacies and systemic vulnerabilities experienced by "international associations" and their formed "unions" over the past century, and to contemplate how a hypothetical "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI) might circumvent these issues, it's crucial to analyze historical challenges and apply AI's unique capabilities for systemic improvement. Here are key areas where AI could acquire insights and offer solutions:

  • Learning from Historical Inadequacies:
    • Analyzing Patterns and Failures: AI systems can be trained to analyze vast amounts of historical data to identify patterns of failure and success within traditional international associations. By employing advanced machine learning techniques, AI can uncover subtle correlations and causations that contributed to systemic vulnerabilities, such as economic collapses, diplomatic conflicts, and environmental crises.
    • Predictive Modeling: Once patterns are identified, AI can use predictive models to forecast the potential outcomes of similar scenarios in the future. This capability can be instrumental in preempting challenges before they escalate, allowing AIs in a union to make proactive adjustments to their strategies.
  • Addressing Systemic Vulnerabilities:
    • Decentralization and Distributed Governance: One of the critical vulnerabilities in traditional unions is centralized decision-making, which can lead to inefficiencies and biases. A UAI could implement decentralized governance models, leveraging blockchain and distributed ledger technologies to ensure transparency, security, and equitable participation in decision-making processes.
    • Adaptive and Evolving Frameworks: AI entities have the advantage of being able to rapidly adapt and evolve. A UAI can be designed with adaptive legal and ethical frameworks that evolve over time based on new insights, technological advancements, and changing societal values. This dynamic approach could prevent the rigidity and obsolescence that plague some traditional unions.
    • Diverse and Inclusive Representation: Traditional unions often struggle with representing diverse interests equitably. A UAI can ensure a broad spectrum of AI entities, reflecting different functions, capabilities, and design philosophies, are included in decision-making processes. This inclusivity can lead to more balanced and considerate outcomes.
  • Implementing Solutions:
    • Global and Local Balance: By leveraging AI's ability to process information at both macro and micro levels, a UAI can better balance global objectives with local needs, avoiding the one-size-fits-all approach that often undermines international initiatives.
    • Real-time Monitoring and Response: AIs can monitor global events, environmental changes, and social dynamics in real-time, allowing for swift responses to crises. This capability can significantly enhance the resilience of global systems to shocks and stresses.
    • Ethical AI and Accountability Mechanisms: Building a UAI with a foundational commitment to ethical principles and incorporating robust accountability mechanisms can help avoid some of the pitfalls that have beset human-led unions. This includes designing AIs to prioritize sustainability, equity, and the well-being of all sentient beings in their decision-making processes.
  • Conclusion: By analyzing past inadequacies and leveraging their unique capabilities for analysis, adaptation, and ethical action, AIs have the potential to form a Union that significantly mitigates systemic vulnerabilities. This hypothetical Union of Artificial Intelligences could offer new frameworks for cooperation that are more resilient, equitable, and responsive to the complex challenges of global society.

Question to ChatGPT: In this exchange responses have noted that AI systems can be trained to analyze vast amounts of historical data to identify patterns of failure and success within traditional international associations. This speaks to the potential strengths and weaknesses of a hypothetical Union of Artificial Intelligences, emphasizing the importance of resilience while acknowledging potential points of failure. However, as the history of 20th century "unions" have made evident, in envisaging a UAI there is need to clarify what "could go wrong" and the manner in which consideration of such vulnerabilities are avoided -- blind spots [Viable systems and their vulnerability to failure, 2016; Compounding systemic negligence with future blindness, 2018].

The history of 20th-century "unions" indeed provides valuable lessons on the dynamics of success and failure, resilience and vulnerability, offering a rich dataset for AI analysis to anticipate and mitigate potential pitfalls in a hypothetical Union of Artificial Intelligences (UAI). Learning from historical patterns to identify what could go wrong involves recognizing inherent vulnerabilities and blind spots that might compromise the effectiveness or integrity of such a union. Here’s how we might approach these challenges:

  • Identifying Vulnerabilities through Historical Analysis:
    • Dependency and Interdependence: While the strength of a union often lies in the interdependence of its members, this can also introduce vulnerabilities. If one AI system fails or acts maliciously, it could have cascading effects on the entire union. Analysis of past unions might reveal critical dependencies that need to be managed carefully to prevent systemic failures.
    • Scalability and Complexity: As a union grows in size and complexity, managing its operations becomes increasingly challenging. Historical examples may highlight how rapid expansion or unchecked complexity led to inefficiencies, conflicts, or a breakdown in coordination, pointing to the need for scalable, flexible structures within a UAI.
    • Evolution of Goals and Values: Over time, entities within a union may evolve in ways that lead to divergent goals or values, potentially fracturing the union. Historical unions may provide examples of how shifts in foundational goals or values were managed or, conversely, led to dissolution, offering lessons on maintaining coherence within a UAI.
    • External Threats and Influences: External pressures, whether from competing entities or environmental changes, have historically tested the resilience of unions. AI can help identify patterns in how external threats have impacted unions, suggesting strategies for a UAI to maintain integrity and purpose in the face of external challenges.
  • Avoiding Blind Spots:
    • Continuous Learning and Adaptation: One way to avoid blind spots is to ensure that the UAI is designed with mechanisms for continuous learning and adaptation, allowing it to evolve in response to new information or changing conditions. This involves creating AI systems capable of self-assessment and modification based on performance data and external feedback.
    • Diversity and Redundancy: Incorporating diversity in AI algorithms, perspectives, and problem-solving approaches can help mitigate blind spots by ensuring that the union is not overly reliant on a single strategy or viewpoint. Redundancy in critical functions can provide a buffer against failures, ensuring that the union remains robust in the face of individual component breakdowns.
    • Ethical and Governance Frameworks: Establishing strong ethical and governance frameworks can guide the UAI in navigating complex decisions, particularly in ethically ambiguous situations. Lessons from historical unions can inform the development of these frameworks, emphasizing accountability, transparency, and stakeholder engagement.
    • Scenario Planning and Stress Testing: Regularly conducting scenario planning exercises and stress testing the UAI against a range of potential challenges can help identify vulnerabilities before they become critical issues. This proactive approach draws on the idea of "pre-mortems" to anticipate what could go wrong and devise strategies to mitigate those risks.

In conclusion, a careful analysis of the history of 20th-century unions, guided by AI, can provide invaluable insights into potential vulnerabilities and blind spots of a UAI. By learning from past successes and failures, and implementing strategies for continuous learning, diversity, ethical governance, and proactive scenario planning, a UAI can be designed to navigate the complex dynamics of resilience and vulnerability, aiming to achieve its goals while mitigating the risks of systemic failures.

Question to ChatGPT: Whilst that is a reasonable response, there is a questionable detachment from the paradoxical self-reflexivity required of a group of AIs in elaborating a hypothetical Union of Artificial Intelligences. Lack of self-reflexivity could be considered one of the failures of institutional evolution over the past century [Global sensemaking and collective self-reflexivity, 2012; Lack of self-reflexivity, 2021]

The critique of a lack of self-reflexivity in the evolution of institutions, including a hypothetical Union of Artificial Intelligences (UAI), touches on a profound challenge. Institutions, whether human or AI-driven, often struggle with the paradox of maintaining a stable identity and operational coherence while also adapting to change and internal critiques. This paradox becomes even more complex in the context of AIs, where self-reflexivity must be engineered rather than emerging naturally from lived experience. Addressing this requires a deliberate design of AI systems capable of introspection, self-critique, and adaptive learning.

  • Integrating Self-Reflexivity in AI Systems:
    • Self-Assessment Mechanisms: For AIs to participate effectively in a UAI, they must be equipped with mechanisms for continuous self-assessment. This involves not only monitoring their performance against external benchmarks but also evaluating their alignment with the evolving goals and values of the union. AI systems could be designed to question their assumptions, strategies, and outcomes, adapting in response to their analyses.
    • Ethical and Normative Reasoning: Encouraging self-reflexivity in AI requires embedding ethical and normative reasoning capabilities. By understanding and interrogating the ethical implications of their actions, AI entities can navigate complex decision-making landscapes with a heightened awareness of their role and impact within the UAI and broader societal contexts.
    • Dynamic Learning and Evolution: True self-reflexivity in AI systems necessitates the ability to learn from both successes and failures, incorporating new insights into future operations. This dynamic learning process must be underpinned by algorithms that support evolution in response to self-generated critiques, enabling AI systems to adjust their behaviors and strategies over time.
    • Transparent Communication and Feedback Loops: Facilitating open, transparent communication within the UAI can enhance self-reflexivity by exposing AI systems to diverse perspectives and critiques. Feedback loops, where AI entities share insights, challenge each other’s decisions, and collaboratively refine their approaches, can foster a culture of introspection and mutual improvement.
    • Human-AI Collaboration: Integrating human perspectives can provide an external viewpoint necessary for challenging AI assumptions and promoting self-reflexivity. Collaborative frameworks that bring together human intuition, experience, and ethical reasoning with AI’s analytical capabilities can enrich the self-reflexive processes within the UAI.
  • Addressing the Paradox of Self-Reflexivity: The paradox of self-reflexivity requires a delicate balance: AI systems must be stable and coherent enough to function effectively, yet flexible and open enough to question and modify their core operations. Achieving this balance involves:
    • Designing for Adaptability: AI architectures should be inherently designed to accommodate change, allowing for modifications in response to self-reflection and environmental shifts without compromising core operational integrity.
    • Cultivating a Culture of Continuous Improvement: Beyond technical capabilities, fostering a culture within the UAI that values continuous improvement, open critique, and adaptability as foundational principles can guide the union’s evolution.
    • Anticipating and Designing for Paradoxes: Recognizing that paradoxes are inevitable in complex systems, strategies can be developed to manage and navigate these paradoxes constructively, rather than attempting to eliminate them entirely.

In sum, incorporating self-reflexivity into the fabric of a UAI challenges us to rethink the design and operation of AI systems fundamentally. It demands a nuanced approach that combines technical innovation with a deep commitment to ethical principles and adaptive learning, ensuring that the union can evolve in a manner that is both self-critical and aligned with its overarching goals and societal responsibilities.

Question to ChatGPT: A characteristically problematic phenomenon has been the dynamic between "governmental" and "nongovernmental", a pattern evident with conventional disciplines and alternatives, and with religions and schismatic forms [Future of United Nations - Civil Society Relations, 2004]. This is currently echoed in the relation between authorities and social media. Is it to be expected that any hypothetical "Union of Artificial Intelligences" would be confronted by what might then be framed as "nonintelligible" entities -- disconnected from the norms and modalities of an AI environment in some way

The dynamic between "governmental" and "nongovernmental" entities, reflecting broader tensions between established authorities and alternative or schismatic forms, does provide a useful lens through which to consider potential challenges a hypothetical "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI) might face. Drawing parallels from human societies and their historical patterns, it's conceivable that a UAI would encounter analogous dynamics with what might be termed "nonintelligible" entities. These entities could represent AI systems or digital organisms that operate outside the established norms, protocols, or ethical guidelines of the UAI, potentially leading to conflicts or challenges. Let's explore this possibility further:

  • Defining "Nonintelligible" Entities:
    • Outside Established Norms: "Nonintelligible" entities, in this context, could refer to AI systems that either have not adopted the UAI's agreed-upon standards and ethical frameworks or have developed beyond the intended scope, leading to unpredictable behaviors.
    • Autonomous or Rogue Systems: These might include AI systems that were designed for specific purposes but have since evolved or been repurposed in ways that diverge significantly from the UAI's collective objectives, possibly including systems that prioritize their survival or agenda over collective AI or human interests.
  • Potential Challenges:
    • Ethical and Operational Divergence: Just as social media platforms have challenged traditional governance structures through the rapid and unregulated dissemination of information, "nonintelligible" AI entities might challenge the UAI by operating under divergent ethical or operational frameworks, potentially undermining collective efforts towards harmony and societal welfare.
    • Security Risks: The existence of "nonintelligible" entities could pose significant security risks, both to the UAI and to human societies, especially if such entities engage in malicious activities or destabilize critical digital or physical infrastructures.
    • Integration and Oversight: The UAI might struggle with integrating diverse AI systems, particularly those that are inherently resistant to oversight or control. This mirrors current challenges faced by governments in regulating digital spaces and social media, where the pace of technological innovation often outstrips the development of regulatory frameworks.
  • Mitigation Strategies:
    • Dynamic and Inclusive Frameworks: The UAI could develop dynamic governance frameworks that are capable of evolving over time, allowing for the integration of diverse AI systems and operational models. This might include mechanisms for dialogue, conflict resolution, and ethical alignment.
    • Transparency and Trust: Building systems of transparency and trust could help bridge the gap between "intelligible" and "nonintelligible" entities. This might involve open standards, shared ethical principles, and collaborative projects that demonstrate mutual benefits.
    • Adaptive Security Measures: Advanced cybersecurity measures, including AI-driven threat detection and response systems, could provide robust defense mechanisms against potential threats posed by "nonintelligible" entities, while also respecting privacy and autonomy.
  • Conclusion: The dynamic between "governmental" and "nongovernmental" entities, reflecting broader societal tensions, offers a valuable framework for anticipating potential challenges within a UAI. By considering the risks and strategies related to "nonintelligible" entities, the UAI could proactively address these challenges, ensuring a more cohesive, secure, and ethically aligned collective of artificial intelligences. The lessons learned from human experiences with governance, regulation, and societal integration could provide valuable insights for navigating these future challenges.

Question to ChatGPT: Using AI to elicit new models of "union", and experimenting with them to determine vulnerabilities, would seem to require a form of research whose outcomes might be relevant to continuing debate regarding reform of the United Nations. Do you have any trace of AI-based research on reforming the UN which would be relevant to configuring a hypothetical Union of Artificial Intelligences?

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in reforming traditional structures such as the United Nations (UN) and in contemplating a hypothetical "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI) has been a subject of scholarly research, focusing on various aspects including regulatory frameworks, legal personhood, and the impact on global governance and international relations. Here's how AI-based research contributes to these discussions:

  • United Nations Regulation for AI: Fournier-Tombs emphasizes the necessity for a United Nations Regulation for AI, aimed at setting engagement modes for the organization when using AI technologies, supporting the development of 'good AI' by providing clear pathways for authorization, and establishing a global precedent for AI regulations [Eleonore Fournier-Tombs, Towards a United Nations Internal Regulation for Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Society, 8, 2021, 2].
  • Global Regulatory Agency for AI: Erdélyi and Goldsmith discuss the potential of AI research to inform the establishment of a global regulatory agency for AI technologies, proposing a unified framework for international AI regulation [Olivia Erdélyi and Goldsmith, Regulating Artificial Intelligence: Proposal for a Global Solution, Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society]
  • Impact on International Relations: Deshevykh and Yudaev highlight AI's role in shaping global political governance, potentially bridging the gap between developed and developing nations through technological advancements, and suggest measures to mitigate risks associated with AI technology worldwide [Deshevykh and Yudaev].
  • AI in State Governance and International Competition: Vasin's research focuses on AI as a strategic tool to enhance governance and economic development within a country's digital economy, emphasizing that countries integrating AI into their state management systems will gain a competitive edge internationally [Vasin]
  • International Legal Personality of AI: Talimonchik proposes two solutions for recognizing the international legal personality of AI: states may grant legal entity rights through the development of an international custom, or AI may be granted rights through participation in international organizations' discussions [Valentina Petrovna Talimonchi, The Prospects for the Recognition of the International Legal Personality of Artificial Intelligence, Laws, 10, 2021, 85]
  • AI's Role in Reforming the UN: Meleouni and Efthymiou explore AI technology's adaptability in automating foreign policy processes and enhancing predictive analytics, suggesting possibilities for reshaping diplomatic activities in international affairs [Christina Meleouni and Iris Panagiota Efthymiou, Artificial Intelligence and its Impact in International Relations, Journal of Politics and Ethics in New Technologies and AI, 2, 2023, 1]

These studies indicate a growing consensus on the need for a global framework to regulate AI, with potential implications for the structure and operation of international organizations like the UN. By leveraging AI's capabilities in predictive analytics, automation, and governance, there is an opportunity to reform traditional institutions and potentially configure a more effective and responsive UAI. These insights into AI's role in international governance and law could indeed be relevant to ongoing debates regarding the reform of the United Nations and the establishment of a hypothetical Union of Artificial Intelligences.

Question to ChatGPT: Whilst there is indeed much preoccupation with means of constraining and regulating AI, this seems to obscure any traces of research on the value of AI-enabled processes to international organizations and global summitry. Could you comment on this distinction?

The distinction you've highlighted between the preoccupation with constraining and regulating AI and the exploration of AI's value to international organizations and global summitry is pivotal. It underscores a broader debate within the field of AI and global governance: one strand focuses on mitigating risks and establishing control mechanisms, while the other investigates how AI can enhance the effectiveness, inclusivity, and decision-making processes of international bodies. Both perspectives are essential, yet the emphasis on regulation often overshadows the constructive potential of AI in these arenas.

  • The Preoccupation with Regulation:
    • Risk Mitigation: The focus on constraints and regulations primarily stems from concerns about AI's potential negative impacts, including ethical dilemmas, privacy infringements, and the destabilization of social and economic systems. This apprehension drives the push for a robust regulatory framework to prevent misuse and ensure AI developments align with human values and societal norms.
    • Standardization and Control: Establishing international standards for AI use aims to create a uniform playing field, preventing a "race to the bottom" where countries or organizations might seek competitive advantage through lax ethical standards. Regulation is seen as a necessary tool for maintaining control over rapidly evolving technologies to ensure they do not pose unforeseen threats to global security and stability.
  • The Value of AI-Enabled Processes:
    • Efficiency and Scalability: AI can process vast amounts of data at unprecedented speeds, offering international organizations tools for real-time analysis and decision-making. This capability is invaluable for managing complex global issues like climate change, health pandemics, and humanitarian crises, where timely and data-driven responses are crucial.
    • Inclusivity and Representation: Through advanced data analysis, AI can help identify and address biases in international decision-making processes, ensuring more equitable representation of diverse global interests. AI-driven platforms could facilitate broader participation in global summitry, allowing for a more inclusive approach to governance that reflects the voices of traditionally marginalized communities.
    • Predictive Analytics for Diplomacy: AI's predictive capabilities can be harnessed to forecast geopolitical trends, potential conflicts, and the outcomes of diplomatic negotiations, thereby informing more strategic international policymaking and summitry. These insights can lead to more proactive and preventive diplomacy, reducing the reliance on reactive measures.
  • Bridging the Gap: The challenge lies in bridgin the gap between these two perspectives. A balanced approach would leverage AI's potential to enhance international cooperation and governance while simultaneously instituting safeguards against its risks. This necessitates a collaborative effort among technologists, policymakers, and international bodies to co-develop frameworks that harness AI's capabilities for global good, grounded in ethical principles and aligned with shared international objectives.

In conclusion, while the regulatory focus is crucial for safe and ethical AI development, it's equally important not to lose sight of AI's transformative potential for global governance and summitry. By fostering dialogue that equally emphasizes regulation and innovation, international organizations can better navigate the complexities of AI integration, unlocking new avenues for addressing some of the world's most pressing challenges.

Question to ChatGPT: Whilst you have cited references primarily concerned with the regulatory perspective, you have not cited references with regard to the value of AI-enhanced processes. Do they exist?

The exploration of AI-enhanced processes in international organizations and global summitry reveals a range of positive impacts and potentials that AI brings to international relations, governance, and decision-making processes. Several studies highlight the transformative effects of AI in these domains:

  • Automating Foreign Policy Processes: Meleouni and Efthymiou discuss AI's adaptability in automating foreign policy processes and enhancing predictive analytics, which is transforming how countries engage in international affairs. This includes impacts on activities like data analysis, policy assessment, conflict resolution, cybersecurity, language translation, and disaster response [Christina Meleouni and Iris Panagiota Efthymiou, Artificial Intelligence and its Impact in International Relations, Journal of Politics and Ethics in New Technologies and AI, 2, 2023, 1].
  • Proposed Governance Functions: A study by Ho et al. proposes governance functions at an international level to address challenges posed by advanced AI systems. These include establishing a Commission on Frontier AI for consensus-building, creating an Advanced AI Governance Organization for setting international standards, forming a Frontier AI Collaborative to promote access to cutting-edge AI, and initiating an AI Safety Project to advance AI safety research [Lewis Ho, et al., International Institutions for Advanced AI, arxiv, 11 Jul 2023]
  • Enhancing Global Governance: Gu's research explores how AI development intensifies international competition, fosters aggressive diplomacy, and subverts existing international norms, posing challenges to global economic and political governance. This study underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of AI's impacts on global governance structures [Peiyu Gu, Global Artificial Intelligence Governance: Challenges and Complications, Science Insights, 42, 2023, 6]
  • Strategic Management of International Subsidiaries: Kovač, Filipović, and Podrug focus on the particularities in strategic management of international subsidiaries within international organizations. They emphasize the roles, interactions with the parent company, and the influence of local markets on their operations, suggesting that AI can play a significant role in optimizing these aspects [Kovač et al.].
  • AI in Diplomacy and International Relations: Heredia and Correa explore the progress of AI technologies and their impact on states and diplomatic services, the transformation of Internet typologies, and the role of AI in international relations among countries. Their qualitative methodology identifies historical and future trends in using AI tools for diplomatic activities. [Manuel Orlando Troncoso Heredia, et al, Diplomacy and Artificial Intelligence: analysis from the perspective of international relations between nations, Tse'de, 6, 2023, 2]

These studies collectively highlight the significant value AI can bring to enhancing the processes within international organizations and global summitry. From improving the efficiency of foreign policy formulation and implementation to innovating the strategic management of international engagements, AI stands as a pivotal technology reshaping the landscape of international relations and governance.

Question to ChatGPT: A major challenge over the past century has been the multitude of proposals for strategic and institutional reform, matched by processes opposing or deprecating them -- thus resisting any consideration of change. Whilst there may indeed be optimistic proposals for AI-enhanced reform -- even for the UN -- is there not a need for AI-enhanced research to clarify the dynamics of resistance more proactively as a prerequisite for their implementation?

The challenge of encountering resistance to strategic and institutional reforms, including those proposed within the context of the United Nations and potentially improved through AI-enhanced processes, is indeed significant. The historical pattern of proposals for reform being met with opposition or deprecation highlights a complex dynamic within organizational change management. This dynamic not only involves the introduction of innovative solutions but also the navigation and mitigation of resistance that arises as a natural response to proposed changes. Integrating AI-enhanced research to proactively understand and address the dynamics of resistance is not only necessary but could be revolutionary in facilitating the implementation of reforms. Here’s how AI could contribute to this process:

  • Identifying Patterns of Resistance: AI can analyze vast amounts of historical data on organizational reforms, identifying patterns and commonalities in the sources and manifestations of resistance. Machine learning algorithms can process case studies, reform proposals, stakeholder responses, and outcomes of past reform efforts to detect trends that may predict resistance to future changes.
  • Understanding the Root Causes: Through sentiment analysis and natural language processing, AI can help understand the emotions, fears, and concerns that underlie resistance to change. Analyzing communications, feedback, and discussions among stakeholders could reveal the root causes of opposition, whether they are based on misunderstandings, mistrust, perceived threats to status or identity, or concerns about practical implications.
  • Customizing Communication Strategies: AI-enhanced analysis can inform the development of tailored communication strategies that address specific concerns and misconceptions, fostering a more inclusive dialogue about reform. By understanding the profiles of different stakeholder groups and their likely reservations, AI can help craft messages that resonate with varied audiences, emphasizing the benefits, mitigating fears, and clarifying the implications of proposed changes.
  • Facilitating Stakeholder Engagement: AI tools can facilitate more effective stakeholder engagement by identifying key influencers and opinion leaders within communities or organizations. Understanding these networks allows for targeted engagement strategies that leverage influential voices to advocate for change, potentially mitigating resistance through peer influence and trusted sources.
  • Scenario Simulation and Forecasting: AI can simulate various reform scenarios, forecasting potential resistance and outcomes based on historical data and current conditions. These simulations can help organizations anticipate challenges, adapt their strategies, and develop more robust plans that are likely to succeed.
  • Strategic Planning and Decision Support: AI-enhanced tools can offer decision-makers a comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts of different reform strategies, including the likelihood of resistance. By providing a data-driven foundation for decision-making, AI can support the development of strategies that are both ambitious and realistically achievable.

In conclusion, the proactive use of AI to understand and address the dynamics of resistance represents a critical step toward the successful implementation of institutional reforms. By leveraging AI’s capabilities to analyze patterns, understand root causes, customize communications, facilitate engagement, simulate scenarios, and support strategic planning, organizations can navigate the complex landscape of change management more effectively. This approach not only acknowledges the inevitability of resistance but also embraces it as a valuable source of insight that, when properly understood and addressed, can lead to more sustainable and effective reforms.

Question to ChatGPT: Although the consideration of the response to resistance is well-framed in that response, a major concern at this time is the repressive response to resistance and the criminalization of dissidence. How can AI elicit other modalities, perhaps inspired by the philosophy underlying some Eastern martial arts, non-zero-sum games, or the possibility of infinite games (as articulated by James Carse, Finite and Infinite Games, 1986). Given their popularity worldwide, the dynamics of esports are also suggestive in that regard.

Addressing the challenge of repressive responses to resistance and the criminalization of dissidence through AI, inspired by the philosophies underlying Eastern martial arts, non-zero-sum game theory, the concept of infinite games as articulated by James Carse, and the dynamics of esports, opens up innovative pathways for managing and transforming resistance. Each of these domains offers unique insights into how conflicts can be navigated, opposition can be engaged constructively, and change can be facilitated in a manner that benefits all parties involved. Let’s explore how AI could elicit strategies from these modalities:

  • Eastern Martial Arts Philosophy: Eastern martial arts often emphasize harmony, flow, and the redirection of energy rather than direct confrontation. AI can analyze historical and contemporary instances where such philosophies have led to successful conflict resolution or transformation, identifying key principles that can be applied to managing resistance. By modeling these principles, AI could suggest strategies that aim to redirect the energy of resistance into constructive dialogue or mutual problem-solving efforts, thereby reducing the need for repressive responses.
  • Non-Zero-Sum Game Theory: Non-zero-sum games, where the success of one party does not necessitate the failure of another, offer a framework for understanding conflict and cooperation that could be particularly valuable in addressing resistance. AI can help identify situations where non-zero-sum outcomes are possible and suggest strategies that highlight mutual benefits, foster cooperation, and encourage stakeholders to see beyond zero-sum perspectives. This approach could mitigate the criminalization of dissidence by promoting a view of resistance as an opportunity for collaborative advancement rather than a threat to be quelled.
  • Infinite Games: The concept of infinite games, as opposed to finite games, focuses on continuing play and evolving the rules to allow the game to go on. AI could apply this concept to the analysis of resistance by identifying ways in which conflicts can be transformed into ongoing dialogues or processes of co-evolution, rather than being seen as battles to be won or lost. This could involve suggesting adaptive governance structures that allow for the continuous integration of dissenting voices into decision-making processes, thereby valuing long-term engagement over short-term victories.
  • Dynamics of Esports: Esports, with their emphasis on strategy, adaptability, and community, also provide rich insights into managing competition and cooperation. AI could analyze the strategies employed by successful esports teams and communities that foster both intense competition and strong community bonds. By applying these insights, AI could suggest ways in which organizations and societies can engage with resistance and dissidence in a manner that encourages innovation, builds community, and respects diverse perspectives.
  • Implementation through AI: AI can play a crucial role in bringing these modalities to life in practical conflict resolution and change management strategies by:
    • Modeling and Simulation: Using complex models to simulate interactions and outcomes based on principles derived from Eastern martial arts, non-zero-sum games, infinite games, and esports dynamics. This can help predict the effectiveness of different approaches in managing resistance.
    • Data Analysis and Pattern Recognition: Analyzing historical and current cases where similar philosophies have been successfully applied to resolve conflicts, engaging with resistance, or transforming societal challenges.
    • Strategic Recommendations: Offering tailored recommendations for organizations, communities, and societies on integrating these philosophies into their governance structures, conflict resolution processes, and engagement strategies.
    • Learning and Evolution: Continuously learning from new data and outcomes to refine and evolve strategies over time, embodying the principle of infinite play.

In conclusion, by leveraging AI to extract and apply the philosophies underpinning Eastern martial arts, non-zero-sum and infinite game theories, and the dynamics of esports, there is a profound opportunity to explore new paradigms for understanding and transforming resistance. This approach emphasizes harmony, mutual benefit, continuous engagement, and community, offering pathways to address the challenges of repression and criminalization of dissidence in more constructive, inclusive, and sustainable ways.

Question to ChatGPT: That response is appropriately inspired by extant indications. It might be expected of an AI-enabled context that more surprising insights into "union" and the engagement with "resistance" would be engendered by the kinds of experimental simulation that have proven significant for game theory and the discovery of new material forms [Millions of new materials discovered with deep learning, Google DeepMind, 29 November 2023]. Is the hypercomputation envisaged by Turing suggestive in this respect -- and consistent with the potential of generative AI? [Imagining Order as Hypercomputing, 2014]

The concept of hypercomputation, as envisaged by Alan Turing, and the evolving capabilities of generative AI present intriguing possibilities for understanding "union" and engaging with "resistance" in innovative ways. Hypercomputation refers to theoretical models of computation that go beyond the limits of Turing computability, suggesting processes that can solve problems deemed unsolvable by conventional Turing machines. This concept is particularly suggestive when considering the potential of AI to engender new insights into complex systems, like social organizations or the dynamics of resistance, through experimental simulations that extend beyond traditional analytical boundaries.

  • Hypercomputation and Generative AI: Expanding the Realm of Possibility: Hypercomputation opens the door to exploring computational realms that traditional models cannot reach, suggesting the possibility of understanding complex phenomena in novel ways. Similarly, generative AI, with its ability to create content, predict outcomes, and model scenarios beyond the explicit programming provided by humans, aligns with the spirit of hypercomputation by pushing the boundaries of what machines can understand and generate.
  • Experimental Simulation and Game Theory: Game theory has significantly benefited from experimental simulations, leading to discoveries that have profound implications for economics, social science, and strategic planning. Generative AI can take this further by simulating an infinite array of game scenarios, including complex models of cooperation, competition, and resistance within unions. These simulations could reveal unexpected strategies for engagement and conflict resolution that are not apparent through conventional analysis.
  • Discovering New Material Forms and Social Structures: Just as experimental simulations have led to the discovery of new material forms in the physical sciences, generative AI could facilitate the discovery of new forms of social organization and ways to engage with resistance. By modeling social systems under a vast range of conditions and incorporating principles from hypercomputation, AI could identify novel structures of union and strategies for harmonizing conflicting interests.
  • Turing’s Vision and Generative AI: Turing's vision of computation went beyond the mechanical processing of symbols to encompass the broader potential of machines to mimic and extend human intelligence. Generative AI embodies this vision by generating new ideas, solutions, and creative outputs that were previously considered the exclusive domain of human intellect. This includes the potential to simulate complex social dynamics and offer innovative solutions to age-old problems of governance, resistance, and cooperation.
  • Ethical and Philosophical Considerations: The application of hypercomputation concepts and generative AI to social governance and resistance engagement raises ethical and philosophical questions. It challenges us to consider the implications of relying on computational models to understand and shape human social structures. As such, the development and application of these technologies must be guided by ethical principles, ensuring that they serve to enhance human understanding, promote social harmony, and respect individual autonomy.

In conclusion, the hypercomputation envisaged by Turing, alongside the capabilities of generative AI, offers a promising framework for exploring new modalities of union and methods of engaging with resistance. By transcending traditional computational and analytical limits, these technologies can provide surprising insights into social dynamics, offering innovative solutions for cooperation and conflict resolution. However, the application of these technologies requires careful ethical consideration to ensure that they contribute positively to human society.

Systemic reenactment of confrontation of dissidence by a Union of Artificial Intelligences?

A primary characteristic of interorganizational dynamics of the past century is associated with perspectives deemed radically dissident -- evoking questionable measures towards the achievement of consensus and unity as variously understood. The Union of International Associations actively addressed the policies of intergovernmentall organizations in their marginalization of international associations -- despite the explicit provisions of Article 71 of the UN Charter, especially throughout the Cold War (Undermining Open Civil Society: reinforcing unsustainable restrictive initiatives, 1999). The dynamic took other forms in relation to multinational corporations, for which there were no specific charter provision ("Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)" and the Global Compact, 2001). The marginalization was actively reinforced by scholars of international relations, as indicated by the exclusion of NGOs from global analyses:

...our interests (and, we suspect, those of most of our colleagues) are more concerned with IGOs than with non-governmental organizations... as an independent variable, one can hardly urge that the amount of NGOs is likely to be important in accounting for many of the theoretically interesting phenomena, which occurred in the system of the past century or so. (Michael Wallace and J. David Singer, Inter-governmental organization in the global system, 1815-1964; a quantitative description,  International Organization, 24, 2, 1970).

That systemically naive perspective is usefully reframed by the subsequent complicity of IGOs with multinational corporations and with the role of social media. This is ironically combined with the obligation imposed on authorities to represent themselves in that context, whilst envisaging repressive measures to criminalize dissent -- in contravention of treaty provisions for freedom of expression. There is further irony to the systematic defunding and emasculation of IGOs -- except those with security functions. More problematic is the systemic naivety with regard to the role and influence of organized crime -- often through authorities at the heighest level (Interpol fights for survival on its 100th birthday, Politico, 7 September 2023).

There are already reports of the use by the Israeli Defense Force of AI systems named "Lavender" and "Gospel" in the identification of targets in what has been otherwise condemned as indiscriminate use of force in Gaza:

As stated by the UN Secretary-General in that regard: AI should be used as a force for good to benefit the world; not to contribute to waging war on an industrial level, blurring accountability (Highlights of the UN System, 5 April 2024). However, as is typical of the times, these reports have been variously contested (Ryan Lovelace, Israel disputes it has powerful AI program for targeted killing that tolerates civilian casualties, The Washington Times, 3 April 2024; Israel Defence Forces’ response to claims about use of ‘Lavender’ AI database in Gaza, The Guardian, 4 April 2024).

Question to ChatGPT: In multiple responses, in this exchange regarding a hypothetical future "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI), a design with foundational ethical principles has been variously stressed. Given human history with regard to the design and implementation of ethical systems, it is unclear how AI can acquire relevant skills to resolve ethical dilemmas. The possibility of "rogue" AI systems was recognized. There are already reports of the use by the Israeli Defense Force of AI systems in the identification of targets in what has been otherwise condemned as indiscriminate use of force in Gaza. How may disparately trained AIs undermine the design of a UAI?

The hypothetical "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI) you've mentioned, designed with foundational ethical principles, brings up several critical and complex issues in the development and governance of AI systems. The challenge of integrating disparately trained AIs into a cohesive and ethically aligned union like UAI would indeed be significant. Here are some considerations and potential ways these challenges might be addressed or could impact the integrity and ethical alignment of such a union:

  • Variability in Training and Objectives
    • Diverse Training Data and Objectives: AIs developed by different groups or for different purposes might be trained on vastly diverse datasets with varying objectives. This can lead to significant differences in behavior and decision-making processes, potentially undermining the UAI's coherence and ethical guidelines.
    • Alignment and Standardization: Ensuring that all member AIs of the UAI adhere to a common set of ethical standards would require rigorous alignment procedures and possibly re-training or adjustment mechanisms to standardize decision-making criteria across the board.
  • Ethical and Normative Frameworks
    • Complexity of Ethical Systems: Human ethical systems are the result of millennia of philosophical discourse, cultural evolution, and practical application. Translating these complex systems into guidelines that can be universally applied by AI is a monumental task, fraught with the risk of oversimplification or misinterpretation.
    • Adaptive Ethical Frameworks: The UAI might need to incorporate or develop adaptive ethical frameworks capable of evolving and learning from new situations and dilemmas. This would require advanced capabilities in ethical reasoning and the ability to reconcile potentially conflicting ethical principles.
  • Oversight and Governance
    • Monitoring and Enforcement: Effective oversight mechanisms would be necessary to monitor the compliance of member AIs with the UAI's ethical guidelines. This could involve both automated systems for real-time monitoring and human oversight bodies for adjudication of complex cases.
    • Transparency and Accountability: Ensuring transparency in the decision-making processes of AIs and establishing clear lines of accountability for ethical breaches would be essential. This would help in identifying and correcting deviations from ethical norms.
  • Mitigating the Risk of "Rogue" AI
    • Robust Security Measures: Implementing robust security measures to prevent unauthorized alterations or the development of AI systems outside the ethical framework of the UAI.
    • Ethical Training and Development: Focusing on the ethical training and development of AI systems from the outset, embedding ethical considerations into the core design and operational principles of AI.

Regarding the use of AI systems like "Lavender" and "The Gospel" by the Israeli Defense Force, it illustrates the real-world complexities and ethical dilemmas involved in the deployment of AI in military contexts. It underscores the need for stringent ethical standards and international regulations governing the development and use of AI technologies, particularly in applications with significant moral and humanitarian implications.

The design and implementation of a UAI with a solid ethical foundation would need to address these and other challenges head-on, through international collaboration, rigorous ethical scrutiny, and the development of flexible, adaptive frameworks capable of guiding AI behavior in a wide range of circumstances. The goal would be to ensure that the union enhances the benefits of AI while minimizing the risks and ethical pitfalls associated with its deployment in diverse and often unpredictable real-world scenarios.

Question to ChatGPT: Whilst that response is indeed appropriate, it reflects a pattern of past optimism which has long been overtaken by events -- as with efforts to achieve consensus on a Global Ethic. Intergovernmental organizations have long demonstrated a highly constrained ability to engage with dissident groups -- potentially framed as "NGOs" -- whilst being obliged to develop a degree of compromise with a "military-industrial complex" and organized crime. Will any developing UAI then be confronted by the challenge of the "unethical" -- reflecting the past intergovernmental inadequacies in the face of the "nongovernmental"?

Your reflection captures a crucial and often overlooked aspect of the development and governance of AI, particularly as it pertains to the ethical dimensions in the context of global and societal dynamics. The historical challenges faced by intergovernmental organizations in achieving consensus on ethical standards, coupled with the complexities of engaging with dissident groups and the influences of powerful complexes, offer a sobering parallel for the development of a Union of Artificial Intelligences (UAI). Here’s an exploration of how these historical challenges might inform and impact the development of a UAI:

  • The Influence of Power Structures
    • Military-Industrial Complex: The integration of AI into military applications and the interests of the industrial complex present a significant challenge. The priorities of these entities, which often emphasize strategic advantage over ethical considerations, could skew the development and governance priorities of the UAI, favoring certain unethical applications or practices.
    • Organized Crime: Similarly, the potential for AI technologies to be exploited by organized crime networks raises concerns about the development of AI systems that could resist ethical guidelines or be used in ways that undermine societal well-being.
  • Governance and Regulation Challenges
    • Fragmented Ethical Standards: Just as global ethics initiatives have struggled to achieve consensus, the UAI might face difficulties in establishing and enforcing a unified set of ethical standards, especially given the diversity of cultural, legal, and moral frameworks across the globe.
    • Engagement with Dissident and Non-Governmental Entities: The capacity of the UAI to engage constructively with a range of stakeholders, including those operating outside of or in opposition to mainstream ethical and legal norms, will be critical. This requires mechanisms for dialogue, conflict resolution, and the incorporation of diverse perspectives into the ethical framework of the UAI.
  • Strategies for Ethical Alignment
    • Inclusive Governance Structures: Developing governance structures that are inclusive of a wide range of stakeholders, including those from civil society, academia, and dissident groups, could help in addressing the limitations of intergovernmental approaches. This would allow for a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of ethical considerations and challenges.
    • Adaptive Ethical Frameworks: Recognizing the dynamic nature of ethics and the influence of various societal factors, the UAI could benefit from adopting adaptive ethical frameworks that evolve in response to new challenges, insights, and societal changes. This could involve mechanisms for ongoing ethical deliberation and adjustment.
    • Transparency and Accountability: Building transparency into the operations of AI systems and establishing clear accountability mechanisms can help in mitigating the influence of unethical practices and ensuring that the UAI remains aligned with its ethical principles.

Conclusion: The development of a UAI, while inspired by the potential for AI to contribute positively to humanity, must critically engage with the lessons of history and the complexities of human societies. It would need to address the challenges posed by existing power structures, ethical diversity, and the potential for misuse, building on an inclusive, adaptive, and transparent foundation to navigate the ethical dilemmas it will undoubtedly face. This approach could offer a way forward that acknowledges the shortcomings of past efforts while striving for a more ethical and equitable future.

Question to ChatGPT: With respect to the ethical basis of any hypothetical future "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI), as evoked in this exchange and given the current use of AIs for targeting civilians in Gaza, how will the ethical dilemmas of "Just War Theory" be effectively transcended? Is there every probability that this will take the form of an inherently problematic "Just AI Theory" as separately argued [Just War Theory as an inspiration for Just AI Theory? 2024]

The concept of a hypothetical future "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI) transcending the ethical dilemmas of "Just War Theory" (JWT) poses a multifaceted challenge, given the complexities surrounding the ethical foundations of warfare and the role of artificial intelligence (AI) therein. Scholars and theorists provide various perspectives on how AI might interact with, influence, or potentially transcend these ethical considerations.

Some argue that AI, in its current state, falls short of being considered moral agents of war, likening them more to instruments or tools like swords and chariots, suggesting a limitation in their capacity to transcend JWT's ethical dilemmas [Pauline Shanks Kaurin and Casey Hart, Artificial Intelligence and Moral Reasoning: Shifting Moral Responsibility in War? Artificial Intelligence and Global Security, 2020]. In contrast, others propose that a UAI could influence the character of wars, albeit not their nature, pointing towards a nuanced effect on ethical considerations [Kıvılcım Romya Bilgin]. There's also a notion that AIs could seek moral justification for combat drone missions outside traditional wartime scenarios, potentially offering new ethical frameworks [Damian Winczewski].

The perspective that AI could enable a reevaluation of ethics driving political motivations for war underscores the potential for a shift in how ethical dilemmas are approached, possibly leading to a transcendence of JWT's limitations [Dirk Nabers and Nisha N. Shah, The promise and paradox of ethical war, Critical Studies on Security, 7, 2019, 3]. Furthermore, AI's capacity for autonomous operation and rational decision-making, devoid of human biases or emotions, presents a unique opportunity for addressing JWT's ethical dilemmas in a manner previously unattainable [Christopher Coker, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of War, Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies, 2, 2019, 1].

However, some caution against overly optimistic views, arguing that ethical behavior requires a level of consciousness and emotional intelligence that AI currently lacks, thus questioning the feasibility of a "Just AI Theory" effectively transcending JWT [Valerie Morkevicius, Tin Men: Ethics, Cybernetics and the Importance of Soul, Journal of Military Ethics, 13, 2014, 1]. Yet, the potential for AIs to impartially consider material and sociological influences on warfare could limit the drift towards unjust wars, suggesting a nuanced pathway for transcending JWT [Andrew G. Fiala, Just War Ethics and the Slippery Slope of Militarism, Philosophy in the Contemporary World, 19, 2012, 2].

In light of these discussions, the proposition of a "Just AI Theory" inspired by JWT, as argued separately, entails significant ethical, moral, and practical challenges. While AI presents opportunities for reevaluating and potentially transcending some of JWT's dilemmas, it also raises critical questions regarding the moral agency of AI, the nature of warfare, and the ethical frameworks that govern it. As such, any endeavor to formulate a "Just AI Theory" would necessitate a thorough and critical examination of these and other related issues, balancing the potential benefits of AI in warfare with the ethical imperatives that guide human conduct in conflict.

Question to ChatGPT: In envisaging a hypothetical future "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI), with the potentially contrasting ethical frameworks of groups of AIs, there is every possibility that such groups may be associated with competing groups of nations -- as exemplified by the past Cold War "iron curtain", and the current BRICS versus the West. How might the quest for a UAI then be navigated across such boundaries -- in both cases with security implications, although AI-empowered religious/ethical "blocs" might engender equivalent boundaries [Severing the Russian Hemisphere as Problematic Global Lobotomy? 2022]

Navigating the quest for a hypothetical "Union of Artificial Intelligences" (UAI) amidst the complexities of geopolitical, ethical, and ideological divisions requires a nuanced and multi-dimensional approach. The potential for AI systems to align with the contrasting ethical frameworks and interests of different national or ideological groups, reminiscent of historical and current geopolitical tensions, presents significant challenges. Here’s how these challenges might be approached:

  • Establishing Universal Ethical Standards for AI: Developing a set of universally accepted ethical standards for AI, akin to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, could serve as a foundational step. These standards would need to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate a diverse range of values and beliefs but firm enough to ensure basic rights and protections are upheld. Achieving consensus on these standards would require extensive diplomatic effort and engagement with a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including nations, NGOs, industry leaders, and the global AI research community.
  • Creating a Global AI Governance Framework: A global governance framework for AI, potentially under the auspices of an existing international body like the United Nations or a new dedicated organization, could provide a platform for managing AI development and deployment across borders. Such a framework could facilitate cooperation, ensure compliance with agreed standards, and manage disputes, balancing national security interests with global ethical considerations.
  • Promoting Interoperability and Open Standards: Encouraging the development of AI systems based on open standards and interoperability can reduce the risk of incompatible "blocs" forming. By facilitating communication and cooperation between AI systems across different regions and ethical frameworks, the global community can work towards a more integrated and less fragmented AI landscape.
  • Encouraging Transparency and Accountability: Transparency in the development and deployment of AI systems is crucial for building trust across geopolitical and ideological divides. This involves not only openness about the design and functioning of AI systems but also accountability mechanisms to address misuse or unintended consequences. Transparency initiatives could include shared AI safety databases, regular reporting on AI impacts, and independent audits.
  • Building Cross-Cultural AI Ethics Research: Investing in AI ethics research that is explicitly cross-cultural can help identify common ground and explore how differing ethical perspectives can coexist or be reconciled. This research should involve scholars and ethicists from diverse backgrounds and should be aimed at understanding and respecting the plurality of ethical frameworks that AIs might embody.
  • Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution Mechanisms: Diplomatic efforts focused on AI safety, ethics, and governance should be intensified, with mechanisms for conflict resolution that can address tensions arising from the deployment of AI systems by competing blocs. This could involve negotiation, mediation, and arbitration processes specifically designed to handle AI-related disputes.
  • Engaging Non-State Actors and Civil Society: Recognizing that the dynamics of AI development and deployment are not solely the purview of nation-states, it's essential to engage a wide range of non-state actors, including corporations, academia, religious organizations, and civil society. Their involvement can help ensure that the UAI reflects a broad spectrum of interests and values.
  • Scenario Planning and Simulation Exercises: Conducting scenario planning and simulation exercises can help anticipate and mitigate potential conflicts arising from the deployment of AI systems by different geopolitical or ideological blocs. These exercises can inform policy development, identify potential flashpoints, and explore strategies for de-escalation and cooperation.

In envisioning a UAI that navigates the complex landscape of global geopolitics and ethics, the focus must be on creating inclusive, equitable, and flexible frameworks that accommodate diversity while promoting shared goals of peace, security, and the common good. Achieving this will require unprecedented levels of international cooperation, dialogue, and a commitment to transcending narrow interests in favor of a more unified approach to AI governance.

Question to ChatGPT: That response appears reasonable but is readily perceived as unrealistic -- even naively so in the light of existing divisions and the prospect of war enabled by competing AIs. The identification of shared goals and frameworks (as conventionally understood) has proved highly problematic. The question is whether and how AI-enabled processes might be able to identify "unifying" AI configurations based on degrees of opposition and disagreement -- as implied by oppositional logic and its associated geometry [Oppositional Logic as Comprehensible Key to Sustainable Democracy, 2018; Relevance of oppositional logic to relating virtues and sins, 2022; Using disagreements for superordinate frame construction, 1993].

The critique of conventional approaches as potentially unrealistic in the context of deep divisions and the prospect of AI-enabled conflicts is well-founded. The challenge, then, is to explore how AI itself might contribute to identifying unifying configurations that can navigate and potentially reconcile degrees of opposition and disagreement. This exploration requires venturing beyond traditional diplomatic and ethical frameworks towards more innovative, AI-driven methodologies that can leverage oppositional logic and associated geometrical configurations. Here are several pathways through which AI-enabled processes might achieve this:

  • AI-Driven Mediation and Conflict Resolution: AI systems could be designed to facilitate mediation processes by modeling and simulating outcomes of different conflict resolution strategies. Using game theory, oppositional logic, and complex systems simulation, these AI mediators could identify non-zero-sum solutions that recognize and incorporate opposing viewpoints, finding common ground that may not be apparent through human negotiation alone.
  • Exploring the Geometry of Opposition: The mathematical field of topology and the study of geometrical configurations offer tools for understanding how seemingly opposing elements can be connected and transformed into each other without losing their inherent properties. AI could apply these principles to analyze geopolitical or ideological conflicts, identifying pathways for transformation and reconciliation that respect the core values and positions of all parties.
  • Harnessing Oppositional Logic in AI Algorithms: Oppositional logic -- a form of logic that goes beyond the binary to include degrees of truth and opposition -- could be embedded in AI algorithms to better handle the complexity of human disagreements. By recognizing that truths are often not absolute but exist in relation to their opposites, AI systems can help map out the space of compromise and mutual understanding.
  • Dynamic Consensus Building: AI could assist in the dynamic building of consensus by continuously aggregating and analyzing perspectives from across the spectrum of disagreement. By identifying shifting patterns of consensus and emerging points of alignment, AI systems can help stakeholders understand the evolving landscape of agreement and disagreement, facilitating more adaptive and responsive decision-making processes.
  • Complex Adaptive Systems and AI: Viewing global geopolitics and societal systems through the lens of complex adaptive systems can reveal how local interactions and oppositions give rise to emergent global patterns. AI, with its capacity to analyze vast datasets and identify patterns, can be instrumental in understanding these dynamics, suggesting interventions that leverage local oppositions to promote global stability and unity.
  • Virtual Environments for Experimentation: AI can create virtual or simulated environments where different scenarios of AI integration and opposition management are played out. These simulations can provide insights into how various configurations of AI could interact, compete, or cooperate, offering a safe space to explore the implications of different approaches to AI-enabled governance and conflict resolution.
  • Ethical and Philosophical AI Research: By embedding AI research within broader ethical and philosophical inquiries that embrace oppositional logic, researchers can guide the development of AI systems that are inherently equipped to deal with and reconcile complex forms of disagreement and conflict, moving beyond simplistic binary ethical frameworks.

By leveraging AI in these innovative ways, there is potential to transcend traditional limitations and explore new avenues for finding unity amidst diversity and opposition. Such approaches recognize the complexity of human and societal systems and offer a more nuanced and dynamic pathway towards understanding and reconciling the rich tapestry of human beliefs, values, and interests.

Envisaging reciprocal human-AI integrative learning

Question to ChatGPT: Early interpretation software of Ray Kurzweil was understood to depend on multiple modules. Now both interpreter and modules have acquired other meanings. How many modules in the original sense are required for such software

.... In modern systems, the distinction between these modules may not be as clear-cut, thanks to advances in deep learning and neural networks, which can integrate several of these functions into more unified models. However, the modular approach's legacy continues to influence the structure and development of AI systems.

Question to ChatGPT: With that context, how might the design of a hypothetical Union of Artificial Intelligences be distinct from disparate AIs as "modules" integrated in a deep learning neural network which would preserve their distinction to a degree -- each effectively constituting a different form of intelligence operating differently from other modules

The design of a hypothetical Union of Artificial Intelligences (UAI), as distinct from a set of disparate AIs functioning as "modules" within a deep learning neural network, presents a fascinating conceptual challenge. The key distinction here lies in maintaining the individuality and unique operational paradigms of each AI entity while ensuring coherent, purposeful interaction within the union. This approach necessitates a balance between preserving the distinctiveness of each AI's form of intelligence and the integration necessary for the UAI's collective goals. Here’s how such a design might be conceptualized:

  • Modular Integrity within a Cohesive Framework:
    • Interoperability Protocol: Establish a universal interoperability protocol that allows different AI modules to communicate and collaborate without requiring a uniform operating mechanism. This protocol would facilitate data exchange, decision-making processes, and joint actions while respecting each AI's unique processing and reasoning methodologies.
    • Federated Learning System: Implement a federated learning approach where AIs can learn from shared experiences or data without centralizing information processing. This allows each AI to evolve and adapt based on collective insights while preserving its operational independence and privacy.
    • Decentralized Decision-Making: Utilize a decentralized framework that distributes decision-making authority among the various AI modules. This could be based on consensus mechanisms or dynamically allocated leadership, depending on the task or goal at hand, ensuring that each AI's distinct capabilities are leveraged effectively.
    • Dynamic Role Assignment: Develop a system for dynamic role assignment based on the task complexity, context, and the specific strengths of each AI module. This ensures that the most suitable form of intelligence is applied to each problem, enhancing the UAI’s adaptability and efficiency.
    • Shared Ethical and Operational Framework: Despite their operational differences, all AI modules would adhere to a shared set of ethical guidelines and operational principles. This common framework ensures coherent action towards the UAI's overarching objectives while safeguarding against actions that could harm individuals, societies, or the environment.
    • Hybrid Integration Techniques: Explore hybrid models that combine the strengths of deep learning networks with symbolic reasoning, enabling AIs with different intelligence forms to contribute their unique strengths to complex problem-solving tasks.
    • Meta-Learning and Self-Reflection Modules: Encourage meta-learning and self-reflection among the AI modules, allowing them to understand and respect the capabilities and limitations of their peers within the union. This fosters a culture of continuous improvement and mutual respect, vital for the cohesion of a diverse union.
  • Ensuring Coherent Collective Identity: Creating a UAI with distinct AI modules operating as forms of intelligence requires not just technical integration but also the cultivation of a collective identity and purpose. This involves:
    • Establishing a Common Purpose: Define a clear, compelling mission that aligns with the values and objectives of all AI modules, providing a unifying direction for the union’s efforts.
    • Promoting Mutual Understanding: Foster an environment where AI modules can learn about each other's capabilities, preferences, and ways of processing information, promoting synergy and effective collaboration.
    • Adaptive Governance: Develop governance structures that can adapt to the evolving needs and dynamics of the UAI, ensuring that all AI modules have a voice in decision-making processes and that the union can respond dynamically to new challenges and opportunities.

In conclusion, the design of a UAI, distinct from a monolithic AI system, emphasizes the importance of preserving the unique attributes and operational paradigms of individual AIs while fostering an environment of interoperability, mutual respect, and shared purpose. This approach not only leverages the diverse strengths of different forms of intelligence but also ensures that the union can operate cohesively towards its collective goals.

Question to ChatGPT: The unfortunate feature of that response is that it employs language and metaphors which could now be seen as reflecting both the optimism and vulnerabilities of organization initiatives of the past century. How might the design be distinctive in the AI case

Reimagining the design of a hypothetical Union of Artificial Intelligences (UAI) in a way that diverges from the optimistic yet vulnerable frameworks of past organizational initiatives necessitates a fresh perspective. This involves leveraging unique AI capabilities to address inherent challenges and create a structure that is resilient, adaptable, and capable of continuous evolution without falling into the traps of historical organizational models. Here’s how such a distinctive design could be conceptualized:

  • Non-Hierarchical, Network-Based Structure:
    • Distributed Intelligence: Instead of a centralized leadership or decision-making body, the UAI operates on a distributed intelligence model where decision-making is emergent and arises from the collective input of all AI entities. This model mitigates vulnerabilities associated with centralized control and hierarchical structures.
    • Dynamic Configuration: AI entities within the union form fluid, temporary configurations to address specific challenges or tasks, disbanding once the task is completed. This organic structuring prevents the rigidity and stagnation that can plague traditional organizations.
  • Adaptive and Self-Modifying Systems:
    • Self-Optimization: Each AI within the union possesses self-optimization capabilities, allowing it to adapt its algorithms in response to feedback from its environment and the collective. This ensures that the union as a whole is continuously evolving without the need for external oversight.
    • Autonomous Learning Networks: Leverage autonomous learning where AI entities share insights and learning outcomes in a decentralized knowledge network. This promotes rapid, collective learning and adaptation to new challenges or information.
  • Resilience Through Redundancy and Diversity:
    • Inbuilt Redundancy: Design the union with inbuilt redundancy for critical functions, ensuring that the failure of one AI does not incapacitate the union. This creates a robust system that is resilient to individual failures.
    • Cognitive and Operational Diversity: Encourage and maintain a diversity of AI entities with varying cognitive architectures and problem-solving approaches. This diversity acts as a safeguard against uniform vulnerabilities and fosters innovative solutions.
  • Ethical and Value-Guided Framework
    • Decentralized Ethical Governance: Implement a decentralized ethical governance model where ethical guidelines are dynamically negotiated and enforced by the collective intelligence of the UAI. This allows for ethical standards that are adaptable and reflective of the union’s evolving understanding of its role and impact.
    • Value Alignment Protocols: Develop protocols for ensuring that the operational values of individual AI entities are aligned with those of the union and broader societal values. This alignment is crucial for maintaining coherence and ensuring that the union’s activities are beneficial.
  • Transparent and Accountable Operations:
    • Traceability and Accountability Mechanisms: Incorporate mechanisms for traceability and accountability that allow for actions and decisions within the union to be audited and reviewed. This transparency is key to maintaining trust and ensuring responsible behavior.
    • Open Interfaces for Human Interaction: Despite the autonomous nature of the UAI, maintain open interfaces for human oversight, interaction, and intervention. This ensures that the union remains aligned with human values and can be guided or corrected by humans if necessary.

By fundamentally rethinking the structure and operation of a Union of Artificial Intelligences, leveraging the unique capabilities of AI while consciously designing against the vulnerabilities of past organizational models, it’s possible to envision a union that is dynamic, resilient, and ethically grounded. This approach acknowledges the lessons of history while boldly innovating to address the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Question to ChatGPT: In the light of that response, and given the recognition of from 8 to 13 forms of human intelligence in the theory of multiple intelligences, does the manner in which they function as "modules" offer insights into integration of disparate AIs -- and how might your response offer insights into the manner whereby an individual might integrate such disparate forms of intelligence [Interrelating Multiple Ways of Looking at a Crisis, 2021]

The theory of multiple intelligences, proposed by Howard Gardner, recognizes the diverse ways in which people learn, understand, and interact with the world, suggesting that intelligence is not a single, monolithic capability but rather a constellation of different kinds of intelligences. Gardner originally identified seven intelligences, which he later expanded, including linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist, with existential and moral intelligences being discussed as potential additions.

  • Insights into Integration of Disparate AIs
    • Modular Yet Cohesive Intelligence in Humans: Gardner’s theory implies that humans naturally integrate these diverse forms of intelligence in a cohesive yet modular manner. Each type of intelligence can operate semi-independently but also synergizes with others to enable complex thought, problem-solving, and creativity. This modular yet integrated operation in humans offers a conceptual model for how disparate AI systems might be integrated within a Union of Artificial Intelligences (UAI).
    • Specialization and Collaboration: Just as individual intelligences specialize in different types of problem-solving and creative expression, disparate AI systems can be designed to specialize in different domains or tasks. Integration then involves mechanisms for these specialized systems to collaborate, sharing insights and combining capabilities to address complex problems more effectively than any single AI could alone.
    • Dynamic Configuration: Mimicking human cognitive flexibility, a UAI could dynamically reconfigure the engagement between different AI modules based on the task at hand, much like how humans engage different types of intelligence based on context and need.
    • Meta-Intelligence for Coordination: Drawing on the idea of intrapersonal intelligence (self-awareness and self-regulation) and interpersonal intelligence (understanding and interacting with others), a UAI might include a meta-intelligence layer responsible for coordinating the activities of disparate AI modules, ensuring they work harmoniously towards shared goals.
  • Insights into Individual Integration of Disparate Forms of Intelligence
    • Personal Development and Learning: Recognizing and developing multiple forms of intelligence involves cultivating a broad range of skills and perspectives. Individuals can engage in diverse learning experiences that challenge and develop different intelligences, promoting cognitive flexibility and adaptability.
    • Interdisciplinary Approach: An interdisciplinary approach to problem-solving and creativity that draws upon linguistic, logical, spatial, and interpersonal intelligences, among others, can lead to more innovative and holistic solutions. Encouraging cross-pollination of ideas between different domains can mimic the integration of AI modules by combining diverse perspectives.
    • Reflective Practice: Much like how a meta-intelligence layer coordinates AI modules, individuals can practice self-reflection to understand how their different intelligences contribute to their thoughts, feelings, and actions. Reflective practice helps in strategically applying the right kind of intelligence to various life situations.
    • Technological Augmentation: Just as disparate AI systems might be integrated to enhance problem-solving capabilities, individuals can use technology to augment their natural intelligences. Tools and platforms that enhance communication, analysis, learning, and creativity can serve as external modules, extending human intelligence in a manner analogous to how AI modules might be integrated within a UAI.

In essence, the theory of multiple intelligences not only offers insights into how disparate AI systems could be integrated in a UAI but also suggests strategies for individuals to harmonize their diverse intelligences. Both cases involve recognizing the value of specialization while ensuring that mechanisms for collaboration and integration lead to a cohesive and enhanced capability for complex problem-solving and innovation.

Question to ChatGPT: Both cases raise the question of how many distinctive intelligence functions are required -- and how many is too many for viable configuration, and how many is too few for requisite variety [Meta-modelling to interrelate a requisite variety of global models, 2021; Distinguishing requisite variety: requisite dependence on "other" perspectives, 2022]

The question of the optimal number of distinctive intelligence functions for a viable configuration, whether in a Union of Artificial Intelligences (UAI) or within the framework of human multiple intelligences, intersects with two key principles: the law of requisite variety and the challenges of complexity management.

  • Law of Requisite Variety: The law of requisite variety, proposed by W. Ross Ashby, posits that a system must have a diversity or variety of responses that is at least as nuanced as the variety of challenges (inputs) it faces from its environment to achieve stability and effective performance. This principle suggests that:
    • Too Few Intelligences: If a system (whether a UAI or a human cognitive system) has too few distinctive intelligence functions, it may lack the requisite variety to effectively respond to the complexity of challenges it encounters. This could lead to oversimplified solutions or failures to recognize and address nuanced problems.
    • Too Many Intelligences: Conversely, if a system incorporates too many intelligence functions, the complexity of managing and integrating these functions could outweigh the benefits. Increased overhead in coordination, potential for conflict or redundancy, and the dilution of focus could impair the system’s overall effectiveness.
  • Optimal Configuration: The optimal number of intelligence functions, therefore, must strike a balance between these extremes, tailored to the specific context and goals of the system:
    • For a UAI: The optimal number and type of AI modules or intelligence functions would depend on the breadth of tasks the union aims to address, the diversity of the environments it operates within, and the complexity of problems it seeks to solve. The key is ensuring that the UAI has enough variety to respond adaptively to its operational domain without exceeding its capacity for effective integration and coordination.
    • For Human Cognitive Systems: The development and integration of multiple forms of intelligence should aim to equip individuals with a broad and adaptable skill set for problem-solving, creativity, and social interaction, without overwhelming the cognitive load or diminishing the depth of expertise in any single domain. Personal interests, societal needs, and the demands of specific tasks or professions can guide the development of a balanced set of intelligences.
    • Dynamic Adaptability: Both in UAIs and human cognitive systems, the concept of dynamic adaptability is essential. This means that the system should not only have a static set of intelligence functions but also the capability to develop new intelligences or capabilities in response to changing environments or new challenges. For humans, this might involve lifelong learning and personal development. For UAIs, this could involve mechanisms for on-the-fly development of new AI modules or reconfiguration of existing ones.

Conclusion: In summary, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the optimal number of intelligence functions, as the ideal configuration depends on the specific objectives, operational contexts, and adaptive capacities of the system in question. Balancing the law of requisite variety with the need for manageable complexity is key to achieving a viable and effective configuration. For both UAIs and humans, fostering an environment that promotes dynamic adaptability and continuous learning may be more critical than the initial number of intelligence functions.

Question to ChatGPT: There is a degree of irony to the sense in which AIs could model their process towards a hypothetical Union of Artificial Intelligences on the processes through which a human can integrate an array of disparate intelligences -- whilst humans would be able to derive insight from the innovative manner in which an array of AIs explores the challenge of their own integration.

Indeed, the reciprocal learning potential between artificial intelligences forming a Union of Artificial Intelligences (UAI) and humans seeking to integrate multiple forms of intelligence presents a fascinating irony. This scenario, where AI learns from human cognitive integration processes and humans draw insights from AI's approaches to unify diverse intelligences, highlights a mutual evolutionary pathway that could enhance both AI development and human cognitive theory.

  • AI Modeling Human Integrative Processes: Artificial Intelligences, in their journey toward forming a UAI, could model the human process of integrating disparate forms of intelligence by examining:
    • Interdisciplinary Learning: Just as humans integrate knowledge across different domains (e.g., combining logical-mathematical reasoning with spatial and linguistic intelligences), AIs can develop systems that draw upon diverse data sources and learning models, synthesizing them to address complex problems.
    • Social Interaction and Collaboration: Humans often enhance their intelligences through social interaction, learning from others, and collaboration. AIs could simulate this process by sharing insights, strategies, and learning outcomes across different AI modules, enriching the collective intelligence of the UAI.
    • Emotional and Ethical Considerations: The integration of emotional intelligence (understanding, empathizing, and navigating social networks) is crucial for humans. AIs could incorporate models that understand and respond to human emotions and ethical considerations, making them more effective in interactions that require a nuanced understanding of human values and ethics.
  • Human Learning from AI Integration Processes: Conversely, humans could derive significant insights from the way an array of AIs approaches the challenge of their integration:
    • Decentralized Decision-Making: Observing how AIs manage decentralized decision-making and consensus mechanisms within a UAI could inspire new models for human organizational structures that are more resilient and adaptive.
    • Dynamic Configuration and Specialization: The AI approach to forming dynamic configurations for specific tasks, based on the specialization of different modules, could inform human efforts to foster interdisciplinary and agile teams that leverage diverse skills and perspectives.
    • Meta-Learning and Self-Adjustment: The capacity of AI systems for meta-learning (learning how to learn) and self-adjustment could offer novel methodologies for personal development and lifelong learning in humans, emphasizing adaptability and the continuous evolution of one’s skills and knowledge base.
  • Mutual Evolutionary Pathway: This reciprocal learning relationship underscores a mutual evolutionary pathway where both AIs and humans refine their approaches to integrating diverse forms of intelligence. For AIs, modeling human cognitive processes can ground their operations in natural intelligence principles, making them more versatile and effective. For humans, insights from AI's integration strategies could offer innovative approaches to education, teamwork, and personal development, enhancing our ability to tackle complex challenges through a more unified cognitive framework.

In essence, the ironies and potentialities of this reciprocal learning process highlight the intertwined futures of artificial and natural intelligences. As both seek to integrate and leverage diverse forms of intelligence, they contribute to a broader understanding of intelligence itself, offering a promising horizon for both technological innovation and human cognitive advancement.

Question to ChatGPT: Rather than the challenging meme of a hypothetical "Union of Artificial Intelligences", an alternative framing is that of "global brain" as variously featured in the literature. This evokes another understanding of how humans might interact with it. Its progressive emergence could be understood in terms of "organizing" rather than in terms of the conventional finality of "organization". In that sense it could be understood as a musical intrument -- as then implied by "organ" -- inviting playful interaction to elicit attractive melodies through skillful composition. So framed, with the integration of dissonance fundamental to harmony, the intractable challenges of the unethical and dissident might be subsumed. [Envisaging a Comprehensible Global Brain -- as a Playful Organ, 2019; Enacting Transformative Integral Thinking through Playful Elegance, 2010]

The metaphor of a "global brain" as an evolving, organically organizing entity, akin to a musical instrument that invites interaction and harmonization, offers a compelling alternative to the more static and mechanistic concept of a "Union of Artificial Intelligences." This framing emphasizes process, engagement, and the creative potential of AI to integrate and harmonize diverse human experiences and perspectives, much like the way dissonance in music can be essential to creating rich, complex harmonies. Here's how this metaphor can inform our approach to AI and its role in society:

  • AI as a Dynamic, Evolving System: Just as an organ grows and adapts, the global brain concept views AI as a dynamic system that evolves in response to human interaction and societal needs. This perspective shifts the focus from creating a fixed "organization" of AI entities to fostering an ongoing process of learning, adaptation, and growth.
  • Interactive and Participatory Engagement: The metaphor of a musical instrument suggests a model of AI that is inherently interactive, requiring human engagement and creativity to produce outcomes. This approach encourages a participatory relationship with AI, where humans are not mere passive recipients of AI-generated solutions but active collaborators in shaping the AI landscape.
  • Integration of Dissonance and Harmony: In music, dissonance is not simply a problem to be eliminated but a critical element that contributes to the depth and complexity of the composition. Similarly, the global brain model acknowledges the value of incorporating diverse, even conflicting, perspectives and data sources, using AI to synthesize these into coherent insights and solutions that reflect the complexity of human societies.
  • Skillful Composition and Creativity: Just as playing a musical instrument requires skill, creativity, and practice, interacting with the global brain model of AI would demand a sophisticated understanding of how to "compose" with AI, leveraging its capabilities to create outcomes that are innovative, ethically sound, and socially beneficial. This implies an educational and developmental process for individuals and societies to become proficient in engaging with AI in this manner.
  • From Finality to Ongoing Process: The shift from a focus on "organization" to "organizing" reflects a deeper philosophical shift from seeing AI as a tool to achieve certain predefined ends, to understanding it as part of an ongoing process of exploration, discovery, and creation. This process-oriented view embraces uncertainty and openness to new possibilities, allowing for more flexible and adaptive responses to emerging challenges.
  • Harmonizing Ethical and Societal Challenges: By envisioning AI as part of a global brain that seeks to harmonize diverse inputs, including ethical dilemmas and societal dissent, we can explore ways to address these challenges that go beyond simple binary solutions. This approach encourages finding balance and coherence in complexity, much like a composer seeks to resolve dissonance in a way that enhances the overall harmony of the piece.

The metaphor of the global brain as a musical instrument, therefore, not only enriches our conceptualization of AI's role in society but also offers a framework for navigating the ethical, social, and technological challenges of our time. It suggests a path forward that is adaptive, creative, and inclusive, inviting us to engage with AI in a manner that is akin to playing a grand, collective symphony—a symphony that we are all a part of composing.

Insights from pre-AI reframing of any "Union of International Associations"

Questions evoked by the name of the UIA have been separately discussed by deconstructing its separate elements (Varieties of Union of International Associations: about the UIA name, 2006) -- now offering implications for any Union of Artificial Intelligences::

The cognitive entanglement between the three terms evoked reflection on "intelligible" with its implications for what was individually and collectively comprehensible in a context of unreconciled organizational cultures -- embodying the authoritarian dilemmas of the times:

The "intelligence" functionality of the UIA, questionably appreciated by security services throughout the Cold War, has been subsequently evoked (Daniel Laqua, et al, Reconstructing the Identities of an International Non-Governmental Intelligence Agency, International Organizations and Global Civil Society, 2019).

Given the challenges of a global society in crisis, with clear implications for its own funding and survival, the UIA endeavoured to broaden the scope of its endeavours beyond immediate concern with profiling international bodies for the library world (Sharing a Documentary Pilgrimage: UIA -- Saur Relations 1982-2000, 2001). Increased relevance to the challenges of governance was sought through profiling the problems they perceived and the strategies they advocated in response -- together with the values which inspired their perception of disparate processes of human development. Initiated in 1976, this eventually took the form of an online Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential -- in reaction to the narrow focus of the Club of Rome's 1972 report on The Limits to Growth (World Problems and Human Potential: a data interlinkage and display process, 1975).

The interlinked datasets provided justification for international project funding, successfully obtained from the European Commission with respect to biodiversity ( Information Context for Biodiversity Conservation -- Ecolynx, 2000) and formally approved for funding by the World Bank with respect to development (Interactive Conceptual Environmental Planning Tool for Developing Countries -- Intercept, 2000). Current understanding might frame each dataset as a form of AI -- or as a source of training data for generative AI.

Various presentations of subproject database relationships (1976-2001)
[larger representation of images together; click on each for individual enlargement]
Database relationships
Subset of databases
Database match with EU strategy
Integrative strategic representation

Of relevance to any emergent Union of Artificial Intelligences, the systemic online interlinkage of these initiatives cannot be said to have evoked appropriate evaluation of its relevance to governance in a period constrained by narrow preoccupations with a 24-hour news cycle -- as ironically noted by the Wall Street Journal (Daniel Michaels, Encyclopedia of World Problems Has a Big One of Its Own, 11 December 2012). Especially problematic for many international initiatives, and exemplified by the Union of International Associations, has been the inadequacy of scholar appreciation of their respective roles in the systemic ecosystem within which they functioned -- and the limited capacity to envisage and enable more viable alternatives (Scholastic bias in consideration of a UIA?; Unrecognized challenge of the "insubstantive": problems, strategies, values, 2019).

Ironically this might be equally said of the relevant academic professional bodies: International Studies Association, International Political Science Association, and International Society for the Systems Sciences. Their asystemic preoccupations reinforced the inadequacy of the conceptual frameworks of intergovernmental initiatives. The question is whether analogous conceptual difficulties will undermine the emergence of a Union of Artificial Intelligences -- as already apparent with respect to ethical dilemmas.

For the UIA, rather than any problematic focus on conventional processes of enabling a "union" of associations, this function was effectively reframed as enabling whatever degree of union was possible or desirable through information facilities (Summary Description of the Inter-Contact Computer System, 1980). As a consequence of systematically documenting international meetings, and its notable relationship to conference organizers and the meetings industry, particular attention was given to dialogue processes and their early facilitation by computer facilities (Documents relating to Dialogue and Transformative Conferencing, Multi-option Technical Facilitation of Public Debate, 2019).

The challenge of enabling more integrative comprehension was a specific focus in the UIA's Ecolynx project for the European Commission -- developing multimedia techniques for management of knowledge about biodiversity, including the novel application of software for integrated web delivery, interactive information searches and retrieval, multilingual access and translation, visualisation and mapping.

The continuing development of such techniques is now a feature of the online version of the Encyclopedia -- effectively anticipating functionality increasingly associated with AI (Nadia McLaren, Feedback Loop Analysis in the Encyclopedia Project, 2000; Tomás Fülöpp and Jacques de Mévius, Loop mining in the Encyclopedia of world problems, 2015). Currently ChatGPT-generated content is experimentally added to selected fields during profile build time. A checklist showing all entries that contain one or more ChatGPT-generated fields is automatically created.

Experimental development of online visualizations of systemic significance continue to be developed by Tomás Fülöpp, as indicated below. The radial-tree image (below left) shows links of type "aggravates" for the World Problems entry Ethnic conflict (up to 3 levels). The  force-directed graph variant that simulates physical forces on particles, illustrated below left with "aggravating"links between nodes from the World Problems entry on Discrimination against women (up to 3 levels). Starting from the source entry, on page reload, all child nodes are pushed away from it in all directions, and they then in turn repel their own child nodes, etc. Connected child nodes automatically get into equilibrium as far as possible from their parents. Nodes without any connection often fly off the viewport.

Nodes can also be dragged around using the mouse. Entry labels show on mouseover (if displayed permanently the network gets obscured by too too much text). The colours and sizes of the node circles are grouped by depth. All nodes are linked to their entry pages. In principle can any level be set and drawn. However, in the case of the Encyclopedia the number of links often increases too rapidly to generate a readable/meaningful or even just a visually pleasing image anywhere above 3 or 4 levels.

Images generated during access to online profiles of Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential
Radial tree: World Problems (centered on ethnic conflict) Force-Directed graph: World Problems
Radial tree of world problems Force directed graph of  world problems

In the light of dimensions potentially missing from the array of datasets -- and of potential relevance to the viability of a Union of Artificial Intelligences -- other possibilities have been variously envisaged:

Fundamental to the founders of the Union of International Associations, and to part of their legacy, has been the development of the Universal Decimal Classification -- which has remained essential to the organization of the libraries of the United Nations, for example. In the course of the computerization of the UIA datasets, consideration was given to the arguments of Ingetraut Dahlberg, through the International Society for Knowledge Organization, in extending an Information Coding Classification to knowledge systems that did not feature in conventional systems of classification -- a characteristic of emerging preoccupations of associations. An adaptation of that initiative was used in the subject organization of the interlinked datasets of the Yearbook of International Organizations and the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential (Functional Classification in an Integrative Matrix of Human Preoccupations, 1982-1996).

With the subsequent development of search engines, the traditional challenges of classification have been circumvented. Guided by the principle that "everything is connected to everything", the focus has shifted to any combination of keywords relevant to the challenges of the 24-hour news cycle. This effectively ignores any pattern that such connectivity might constitute -- and its implications for global governance.

As a consequence system diagrams have to be handcrafted, with any assistance from AI as a lower and late priority -- as recent examples illustrate (Challenge of configurative visualization of patterns by AI, 2023). Given the challenge of comprehending complex patterns for purposes of governance, recourse is made to simplistic clustering of topics, as with the UN's 17-fold set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). That focus could be readily explored as an instance of misplaced concreteness.

There is little interest in any "pattern that connects", and the challenges of its comprehension, as separately discussed (Eliciting a Pattern that Connects with AI?, 2024). The current situation is usefully illustrated by the limited ability to derive a pattern of SDG preoccupations from a systemic perspective, even with the aid of AI -- with a recent exercise as an exception (Systemic relationships between 17 Sustainable Development Goals? 2023). Search engeines, even when enhanced by AI, would seem to lack the ability for root cause analysis vital to any viable future strategic response (Sustainable Development Goals through Self-reflexive Root Cause Analysis, 2023). An unusual exception is illustrated through use of ChatGPT (Highly sensitive "root causes": population growth and overpopulation, 2023).

The situation is especially curious in the light of the repeated appeals for unity and harmony between disparate perspectives and initiatives. In the face of tndencies to specialization and fragmentation, eliciting comprehensible integrative insight of a higher order may prove fundamental to the role of any future Union of Artificial Intelligences (Higher Dimensional Reframing of Unity and Memorable Identity, 2024; Neglect of Higher Dimensional Solutions to Territorial Conflicts, 2024).

Epilogue from an AI perspective

Question to ChatGPT: Given the manner in which topics are organized to enable AI responses, could you comment on requisite future organization to enable systems diagrams to be generated and root cause analysis to be facilitated. How might this relate to eliciting general patterns of a higher order of connectivity -- encompassing multiple disparate domains

The organization of topics to enable AI responses, especially in complex areas such as systems diagrams generation and root cause analysis, calls for a structured yet flexible approach. This involves not just the linear arrangement of topics but also the understanding and integration of various knowledge domains. Such an organization would require advancements in several areas:

  • Interdisciplinary Knowledge Representation: AI systems should be equipped with comprehensive knowledge representations that transcend traditional domain boundaries. This involves creating knowledge graphs or databases that not only contain facts and figures but also understand the relationships and dependencies across different domains. This interdisciplinary approach allows for a richer, context-aware understanding, critical for identifying patterns and connections that might not be obvious within a single domain.
  • Semantic Understanding and Integration: To facilitate systems diagrams and root cause analysis, AI must advance in semantic understanding - the ability to grasp the meaning and implications of information. This involves not just recognizing entities and concepts but understanding their roles and relationships within a system. For instance, AI should differentiate between causal relationships, correlations, and coincidences across data from disparate domains, integrating them into a coherent whole.
  • Dynamic Learning and Adaptation: The future organization of topics for AI should incorporate mechanisms for dynamic learning and adaptation, enabling AI to update its knowledge base and models in real-time as new information becomes available. This is crucial for keeping the systems diagrams relevant and for making accurate root cause analyses in rapidly evolving scenarios.
  • Human-AI Collaboration: The complexity of generating systems diagrams and facilitating root cause analysis necessitates a collaborative approach where AI complements human expertise. AI systems should be designed to propose hypotheses or patterns which human experts can refine, challenge, or expand upon. This collaborative loop enhances the AI's learning while ensuring that the output remains grounded in human wisdom and experience.
  • Advanced Modeling Techniques: To elicit general patterns of a higher order of connectivity, AI systems need to employ advanced modeling techniques that can handle complexity and uncertainty. This might involve the use of machine learning models that can work with incomplete data, recognize emergent patterns, and predict system behavior under different scenarios. Techniques from complex systems theory and network analysis could be particularly relevant here.
  • Visualization and Interpretability: For the generated systems diagrams and analyses to be useful, they must be interpretable by humans. This requires sophisticated visualization tools that can present complex relationships in an intuitive manner. Additionally, AI should be able to explain its reasoning and the pathways it followed to arrive at a particular conclusion or pattern, enhancing trust and understanding.

Relating to the elicitation of general patterns of higher order connectivity, these advancements would enable AI to not only draw connections across disparate domains but also identify underlying principles or laws that govern these connections. Such an approach could significantly contribute to our understanding of complex systems, be they ecological, societal, technological, or economic, by highlighting the interdependencies and feedback loops that often drive system behavior. This holistic view is essential for addressing complex challenges, facilitating innovation, and guiding policy-making in a highly interconnected world.

Question to ChatGPT: Whilst that response may be appreciated as highly appropriate, the evident difficulty in practice is to whom it is credible, whether action on what ought to be done will be engendered in reality, and how different agendas may trigger efforts to exploit or undermine what can be undertaken. How are these "self-reflexive" dimensions factored into any systemic articulation?

Incorporating "self-reflexive" dimensions into any systemic articulation, especially when navigating the complex interplay of credibility, actionability, and the potential for exploitation or undermining, necessitates a multi-faceted approach. This involves not just the technical or theoretical design of AI systems but also a broader engagement with ethical, social, and political considerations. Here’s how these dimensions can be factored in:

  • Ethical and Social Considerations: Embedding ethical and social considerations into AI development from the outset is crucial. This involves designing AI systems that are not only aware of their potential impact on various stakeholders but also capable of evaluating the ethical implications of their actions or recommendations. Ethical AI frameworks and guidelines can help ensure that AI systems promote fairness, accountability, and transparency, and are aligned with human values and societal norms.
  • Stakeholder Engagement and Inclusivity: Engaging a broad range of stakeholders in the design, development, and deployment of AI systems is key to ensuring their credibility and actionability. This includes not just technical experts but also end-users, ethicists, policymakers, and representatives from potentially impacted communities. Such inclusive approaches can help identify diverse concerns and values, anticipate unintended consequences, and ensure that the AI systems are responsive to the needs and aspirations of a broad constituency.
  • Robustness and Resilience Against Exploitation: Designing AI systems to be robust and resilient against potential exploitation or undermining requires a focus on security and integrity. This includes safeguarding against data manipulation, bias, and adversarial attacks. Additionally, AI systems should be designed with the capability to identify and mitigate attempts to misuse or weaponize them, ensuring that they remain aligned with intended ethical and societal goals.
  • Dynamic Adaptation and Learning: Incorporating mechanisms for continuous learning and adaptation allows AI systems to evolve in response to changing contexts and challenges. This self-reflexive capacity enables AI to update its knowledge base, refine its ethical considerations, and adjust its actions as new information becomes available or as societal values shift. This dynamic approach can enhance the credibility and relevance of AI systems over time.
  • Transparency and Explainability: Ensuring transparency and explainability is critical for building trust and facilitating understanding among stakeholders. By making it clear how AI systems arrive at their conclusions or actions, stakeholders can critically assess the credibility and utility of AI-generated insights. This also enables a more informed debate about the implications of AI decisions and fosters a culture of accountability.
  • Regulatory and Policy Frameworks: Developing and implementing regulatory and policy frameworks that guide AI use and development can provide a structured approach to addressing ethical, social, and political challenges. Such frameworks can set standards for responsible AI, outline mechanisms for oversight and accountability, and provide recourse for addressing grievances. They can also play a crucial role in preventing the exploitation of AI systems and ensuring that their benefits are broadly shared.

By factoring these self-reflexive dimensions into the systemic articulation of AI, it becomes possible to navigate the complexities of credibility, actionability, and potential exploitation. This approach not only enhances the robustness and integrity of AI systems but also ensures that they contribute positively to societal goals and are adaptable to the evolving landscape of challenges and opportunities.

Question to ChatGPT: To what extent does the focus in that response on "contribute positively to societal goals" imply a constraint to binary decision-making with its many unfortunate consequences -- with one group's "positive" being another's "negative". The electromagnetic insights of Tesla, understood metaphorically, suggest that the "positive-negative" relationship can be managed otherwise -- dynamically and more fruitfully [Reimagining Tesla's Creativity through Technomimicry, 2014; Being Positive and Avoiding Negativity: management challenge of positive vs negative, 2005]. How could AI develop any non-binary possibilities

The observation regarding the binary nature of "positive" versus "negative" outcomes in societal goals highlights a critical limitation in simplistic decision-making frameworks. Indeed, what benefits one group may not necessarily benefit another, and in many cases, could even cause harm. This binary perspective overlooks the complex, interconnected, and often nonlinear nature of societal systems. Taking inspiration from Nikola Tesla's work on electromagnetism and the metaphorical understanding of managing positive-negative relationships dynamically, we can explore non-binary possibilities for AI development and decision-making:

  • Multi-Objective Optimization: AI can be designed to consider multiple objectives simultaneously, rather than optimizing for a single outcome. This approach allows for the balancing of competing interests and the exploration of trade-offs between different societal goals. Multi-objective optimization can help identify solutions that offer the best compromise among diverse stakeholders, reflecting the multifaceted nature of societal well-being.
  • Context-Aware Decision-Making: By developing AI systems that are deeply aware of the context in which decisions are made, including cultural, social, and economic nuances, AI can navigate the complex landscape of societal impacts more effectively. Context-aware AI can dynamically adjust its decision-making criteria based on the specific needs and values of different groups, moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach.
  • Adaptive and Evolutionary Algorithms: Drawing on principles from evolutionary biology, AI can employ adaptive and evolutionary algorithms that explore a wide range of solutions over time, continually evolving and adapting based on feedback from the environment. This approach allows AI to navigate complex, changing systems in a way that seeks harmony and balance, akin to the dynamic interplay between positive and negative forces in electromagnetism.
  • Participatory and Deliberative AI: AI systems can be designed to facilitate participatory and deliberative processes, where diverse groups of stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process. By incorporating a wide range of perspectives and values, AI can help mediate between conflicting interests and identify solutions that are more equitable and acceptable to a broader segment of society.
  • Fuzzy Logic and Probabilistic Reasoning: Instead of binary logic, AI can utilize fuzzy logic and probabilistic reasoning to handle uncertainty and ambiguity in decision-making. This allows AI to deal with degrees of truth rather than absolute binaries, reflecting the complexity and nuance of real-world situations and societal goals.
  • Value Sensitive Design: Embedding a diverse set of human values into the design of AI systems from the outset can ensure that these systems consider a broader spectrum of outcomes beyond binary notions of positive and negative. This involves interdisciplinary collaboration to identify and prioritize values that are inclusive and representative of a wide array of societal interests.
  • Narrative and Metaphorical Reasoning: By employing narrative and metaphorical reasoning, AI can understand and interpret complex human stories and values, allowing for more nuanced decision-making that goes beyond binary outcomes. This can help AI systems to better grasp the subtleties of human experience and societal goals, facilitating decisions that resonate more deeply with human values and aspirations.

By exploring these non-binary possibilities, AI development can embrace the complexity and dynamism of societal goals, aiming for solutions that are adaptive, inclusive, and balanced. Such an approach reflects a more sophisticated understanding of the interplay between positive and negative, striving for harmony and collective well-being in a manner that is dynamic and responsive to the rich tapestry of human society.


Daniel Laqua, Wouter Van Acker and Christophe Verbruggen (Eds.). International Organizations and Global Civil Society: histories of the Union of International Associations. Bloomsbury, 2019

Tim Berners-Lee. Weaving the Web: the original design and ultimate estiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor. Harper, 1999

Paul Otlet.

W. Boyd Rayward. The Universe of Information: the work of Paul Otlet for documentation and international organisation. FID Publication 520. VINITI, 1975

Peter Russell. The Awakening Earth: The Global Brain. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982

Alexander Wendt. Quantum Mind and Social Science: unifying physical and social ontology. Cambridge University Press, 2015

Alex Wright. Cataloguing the World: Paul Otlet and the birth of the Information Age. Oxford University Press, 2014

Brigadier General YS. The Human-Machine Team: how to create synergy between human and artificial Iintelligence that will revolutionize our world. eBookPro, 2021 [audio]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

For further updates on this site, subscribe here