An intelligence of level 1 acts on innate algorithms, like a bacterium that survives using inherited mechanisms.
This suggestion seems disengaged from the biological literature. It has become known in recent years, for instance, that bacteria live very complicated social lives. From The Social Lives of Microbes:
It used to be assumed that bacteria and other microorganisms lived relatively independent unicellular lives, without the cooperative behaviors that have provoked so much interest in mammals, birds, and insects. However, a rapidly expanding body of research has completely overturned this idea, showing that microbes indulge in a variety of social behaviors involving complex systems of cooperation, communication, and synchronization.
Also, I’m not sure we should call what bacteria do a level of “intelligence,” even though they have wonderful and complicated social behavior. “Intelligence” in the context of AI typically is reserved for “cross-domain optimization power” or something like that, and bacteria seem to be lacking that.
My post isn’t supposed to be biologically accurate. Bacteria include a vast majority of organisms and I do them wrong if I depict them as crude and simple. As a part of my apology tour, I will start with my gut flora.
Agreed. I’m not sure there’s much to gain from a taxonomy like yours, because there’s too many details that have been abstracted away. Understanding intelligence is a difficult scientific problem, and we need a technical explanation of intelligence. It is not clear to me how one would extend what you’ve written into such an explanation.
This suggestion seems disengaged from the biological literature. It has become known in recent years, for instance, that bacteria live very complicated social lives. From The Social Lives of Microbes:
See Quorum sensing for more details.
Also, I’m not sure we should call what bacteria do a level of “intelligence,” even though they have wonderful and complicated social behavior. “Intelligence” in the context of AI typically is reserved for “cross-domain optimization power” or something like that, and bacteria seem to be lacking that.
My post isn’t supposed to be biologically accurate. Bacteria include a vast majority of organisms and I do them wrong if I depict them as crude and simple. As a part of my apology tour, I will start with my gut flora.
Replace “bacteria” with “secure hash algorithm”.
My point is, if you’re going to talk about bacteria in a way that characterizes them incorrectly, why talk about bacteria at all?
You should do this in the post?
So you point is that I am wrong on bacteria. I agree, let’s move on.
Agreed. I’m not sure there’s much to gain from a taxonomy like yours, because there’s too many details that have been abstracted away. Understanding intelligence is a difficult scientific problem, and we need a technical explanation of intelligence. It is not clear to me how one would extend what you’ve written into such an explanation.