[ExI] singularity summit on foxnews

[hkhenson]

At 04:50 AM 9/18/2007, Stefano wrote:
>On 9/17/07, hkhenson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
> > At 08:30 AM 9/16/2007, Stefano wrote:
> > >Why should AIs "stick together", and why should humans do the same?
> >
> > You can't understand why humans stick together without resorting to
> > Hamilton's criteria and the concept of inclusive fitness.
>
>Musunderstanding. My question is an open, as opposed to a 
>rhetorical, question. In other terms, my point is simply that an 
>explicit answer to that question should be given, and that we should 
>thereafter remain consistent with it.
>
>I am well aware of the concept of inclusive fitness. In fact, I 
>discussed it rather in depth in  a number of writings (e.g., 
><http://www.biopolitica.it>http://www.biopolitica.it).

Excellent.

>I am also ready to admit that it is one (of several possible) 
>rationale for a "humans should stick together" policy.

"Should," hard word to use.  Comes from brain level rational 
thinking.  What usually wins out is gene driven propensities to kill 
neighbors when the prospects for feeding the kids through the next 
winter start looking bleak.

>Only, I wonder whether we are really prepared to accept the 
>implication that our loyalties are and should be determined by 
>sociobiological factors.

"Are" is the operative word, though who is considered "tribe" is 
highly flexible, learned more than directly sensed.  As in unrelated 
men dying for the sake of their military unit.

>Especially in the light of the fact that the "species" is not a 
>particularly relevant set in terms of inclusive fitness (your tribe, 
>e.g., being much more so), and is on the contrary by definition the 
>source and the background of most of the competition faced by your 
>genes (see under food chain, access to good reproductive partners, 
>territory, etc.)

Well stated.  You need to take this only a very small way for the 
implications to be clear and to be able to answer the question of why 
Europe has gone so long in recent times without a major war, what 
would or is likely to cause war, etc.  In short, population growth 
above economic growth leads to perception of bleak times in the 
future.  The perception turns up the population gain on xenophobic 
memes, and that activates the warriors to kill neighbors.  The 
population decline makes the future look better and that switches off 
"war mode."

This is mechanistic, the result of millions of years of evolution 
where war kept the human population inside the ability of the 
ecosystem to feed it.

Of course, an AI/singularity would likely end war among 
humans.  Hopefully not at the cost of wars among the AIs because that 
could really be disastrous.

Azar Gat's thoughts on The Human Motivational Complex: Evolutionary 
Theory And The Causes Of Hunter-Gatherer Fighting."  Highly recommended.

http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf

Mine putting this in an EP context.  (Print version in Mankind 
Quarterly, Summer 2006)

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296

Fiction about how AIs ending war, starvation, disease, etc.  But at a cost.

http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html

Keith