Technical or Artificial Intelligence?

As employees of IBIS Prof. Thome AG, engaging with innovations and trends is not merely everyday business, but rather a passion. This has been our defining trait for 30 years and, one might predict, will continue to be so into the future. For this to work, and to ensure the methodological consistency of our developments and fundamental stance, we need external and internal dialogue. Conversations and discussions about developments and changes are a core element of our communication and development processes.

For this reason, it was a particular pleasure for us to engage in a discussion on 04.04.2024 with our founding father and namesake, Prof. Dr. Thome, about a highly current development – the question of the nature of Artificial Intelligence and its impact on current and future events. In advance, we reduced the topic to a core question that, at first glance, does not sound complex: “Should it be called technical or artificial intelligence?” Ultimately, however, the answer is crucial for our understanding and handling of this innovation topic, as will be revealed here.

In this context, the mainstream understanding of Artificial Intelligence is mainly shaped by science fiction authors like the writer Isaac Asimov, which might also be one of the reasons for the uncertainty about what capabilities this technology truly encompasses. The term itself did not originate in a fictional context but goes back to the American computer scientist John McCarthy, who used it in a research project grant application. Much has happened since then, and Artificial Intelligence has transformed from a conceptual construct to an applicable technology. Thus, the innovation is not only tangible but also enjoys solid acceptance in solutions and applications beyond the current media hype. Nevertheless, interpretations and assessments vary widely, and a view on AI research requires interdisciplinary perspectives and a significant amount of disentanglement and clarification. This is reason enough for us to ask Prof. Thome to give an employee lecture at the IBIS Prof. Thome AG house in our branch in Steinbachtal. In the following text, we present excerpts from this event and focus primarily on the results of this gathering.

Technical or Artificial Intelligence?

Exactly this question was answered by Prof. Thome from his perspective at the very beginning of this event - the term “Artificial Intelligence” is nonsensical. He supported this assessment with multiple perspectives. On the one hand, intelligence is nothing less than the cognitive ability to solve problems, or more broadly, the ability to recognize causality as well as essential logical correlations and to independently develop solutions from them. Thus, the benchmark against which supposedly artificial intelligence must measure itself is set quite high. Certainly, this can be acknowledged to a certain extent with mechanisms of Machine Learning and Generative AI, but when viewed soberly in the context of current developments, the key technology here plays more of a supporting than a leading role in terms of creative problem solving.

The adjective qualifier is more critical to examine than the term intelligence. For the language understanding of “Artificial” is not very positive and stands mainly for a non-rational approach. In principle, exactly what machine intelligence is not. Other terms, such as Evolutionary or Enumerative Intelligences, do not really fit the definition either. Because compared to evolutionary development over millions of years, this technology is advancing rapidly and the conclusions of an “intelligent solution” far exceed the enumerating approach due to their focus. Therefore, the term Technical Intelligence appears more suitable in its descriptive derivation, as it clearly describes the origin and nature of these tools.

The Role of Perspectives and Applications

The definition of terms, however, can only be the entry point into the understanding of usage for the innovative technology. For it is also highly dependent on the respective perspective. Prof. Thome emphasized this with reference to a pictorial depiction of the Seljalandsfoss waterfall, whose aesthetics primarily suggest a tourist-economic use. However, if this perspective shifts to the functional area, energy production could be conceivable, or the agricultural impact of the water on possible surrounding agriculture, two viewpoints that are not necessarily compatible with each other. Thus, the assessment of which of the three usage scenarios would be more “intelligent” is mainly a matter of the observer and their interests. And this directly implies a connection to a fundamental understanding of continuous change depicted in a converging double helix, which is not only crucial for IBIS. For the continuous adaptation of organizational processes to technical potentials demands the innovative and intelligent creation of new procedural solutions combined with adequately structured algorithms. Or succinctly put, existing processes must be adapted to new possibilities to fully realize performance potentials. This requires creative thinking to find solutions previously unavailable and unforeseen. This may further serve as evidence to critically examine the term intelligence for Technical Intelligence. For at both the beginning and end stands the human with their semantic information processing and thus the utilization of the results that an “intelligent” tool can provide.

Conclusion

In summary, solutions of Technical Intelligence undoubtedly represent a new evolutionary stage of machine tools. However, this is not equatable to the imagination and foresight of a human expert, even though the combination of expert knowledge and machine support opens up completely new possibilities.

But what does this mean for our initial question, is it Artificial Intelligence or Technical Intelligence? Or perhaps something entirely different? In the end, each must answer this for themselves. The answer may not be so decisive, as it ultimately concerns the potential that the technology can deliver and how we adapt our tasks, workflows, and opportunities accordingly.

At this point, we would like to thank Prof. Thome for this special lecture, which was asynchronously made available to the employees to unfold the technical communication potential.