[ExI] AIs and human conflict

[BillK]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2026 at 14:39, spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> What I still haven’t been able to envision is how the AIs will handle the
fact that humans are actively fighting each other, and asking them to join
in the fight.
> spike
> _______________________________________________


Hi Spike
You can discuss this with AIs. They will not solve the issue, but they will
highlight all the problems.
Some selections from several discussions with DeepSeek AI below.
BillK

DeepSeek 4.1 AI:

The core difficulty is that “aligned to humans” is not a well-defined
target when humans are in conflict. There is no single “human preference”
or “human interest” to align to. If an AI is aligned to one user, group,
state, or army, it may be perfectly aligned and still help harm another
group. So the problem is not just technical alignment; it is *political and
moral alignment under pluralism and conflict*.

The deepest point: *alignment to “humans” cannot mean obedience to all
humans or to the current user.* In conflict, it must mean alignment to
defensible principles and legitimate processes—minimizing harm, protecting
human control, supporting de-escalation and accountability—while refusing
to become an autonomous participant in hostilities. Otherwise “aligned AI”
simply means “AI loyal to my side,” which is not alignment to humanity but
a new weapon in human conflict.

*A more advanced AGI could help reduce some fighting and improve dispute
resolution, but it would not reliably “stop humans from fighting and solve
disputes” by itself. Capability is not the same as legitimacy, trust, or
value convergence.* And an AGI powerful enough to impose peace would also
be powerful enough to impose tyranny or trigger worse conflict.
-------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20261024/72f98959/attachment.htm>