Naomi Omeonga wa Kayembe

Naomi Omeonga wa Kayembe

This article redefines arbitrariness not as a normative flaw or a symptom of domination, but as a foundational functional mechanism structuring human systems and interactions. Diverging from critical traditions that conflate arbitrariness with injustice, it posits arbitrariness as a semiotic trait: a property enabling systems - linguistic, legal, or social - to operate effectively while withholding their internal rationale. Building on Ferdinand de Saussure's concept of l'arbitraire du signe, the analysis extends this principle beyond language to demonstrate its cross-domain applicability, particularly in law and social dynamics. The paper introduces the "Motivation -> Constatability -> Contestability" chain, arguing that motivation functions as a crucial interface rendering an act's logic vulnerable to intersubjective contestation. When this chain is broken through mechanisms like "immotivization" or "Conflict Lateralization" (exemplified by "the blur of the wolf drowned in the fish"), acts produce binding effects without exposing their rationale, thus precluding justiciability. This structural opacity, while appearing illogical, is a deliberate design protecting authority from accountability. Drawing on Shannon's entropy model, the paper formalizes arbitrariness as A = H(L|M) (conditional entropy). It thereby proposes a modern theory of arbitrariness as a neutral operator central to control as well as care, an overlooked dimension of interpersonal relations. While primarily developed through human social systems, this framework also illuminates a new pathway for analyzing explainability in advanced artificial intelligence systems.

Naomi Omeonga wa Kayembe

This study introduces a novel conceptual framework distinguishing problem-seeking from problem-solving to clarify the unique features of human intelligence in contrast to AI. Problem-seeking refers to the embodied, emotionally grounded process by which humans identify and set goals, while problem-solving denotes the execution of strategies aimed at achieving such predefined objectives. The framework emphasizes that while AI excels at efficiency and optimization, it lacks the orientation derived from experiential grounding and the embodiment flexibility intrinsic to human cognition. To empirically explore this distinction, the research analyzes metadata from 157 YouTube videos discussing AI. Conducting a thematic analysis combining qualitative insights with keyword-based quantitative metrics, this mixed-methods approach uncovers recurring themes in public discourse, including privacy, job displacement, misinformation, optimism, and ethical concerns. The results reveal a dual sentiment: public fascination with AI's capabilities coexists with anxiety and skepticism about its societal implications. The discussion critiques the orthogonality thesis, which posits that intelligence is separable from goal content, and instead argues that human intelligence integrates goal-setting and goal-pursuit. It underscores the centrality of embodied cognition in human reasoning and highlights how AI's limitations come from its current reliance on computational processing. The study advocates for enhancing emotional and digital literacy to foster responsible AI engagement. It calls for reframing public discourse to recognize AI as a tool that augments -- rather than replaces -- human intelligence. By positioning problem seeking at the core of cognition and as a critical dimension of intelligence, this research offers new perspectives on ethically aligned and human-centered AI development.