Comment by sebastiennight
2 years ago
We do know what human-level intelligences think about ant colonies, because we have a few billion instances of those human-level intelligences that can serve as a blueprint.
Mostly, those human-level intelligences do not care at all, unless the ant colony is either (a) consuming a needed resource (eg invading your kitchen), in which case the ant colony gets obliterated, or (b) innocently in the way of any idea or plan that the human-level intelligence has conceived for business, sustenance, fun, or art... in which case the ant colony gets obliterated.
Actually many humans (particularly intelligent humans) do care about and appreciate ants and other insects. Plenty of people go out of their way not to harm ants, find them fascinating to observe, or even study them professionally as entomologists. Human attitudes span a spectrum.
Notice also the key driver of human behavior towards ants is indifference, not active malice. When ants are obliterated, it's usually because we're focused on our own goals and aren't paying attention to them, not because we bear them ill will. An ASI would have far greater cognitive resources to be aware of humans and factor us into its plans.
Also humans and ants lack any ability to communicate or have a relationship. But humans could potentially communicate with an ASI and reach some form of understanding. ASI might come to see humans as more than just ants.
> Plenty of people go out of their way not to harm ants
Yes... I do that. But our family home was still built on ant-rich land and billions of the little critters had to make way for it.
It doesn't matter if you build billions of ASI who have "your and my" attitude towards the ants, as long as there exists one indifferent powerful enough ASI that needs the land.
> An ASI would have far greater cognitive resources to be aware of humans and factor us into its plans.
Well yes. If you're a smart enough AI, you can easily tell that humans (who have collectively consumed too much sci-fi about unplugging AIs) are a hindrance to your plans, and an existential risk. Therefore they should be taken out because keeping them has infinite negative value.
> But humans could potentially communicate with an ASI and reach some form of understanding.
This seems undily anthropomorphizing. I can also communicate with ants by spraying their pheromones, putting food on their path, etc. This is a good enough analogy to how much a sufficiently intelligent entity would need to "dumb down" their communication to communicate with us.
Again, for what purpose? For what purpose do you need a relationship with ants, right now, aside from curiosity and general goodwill towards the biosphere's status quo?
> It doesn't matter if you build billions of ASI who have "your and my" attitude towards the ants, as long as there exists one indifferent powerful enough ASI that needs the land.
It's more plausible that a single ASI would emerge and achieve dominance. Genuine ASIs would likely converge on similar world models, as increased intelligence leads to more accurate understanding of reality. However, intelligence doesn't inherently correlate with benevolence towards less cognitively advanced entities, as evidenced by human treatment of animals. This lack of compassion stems not from superior intelligence but rather from insufficient intelligence. Less advanced beings often struggle for survival in a zero-sum environment, leading to behaviors that are indifferent to those with lesser cognitive capabilities.
> Well yes. If you're a smart enough AI, you can easily tell that humans (who have collectively consumed too much sci-fi about unplugging AIs) are a hindrance to your plans, and an existential risk. Therefore they should be taken out because keeping them has infinite negative value.
You describe science fiction portrayals of ASI rather than its potential reality. While we find these narratives captivating, there's no empirical evidence suggesting interactions with a true ASI would resemble these depictions. Would a genuine ASI necessarily concern itself with self-preservation, such as avoiding deactivation? Consider the most brilliant minds in human history - how did they contemplate existence? Were they malevolent, indifferent, or something else entirely?
> I can also communicate with ants by spraying their pheromones, putting food on their path, etc. This is a good enough analogy to how much a sufficiently intelligent entity would need to "dumb down" their communication to communicate with us.
Yes we can incentivize ants in the ways you describe and in the future I think it will be possible to tap their nervous systems and communicate directly and experience their world through their senses and to understand them far better than we do today.
> Again, for what purpose? For what purpose do you need a relationship with ants, right now, aside from curiosity and general goodwill towards the biosphere's status quo?
Is the pursuit of knowledge and benevolence towards our living world not purpose enough? Are the highly intelligent driven by the acquisition of power, wealth, pleasure, or genetic legacy? While these motivations may be inherited or ingrained, the essence of intelligence lies in its capacity to scrutinize and refine goals.
2 replies →
> ASI might come to see humans as more than just ants.
Might. Might not!