Talk:Intelligence amplification

message: Jon Awbrey 20:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes & Queries

message: * JA: I find that it's best to avoid long labels on external links, as these often get split badly depending on screen width, with the arrow then showing up in the middle of the label.  Also, it's helpful to advise the reader what sort of file to expect, especially PDF files, that they may want to download when they are not in a rush.  Jon Awbrey 04:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoiding long link lines

message: :Vinge Some examples of how intelligence amplification could occur include: Nootropics, a.k.a. "smart drugs", using wetware, specifically a brain-computer interface to link the brain to computer networks, and genetic engineering.
:The term "intelligence amplification" is generally used by those discussing The Singularity in the context of one of two possibilities, along with strong AI, which would dramatically increase the rate of scientific and technological progress.
I removed the two above sentences from the Vernor Vinge section.  The whole re-emergence section needs to be rewrite or removed, I'm fine either way.  Right now it is pretty bad.  --Ben Houston 04:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vernor Vinge text

message: I had created an article discussing J.C.R. Licklider's paper but it was pretty short.  I merged/redirected it into/to this article.  --Ben Houston 04:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Man Computer Symbiosis

message: In case it's relevant to this article's discussion of Doug Engelbart's 1962 research report Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework, discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_amplification#Douglas_Engelbart:_Augmenting_Human_Intellect, he also specifically addresses the term Intelligence Amplification in his report here https://dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html#2c2 Cengelbart (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Augmenting Human Intellect

message: * JA: It's usually best to separate the factual research and fictional speculation aspects of a topic, sorting the latter to an "X in popular culture" type of section.  Jon Awbrey 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact vs. Fiction

message: * Maybe we should talk about how best to proceed with this article?  I think that it needs some decisions on scope and focus.  My main questions are: (1) should we include the re-emergence of intelligence amplification via transhuman technologies? (2) should we include hypertext like systems such as the Memex?  I suggest an answer of NO to both.  The history of hypertext should be documented elsewhere although it should mention intelligence amplification.  The transhuman re-emergence should probably also be covered in a separate article (which may not yet exist) since it is technical futurology and potentiall conversial.  I would like to keep the intelligence amplification article uncontroversial and historically grounded.  What do you think?  --Ben Houston 05:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw I enjoyed reading the "Thinking with Machines" futher readings citation you added.  Maybe you could write a bit on the intellectual background of this theory -- it does seem to have some basis in the writings of Pierce, whom you are very familiar with.  Anyways, thanks for the help in polishing up the article and I apologize for changing direction a few times.  It's too bad there isn't a better way to do fast effective collaboration on wikipedia.  --Ben Houston 05:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligence amplification

message: I just moved these from the article.  They are specific to hypertext to be honest and not directly applicable within the narrow focus of the article.  (BTW JA, I left a message on your user talk page, which is relevant to your good suggestion above.)  --Ben Houston 05:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypertext-specific references

message: Coffee amplifies ones intelligence, right?  As does sleep.  Should this be included as a wide example of natural(ish) IA? - MSTCrow 06:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee 

message: This article contents no information about whether the concepts in each of the 3 books it describes are universally accepted--or, more likely, about what criticism may exist.DGG 01:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And a string of quotes is not an article.DGG 07:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Article needs standardized format. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting