| Submission rejected on 29 January 2024 by Seawolf35 (talk). This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Rejected by Seawolf35 3 months ago. Last edited by CognitiveMMA 3 months ago. |  |
| Submission declined on 28 January 2024 by Theroadislong (talk). This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. |  |
Comment: WP:NOTESSAY, this draft has quite the history and many more declines than shown. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 04:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: This has been declined multiple times before, you are still writing it as an essay, and please note we don't use external links in the body of an article. Theroadislong16:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Thanks for your feedback. You or others potentially working with you have reinstated this comment multiple times without providing justification. This is a completely different article with zero content reused. The comment is simply false. It doesn't make any logical sense to apply the exact same comment with no justification for doing so to an entirely new article. I would kindly appreciate if you could please remove this comment or justify your reasons for reinstating it on this entirely new article so that I might address any issues you raise. The former article that this comment and that the previously inserted maintenance template applies to has been deleted and completely rewritten. The current article does not read like an essay and does not contains any external links in the body of the article. For that reason I've removed the maintenance template. I have also removed the "Conflict of Interest" flag as the article does not mention myself, my work, or any organization I have ever been affiliated with. I have also removed the flag that this article duplicates content from the collective intelligence article on Wikipedia since I have made it clear how the concepts differ. Before adding these comments again I humbly request that you please identify the conflict of interest, please identify where the article "reads like an essay", and please identify where this article duplicates existing content, as this is a completely different article with no content reused from the previous version that these comments were levied at.CognitiveMMA (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 | This article duplicates the scope of other articles, specifically Collective intelligence. |
 | A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (January 2024) |
General Collective intelligence (GCI) platforms are hypothetical software platforms that have general collective intelligence as defined by Woolley et al.[1], that is, general problem-solving ability that emerges from the cooperation between many individuals and/or intelligent agents, where that general problem-solving ability is enabled by technology. The scope of General Collective Intelligence platforms is distinct from collective intelligence (CI) platforms which are similar in terms of being described as "group intelligence (GI) that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in consensus decision making". However, GCI platforms differ in that instead of being limited to consensus decision making or other narrow strategies, as many collective intelligence (CI) solutions might be, having general problem-solving ability a GCI platform can potentially adopt whatever strategy in general that is optimal.
The concept of a strong collective intelligence (strong CI) having general problem-solving ability in analogy with the concept of a strong Artificial Intelligence (strong AI) having general problem-solving ability, as opposed to narrow AI, is a concept that arises in the systems sciences, as well as in behavioral science, and conventional collective intelligence.
The term "General Collective Intelligence" in the context of the broader study of collective intelligence appears in sociobiology, political science and in context of mass peer review and crowdsourcing applications, where it describes the innate general problem-solving ability of groups, or their collective IQ. Collective IQ is a measure of the general collective intelligence or c factor, although it is often used interchangeably with the term collective intelligence. Collective intelligence has also been attributed to swarms, flocks, and other groups of animals.
The term Collective General Intelligence or General Collective Intelligence platform appears in sustainable development, systems science, and behavioral science, where it describes the general problem-solving ability of groups that is enabled by technology platforms.[2]
History edit
The term "strong collective intelligence" originated in 2012 with French mathematician Daniel Andler[3]. The term "weak collective intelligence" to distinguish CI with narrow problem-solving ability rather than general problem-solving ability originated in 2015 with Alexander Laszlo, the 57th president of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) in a lecture given during the 59th Meeting of the ISSS in Berlin[4]. The term "Collective General Intelligence" platform originated in 2018 with behavioral scientist Johannes Castner.[2][failed verification]
Key Concepts edit
Laszlo discussed the concept of "strong collective intelligence," as it pertains to platforms, signifying an advancement beyond traditional limitations of collective intelligence (CI) systems. Steven Johnson explored how current CI systems often rely heavily on consensus-based strategies, which may not always yield the most effective outcomes, particularly in scenarios where the most accurate answers are known only to a minority [5]. GCI platforms aim to overcome these limitations by introducing the ability to adaptively switch strategies depending on the context of the problem at hand.
According to Watson and Levin, in nature, collective intelligence is observed at multiple scales, from ant colonies to human societies, and is characterized by its adaptability and efficiency in problem-solving [6]. Strong CI platforms as discussed by Laszlo seek to emulate this aspect of nature's intelligence, where the choice of problem-solving strategy is dynamically optimized. Scott Page describes the need for such flexibility so as to potentially employ a consensus approach in situations where it is most effective, such as high signal-to-noise environments [7], while in other scenarios, it might switch to strategies that elevate insights from individual experts or specialized algorithms.
This ability to adaptively select the optimal strategy for a given problem is a key distinguishing feature of what constitutes "strong" collective intelligence in GCI platforms. Johannes Castner suggests this technology enabled general collective intelligence[2] represents a significant shift from the static nature of traditional CI systems, moving towards a more fluid and context-sensitive approach to collective problem-solving.
- ^ Woolley, Anita Williams, et al. "Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups." science 330.6004 (2010): 686-688.
- ^ a b c Castner, Johannes. "Tech enabled Collective General Intelligence".
- ^ Andler, Daniel. "What has collective wisdom to do with wisdom?." Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms (2012): 72-84.
- ^ Laszlo, Alexander. "Collective Intelligence, Connective Intelligence, and Social Systems of Syntony".
- ^ Johnson, Steven. Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software. Simon and Schuster, 2002.
- ^ Watson, Richard, and Michael Levin. "The collective intelligence of evolution and development." Collective Intelligence 2.2 (2023): 26339137231168355.
- ^ Scott, E. Page. "How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools and societies." (2007).