It makes no sense to me that a species that’s evolved to compete with other species will have a higher chance of being nice than a system we can at least somewhat control the development of and take highly detailed “MRI”s of.
Disagree: values come from substrate and environmental. I would almost certainly ally myself with biological aliens versus a digital “humanity” as the biological factor will create a world of much more reasonable values to me.
We are a species that has evolved in competition with other species. Yet, I think there is at least a 5% chance that if we encountered an intelligent alien species that we wouldn’t try to wipe them out (unless they were trying to wipe us out).
Biological evolution of us and aliens would in itself be a commonality, that might produce some common values, whereas there need be no common values with an AI created by a much different process and not successfully aligned.
Biological evolution actively selects for values that we don’t want whereas in AI training we actively select for values we do want. Alien life may not also use the biosphere the same way we do. The usual argument about common values is almost everything needs to breathe air, but at the same time competing and eliminating competing species is a common value among biological life.
Yet, I think there is at least a 5% chance that if we encountered an intelligent alien species that we wouldn’t try to wipe them out (unless they were trying to wipe us out).
Can you tell me why? We have wiped out every other intelligent species more or less. Subgroups of our species are also actively wiping out other subgroups of our species they don’t like.
It think if we encountered aliens who were apparently not hostile, but presumably strange, and likely disgusting or disturbing in some ways, there would be three groups (likely overlapping) of people opposed to wiping them out:
Those who see wiping them out as morally wrong.
Those who see wiping them out as imprudent—we might fail, and then they wipe us out, or other aliens now see us as dangerous, and wipe us out.
Those who see wiping them out as not profitable—better to trade with them.
There would also be three groups in favour of wiping them out:
Those who see wiping them out as morally good—better if the universe doesn’t have such disgusting beings.
Those who see wiping them out as the prudent thing to do—wipe them out before they change their mind and do that to us.
Those who see wiping them out as profitable—then we can grab their resources.
I think it’s clear that people with all these view will exist, in non-negligible numbers. I think there’s at least a 5% chance that the “don’t wipe them out” people prevail.
Subgroups of our species are also actively wiping out other subgroups of our species they don’t like.
Yes, but that’s not how interactions between groups of humans always turn out.
We didn’t really wipe out the Neanderthals (assuming we even were a factor, rather than climate, disease, etc.), seeing as they are among our ancestors.
It makes no sense to me that a species that’s evolved to compete with other species will have a higher chance of being nice than a system we can at least somewhat control the development of and take highly detailed “MRI”s of.
Disagree: values come from substrate and environmental. I would almost certainly ally myself with biological aliens versus a digital “humanity” as the biological factor will create a world of much more reasonable values to me.
We are a species that has evolved in competition with other species. Yet, I think there is at least a 5% chance that if we encountered an intelligent alien species that we wouldn’t try to wipe them out (unless they were trying to wipe us out).
Biological evolution of us and aliens would in itself be a commonality, that might produce some common values, whereas there need be no common values with an AI created by a much different process and not successfully aligned.
Biological evolution actively selects for values that we don’t want whereas in AI training we actively select for values we do want. Alien life may not also use the biosphere the same way we do. The usual argument about common values is almost everything needs to breathe air, but at the same time competing and eliminating competing species is a common value among biological life.
Can you tell me why? We have wiped out every other intelligent species more or less. Subgroups of our species are also actively wiping out other subgroups of our species they don’t like.
Can you tell me why?
It think if we encountered aliens who were apparently not hostile, but presumably strange, and likely disgusting or disturbing in some ways, there would be three groups (likely overlapping) of people opposed to wiping them out:
Those who see wiping them out as morally wrong.
Those who see wiping them out as imprudent—we might fail, and then they wipe us out, or other aliens now see us as dangerous, and wipe us out.
Those who see wiping them out as not profitable—better to trade with them.
There would also be three groups in favour of wiping them out:
Those who see wiping them out as morally good—better if the universe doesn’t have such disgusting beings.
Those who see wiping them out as the prudent thing to do—wipe them out before they change their mind and do that to us.
Those who see wiping them out as profitable—then we can grab their resources.
I think it’s clear that people with all these view will exist, in non-negligible numbers. I think there’s at least a 5% chance that the “don’t wipe them out” people prevail.
Subgroups of our species are also actively wiping out other subgroups of our species they don’t like.
Yes, but that’s not how interactions between groups of humans always turn out.
We didn’t really wipe out the Neanderthals (assuming we even were a factor, rather than climate, disease, etc.), seeing as they are among our ancestors.