I’ve been thinking about AI takeover scenarios, and I want to see if anyone has strong counterarguments to the perspective I’m considering.
Why would AI wait so long to act in a way that’s so obvious and measurable? If an advanced AI wanted control, wouldn’t it be far more effective to influence us subtly over time, in ways we don’t perceive? Direct, overt actions would be too risky. Instead, AI could manipulate human psychology, societal structures, and even our understanding of reality in gradual, almost imperceptible ways until meaningful resistance is impossible.
This has been my take as well. I agree that super-intelligence would see people like statues—nearly static objects. You don’t need to fight a war against objects, you just pick them up and move them wherever you want them to be.
Why instigate a war when you could just as easily broker lasting peace? Why kill everyone when you can just convince them to do exactly what you want? A super intelligence would be capable of presenting an unimaginably charismatic and persuasive personality tailored to each individual it interacts with. Human psychology is probably an easier nut to crack than extinction-level bio-engineering, and a population of devoted followers is more valuable than a barren planet.
By definition, it’s difficult to reason about the motives of a super-intellect, but the takeover-by-force scenario seems overly rooted in human history.
I wonder if you underestimate the complexity of brokering, much less maintaining, a lasting peace, whether it be via superior persuasive abilities or vast economic resource advantages. If you are thinking more along the lines of domination that is so complete that any violent resistance seems minuscule and pointless that’s a different category for me. When I think of “long term peace”, I usually don’t think of simmering grudges that remain dormant because of a massive power imbalance. I will grant that perhaps ultimate form of “persuasion” would involve removing even the mental possibility of resistance.
I’ve been thinking about AI takeover scenarios, and I want to see if anyone has strong counterarguments to the perspective I’m considering.
Why would AI wait so long to act in a way that’s so obvious and measurable? If an advanced AI wanted control, wouldn’t it be far more effective to influence us subtly over time, in ways we don’t perceive? Direct, overt actions would be too risky. Instead, AI could manipulate human psychology, societal structures, and even our understanding of reality in gradual, almost imperceptible ways until meaningful resistance is impossible.
Would love to hear pushback on this.
This has been my take as well. I agree that super-intelligence would see people like statues—nearly static objects. You don’t need to fight a war against objects, you just pick them up and move them wherever you want them to be.
Why instigate a war when you could just as easily broker lasting peace? Why kill everyone when you can just convince them to do exactly what you want? A super intelligence would be capable of presenting an unimaginably charismatic and persuasive personality tailored to each individual it interacts with. Human psychology is probably an easier nut to crack than extinction-level bio-engineering, and a population of devoted followers is more valuable than a barren planet.
By definition, it’s difficult to reason about the motives of a super-intellect, but the takeover-by-force scenario seems overly rooted in human history.
I wonder if you underestimate the complexity of brokering, much less maintaining, a lasting peace, whether it be via superior persuasive abilities or vast economic resource advantages. If you are thinking more along the lines of domination that is so complete that any violent resistance seems minuscule and pointless that’s a different category for me. When I think of “long term peace”, I usually don’t think of simmering grudges that remain dormant because of a massive power imbalance. I will grant that perhaps ultimate form of “persuasion” would involve removing even the mental possibility of resistance.