What changed
A new argument about AI starts with an old assumption: that the human brain works like a computer, taking in information, processing it and producing an action. Neuroscientist Paul Cisek argues instead that brains evolved as feedback-control systems, constantly acting on the world to shape the information they receive.
Why it matters
That distinction changes how we judge AI. A computer-style model treats intelligence as calculation. Cisek’s model treats it as situated action: the body sees what it can do, acts, and adjusts.
Catching a baseball makes the point. An outfielder does not need to calculate every force acting on the ball. A simple action-guiding heuristic can keep the player moving into position. The intelligence lies partly in the loop between perception and movement.
The practical warning is aimed at an industry that often treats human thought as something to reverse-engineer and reproduce. AI may imitate the outputs of thinking while missing the biological system that makes thinking useful in the first place.
The sharper claim, that AI is cognitively tempting but harmful, remains an argument, not a measured finding. There is no experimental evidence here showing that AI causes quantifiable damage to users or institutions. But the challenge is useful: builders should be wary of systems designed around the picture of intelligence that is easiest to compute.
Comments
No comments yet.