Rethinking Cognition with AI for Higher-Dimensional Future Comprehension

Adapting human and artificial intelligence to wave-field intelligence?

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | Refs ]

Introduction

In February 2025 Paris became the two-day global hub for an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit. This was framed as bringing together world leaders, policymakers, industry pioneers, researchers, academics, NGOs, and artists to shape the future of AI. It could be understood as a follow-up to the AI for Good Global Summit (2023) convened for the UN by the International Telecommunication Union and to the segment on AI at the UN's later Summit of the Future (2024) -- which gave rise to a Global Digital Compact. The Paris Summit took the preoccupation with AI regulation even further in its debates and declaration.

The concern with the focus of this succession of events is to what degree they make use of AI in clarifying their concerns -- within the complexities of a conventional conference framework, as can be separately highlighted. Also of relevance is whether the outcomes lend themselves to analysis with the assistance of AI, as explored in the case of the Summit of the Future (Analysis by AI of Reports of UN Debate on Artificial intelligence, 2024) The latter exercise endeavoured to elicit a coherent meta-pattern of connectives of strategic relevance.

In preparation for the Paris Summit, a call for proposals for an "AI for Efficiency" was made. The new call had thematic areas centered on AI for Business, AI for Industry and AI for Public Administration. A related undertaking took the form of "AI Convergence" challenges:

... in order to showcase the dynamism of academic and industrial ecosystems and the tangible foundation of innovations they operate on globally. The goal of these challenges is to promote projects tackling ambitious technological problems or societal issues, demonstrating the value of AI for humanity as a whole. This initiative also represents a significant opportunity to unite ecosystems, foster a shared vision, and generate stimulating ideas and solutions around this transformative technology. AI convergence is underway, already showcasing its potential as both an accelerator and a differentiator.

The challenges highlighted there aimed to foster innovative solutions in the following priority areas of the Summit: Public interest AI, Future of work, Innovation and culture, Trust in AI, and Global AI Governance. The call for proposals for the Summit was understood as a complement to the "AI for Good" call launched in 2025 by the Paris Peace Forum (framed as part of the Summit). This claims to have selected and presented over 500 projects since 2018. It is unclear whether the process of eliciting, selecting and ordering the proposals benefitted from AI assistance -- as with the method of solicting proposals and managing the outcome.

The Paris Summit produced several documents which countries may have approved in advance -- rather than being the outcome of debate at the event (Statement on Inclusive and Sustainable Artificial Intelligence for People and the Planet, 11 February 2025; The Paris Charter on Artificial Intelligence in the Public Interest, 11 February 2025). Media coverage noted the failure of the US and the UK to sign up to the first in the light of its constraints (UK and US refuse to sign international AI declaration, BBC, 11 February 2025; Paris AI summit: Why wonâ-'t US, UK sign global artificial intelligence pact? AlJazeera, 12 February 2025). The declaration outlined six main priorities:

• Promoting AI accessibility to reduce digital divides
• Ensuring AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy, taking into account international frameworks for all
• Making AI innovation thrive by enabling conditions for its development and avoiding market concentration driving industrial recovery and development
• Encouraging AI deployment that positively shapes the future of work and labour markets and delivers opportunity for sustainable growth
• Making AI sustainable for people and the planet
• Reinforcing international cooperation to promote coordination in international governance

Neither the declaration nor the debates appear to have made any effort to clarify the specific relevance of AI to promoting the benefits implied.

The initial concern in what follows is with the tendency of summitry to become trapped in patterns of the past which have proven to be less than fruitful (as in the case of the annual COP series) -- especially in the absence of any evaluation of past inadequacies and the possibility of new technology to circumvent them. Arguably the AI themes evoked in summits "for good" could be applied to the summit process itself -- and to any assessment of why this "self-analysis" is resisted. In the quest for efficiency, the new policies in the USA (as controversially headed by Elon Musk) could justify application of such evaluation to international conference processes -- readily framed as dysfunctional "comfort zones", despite the urgency of the issues they claim to address. Is international summitry characterized by a defensive lack of imagination -- despite claims to the contrary and the hope they endeavour to evoke?

Given the acclamed capacity of AI to draw upon the world's data resources, to what extent is the result reflected in the world problematique which "AI for Good" is claimed to address -- if only implicitly? Is there evidence of a high degree of unexamined selectivity which is more reflective of the narrow regulatory preoccupations of such events? That constraint can be contrasted with the methodology of the online Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential which continues to profile thousands of perceived problems and the strategies advocated to respond to them (Simulating a Global Brain: using networks of international organizations, world problems, strategies, and values, 2001).

Following the questions raised by AI summitry, the argument here explores the recognized challenges to cognition and comprehension in the face of ever increasing complexity -- and the assistance which AI may offer in framing and addressing them. A particular focus is given to the art of "unsaying" in relation to the "unsaid" -- as this may apply to issues where articulation may be indicative of misplaced concreteness (Global Strategic Implications of the "Unsaid", 2003) . To the extent that truth is more closely associated with what is not said, untruth may be more closely associated with what is said. The question could then be how to cultivate unsaying more fruitfully, rather than engendering disagreement through desperately endeavouring to render sayable the unsaid.

The presentation continues the experiment with AI in the form of ChatGPT 4o and Claude 3.5 -- to which those of DeepSeek have been added. Their responses have been framed as grayed areas. Given the length of the document to which the exchanges gave rise, the form of presentation has itself been treated as an experiment -- in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents. Only the "questions" to AI are rendered immediately visible -- with the response by AI hidden unless specifically requested by the reader (a facility not operational in PDF variants of the page, in contrast with the original).

Reservations and commentary on the process of interaction with AI to that end have been discussed separately (Methodological comment on experimental use of AI, 2024). Editing responses has focused only on formatting, leaving the distractions of any excessive "algorithmic flattery" for the reader to navigate (as in many social situations where analogous "arti

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | Refs ]