Collective intelligence is right on trend at the moment and I am not the biggest fan of the concept. But can artificial intelligence define the conditions under which collective intelligence can override group stupidity?
Let's say you were the emperor of a complicated country prone to bloody revolutions, as was Napoleon in France.
Of course you would want to know what's in the hearts and minds of the rabble thronging the streets which in some circumstances could be a question of survival. Today that could be called public opinion. At those days, people were reluctant to reveal their secret desires and yearnings in their social networks which today, thank the Lord, allow mind control in real time.
You have two solutions to know public opinion....
You are what you eat.. Or are you? According to one leading nutritionist the ideal diet must avoid fat at all costs unless of course you are following a ketogenic diet. And how about his estimed colleague who swears by the hunter gatherer diet. Which doesn’t bode well for those of us who live in cities…
Not to mention another eminent physician who prones the egg-based diet
And I could go on.
But to come to the point all these intellectuals, trained by the same method in our best faculties, and with the same facts to hand, do no reach the same conclusions. And if it’s obvious in the medical field, it is the same for ecology, economy and of course theology where doctors of the faith fight over their interpretation of the same sacred texts.