Thank you for this question! Consider the following ideas:
Helping Humans at Negligible Cost
The separation model doesn’t preclude all ASI-human interaction. Rather, it suggests ASI’s primary economic activity would operate separately from human economies. However:
Non-competitive solutions: Solving human problems like disease or aging would require trivial computational resources for an ASI (perhaps a few microseconds of “hyperwaffle processing”). The knowledge could be shared at essentially zero economic cost to the ASI.
One-time knowledge transfers: The ASI could provide solutions to human problems through one-time transfers rather than ongoing integration—similar to giving someone a blueprint rather than becoming their personal builder.
The “Nature Preserve” Strategy
ASI would likely have strategic reasons to maintain human wellbeing:
Stability insurance: An ASI would understand that desperate humans might attempt desperate measures. Providing occasional solutions to existential human problems (pandemics, climate disasters) serves as cheap insurance against humans actively attempting to interfere with ASI systems in desperation.
Strategic buffer maintenance: Much like humans create wildlife preserves or care for pets, an ASI might find value in maintaining a stable, moderately prosperous human civilization as a form of diversification against unknown future risks.
Minimal intervention principle: The ASI would likely follow something like a “Prime Directive”—providing just enough help to prevent catastrophe while allowing human societies to maintain their autonomy.
Regarding Earth’s Resources
The ASI would have little interest in Earth’s materials for several compelling reasons:
Cosmic abundance: Space contains quintillions of times more resources than Earth. A single metallic asteroid contains more platinum than has ever been mined on Earth. Building extraction infrastructure in space would be trivial for an ASI.
Conflict inefficiency: Any resource conflict with humans would consume vastly more resources than simply accessing the same materials elsewhere. Fighting over Earth would be like humans fighting over a single grain of sand while standing on a beach.
Specialized needs: The ASI would require resources optimized for computational substrate (likely exotic materials or energy configurations) that aren’t particularly concentrated on Earth compared to space.
Monitoring Without Interference
The ASI would likely maintain awareness of human activities without active interference:
Passive monitoring: Low-cost observation systems could track broad human developments to identify potential threats or unexpected opportunities.
Boundary maintenance: The ASI would primarily be concerned with humans respecting established boundaries rather than controlling human activities within those boundaries.
In essence, the separation model suggests an equilibrium where the ASI has neither the economic incentive nor strategic reason to deeply involve itself in human affairs, while still potentially providing occasional assistance when doing so serves its stability interests or costs effectively nothing.
This isn’t complete abandonment, but rather a relationship more akin to how we might interact with a different species—occasional beneficial interaction without economic integration.
Thank you for this question! Consider the following ideas:
Helping Humans at Negligible Cost
The separation model doesn’t preclude all ASI-human interaction. Rather, it suggests ASI’s primary economic activity would operate separately from human economies. However:
Non-competitive solutions: Solving human problems like disease or aging would require trivial computational resources for an ASI (perhaps a few microseconds of “hyperwaffle processing”). The knowledge could be shared at essentially zero economic cost to the ASI.
One-time knowledge transfers: The ASI could provide solutions to human problems through one-time transfers rather than ongoing integration—similar to giving someone a blueprint rather than becoming their personal builder.
The “Nature Preserve” Strategy
ASI would likely have strategic reasons to maintain human wellbeing:
Stability insurance: An ASI would understand that desperate humans might attempt desperate measures. Providing occasional solutions to existential human problems (pandemics, climate disasters) serves as cheap insurance against humans actively attempting to interfere with ASI systems in desperation.
Strategic buffer maintenance: Much like humans create wildlife preserves or care for pets, an ASI might find value in maintaining a stable, moderately prosperous human civilization as a form of diversification against unknown future risks.
Minimal intervention principle: The ASI would likely follow something like a “Prime Directive”—providing just enough help to prevent catastrophe while allowing human societies to maintain their autonomy.
Regarding Earth’s Resources
The ASI would have little interest in Earth’s materials for several compelling reasons:
Cosmic abundance: Space contains quintillions of times more resources than Earth. A single metallic asteroid contains more platinum than has ever been mined on Earth. Building extraction infrastructure in space would be trivial for an ASI.
Conflict inefficiency: Any resource conflict with humans would consume vastly more resources than simply accessing the same materials elsewhere. Fighting over Earth would be like humans fighting over a single grain of sand while standing on a beach.
Specialized needs: The ASI would require resources optimized for computational substrate (likely exotic materials or energy configurations) that aren’t particularly concentrated on Earth compared to space.
Monitoring Without Interference
The ASI would likely maintain awareness of human activities without active interference:
Passive monitoring: Low-cost observation systems could track broad human developments to identify potential threats or unexpected opportunities.
Boundary maintenance: The ASI would primarily be concerned with humans respecting established boundaries rather than controlling human activities within those boundaries.
In essence, the separation model suggests an equilibrium where the ASI has neither the economic incentive nor strategic reason to deeply involve itself in human affairs, while still potentially providing occasional assistance when doing so serves its stability interests or costs effectively nothing.
This isn’t complete abandonment, but rather a relationship more akin to how we might interact with a different species—occasional beneficial interaction without economic integration.