Probably the optimal strategy is to always defect when dealing with members of the out-group, but to have such complete control of their media and education that they don't know you have defected, and continue to co-operate with you despite being stabbed in the back daily. If that fails you can criminalize non-cooperation with you.
Why think that AIs are capable of phenomenal consciousness? In my view, phenomenal consciousness is the basis for moral status. If an entity can't experience pleasure or pain, then it doesn't matter intrinsically - who cares about the preferences of a robot? So, I'm not particularly worried about AI moral status since I see no evidence that they have this capacity.
In times of extreme scarcity the tribal effect is most powerful. Old drinking buddy of mine had been in prison for drug charges 15-20 years ago. He said no matter how colorblind you are, how much you value racial equality, content of character more the color of skin, when you have nothing and are trying to survive in an inhumane situation your tribe offers the only survival advantage opportunities.
Try to break the hate, get cast out by your own tribe, a man without an island, good luck with that. Heard same things from others who did time. In societal collapse it's hard-wired. And imposed scarcity and hardship in public life, outside prison bars would make for the same dynamic as within them. Which makes averting societal collapse the moral imperative of all who are truly not racist.
In an article titled "Is miscegenation bad for your kids?", you wrote, "I don’t personally care much about [...] the future survival of statistical clusters (races)."
But based on the reasoning put forth in this current article, you seem to have changed your mind, and now believe that this flippant attitude toward the survival of your kindred will lead to the extinction of people like yourself and is therefore "absurd".
>No one should accept any ethical system that leads to their own extinction.
I disagree. There are people who need killing, morally speaking, like murderers and hopelessly degenerate groups (roughly equivalent to murderers on the group level). And if these people became moral, perhaps in a crisis of conscience, they would agree with this and be moral for doing so. This means supporting their own extinction.
There is zero reason to care about "genetic interests" in the present age. I have vastly more in common with people who share my interests and values than with people who are my fifth as opposed to seventh cousins.
White people have done more damage to my life than any POC. Fuck whitey, unironically.
The utilitarian reason not to privilege AIs is that there is no evidence that they have consciousness or experience qualia. Moreover, in the event that that an AI explosion devolves into a permanent Malthusian cyber-goo scenario, that will not be any good for the AIs in the question in the scenario that they do actually have conscious experience.
AI, AAI, and AGI, all mirror human 'intelligence' but have none. Understanding is the key and machines have no understanding. It's impossible to code anything without a formal definition and Understanding is in the same class as consciousness, far beyond the reach of human reason. AAI hype stems from a failed evolutionary theory and little understanding of how deep life's roots are, and less of the quantum nature of reality and what it means. Reality is an information process, set in motion and sustained by God for a purpose. Understanding the purpose is far more important than knowing anything about anything.
I came to a similar conclusion reading Kevin MacDonald and his writing on Jewish ethnocentrism as an evolutionary strategy. (I know him and Nathan Cofnas have gotten into a kerfuffle about particular details of MacDonald's thesis, but the central claim seems correct and insightful to me.)
It was quite the blackpill. As someone who is distinctly WEIRD in their psychology, realizing that liberalism is inherently self-defeating left me feeling adrift. I haven't embraced ethnocentrism though--I'm hoping some more palatable alternative to both universalism and ethnocentrism will present itself.
The point made is well taken, but I think there’s an issue here: nobody is a real utilitarian enough to care. If people truly viewed every sentient being equal and valued some qualia state (pain, pleasure, you name it), under the vast majority of ethical theories, the animals on the planet’s value would hugely outweigh that of humans. The truth seems to be that people like utilitarians when it comes to humans and then some expand their circle a bit but not to the degree that it seems you’d expect people to with AI.
Genetic interests will always prevail in the real world. The masses will preempt an AI seizure of power. Elites (e.g., George III, AI developers) always create crises at the wholesale level, whereas the masses always resolve the crises at the retail level (e.g., colonial militiamen, rural residents who will control the countryside and its electrical infrastructure).
The concept of ethnocentrism as favouring one’s own is contradicted by murder rates. The most ethnocentric have by far the greatest Intra-group violence and murder rates. What is designated ‘ethnocentrism’ is better understood as violent unanimity against a shared foe, a release of internal dissensions.
All cultures are polarised among themselves but Europeans are easily more cooperative and less internally fractious than those considered ‘ethnocentric’. The rioting and collective violence is a function not of ‘favouring one’s own’ but the opposite: a discharge of internecine violence against a third party by which the antagonists are reconciled.
Probably the optimal strategy is to always defect when dealing with members of the out-group, but to have such complete control of their media and education that they don't know you have defected, and continue to co-operate with you despite being stabbed in the back daily. If that fails you can criminalize non-cooperation with you.
Make no mistake, the rapacious megalomaniacs like Larry Page only want utilitarianism for the proles, not for themselves.
The concept of 'AI lives' is absurd. AI is a tool and does what its developers tell it to do.
Why think that AIs are capable of phenomenal consciousness? In my view, phenomenal consciousness is the basis for moral status. If an entity can't experience pleasure or pain, then it doesn't matter intrinsically - who cares about the preferences of a robot? So, I'm not particularly worried about AI moral status since I see no evidence that they have this capacity.
In times of extreme scarcity the tribal effect is most powerful. Old drinking buddy of mine had been in prison for drug charges 15-20 years ago. He said no matter how colorblind you are, how much you value racial equality, content of character more the color of skin, when you have nothing and are trying to survive in an inhumane situation your tribe offers the only survival advantage opportunities.
Try to break the hate, get cast out by your own tribe, a man without an island, good luck with that. Heard same things from others who did time. In societal collapse it's hard-wired. And imposed scarcity and hardship in public life, outside prison bars would make for the same dynamic as within them. Which makes averting societal collapse the moral imperative of all who are truly not racist.
In an article titled "Is miscegenation bad for your kids?", you wrote, "I don’t personally care much about [...] the future survival of statistical clusters (races)."
But based on the reasoning put forth in this current article, you seem to have changed your mind, and now believe that this flippant attitude toward the survival of your kindred will lead to the extinction of people like yourself and is therefore "absurd".
Am I interpreting this correctly?
>No one should accept any ethical system that leads to their own extinction.
I disagree. There are people who need killing, morally speaking, like murderers and hopelessly degenerate groups (roughly equivalent to murderers on the group level). And if these people became moral, perhaps in a crisis of conscience, they would agree with this and be moral for doing so. This means supporting their own extinction.
There is zero reason to care about "genetic interests" in the present age. I have vastly more in common with people who share my interests and values than with people who are my fifth as opposed to seventh cousins.
White people have done more damage to my life than any POC. Fuck whitey, unironically.
The utilitarian reason not to privilege AIs is that there is no evidence that they have consciousness or experience qualia. Moreover, in the event that that an AI explosion devolves into a permanent Malthusian cyber-goo scenario, that will not be any good for the AIs in the question in the scenario that they do actually have conscious experience.
AI, AAI, and AGI, all mirror human 'intelligence' but have none. Understanding is the key and machines have no understanding. It's impossible to code anything without a formal definition and Understanding is in the same class as consciousness, far beyond the reach of human reason. AAI hype stems from a failed evolutionary theory and little understanding of how deep life's roots are, and less of the quantum nature of reality and what it means. Reality is an information process, set in motion and sustained by God for a purpose. Understanding the purpose is far more important than knowing anything about anything.
I came to a similar conclusion reading Kevin MacDonald and his writing on Jewish ethnocentrism as an evolutionary strategy. (I know him and Nathan Cofnas have gotten into a kerfuffle about particular details of MacDonald's thesis, but the central claim seems correct and insightful to me.)
It was quite the blackpill. As someone who is distinctly WEIRD in their psychology, realizing that liberalism is inherently self-defeating left me feeling adrift. I haven't embraced ethnocentrism though--I'm hoping some more palatable alternative to both universalism and ethnocentrism will present itself.
The point made is well taken, but I think there’s an issue here: nobody is a real utilitarian enough to care. If people truly viewed every sentient being equal and valued some qualia state (pain, pleasure, you name it), under the vast majority of ethical theories, the animals on the planet’s value would hugely outweigh that of humans. The truth seems to be that people like utilitarians when it comes to humans and then some expand their circle a bit but not to the degree that it seems you’d expect people to with AI.
Genetic interests will always prevail in the real world. The masses will preempt an AI seizure of power. Elites (e.g., George III, AI developers) always create crises at the wholesale level, whereas the masses always resolve the crises at the retail level (e.g., colonial militiamen, rural residents who will control the countryside and its electrical infrastructure).
The concept of ethnocentrism as favouring one’s own is contradicted by murder rates. The most ethnocentric have by far the greatest Intra-group violence and murder rates. What is designated ‘ethnocentrism’ is better understood as violent unanimity against a shared foe, a release of internal dissensions.
All cultures are polarised among themselves but Europeans are easily more cooperative and less internally fractious than those considered ‘ethnocentric’. The rioting and collective violence is a function not of ‘favouring one’s own’ but the opposite: a discharge of internecine violence against a third party by which the antagonists are reconciled.
I think using AI to attempt to reach the metaphysical will be our undoing.