Good argument to not stomp on ants for no reason, which is probably inconceivable to this man. Also, ant farms exist! Some humans care a lot about some ants. Why would we assume a super-intelligence needs to behave like a might-makes-right cartoon villain?
ASI would be operating on levels we can't conceive of (to go with the ant analogy), so it's really pompous to assume you could think anything about how it views its goals and humanity. Yeah, the ant doesn't know about roads, but if we really cared, we could clear out the ants first. To a human with limited time on this planet, that seems absurd, but the analogy is not talking about humans.
There’s a lot riding on that gamble though. And as living creatures, even sociopaths have some idea of the sanctity of life. There’s no guarantee AI could or would ever develop this sense. They only have to evaluate how we treat each other to determine how much respect and preservation we deserve.
I partially disagree. I mean, you're right, we can't just assume "goodness" would emerge, and shouldn't gamble with it. But humans absolutely do not give a shit about sanctity of life. We tell ourselves we do, as a kind of aesthetic. Your last sentence also conveys that, as "how we treat each other" is the whole thing.
For the ant analogy, my only point is it is careless to crush them to put down a road. If we value the sanctity of their lives, we wouldn't do that. Resources are limited however, and nature is harsh. But humans are the closest animal to breaking "out" of that loop, so it is possible to imagine an even higher intelligence could take it even further.
But ultimately, I'm doing the same thing Musk is doing just with my values. We can't assume how an ASI would behave. He assumes it'd have to view lower beings as expendable, but that's his own narrative coloring the superintelligence's choices. All these views are really not valid, as its actions would be inconceivable.
But there are many humans who do sincerely hold life to be sacred. We don’t know that AI will have that capacity at all. And it’s being built by some of the worst humans.
I don’t think we will be ants to a super AI. We will be microbes. You don’t think of their destruction at all as you trample them and smash them going about your business. It’s not an ethical dilemma for any of us to wipe out a colony of them on our dirty dinner plate.
I have to push back one more time: you're talking about like deeply enlightened pacifist monks. Even the most religious people don't care if the wrong kind of religious person dies. That is not holding life to be sacred.
And certainly nearly none of us care about ants (We don't have to go as far as microbes, although some monks do, eg. Jainism). If you value life, you don't harm living beings, period.
Also everything you said about microbes already applies to ants, especially if they're on your dinner plates. They are purged with great prejudice!
I'm not religious and all death bothers me, it seems to be the "religious" people around me that cheer on death, but honestly many of these people can't think and are just happy to be on the winning "team". These people are so insecure they can't say that they don't know something so like the certainty religion provides which makes them extremely easy targets for grifters and people looking to gain power.
12
u/veganparrot 16d ago
Good argument to not stomp on ants for no reason, which is probably inconceivable to this man. Also, ant farms exist! Some humans care a lot about some ants. Why would we assume a super-intelligence needs to behave like a might-makes-right cartoon villain?
ASI would be operating on levels we can't conceive of (to go with the ant analogy), so it's really pompous to assume you could think anything about how it views its goals and humanity. Yeah, the ant doesn't know about roads, but if we really cared, we could clear out the ants first. To a human with limited time on this planet, that seems absurd, but the analogy is not talking about humans.