How sure are you that we’re not going to end up building AGI with cognitive architectures that consist of multiple psuedo-agent specialists coordinating and competing in an evolutionary economic process that, at some point, constitutionalises, as an end goal, its own perpetuation, and the perpetuation of this multipolar character?
Because, that’s not an implausible ontogeny, and if it is the simplest way to build AGI, then I think cosmopolitanism basically is free after all. And ime cosmopolitanism-for-free often does distantly tacitly assume that this architecture will be what we get. They say things like “generality requires (or is) an intellectual community”, and “the superintelligence, human commerce and the neoliberal world order, works this way, so will AGI”. They’re overconfident, but it’s not a baseless claim, it’s not a non-sequitur. It’s not as if open societies and intelligence have nothing to do with each other.
How sure are you that we’re not going to end up building AGI with cognitive architectures that consist of multiple psuedo-agent specialists coordinating and competing in an evolutionary economic process that, at some point, constitutionalises, as an end goal, its own perpetuation, and the perpetuation of this multipolar character?
Because, that’s not an implausible ontogeny, and if it is the simplest way to build AGI, then I think cosmopolitanism basically is free after all.
And ime cosmopolitanism-for-free often does distantly tacitly assume that this architecture will be what we get. They say things like “generality requires (or is) an intellectual community”, and “the superintelligence, human commerce and the neoliberal world order, works this way, so will AGI”. They’re overconfident, but it’s not a baseless claim, it’s not a non-sequitur. It’s not as if open societies and intelligence have nothing to do with each other.