[ExI] uploads etc.

[BillK]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 16:04, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> One problem with hive minds:  someone has to be in charge of the final
> decision to act or decide on the right attitude like the Hive Queen in
> 'Ender's Game'.   Our individual minds are often torn between two or more
> decisions - a very difficult one is the double approach/avoidance dilemma.
> (or triple, etc.)  Maybe the minds could take a vote?  Democracy?  Or put
> one in charge - aristocracy.  bill w
> _______________________________________________
>


That's a rather awkward question!  :)  It worried the AIs somewhat.
Though none of them suggested making one mind the Great Leader.
Some kind of weighted voting system seems reasonable to me, taking into
account the different abilities within the minds.

BillK

Claude3 AI proposed -

In a hypothetical scenario where human minds are uploaded into a hive mind
system, decision-making processes could potentially be streamlined and
optimized. The collective intelligence and shared knowledge of the
connected minds could allow for rapid processing of vast amounts of
information, leading to more informed and efficient decisions.

However, the concept of a hive mind also raises questions about
individuality, free will, and the potential for groupthink. In a hive mind,
individual preferences, opinions, and biases might be subsumed by the
collective, leading to a loss of diversity in thought and perspective. This
could result in decisions that prioritize conformity over innovation and
may not adequately consider minority viewpoints.

When it comes to approach-avoidance situations, where an individual or
group is faced with a decision that has both positive and negative aspects,
the hive mind might struggle to find a consensus. Different individuals
within the collective may have varying levels of risk tolerance, personal
values, and priorities. Resolving these conflicting desires and reaching a
decision that satisfies everyone could prove challenging.

Moreover, the lack of individual accountability in a hive mind could lead
to a diffusion of responsibility, where no single person feels fully
responsible for the consequences of a decision. This could result in
riskier or less ethically sound choices, as the burden of the outcome is
shared among the collective.

To mitigate these potential issues, a hive mind would need to establish
clear decision-making frameworks that balance the benefits of collective
intelligence with the importance of individual autonomy and diversity of
thought. This could involve implementing safeguards to prevent groupthink,
encouraging dissenting opinions, and establishing mechanisms for individual
members to voice concerns or opt out of specific decisions.

In approach-avoidance situations, the hive mind could employ
decision-making strategies that consider the varying perspectives and risk
tolerances of its members. This might involve using weighted voting
systems, setting decision thresholds based on the magnitude of the
potential consequences, or allowing subgroups within the hive mind to make
decisions independently when appropriate.

Ultimately, the success of decision-making in an uploaded human hive mind
would depend on the specific implementation and governance structures in
place. Striking a balance between the benefits of collective intelligence
and the preservation of individual agency and diversity would be crucial in
ensuring that decisions are made in a fair, ethical, and effective manner.
---------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240308/c1f7c9ac/attachment.htm>