Realist and Pluralist Conceptions of Intelligence and Their Implications on AI Research

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.15282v1
• Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 09:48:07 GMT
• Title: Realist and Pluralist Conceptions of Intelligence and Their Implications on AI Research
• Authors: Ninell Oldenburg, Ruchira Dhar, Anders Søgaard,
• Abstract summary: We argue that current AI research operates on a spectrum between two different underlying conceptions of intelligence.<n>These conceptions are Intelligence Realism and Intelligence Pluralism.<n>We argue that making explicit these underlying assumptions can contribute to a clearer understanding of disagreements in AI research.
• Score: 33.46616462561506
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper, we argue that current AI research operates on a spectrum between two different underlying conceptions of intelligence: Intelligence Realism, which holds that intelligence represents a single, universal capacity measurable across all systems, and Intelligence Pluralism, which views intelligence as diverse, context-dependent capacities that cannot be reduced to a single universal measure. Through an analysis of current debates in AI research, we demonstrate how the conceptions remain largely implicit yet fundamentally shape how empirical evidence gets interpreted across a wide range of areas. These underlying views generate fundamentally different research approaches across three areas. Methodologically, they produce different approaches to model selection, benchmark design, and experimental validation. Interpretively, they lead to contradictory readings of the same empirical phenomena, from capability emergence to system limitations. Regarding AI risk, they generate categorically different assessments: realists view superintelligence as the primary risk and search for unified alignment solutions, while pluralists see diverse threats across different domains requiring context-specific solutions. We argue that making explicit these underlying assumptions can contribute to a clearer understanding of disagreements in AI research.

Related papers

• Quantifying the Gap between Understanding and Generation within Unified Multimodal Models [66.07644743841007]
  GapEval is a benchmark designed to quantify the gap between understanding and generation capabilities.<n>Experiments reveal a persistent gap between the two directions across a wide range of UMMs.<n>Our findings indicate that knowledge within UMMs often remains disjoint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T14:19:37Z)
• Why They Disagree: Decoding Differences in Opinions about AI Risk on the Lex Fridman Podcast [0.0]
  This paper analyzes contemporary debates about AI risk.<n>We find that differences in perspectives about existential risk ("X-risk") arise from differences in causal premises about design vs. emergence in complex systems.<n>Disagreements about these two forms of AI risk appear to share two properties: neither involves significant disagreements on moral values and both can be described in terms of differing views on the extent of boundedness of human rationality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-06T08:48:30Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• The Stories We Govern By: AI, Risk, and the Power of Imaginaries [0.0]
  This paper examines how competing sociotechnical imaginaries of artificial intelligence (AI) risk shape governance decisions and regulatory constraints.<n>We analyse three dominant narrative groups: existential risk proponents, who emphasise catastrophic AGI scenarios; accelerationists, who portray AI as a transformative force to be unleashed; and critical AI scholars, who foreground present-day harms rooted in systemic inequality.<n>Our findings reveal how these narratives embed distinct assumptions about risk and have the potential to progress into policy-making processes by narrowing the space for alternative governance approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-15T09:57:56Z)
• Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition [78.76893632793497]
  We examine what is known about human wisdom and sketch a vision of its AI counterpart.<n>We argue that AI systems particularly struggle with metacognition.<n>We discuss how wise AI might be benchmarked, trained, and implemented.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T18:10:10Z)
• OlympicArena: Benchmarking Multi-discipline Cognitive Reasoning for Superintelligent AI [73.75520820608232]
  We introduce OlympicArena, which includes 11,163 bilingual problems across both text-only and interleaved text-image modalities.<n>These challenges encompass a wide range of disciplines spanning seven fields and 62 international Olympic competitions, rigorously examined for data leakage.<n>Our evaluations reveal that even advanced models like GPT-4o only achieve a 39.97% overall accuracy, illustrating current AI limitations in complex reasoning and multimodal integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T16:20:53Z)
• Position Paper: Agent AI Towards a Holistic Intelligence [53.35971598180146]
  We emphasize developing Agent AI -- an embodied system that integrates large foundation models into agent actions. In this paper, we propose a novel large action model to achieve embodied intelligent behavior, the Agent Foundation Model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T16:09:56Z)
• General Purpose Artificial Intelligence Systems (GPAIS): Properties, Definition, Taxonomy, Societal Implications and Responsible Governance [16.030931070783637]
  General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence Systems (GPAIS) has been defined to refer to these AI systems. To date, the possibility of an Artificial General Intelligence, powerful enough to perform any intellectual task as if it were human, or even improve it, has remained an aspiration, fiction, and considered a risk for our society. This work discusses existing definitions for GPAIS and proposes a new definition that allows for a gradual differentiation among types of GPAIS according to their properties and limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-26T16:35:48Z)
• Brain in a Vat: On Missing Pieces Towards Artificial General Intelligence in Large Language Models [83.63242931107638]
  We propose four characteristics of generally intelligent agents. We argue that active engagement with objects in the real world delivers more robust signals for forming conceptual representations. We conclude by outlining promising future research directions in the field of artificial general intelligence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-07T13:58:16Z)
• Bias, diversity, and challenges to fairness in classification and automated text analysis. From libraries to AI and back [3.9198548406564604]
  We investigate the risks surrounding bias and unfairness in AI usage in classification and automated text analysis. We take a closer look at the notion of '(un)fairness' in relation to the notion of 'diversity'
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-07T20:54:49Z)
• (Im)possibility of Collective Intelligence [6.922375282367237]
  This work provides a minimum requirement in terms of intuitive and reasonable axioms under which the only rational learning algorithm in heterogeneous environments is an empirical risk minimization (ERM)<n>Our (im)possibility result underscores the fundamental trade-off that any algorithms will face in order to achieve Collective Intelligence (CI)<n>Ultimately, collective learning in heterogeneous environments are inherently hard because, in critical areas of machine learning such as out-of-distribution generalization, federated/collaborative learning, algorithmic fairness, and multi-modal learning, it can be infeasible to make meaningful comparisons of model predictive performance across environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-05T07:58:39Z)
• WenLan 2.0: Make AI Imagine via a Multimodal Foundation Model [74.4875156387271]
  We develop a novel foundation model pre-trained with huge multimodal (visual and textual) data. We show that state-of-the-art results can be obtained on a wide range of downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-27T12:25:21Z)
• Transdisciplinary AI Observatory -- Retrospective Analyses and Future-Oriented Contradistinctions [22.968817032490996]
  This paper motivates the need for an inherently transdisciplinary AI observatory approach. Building on these AI observatory tools, we present near-term transdisciplinary guidelines for AI safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-26T16:01:49Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.