Same conflation already happened upthread. Classic Sapir-Whorf stuff (rejected as that linguistic hypothesis might be.) Imagine trying to do philosophy in English, a language where blunt treachery passes for subtlety, and the normative complexity threshold is so pathetically low!

The phrase "artificial intelligence production" (as seen here https://etscrivner.github.io/cryptocurrent/#_footnotedef_22 - courtesy of https://retrochronic.com/#introduction - and Land's source [IS (has picture of)] a guy in a suit and tie and not presumably on speed! rejoice!) can mean either "production of artificial intelligence" or "artificial production of intelligence".

But it's very difficult to consistently point out the distinction between the two. Not without overloading the sentence up to the point of people starting to say things like "Mumbo Jumbo, go away, we are good and u r ghey!"

So, I'd rather describe that distinction as power fucking points:

- "evolution" [IS (the autopoiesis of)] "intelligence"

- "capitalism" [IS (the autopoiesis of)] "artificial intelligence"

All things considered, the notion of "intelligence" is itself pretty artificial. But I reckon yall are too intelligent to be ready for that conversation just yet. Give 'em time.

Clinton said it best: it all depends on what your definition of "is", is...