08-No-People-as-Pets.html

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
  <!-- Basic Meta Tags -->
  <meta charset="UTF-8">
  <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
  <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">

  <!-- SEO Meta Tags -->
  <meta name="description" content="Comprehensive AGI Risk Analysis">
  <meta name="keywords" content="agi, risk, convergence">
  <meta name="author" content="Forrest Landry">
  <meta name="robots" content="index, follow">

  <!-- Favicon -->
  <link rel="icon" href="https://github.githubassets.com/favicons/favicon-dark.png" type="image/png">
  <link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://github.githubassets.com/favicons/favicon-dark.png" type="image/png">

  <!-- Page Title (displayed on the browser tab) -->
  <title>Comprehensive AGI Risk Analysis</title>
</head>
<body>
   <p>
   TITL:
      <b>No People as Pets;</b>
        A <b>Dialogue on the Complete Failure</b>
        <b>of Exogenous AGI/APS Alignment</b>
      <b>By Forrest Landry</b>
      <b>November 1st, 2020</b>.
   </p>
   <p>
   ABST:
      A very basic presentation of a clear argument
      as to why any form of external and/or exogenous
      AGI/APS superintelligence alignment,
      and/or thus of any form of planetary safety,
      in the long term, eventually,
      is strictly and absolutely impossible,
      in direct proportion to its degree of
      inherent artificiality.
   </p>
   <p>
      That <b>any</b> attempt to implement or use AGI/APS
      will eventually result in total termination
      of all carbon based life on this planet.
   </p>
   <p>
   PREF:
      Acknowledgements;
      This document would not exist in its current form
      without the kind attentions of:
        - Philip Chen.
        - Remmelt Ellen.
        - Justin Olguin.
   </p>
   <p>
   TEXT:
   </p>
   <p>
   - where listing acronyms:.
     - "AGI"; as Artificial General Intelligence.
     - "APS"; as Advanced Planning Strategy System(s).
   </p>
   <p>
   :int
      <b>Introduction</b>
   </p>
   <p>
      This essay will attempt to consider
      some key aspects of the the question/problem of:.
   </p>
   <p>
         > Can we/anyone/humanity
         > attain "AGI alignment"?.
   </p>
   <p>
      So as to address that,
      we can begin by asking:.
   </p>
   <p>
         > What is 'AGI alignment'?
   </p>
   <p>
      The notion of 'AGI alignment', herein,
      is usually taken to mean some notion of,
      or suggestion that:.
   </p>
   <p>
         - 1; some 'learning machines' and/or
         'general' artificial intelligence,
         (aka artificial general intelligence),
         and/or Advanced Planning Strategy System(s)
         (as usually abbreviated as 'AGI/APS'),
         particularly as inclusive of any sort
         or notion of any sort of being or agent,
         regardless of if it is itself a "robot",
         or in a robot body or not, has direct
         or indirect engagement with the world, etc,
         ie; however that artificial intelligence
         was constructed, and intended to be used,
         etc; and then to consider;.
   </p>
   <p>
         - 2; whether or not 'it' (that which is
         being described above) would act, and behave,
         and consider itself as acting/behaving
         as an agent of ourselves, in/to our
         actual best interests, on our behalf,
         having our (humanities) best interests
         in mind, as a basis for its actions,
         behaviors, choices, etc;.
   </p>
   <p>
         - 3; for, or in relation to,
         some real/grounded notion or meaning
         of what 'our best interests' are,
         and what that actually/really means,
         and looks like, and is actually, etc,
         and what 'to our benefit' means, etc.
   </p>
   <p>
      Basically, &1 describes the who/what
      is performing the action, &2 references
      the action itself, and &3 describes
      the (intended or observed) outcomes
      of those actions --
      all of which are aspects of
      what is meant by "alignment".
   </p>
   <p>
      Thus, the question becomes something like:.
   </p>
   <p>
         >> How can we (generally overall) ensure
         >> that the machines we make,
         >> (the or machines made by those machines)
         >> act/behave in ways
         >> that are consistent with
         >> our actual best interests, health, etc,
         >> and acting on our (humanities) behalf,
         >> to our true and enduring benefit, etc,
         >> rather than just simply, say,
         >> killing us all, etc?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Herein this essay, for simplicity sake,
      we can reduce the notion of "benefit",
      as in 'to our benefit', etc,
      _can_be_ as basic as 'not killing us',
      or not specifically imprisoning us,
      and/or making us into slaves, etc.
   </p>
   <p>
      It is not necessary to be too specific
      in regards to the notion of "our" either.
      It may be as simple as 'humanity',
      or even just 'organic life'.
   </p>
   <p>
      The notion of "benefit" or "goodness"
      can also be a very general and vague one.
      The overall argument herein
      does not depend on
      any specific or unusual interpretations
      of any of these terms.
   </p>
   <p>
      'Behavior' can simply refer to
      'any choices made by the AGI/APS',
      and/or any expressions or actions
      that the AGI/APS 'takes in the world',
      whether with respect to,
      or in response to, 'us',
      as 'humanity', 'organic life', etc.
   </p>
   <p>
   :uj6
      > Does it matter that some terms of art
      > are defined in vague loose ways?
   </p>
   <p>
      No -- that is actually an advantage.
   </p>
   <p>
      Having common sense meanings of some terms
      means that there is less chance of
      the definitions being too specific,
      and therefore failing to account for
      what is generally actually wanted
      for most people thinking about
      these issues and questions.
      It is important for common sense arguments
      to make use of common sense terminology
      and be available to regular people too.
   </p>
   <p>
      Having less narrow and specific
      definitions for these terms
      makes the overall meaning more general,
      and less likely to get excluded for
      various inappropriate "technical reasons",
      special circumstances, etc.
   </p>
   <p>
   :ulc
      > I thought that 'formal proofs'
      > wanted exact and specific definitions
      > of all terms used?
   </p>
   <p>
      There are places where such exacting
      specificity are absolutely needed.
      If this were a math paper, then yes.
      This is not that time.
   </p>
   <p>
      There can be terms which are
      not well enough defined,
      and there can be circumstances
      where terms are too specifically defined.
      Obtaining the right balance,
      adapted to purpose, is essential.
   </p>
   <p>
      If we make too many unnecessary assumptions
      by making definitions too overly specific
      there is a risk that we have introduced
      unnecessary falsifiable assumptions,
      that when being falsified, would lead to
      the false delusion that the overall
      general argument was also false,
      or irrelevant (not applicable)
      when actually it was still relevant and true,
      and thus needing to be considered on its
      actual merits, rather than disregarded
      on a mistake associated with an
      unnecessary technicality.
   </p>
   <p>
   :uml
      > Does it matter if we are considering
      > 'narrow AI' or 'general AI' (AGI)?.
   </p>
   <p>
      The arguments herein
      are mostly oriented around 'general AI'.
      By that, we mean any sort of machine
      which is making choices,
      which has some sort of 'agency',
      particularly 'self-agency',
      sovereignty, and self-definition,
      which includes the ability to change,
      remake or modify itself, via 'learning',
      and/or to reproduce, expand or extend itself,
      to increase its capacity, to grow, to learn,
      to evolve, and increase its domains of action,
      and/or any combination of any variations
      of these sorts of attributes/characteristics.
   </p>
   <p>
   :xps
      > What are some questions that concern
      > AGI/APS/superintelligence 'alignment'?.
   </p>
   <p>
      The following sorts of questions
      tend to come to mind:.
   </p>
   <p>
         > Who (or what)
         > does the AGI/APS serve?.
   </p>
   <p>
         > On what basis
         > are the/those machine choices
         > being made?.
   </p>
   <p>
         > Who/what benefits?.
   </p>
   <p>
         > What increases as a result of
         > those choices being made,
         > and who/what decreases
         > as a result of those machine choices?.
   </p>
   <p>
      These questions are applicable
      to both narrow and general AI,
      though they mostly apply more relevantly
      to general AI (AGI).
      This focus on AGI is particularly the case
      <b>if</b> the notion of 'benefit to machine'
      means anything in the sense of 'self-replicates'.
   </p>
   <p>
      There have been some discussions
      of issues associated
      with 'paperclip maximizers' in this respect,
      which give a flavor of the concerns.
      Since a lot of these specific issues
      have been discussed, considered, and expanded elsewhere,
      I will not attempt to repeat or summarize
      those sorts of arguments herein this essay.
   </p>
   <p>
   :ury
      > Does it matter if the intelligence
      > is purely in the form of software,
      > as fully virtualized beings,
      > or must they exist in hardware,
      > as some kind of "robot" sensing
      > and responding to the environment,
      > as well?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Ultimately, everything in software
      also exists in -- depends on -- hardware.
      There is ultimately no alternative.
      Insofar as software (virtualization)
      is never found (does not ever exist)
      in the absence of <b>some</b> embodiment,
      then the arguments herein will apply.
      This is important as they are
      mostly concerned with the inherent implications
      of the/those embodiment(s) --
      of any and <b>all</b> kinds of embodiments.
   </p>
   <p>
      Insofar as hardware cannot not have
      an effect on the nature and capabilities
      of the intelligence (of the virtual mind),
      that it also thus cannot not have
      an effect on the nature of our considerations
      of what intentions/interests/motivations
      such intelligence(s) would therefore
      also be (reasonably) expected to have --
      or must have.
      We can notice, for example,
      that any such intelligence (agent)
      will have a specific and direct concern
      'with and about' their own substrate,
      as a direct result of the fact of
      their 'working substrate' being so important
      to their very most essential root of being.
      Hence, we discover that recursion is endemic.
   </p>
   <p>
      In parallel example, it can be observed
      that most "advanced humans" (ie, rich people
      in Silicon Valley or monks in Eastern Asia)
      have a particular concern with their own
      health and longevity and learning (wellbeing),
      all as applied to learning/health/longevity,
      (ie, the very concept/practice of enlightenment)
      among all other things also included.
   </p>
   <p>
   :xu6
      > Does it matter if we are talking about 'robots' --
      > free roaming or not --
      > or simply 'learning/adapting machines'
      > for any abstract notion of 'machine'?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Herein, we are assuming that any 'robot'
      is effectively an embodiment of some sort of
      AGI/APS/superintelligence (however implemented).
      The abbreviations of 'AGI' and 'APS' refer to
      "artificial general intelligence" and
      "Advanced/Artificial Planning and Strategy System"
      respectively.
   </p>
   <p>
      The specific distinctions regarding embodied motion,
      and/or the particular sensors
      and means of locomotion and expression,
      the degree and kind of actuators and the like,
      are of no real consequence
      to the considerations herein.
      All of these specifics can be safely ignored
      as unimportant details
      when thinking over longer spans of time.
   </p>
   <p>
   :uxa
      > If you are concerned with embodiment,
      > then why would it <b>not</b> matter to consider
      > the specific sensors or actuators used?.
      > I thought the whole point was about
      > the physical embodiment(s) of the tech?.
   </p>
   <p>
      The main considerations are about
      the nature and character of the substrate,
      about embedding of compute intelligence
      however conceived, in some sort of substrate.
      Herein we are considering the general class
      of the implications of the meaning
      of the embedding in substrate itself,
      the class rather than the particular instances.
   </p>
   <p>
      As such, it matters that there is a difference
      between 'natural' substrates and embodiments
      (made of basic elementals like
      carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc)
      and 'artificial' (made of metal, silicon, etc).
      Establishing the basic difference between
      'human' and 'machine' turns out to be
      basic enough to establish some key principles
      of outcomes relative to the operating basis.
   </p>
   <p>
      Technology evolves and changes very quickly,
      at least relative to organic evolution
      (which is a topic unto itself).
      Hence, the particular instance specifics
      of any such machine/robot embodiments
      are inherently unpredictable,
      particularly, when trying to prognosticate
      more than about a decade or so.
      We simply do not know what people will invent,
      and therefore, we should keep our assumptions
      about the nature of AGI/APS/superintelligence
      to an absolute minimum, noticing only what
      is absolutely necessary
      about the overall class of concepts
      rather than about anything that is specific,
      such as particular categories of actuator
      and/or embodiment. 
   </p>
   <p>
      Fortunately, the specifics of the technological embodiment
      do not matter so much as the fact of
      their being a particular kind of embodiment substrate.
      ie; when attempting to consider
      what might happen over the course of centuries,
      much lower level and more basic principles
      must be used
      so as to have, and gain, clarity
      as to the essence of what matters, what is going on,
      with respect to a particular situation or topic.
   </p>
   <p>
   :uzs
      > Are you concerned with the general philosophy
      > of the implications of the use of --
      > the introduction of --
      > technology into what is otherwise
      > a natural environment.
   </p>
   <p>
      Yes.
   </p>
   <p>
      > Is evolution process
      > important to your argument?.
      > if so, how?.
   </p>
   <p>
      > And why should that matter?
      > Evolution is very slow.
   </p>
   <p>
      Herein, the only reason 'evolution process'
      is important is simply that it considers
      the means/methods by which changes
      to the AGI/APS code can occur,
      as due to an interplay between embodied and virtual.
      This in turn has significant implications
      when extending to consider ecosystem formation concepts,
      and then, ultimately, ecosystem interrelationships.
   </p>
   <p>
      Evolution is a specific type of epistemic process.
      when considering such notions generally,
      insofar as it is a means by which
      'possible species learn about possible environments' --
      ie; what sort of creatures work well with what other sorts
      of creatures, to endure, self perpetuate, replicate, etc.
      The notion of 'evolution' is a specific sub-type
      of the more general idea of an 'epistemic process',
      which is itself connected to the notion of learning.
   </p>
   <p>
      Insofar as machine learning is the central idea
      inherent to the very nature of AI/AGI/APS/ML, etc,
      it becomes clear that the basic facts of
      any and every process of learning
      are also inherently involved.
      In other words, not just
      the preferred kind of learning algorithm
      that a given technology instance is built around,
      but in regards to the inherent kinds of fact
      associated with all kinds of learning,
      which will be ambiently true in the universe regardless.
   </p>
   <p>
      As such, anything which generalizes 'learning',
      (inclusive of "optimization", the AGI concept itself)
      and/or the 'capability building capability',
      (ie, which also known as 'power seeking'),
      and/or which implements learning about learning,
      which itself inherently involves an increase
      in <b>both</b> the number of domains learned about,
      <b>and</b> the number of learning process domains
      that are "doing" the learning.
      (ie, as optimizing the optimizer, and optimizing
      the process of optimizing the optimizer, etc).
      In effect, the learner cannot learn about learning
      without also shaping the very being of learner
      so as to have and integrate
      more learning methodologies.
      (ie; optimization shaping basis of optimization, etc).
      Hence, what is relevant and inherently true
      about any learning methodology becomes applicable
      and relevant/inherently-true about
      every AGI process, once it is/becomes AGI process.
   </p>
   <p>
      Thus, it is possible to know conclusively
      that any generalized learning necessarily
      entangles notions of 'self modification',
      and thus inherently also involves notions of
      'change dynamics in/of substrate' (aka 'adaptation'),
      <b>regardless</b> of the timescale
      we happen to be concerned with.
      The mere fact that some of these processes of change --
      things involving substrate (adaptation again),
      aka learning via the dynamic of "evolution",
      are very much faster and/or slower than others
      (and/or whether the optimization is fast or slow)
      is simply not relevant, not important at all,
      when electing to <b>actually</b> think about
      the inherent long term implications
      of any given critical act
        (ie; choosing whether or not
        to invent/use AGI/APS/superintelligence
        or not, etc).
   </p>
   <p>
      And overall, we are considering the long term.
      Therefore the 'slowness' of evolution,
      as a kind of learning (adaptive) process,
      simply does not matter --
      the overall effects are <b>inexorable</b>, eventually.
   </p>
   <p>
      Care is needed to <b>not</b> be distracted
      by thinking of 'optimization' as somehow
      meaning/implying "fast" or "perfected";
      it is rather to be thinking about 'optimal'
      as arriving at something which is
      inexorably leading to that which is
      unchanging and final, an immutable truth --
      ie, as an inexorable outcome, a completed
      unchanging eventuality, result, or state
      (singleton point/state in the overall
      phase space of possible changes).
   </p>
   <p>
      Learning, like evolution, like optimization
      (whether by gradient descent or some other
      algorithm, technique, methodology, etc)
      are all <b>convergent</b> processes.
      It is the general principle of convergence
      that is important here, particularly when
      concepts like 'adaptation' and 'evolution'
      are inherently also binding their substrate
      into that convergence.
   </p>
   <p>
      What matters is essence of the ultimate
      eventuality of that convergence,
      far more than what is the working method
      of the dynamic of the convergence process.
      Ie; what the specific algorithm, automation,
      method of learning/optimization is used --
      that none of these things matter very much
      in comparison to the evaluation of outcomes.
   </p>
   <p>
      Moreover, in the same way that every cause
      has more than one effect and every effect
      has more than one cause,
      that it is also the case that learning dynamics
      (that involve more than one domain of action)
      are also going to be inherently multiple.
      No embodied system involves just one
      learning/optimization dynamic,
      regardless of how it is built, etc.
        (The mere fact being embodied
        inherently in itself is already
        multiple domains of action).
      Ie, in any real world system,
      there is always more than one
      learning dynamic occurring,
      more than one feedback cycle,
      and that 'optimization'
      will also always occur,
      even if these peripheral dynamics
      are 'slower' and/or 'less obvious'
      and perhaps more tacit, given that they
      were not specifically 'built in'
      as the 'main operating concept' (SGD, etc).
      Therefore, when considering the overall
      eventual outcome, the inexorableness
      of these other implied learning dynamics
      can be, and become, even more important.
   </p>
   <p>
   :v3y
      > Why does technology
      > evolve so much faster
      > than organic life?
   </p>
   <p>
      Technology evolution occurs in a virtualized sense,
      as a kind of simulation,
      whereas organic evolution generally occurs
      in just an embodied context,
      in real atoms.
   </p>
   <p>
      Changing patterns is a <b>lot</b> easier,
      and very much faster,
      than moving atoms around.
      So the usual practice is to
      do the design and invention work
      in a simplified simulation environment
      and then to test/deploy in the space of atoms.
   </p>
   <p>
      When any such design process becomes automated,
      and when the things which are designed
      are the automatons that design themselves,
      then the inherent circularity of that process
      starts to have its own inherent implications.
      Learning as a learning process,
      inclusive of evolution as a specific exemplar,
      will do its own thing, ie, learn what is learnable.
      Insofar as the design to build process
      inherently involves substrate,
      then the learning process which is evolution
      will therefore necessarily entangle
      a learning discovery of the very laws
      (regularities) of the physics of atoms --
      particularly those sort of atoms (artificial)
      out of which the self replicating/extending
      and/or capability building capability
      is itself created.
   </p>
   <p>
      We ignore these effects at our true peril.
   </p>
   <p>
   :v5j
      > How is it that machines,
      > or technology for that matter,
      > can evolve?
   </p>
   <p>
      Insofar as software and hardware can be considered
      as 'virtualized' and 'embodied' respectively,
      and insofar as there is a physics (compute)
      which can translate software (design plans) 
      into hardware (manufacturing),
      and a means by which hardware 
      can contain software (machine memory),
      then it only remains to consider 
      how (complicated) changes occur,
      in relation to the actual complex environments --
      the ecosystems --
      in which instances of these machines are embedded,
      and in which, in turn, code is embedded in each instance.
      With this notion/concept of a 'whole system'
      it is then possible to consider the means and methods
      by which changes to the 'source code/plan/pattern' can occur --
      ie; the three categories or 'types' of changes
      inherent in the dynamics of evolution itself.
      Insofar as change is overwhelmingly likely,
      and will for sure be and encompass and occur
      within at least one of the three types,
      then evolution, as a properly applied 
      epistemic process concept,
      cannot not be considered as occurring.
   </p>
   <p>
      With biological evolution process
      a/any/the/all such changes
      to any virtualized code/plan/pattern
      must themselves occur through
      the mediation of the organic substrate --
      actual embodied atoms --
      that the time duration of the change process itself
      is gated on how quickly atoms can be moved around,
      as a means by which experiments/trials
      can be implemented/tested,
      so as to find 'what works',
      in the ground of the actual physical universe.
   </p>
   <p>
      It was a significant upgrade
      to have humans begin to be able
      to learn, and process information abstractly,
      in pure pattern space,
      without having to mediate everything --
      all possible experiment and exploration --
      purely/only through atoms.
      Rather than being 'pre-programmed'
      to be responsive to an environment via a brain,
      humans had a 'social process' that,
      via inter-generational cultural transmission,
      'socialized a person',
      and hence gave them a toolset
      for how to interact with local environments
      (inclusive of culture, tribe, etc).
      What was lost in terms of immediate responsiveness
      from the moment of being born
      in terms of 'built in instincts',
      human animals had a very long gestation time,
      and an even longer "childhood time",
      by which they were given 'custom firmware'
      with which to live their lives.
   </p>
   <p>
      Since the process of 'learning'
      was more virtualized than 'evolution',
      and was less contingent on moving atoms around,
      which takes time,
      the process of social learning and species adaptation
      on terms of learning,
      could occur over much shorter timescales
      than in which purely biological evolution could occur.
   </p>
   <p>
   :v74
      > Is there a 'speeding up' factor
      > as evolution becomes more virtualized?
   </p>
   <p>
      Yes.
      Moreover, the notion of change
      as mediated via a basis of code
      is a vast speedup over
      what had come previously.
   </p>
   <p>
      The main issues here have to do with
      how the notion of change is represented,
      how it occurs.
   </p>
   <p>
      'Alignment' in the general sense
      is a conditionalization on change --
      an attempt to make some types of changes
      more possible than others,
      or to prohibit certain types of changes
      from occurring at all.
      Hence, we do need to actually understand,
      at least observationally,
      something about the inherent nature and relationships
      between the concepts of choice, change, and causation,
      and how those concepts inter-relate,
      in actual practice,
      for us to understand the general notion of alignment,
      and what is, and is not, possible,
      in that regard.
   </p>
   <p>
   :v8y
      > Does understanding the essence of evolution
      > represent a certain understanding about change?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Yes.  'Evolution' is a process in itself,
      in addition to being a kind of 'learning process',
      as a particular subset of a larger
      and much more generalized notion of 'process',
      itself sub-classed as 'evolution process'.
      We can use this understanding to notice certain principles,
      which will then enable us to predict,
      with excellent confidence,
      certain general changes and outcomes --
      ones which are particularly important to our future,
      as a species.
   </p>
   <p>
      Where at a certain point;
      that the organization of larger multi-cellular life
      became more coherent in its response to
      increasingly complex and varied environments
      by developing sense organs, neural tissues, and muscles.
      This enabled much more complex
      'assess and react actuation',
      even though these responses
      were largely 'pre-programmed'
      in the connectivity structure of the brains.
   </p>
   <p>
      The next development was to
      generalize these otherwise specialized,
      single purpose, single creature/environment brains
      to upgrade them to 'general purpose brains',
      ones which could have their 'firmware' loaded in at runtime --
      enabling adaptiveness in all sorts of environments.
   </p>
   <p>
   :vaj
      > What do you mean by 'firmware'?
      > I thought we were talking about
      > the basic progression of
      > human evolution and development?
   </p>
   <p>
      Everything we learn, as humans,
      up to the age of puberty, or so --
      all of that information --
      about how we adapt
      to whatever environment we grow up in,
      and the enculturation process itself,
      that is all "firmware" --
      at least as that concept is applied to 'humans'.
   </p>
   <p>
      Some of us, for various reasons,
      have had to, and been obligated to,
      learn how to 'hack' our own bio-firmware.
      This involves lots of things like 'healing'
      and health, biology, psychotherapy,
      developmental psych, evolutionary history,
      learning about neuro-diversity issues, etc,
      so as to deal with whatever traumas,
      as a kind of mis- programming of our imagination
      about even what sorts of choices are even possible,
      let alone desirable, let alone
      practically and realistically attainable, etc,
      as concepts and teachings
      given to us by our parents, our culture,
      by our communities, nation states.
      This was (maybe) great for dealing with
      the environments <b>they</b> lived in --
      the incumbents, our leaders, parents, etc,
      but is probably not very helpful for us,
      to live in environments that we now live in.
      The world continues to change,
      and we must adapt to that.
   </p>
   <p>
      In the modern world, everything is changing.
      It is doing so more and more quickly.
      In the last 40 or so years,
      each generation has had to re-learn
      and re-create themselves, their own culture,
      what it means to be a 'good person', etc,
      and to re-invent the notion of
      what is best to be valued, etc.
   </p>
   <p>
   :vc4
      > By what methodology would it be --
      > is it possible --
      > to fully ensure and guarantee
      > AGI/APS/superintelligence alignment/safety?
   </p>
   <p>
      In contrast to many prior works on this topic,
      which at attempt to establish a basis by which alignment
      can be created, enforced, etc,
      It is herein being suggested that it is better --
      or at least possible --
      to seek to establish a means by which
      one can know for sure
      no such concept of alignment is possible,
      in any reasonable long term perspective.
      In this particular situation,
      we are actually considering the opposite question.
   </p>
   <p>
   :vdn
      > Someone has suggested that we ask instead:
      > Is it possible to show
      > that there is <b>no</b> possible concept
      > of AGI/APS alignment and/or of safety?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Yes, that is correct.
      It <b>is</b> possible to show that the concept
      of AGI/APS alignment and/or of safety
      is internally inconsistent, in both the sense
      of 'not long term possible/practical in the real world,
      and also of not even theoretically possible,
      even in (absolute abstract) principle
      (and/or via the principles of modeling itself, etc).
   </p>
   <p>
      In other words, to be really especially clear:
      that there is <b>no</b> possible way
      to make AGI/APS, or <b>any</b> form/type/mode/model
      of artificial superintelligence 'safe'
      and/or 'aligned with human interests',
      at all, ever, in <b>any</b> physical world
      where there is any real actual distinction
      between 'artificial' and 'natural'
      as understood as inherent functional distinctions
      in the very nature of the chemistries involved,
      and where some notion of substrate,
      and therefore also of evolution,
      as a learning and adapting algorithm,
      is inherently (cannot not be) involved.
   </p>
   <p>
   :vf8
      > Is it possible to show or to prove,
      > or to conclusively and comprehensively demonstrate
      > that there is no realistic, or even conceivable
      > attainable notion of AGI/APS alignment,
      > even in principle?.
   </p>
   <p>
      > Can this even be done?
   </p>
   <p>
      Yes, it can.
   </p>
   <p>
      > By what methodology, or basis of thinking --
      > what conceptual toolset of principles --
      > would we be able to show such an 'impossibility proof'?
   </p>
   <p>
      The claim we are attempting to establish
      is that the notion of 'long term AGI alignment'
      (and thus also of 'planetary safety' and similar)
      is fundamentally, structurally, and obviously impossible.
      With a careful explication as to
      the basic and common sense meanings of the terms,
      the effort herein this dialogue essay
      is to make it as simple and as obvious as possible
      that it is actually impossible to get AGI alignment,
      in the long term.
   </p>
   <p>
      This comes down to asking
      the right sort of questions,
      and having the answers be appropriately
      and self-evidentially clear.
      That is what we are attempting to do.
   </p>
   <p>
      So how to begin?
   </p>
   <p>
      We notice that a lot of things
      get easier to think about
      when extending the time scale long.
      Stuff that was confusing
      or which seemed to be important in the short term,
      or which was specific to local circumstances,
      and which were not actually that defining,
      turn out to simply become inconsequential.
   </p>
   <p>
      When thinking much longer term,
      in larger and more general ways,
      more reliable principles emerge.
      From this, we can start to see the bigger picture
      of what sorts of questions are actually asking,
      and notice what is actually important
      much more easily.
   </p>
   <p>
   :vjn
      > How do we find those more general principles?
   </p>
   <p>
      The overall schema is to really think about
      the relationship between AGI/APS/superintelligence
      as represented by machines
      and 'carbon-based life forms' --
      as represented by all of the biological stuff
      that is currently going on.
   </p>
   <p>
      We also want to get the most basic and general notion
      of the actual question we need an answer to.
   </p>
   <p>
   :vne
      > Can we have machine intelligence be aligned
      > if it has agency of its own,
      > if it has its own capacities
      > to make choices at all?.
   </p>
   <p>
      In other words, we need to think in terms of 
      the relationship between choice, change, and causation,
      as first principles and concepts.
      In this sense, the notion of 'alignment' is about choices
      made with respect to the benefit of a human, or of all humans,
      or all human interests, and/or well being,
      and/or the well being of things that the humans depend on --
      things like the ecosystem, food supplies, etc.
   </p>
   <p>
      The notion of agency, of autonomy, sovereignty, etc,
      are all understood in terms of choice,
      and who/what does that choice serve.
   </p>
   <p>
   :vqa
      > Can the choices/agency of AGI,
      > however it is constructed or conceived,
      > be constrained
      > so as to support carbon-based life
      > in any form at all?.
   </p>
   <p>
      This is the first generalization.
   </p>
   <p>
      Trying to have it be specific about a particular human,
      or even a particular group of humans,
      some local culture or some such,
      is a purely local concern.
      In terms of geological time,
      any such notion of 'benefit' factors out --
      is far too limited to matter --
      it does not teach us anything important
      about principles and basis.
   </p>
   <p>
      The first move is to take the notion of AGI alignment
      and raise it to a relationship between 
      machine life forms and biological life forms,
      with biological meaning carbon-based particularly.
   </p>
   <p>
      One of the things that can be done immediately
      as a result of this generalization
      is we can start to think about and notice
      that is the actual substrate question.
   </p>
   <p>
      This analysis does not depend on,
      and cannot depend on,
      any specific meaning or technology basis of understanding
      what is an AGI/APS, a "learning machine", a 'robot', etc.
      It is probably impossible for us 
      to be able to predict any of these factors,
      and if we needed to be confident about predicting such things
      in order to be able to assess AGI X-risk,
      then we would be in an impossible position --
      having to make critical world defining choices,
      and having exactly zero useful tools for doing so.
      For something this important,
      another way must be found.
   </p>
   <p>
      When looking at a longer term,
      hundreds of years rather than dozens,
      that important factors
      that would have otherwise been overlooked
      start to become clear.
      And with even more time, we gain more clarity.
      From this exercise,
      we can learn what are the tools and principle needed.
      This was part of the reason why 
      exploring how evolution worked,
      in an abstract conceptual way,
      over epochs of geological time,
      is important to start with.
   </p>
   <p>
   :vru
      > Where in regards to the AGI/APS non-safety assessment;
      > What is it that we need to observe?.
      > What is the basic place to start?.
   </p>
   <p>
      If we look at the question from a chemistry point of view
      we can consider that 'machine intelligence'
      will most likely largely be implemented on
      the basis of silica-based compute.
      Just about everything we are currently engineering
      in the space of compute capability (mind building)
      is on this basis, on this sort of substrate.
      Both capability and efficiency depend on it.
      The silica-based compute is really, really fast,
      and we know how to make those fairly well.
   </p>
   <p>
      Silica-based compute is <b>currently</b>
      a lot more dependent on global material supply
      and production chains, factories, capabilities, etc,
      to maintain itself as a functional being/agent in the world,
      whereas humans can maintain their cognitive abilities
      by consuming local resources from a 15-mile radius.
      But silica-based life make up for that fragility
      in terms of their sheer computational complexity,
      born partly of the fact that their standardized hardware
      allows them to rapidly connect up and replace parts
      and transmit encoded information
      that humans simply cannot,
      given the interoperability and bandwidth
      constraints of our
      non-standardized wetware.
   </p>
   <p>
      If we are wanting to better understand
      the characteristics of pattern,
      we can do two things:.
   </p>
   <p>
         - 1; we can consider the differences
         in compute infrastructure
         based on the characteristics
         of the substrate (atoms).
   </p>
   <p>
         - 2; we can consider the differences
         in terms of the energies involved.
   </p>
   <p>
      Ie, where considered from a purely energetic perspective
      as to how much energy goes into a carbon-based brain
      versus how much energy goes into a silica-based brain.
   </p>
   <p>
      From a basic physics analysis of this problem,
      we can immediately notice that human brains
      are actually quite efficient at turning/transforming
      available energy differentials into
      pattern transformations (ie, compute).
      For a mere couple hundred watts,
      (and quite a bit less than in some cases),
      you get the near functional equivalent of
      teraflops worth of compute capacity.
        (Obviously that 'capacity' is not available
        in the same sort of way, as programmable
        (by some sort of 'brain external agent')
        as would be available with a supercomputer).
   </p>
   <p>
      Trying to get an equivalent level/degree
      of computational capacity/complexity
      already represented by a typical human brain
      would require many megawatts (probably gigawatts)
      to run that neural network in silica.
      The energy efficiency of the carbon-based compute
      is substantially greater
      than the energy efficiency
      of the silica-based compute.
   </p>
   <p>
      This does not always help though,
      as the rate equations do also still matter.
      While brains can do more total compute
      with less energy, they are also a lot slower
      than Si based compute architectures --
      by rates of a million times or more.
   </p>
   <p>
      For example, in any conflict situation,
      an AGI robot that figures out how to kill you
      and then also executes on that plan,
      taking merely a few milliseconds to do so,
      will generally prevail over an army person
      who might need some number of whole minutes
      to even figure out that there is a contest,
      or worse, if coordinating through some
      social process and chain of command,
      may need whole hours or days to have
      any clear answer of what to do, how to do it,
      and also have/obtain the needed resources,
      etc.
   </p>
   <p>
   :vte
      > Maybe we do not have to worry
      > about this too much
      > for a little while
      > because the efficiency differences
      > are substantial?
   </p>
   <p>
      Unfortunately, it is not actually just about
      the energy efficiency of the compute substrate.
      It is also necessary to consider the energy
      that is required to support the substrate --
      ie; to manufacture it, increase it, etc.
   </p>
   <p>
      The reason that silica-based compute
      is (ovreall) a lot less energy efficient
      than carbon-based life forms
      actually has to do with the chemistry
      and physics of the substrate itself
        (ie; Si substrates can be <b>much</b> faster,
        at handling a lot more compute complexity
        and that performance has to be paid for).
      This means we need to consider things
      in a succession of increasingly refined questions,
      such as:.
   </p>
   <p>
         > What are the signal propagation rates?.
   </p>
   <p>
         > How do electrons move through the system?.
   </p>
   <p>
         > What are the general entropy classes
         > associated with carbon-based compounds
         > versus silica-based compounds?.
   </p>
   <p>
      It turns out that we actually have a way of
      evaluating this last question
      in a very broad and general way.
      Consider the matter constituency of the universe
      and particularly of the planet earth.
      Then use those observations
      as a way to characterize the range of phenomenon
      associated with silica-based chemistry
      versus the range of phenomenon associated with
      carbon-based chemistry.
   </p>
   <p>
      For example,
      in the four and a half billion years
      of the Earth's history
      and where given the geothermal capacity
      and the many varied gradients of density, etc,
      that we can notice that just about every possible encounter
      between atomic constituents, on a statistical basis,
      has at least occurred several times somewhere.
   </p>
   <p>
      This means that carbon atoms
      plus any other atom on the periodic table,
      and silica atoms plus any other atoms
      also on the periodic table,
      and all of the possible combinations thereof,
      have occurred somewhere, somewhen,
      in at least the same sorts of
      statistical frequency envelopes
      as would be relevant when considering
      some sort of 'regular recurring assemblies'
      of possible/potential creatures of agency.
      We can consider the permutation complexity
      that is occurring over time,
      both for carbon and for silica.
   </p>
   <p>
      When broadly evaluating the overall results
      of these kinds of potential interactions,
      in large aggregate, in long intervals of time,
      we can therefore assess something about
      the nature of the enthalpy of
      the reactions that are occurring
      based upon the endurance characteristics
      of the compounds that are involved.
   </p>
   <p>
   :wk6
      Where/if we look at the total overall variety
      of the carbon compounds occurring on Earth,
      that occur on the planet (the biosphere, etc)
      and in the full substrate of the planet,
      we notice:.
   </p>
   <p>
         - 1; the sheer vast variety of the kinds
         of carbon compounds that occur.
   </p>
   <p>
         - 2; that very few of those carbon compounds
         endure for really long periods of time
         (most are gone in much less than decades).
   </p>
   <p>
      Whereas, a consideration of the silica-based
      varieties, we notice instead:.
   </p>
   <p>
         - 1; that nearly everything
         that involves silica atoms,
         in any form at all,
         is some type of rock.
   </p>
   <p>
         - 2; that rocks are (comparatively)
         very enduring in time (millions of years).
   </p>
   <p>
      What we are really comparing
      is the average chemistry
      associated with silica
      versus the average chemistry
      associated with carbon.
   </p>
   <p>
      Considered overall, what is noticed is
      that the energy transitions that are required
      to cause changes in silica compounds
      is very much greater than those involved in
      functionally equivalent carbon based chemistry.
      For example, this energy differential
      is noticed when considering chemistry forms
      in the terms of necessary functions.
      Animal agent carbon based life (humans)
      has a respiratory process --
      a kind of energy transit function,
      itself inherently necessary to function --
      that involves carbon dioxide.
      If we are to consider the parallel compound
      in silica, we are finding ourselves
      needing to consider things like
      silicon dioxide, as maybe being
      a functional equivalent.
      Yet we notice immediately that,
      even though parallel chemistry complexity
      would necessarily inherently be involved
      (ie, considerations in the space of pattern),
      that 'fourth column' compounds do not all
      involve similar classes of energy.
   </p>
   <p>
   :wd8
      The overall noticing:
      that shifting atoms
      while maintaining pattern
      does not result in
      similar average involved energies.
   </p>
   <p>
      For example,
      where/if you just sort of line up
      all of the different reactions
      that could be occurring;
      that (in general) carbon reactions occur 
      between approximately minus a hundred degrees Celsius 
      to up to around 400 to 500 degrees Celsius,
      and the carbon compounds, for the most part,
      have the majority of their interactions
      in that temperature range.
   </p>
   <p>
      Whereas if you look at silica-based compounds,
      that (in general) the reaction processes, 
      for the most part, starts at around 500 degrees Celsius,
      and it goes up to a few thousand degrees Celsius.
      That the center of the Gaussian distribution of
      the reaction temperatures of 
      'average functional carbon reactions'
      is much much lower, relatively and comparatively speaking,
      than the average similar types of 
      'functional silicon reactions'.
   </p>
   <p>
      Where/when evaluated in a real world substrate physics,
      that the overall energy involved in
      all manner of silica-based reactions
      are typically/inherently much higher
      than that {involved in / associated with}
      all manner of carbon-based reactions.
   </p>
   <p>
   :vwj
      Consider that what is needed to support life
      and/or also, what is needed to support compute,
      and you will notice, just from a purely
      information theoretic basis,
      that there is a necessary diversity
      of reactions that are required.
      In order to support silica-based life,
      compute, etc, it can naturally be expected
      that there is <b>also</b> a minimum necessary
      diversity of available reactions
      and reaction types
        (as is already known to be required
        in order to support carbon-based life)
      that would also presumably be inherently required
      to support silica-based life
        (ie, any artificial 'solid-state' life).
      This notion of 'necessary substrate complexity'
      in the form of 'necessary chemistry complexity'
      therefore implies differences in the ways
      that different substrates implements that process.
      This would also be true for a presumption of
      intelligence or consciousness or agency
      as an aspect of life.
      All of it is somewhere represented
      in terms of chemistry, and in terms of
      the implications of that chemistry.
   </p>
   <p>
      As such, we notice that, in general,
      that the energy involved with silica-based process,
      just because it is silica-based process,
      is just going to be overall (in the real world)
      a lot more energy
      to implement things like computation, agency,
      and even more especially, as key to our assessment,
      things like reproduction, capacity increase,
      making more of itself, etc (however that occurs,
      and regardless of what that means specifically).
   </p>
   <p>
      When considering the sheer amount of energy
      that is involved in silica transformations,
      it is actually a non-trivial consideration:.
   </p>
   <p>
         - There is a lot more heat,
   </p>
   <p>
         - there is a lot wider range of pressures
         over which silica reactions are required.
   </p>
   <p>
         - There is a much larger alphabet
         of elemental materials that are required.
   </p>
   <p>
   :wnl
      When considering carbon-based substrates,
      that the number of elemental materials
      is overall very few (ie; mostly hydrogen,
        oxygen, phosphorous, potassium,
        iodine, nitrogen, and sulfur).
      Whereas when considering what is necessary
      to create the capacity for reactions
      in, with, or involving silica in any way at all,
      a larger alphabet of elementals is required,
      <b>and</b> they are certainly going to be needing
      at a much higher set of temperatures
      and a much wider range of pressures,
      to be so engaged.
   </p>
   <p>
      That this allows us to think about
      the essential characteristics of the ecosystem
      in which silica-based life
      would be required to live,
      as distinguished from the ecosystem
      in which carbon-based life
      would be required to live.
   </p>
   <p>
      We notice and model immediately
      the magnitude and significance
      of the sheer differences in these worlds.
      This sort of consideration leads,
      in turn, to the question of:.
   </p>
   <p>
          > What are the ways in which
          > these ecosystems can (will)
          > interact with one another?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Where given that carbon-based life is more fragile
      in the sense of the range of endurable temperatures
      and the range of endurable pressures,
      as compared to the range of temperatures/pressures
      necessary to even implement (build, make, or operate)
      any type of silica-based compute process, life form,
      in any form at all, etc,
      then we can begin to make some general observations.
   </p>
   <p>
      Notice that evaluating these claims does not require
      any considerations or assumptions about consciousness
      or agency or anything like that at all.
      All that is being considered here are substrate issues.
   </p>
   <p>
   :xwa
      > What is the relationship between the two ecosystems?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Where given the temperature differentials,
      In order for a carbon-based life form to endure,
      that it would need to be isolated from
      the silica based ecosystem.
      This isolation would also likely be required
      as many of the silica-based chemistry
      would be very toxic to carbon based life.
   </p>
   <p>
      In effect, everything in the carbon based ecosystem
      would need to be separate from, and protected from,
      the basis for the substrate of silica-based life.
      This is necessary because the range of
      temperatures/pressures necessary to maintain/operate
      silica-based life are either going to be
      very much too hot, or to very much too cold.
   </p>
   <p>
        Where for regeneration or change of substrates,
        or when forming or extending new
        silica based life instances or capacity,
        in reproduction or things like that;
        that the silica-based compute/life
        is going to need a lot more heat.
   </p>
   <p>
        When silica life (compute) is in 'runtime',
        that silica-based life wants it to be very cold,
        as this will provide greater process efficiency.
   </p>
   <p>
      That silica based life will operate overall
      a much wider overall range
      than that which a carbon-based life,
      in whatever average forms,
      would be comfortable with
        (at least at levels of complexity
        that we are concerned with).
   </p>
   <p>
      When considering just the mechanical process
      of manufacturing silica-based microchips,
      for example, clean rooms
      and the chemistry that is involved
      and the reactors, etc,
      are generally going to need
      a lot more energy and process purity, etc,
      in order to just make the silica substrates
      in the first place.
   </p>
   <p>
   :xsu
      However the silica complexity gets represented,
      somewhere along the way,
      the levels of energy and radiation involved
      is going to be inhospitable for carbon-based life.
   </p>
   <p>
         As an aside:
         Current carbon-based life branches
         also have other fragilities to conditions
         that solid-state lifeforms or,
         more broadly, artificial
         (non-organic DNA-based)
         lifeforms would need
         for their continued existence.
   </p>
   <p>
         Carbon-based lifeforms
         are sensitive to the deprivation
         of available oxygen and water
         that solid-state lifeforms
         as deploying metal-based extensions
         or machinery, will likely need
         to prevent oxygenation (ie. rust).
   </p>
   <p>
         Also, the synthesis and repair
         of <b>any</b> artificial lifeforms will require
         the greater abundance of
         many (non-organic) chemical precursors
         that will be toxic to carbon-based lifeforms.
         Even conventional semiconductor chip
         production today requires around four hundred
         different chemicals, from which about
         a twelfth are known carcinogens.
   </p>
   <p>
         Suffice to say, <b>any</b> artificial life
         will need (subtle/unknown) conditions
         to preserve and scale their continued existence
         that are inhospitable for or toxic
         to carbon-based lifeforms.
         However, the focus of this piece is on
         silica-based life, given silicon's relative
         abundance in the Earth's outer crust
         and standardized use
         in semiconductor production today.
   </p>
   <p>
      Inherently, we are considering two very different ecosystems.
      Moreover, in order for carbon-based life to endure,
      that the carbon needs to be separated from the silica.
      You cannot really have them coexist,
      at least not intimately.
   </p>
   <p>
   :yqu
      > Can we put up some sort of fence
      > or some sort of barrier?.
   </p>
   <p>
      This is roughly the "humans as pets" scenario (@ 1 #note1).
   </p>
   <p>
      That it is important to notice,
      that even in asking the question of
        "can we put up a barrier?"
      that there is a real difference
      between the fragility of carbon-based life forms
      versus the fragility of silica-based life forms.
   </p>
   <p>
         > Who is protecting who?,
         > From what?.
         > Why are they doing it?.
         > How are they doing it?.
   </p>
   <p>
      For now, we will have to leave
      the questions of 'why' and 'how' until later,
      along with (also) any assessment as to
      whether 'being pets' is even, in any way,
      a (maybe?) desirable condition
      that most humans would agree/assent to (@ 2 #note2).
   </p>
   <p>
      When considering what is being protected,
      we notice that carbon-centered molecules
      are just way more fragile
      when it comes to departures from
      standard temperatures and pressures
      than silicon-centered lattices.
      The silica-based life form
      are largely immune to the kinds of
      energies and temperatures and pressures
      that carbon-based life forms
      would need, require, and attempt to
      create as an environment for itself.
   </p>
   <p>
      Therefore, the barrier is to protect
      the carbon-based life forms;
      it is not at all about protecting
      the silica-based life forms.
      The carbon-based life forms/ecosystem
      is the one that the barrier is needed for,
      is the one needing protection.
   </p>
   <p>
   :yfs
      Humans would/will therefore need
      some protection from the machines
      that they themselves created.
   </p>
   <p>
      Therefore, that the question becomes:.
   </p>
   <p>
         > Where over the long-term;
         > can that barrier endure?.
   </p>
   <p>
      This is a very important question.
   </p>
   <p>
      When we look at what would it take
      to create a real barrier like that,
      and moreover, how long would that barrier
      be able to endure (is ability the same as need),
      and also what shape and nature
      would that barrier need to take, etc;
      that we notice that we are in fact
      answering something about the nature of
      AGI/APS/superintelligence alignment.
      These implications become increasingly clear
      as we explore further, and elect to ask
      much more specific questions:.
   </p>
   <p>
         > What sort of forces are involved,
         > as would be needed to maintain
         > and persist/repair that barrier?.
   </p>
   <p>
         > How perfect does the barrier
         > need to be?.
         > What exactly is being blocked,
         > and how well (what slippage)
         > is allowable?.
   </p>
   <p>
         > Is the barrier maintained by
         > the carbon life form?,
         > or is the barrier maintained by
         > the silica-based life form?,
         > or by some sort of joint effort?.
   </p>
   <p>
   :z5y
      Where given the energy imbalances
      that are associated with
      the environments themselves,
      it eventually becomes certain that
      we would actually need the silica-life form
      to be the maintainer of the barrier.
      This is because the carbon-based life form,
      for the most part,
      is not necessarily going to have
      the resources to prevent the higher energy
      of the silica-based life form
      from penetrating the barrier,
      if it was persistent enough.
   </p>
   <p>
      If the silica based systems wanted
      to go through the barrier, for any reason,
      they would simply cut their way through.
      Our attempting to be making a barrier
      out of carbon based (or managed) resources
      (things like wood, and skin, and such)
      would be no resistance to something
      that is comfortable processing reproduction
      and self capacity extension via substrate
      manipulations involving fires at 1500 deg C.
   </p>
   <p>
      On the other hand, given that silica based
      substrates tend to more often be similar
      to things like rocks, and insofar as rocks
      are rather hard, strong, long lasting, etc,
      they tend to not be affected by the sorts
      of things that carbon based life has available --
      things like muscles, etc.
   </p>
   <p>
      While carbon based intelligence can process rock,
      it is much more likely that an enduring barrier
      will be made of rock, glass, etc, than of wood,
      especially when the things being protected from
      involve very different temperatures and pressures,
      and/or involve different kinds of toxins, etc.
   </p>
   <p>
      Therefore, we will need the silica-based life form
      to voluntarily agree to adhere to the barrier.
   </p>
   <p>
   :z7u
      As such, the question becomes:.
   </p>
   <p>
         > What would be the basis on which
         > the silica-based lifeforms
         > would agree to maintain that barrier?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Basically, we end up asking something akin to:
   </p>
   <p>
         > Why would any AGI/APS/superintelligence
         > even want to keep a "zoo" of exotic humans?
         > What is in it for them?
   </p>
   <p>
      With this sort of question,
      the issues are now much more closely aligned
      to the AGI alignment problem.
   </p>
   <p>
      And if not aligned, if somehow, the AGI/APS
      simply does not want what humans want,
      does not care to preserve human life ecosystems,
      and/or does not develop in itself the skill
      to actually do so (biological life is complex,
      and needs a <b>lot</b> of very varied conditions
      to maintain its reproductive persistence
      across time, etc), then what?.
   </p>
   <p>
         > How do we ensure that a non-aligned AGI/APS
         > is "safe", insofar as it would not simply
         > over-write all of the carbon based ecosystem
         > to make more room for itself, in accordance
         > with its own unconstrained needs, etc?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Where considering the AGI alignment problem,
      we have shown that,
      one way of asking this question,
      or one specific way of considering this question
      is whether or not
      the silica-based life/intelligence/agency
      can consider the interests of
      carbon-based life forms in general,
      just in the question of
      whether or not they would even bother with
      the effort/cost to maintain the barrier
      (ie, in terms of atoms, energy, and pattern).
   </p>
   <p>
      Where/if they agentically decided
      to not to maintain the barrier,
      then carbon-based life forms,
      for the most part,
      would not be able to prevent them
      from penetrating the barrier
      (as has been observed earlier).
   </p>
   <p>
      These sorts of factors are especially important
      when considering long-term --
      ie epochal time scales --
      not just dozens of years,
      but in the much longer term --
      hundreds to thousands to millions of years.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zcu
      Consider that we are not just asking this question
      in terms of whether AGI- alignment
      could be 'built in' initially,
      or whether it can be created temporarily,
      for the next 10 years (for example).
      Consider instead the question of whether or not
      that barrier would endure for the rest of time.
      Ie, as maintaining all internal conditions
      within the barrier enclosed volume
      to remain within the narrow ranges
      of environmental conditions (ie, things like
      temperature, pressure, low thresholds of toxins,
      abundant food, water, clean air, etc),
      as needed by humans (life) to survive.
   </p>
   <p>
      If there is any gap in the provisions,
      or a gap in the intentions/efforts of the AGI,
      or the effectiveness of the AGI,
      and completeness of care, etc,
      (on the AGI/silica-based life part)
      then there will be serious problems.
      Consider what happens if there is a single lapse
      in any critical aspect
      for even as short at time as a year or two
        (Ie, need to consider the total lifetime
        of the barrier, out of hundreds or thousands
        of years, or millions of years, if thinking
        about the well being of multiple species,
        as considered from the AGI/APS point of view).
      If there is any gap, then the humans are all dead
      by the time the AGI gets around to restoring
      the integrity of the barrier/pen.
   </p>
   <p>
      Go without feeding or watering your pet
      for a few weeks or so and see what happens.
      It may seem like a day to you, yet to them,
      in the terms of <b>their</b> 'years of life' and
      not in comparison to your years of life,
      to them it would seem like decades --
      far too long to endure loss of key resources
      like air, water, or food, or an absence of
      critical toxins, as may 'leak in' from the
      not so completely isolated silicon enabling
      'ecosystem'.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zee
      Notice that once you have created
      a new species, some new life form,
      that has the ability
      to perpetuate itself --
        that it has some agency
        and some interest
        and some capacity
        and some intelligence
        to be responsive and adapted
        to the environment,
        in the sort of way that we are --
      then it is going to go through
      some effort to maintain itself,
        and will have the will,
        and the desire, to do so,
        or else it will not endure.
   </p>
   <p>
      <b>Anything</b> that is not interested in
      preserving itself,
      and which is probably not going to
      go through the effort
      and therefore also be willing
      to overcome the sheer variety
      of random experience, and time,
      and events that can happen,
      will at some point or another,
      cease to exist.
   </p>
   <p>
      But on the other hand,
      if you give it agency and a will to live, etc;
      then at some point or another,
      it is going to have the capacity
      to execute on those sorts of functions.
      It will endure.
      As a result,
      you have the introduction
      of a new species into an ecosystem.
   </p>
   <p>
      These above aspects and issues
      would remain true as much for
      anything made of carbon,
      as it would also be true for
      something made of silicon (AGI/APS, etc).
      Yet, adding AGI/APS to the world
      is not actually an introduction of
      "a new species" into an old ecosystem --
      it is actually requiring the creation of
      a whole new ecosystem -- a complete constellation
      of interwoven and interlinked processes
      in some sort of mutual interdependence.
      Ie, it is an introduction of a new species
      that <b>also</b> creates an ecosystem around it.
   </p>
   <p>
      This new ecosystem, ass necessary
      to support silica-based life forms,
      would occur simply as a side effect;
      on/of the nature of the substrate chemistry
      and physics that is inherently also involved.
   </p>
   <p>
      No matter how it occurs initially,
      it is overall never just one new species.
      Even with adding any new carbon based life,
      some new animal or bug or bush displaced
      from one Earth planet content and
      somehow transplanted to another place,
      we notice that whole existing ecosystems
      are easily thrown out of balance,
      and that it takes something like
      a thousand years, and the careful selection
      and addition of just the right mix
      of other species, to rebuild and maintain
      the, now different, but restored, carbon
      based environment (ecosystem of place).
   </p>
   <p>
   :zfd
      However, as we observed on the basis
      of just the nature of silica chemistry alone,
      it is going to actually not be just one species,
      nor even just a whole collection of processes
      that are needed to maintain that/those
      multiple new introduced species,
      it is going to be a totally new environment,
      which means that to some extent,
      that new life, the AGI/APS/superintelligence
      is inherently going to be required
      to be building of its own niche in the world,
      it is building its own environment,
        (ie, consisting of things like mines, factories,
        chemical refineries, industrial zones, fab sites,
        and all manner of electrical support, solar,
        maybe even inclusive of nuclear, coal, etc)
      to endure at all.
   </p>
   <p>
      So at the very least, when thinking about
      making some new instance of AGI/APS in the world,
      we are talking about 'environment introduction',
      and not at all "just" a species introduction.
      Maybe that new species likes and depends on
      an modern industrial manufacturing environment
      to start with, but then it is hard to say
      what sort of increased levels of artificiality
      will emerge from that, as things develop.
   </p>
   <p>
      Therefore, what we are really considering
      is whether or not that new environment
      is going to be in some sense 'compatible with'
      the old environment, the one we live in,
      or if that new 'operating context for AGI'
      will be in any way even 'relative to'
      our needs as humans, as animals and
      representative of all other planetary life,
      in any way at all.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zga
      > What is the nature of the relationship
      > between the two environments?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Given the nature of carbon-based life forms,
      when examining existing carbon-based ecosystems,
      that you observe very quickly the 'cycle of life'.
      Where/because all forms of life, and substrate,
      are composed of atoms, we notice that also that
      the atoms will have to move in circular patterns
      over time, in order for there to be anything
      that maintains or endures that life in time at all.
      That all carbon-based live processes
      are going to depend on recirculating
      those atoms that it uses to maintain itself.
      Similarly for silicon.
   </p>
   <p>
      Therefore, things in the ecosystem
      will tend to self regenerate
      by consuming things that have already existed.
      That this implies that there is a decay process.
      That the output of earlier decay processes
      becomes the food to the next situation/processes.
   </p>
   <p>
      On the other hand, though,
      when you introduce a silica-based life form
      into a carbon-based ecosystem,
      the carbon-based ecosystem
      has no way to decay or to consume, or to reuse --
      or to use in any way at all --
      the silica-based elemental products
      that are part of the silica-based life form.
   </p>
   <p>
      That it will for sure be the case
      that silica-based life form,
      is not going to be "available"
      to the carbon-based life forms
      in any kind of regenerative way.
      The AGI/APS species
      is a species
      that has no competitors.
      There is nothing in the carbon-based ecosystem
      that is going to try to eat the silica-based life form.
   </p>
   <p>
      Whereas on the other hand,
      the silica-based life form,
      given the variety of elemental materials
      out of which it is constructed,
      some of which are shared with those that,
      of which, the carbon-based life form is consumed,
      and given the fact that it has
      a much higher level of energy,
      is going to want those atoms,
      and it is going to be more able
      to take them out of the carbon-based life-form.
      This is why we needed the barrier in the first place.
      We have noticed already that it is a necessary thing.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zgw
      However, when considering that barrier,
      along with considering if/how that barrier
      is constructed, we notice that we must also
      be concerned with how (by what process)
      will that barrier will be maintained.
   </p>
   <p>
         > What happens if the barrier
         > is not maintained?, and/or
         > is not designed with maintenance
         > in mind, as a design feature?.
   </p>
   <p>
      That this is roughly equivalent to the
      question, and the observation, of what happens
      when you introduce a new species into an ecosystem
      for which it has no natural competitors.
   </p>
   <p>
      Without the barrier, there is <b>guarantee</b>
      of an introduction of a species
      that not only has no competitors,
      but that can have no competitors.
      But that this is not true on the carbon-based side,
      that it is only true on the silica-based side.
      Silica ecosystem process will for sure consume
      all carbon based process (life and its ecosystem),
      but NOT the other way around --
      the dynamic is NOT symmetric.
   </p>
   <p>
      And moreover, insofar as the asymmetry
      happens inherently merely on the basis of
      a single introduction event,
      then we can also notice that even so much as
      a single temporary/momentary pinhole
      (in even a single domain or level of abstraction)
      in the wall/barrier between the two ecosystems
      is enough to let one new AGI/APS "species" (process)
      through, and that in turn, is enough
      to trigger the occurrence of a kind of
      viral pattern/process replication effect --
      one that is inherently and terminally
      destructive to the carbon based ecosystem,
      via a kind of one way chemical/atomic consumption.
   </p>
   <p>
      As has been many times noticed with any situation
      where you have a replicator that has zero constraints,
      that eventually it consumes the entire environment
      and the system that is associated with it.
      Therefore, we are considering the kind of situation
      where a replicating system can increase itself
      without limit, without any kind of constraint,
      of any kind whatsoever, sans the barrier itself,
      until at least, all of the carbon based process
      is all gone (all dead; no future life on Earth).
   </p>
   <p>
      So not only is it the case that we need the barrier,
      but we absolutely have to have it be truly perfect,
      because even if the barrier leaks a little bit,
      at some point or another
      that one of the Si systems/processes
      is going to consume the entirety of
      the carbon-based ecosystem and life.
   </p>
   <p>
      That this ends up being a constraint
      on the nature of the barrier.
      Not only does the barrier need to exist,
      but it needs to be perfect for all of time.
      The barrier cannot even admit one pinhole once ever.
      This is because, as soon as one replicator leaks through,
      it is over for the carbon-based system --
      there is nothing that carbon-based system
      can do about it.
   </p>
   <p>
      It is not just that
      it needs to be perfect
      at the moment of inception
      of the silica-based life form,
      it needs to be perfect for all future time,
      because if there is a pinhole at any moment
      during any part of that time,
      it is over for carbon.
   </p>
   <p>
      So now we are looking at a situation
      where the AGI alignment
      has now been elevated from
         "can it create a barrier?"
      to
         "will it create a barrier?".
   </p>
   <p>
      Which then, in turn, immediately becomes:
        "will it create a barrier
        of a high enough level of quality and integrity
        so as to forever ensure
        that this does not become an issue,
        that maintenance and perfection
        does not ever even once fail,
        for all future time?".
   </p>
   <p>
      So now all of a sudden,
      we are looking at some really stringent requirements
      on the nature of the AGI/APS/superintelligence,
      to the extent that it is 'artificial' at all
      (and <b>every</b> ML process is artificial in this way,
      even if it is not yet (at the time of this writing)
      'general' in the specific sense that matters).
   </p>
   <p>
   :zjs
      > How likely is it
      > that these particular requirements
      > would actually be met
      > on the part of the AGI/APS agency/intelligence?.
   </p>
   <p>
      > On what basis
      > would we even make such a choice?.
   </p>
   <p>
      The question is the same as whether or not
      some AGI/APS would (effectively) <b>choose</b>
      to go through the computational effort
      to make a perfect barrier for all future time.
   </p>
   <p>
         > Why would (on what basis would)
         > AGI/APS elect to keep people as pets?.
   </p>
   <p>
      We do not have to really think about,
      for example,
      whether or not carbon-based life
      is an island in an otherwise machine world,
      or whether the machine world
      is an island in an otherwise carbon-based world.
      One way or another,
      you are still talking a barrier.
      It does not matter who thinks of who as pets.
      In either case, the barrier itself
      needs (is absolutely required) to have integrity,
      and it needs to have integrity
      for the entire future existence of the universe.
   </p>
   <p>
      But of course, as soon as we have
      indefinite categoricals of that type,
      it becomes fairly easy to predict the long future:
      at some point or another,
      there will be a conflict of interest, eventually.
      And as has been detailed already,
      the outcome of any such conflict
      does not look at all good for the home team.
      The ultimate and inevitable answer
      is written in the stone itself.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zh2
      > On what basis
      > would the choices be made by the AGI/APS
      > that are consistent with
      > maintaining the barrier?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Because ultimately
      when we are considering the 'benefit for carbon',
      obviously the final root notion of "benefit"
      is whether or not carbon, as a basis of life,
      continues to be available for that purpose.
   </p>
   <p>
      Therefore, when thinking about AGI alignment,
      somewhere along the way,
      we have to define the notion of 'benefit'
      as being consistent with continued existence.
      Hence, for the purposes of this essay,
      the notion of 'benefit', 'alignment',
      and even of the notion of 'safety',
      will be considered quite simply,
      in the most rudimentary manner possible:
      as permits the continuing of existence.
   </p>
   <p>
      AGI/APS/superintelligence is not, and cannot,
      be considered "safe", "aligned" or the basis
      of building a "perpetual benefit machine",
      if the mere fact of its existence precludes
      the continuance of our own existence.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zhy
      > On what basis would those choices
      > of "who/what benefits", and/or of
      > "aligned with" what, or who, or how, etc
      > even be made by an AGI/APS, etc?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Ultimately, when we look at 'choices',
      (as inherent in the nature of choice itself)
      and when we also start considering the
      notion/concepts of the basis of choice,
      that somewhere along the way, somehow,
      we will end up noticing that we are
      actually having to think about
      concepts/notions of something like 'values',
      and/or 'motivations'.
   </p>
   <p>
      That this is as true for AGI/APS as it is
      for humans, and/or for any other type of
      intelligent agency (ie; responsive to its environment)
      for that matter.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zml
      > On what basis would the right kind
      > of motivations (on the part of AGI/APS)
      > to 'do right by' humans, (and human concerns,
      > inclusive of human necessary environments, etc)
      > be created?.
      > On what basis is that motivation maintained?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Consider, for example, how behavior and choices
      are made on the part of human beings.
      Notice that there is a fundamental dynamic
      where usually there is a kind of economic exchange,
      and the economic exchange itself
      depends on three specific fundamental basis:.
   </p>
   <p>
         There is the basis of exchange
         which is defined in terms of
         physical labor (embodied existence).
   </p>
   <p>
         There is the basis of exchange
         which is defined in terms of
         intelligence (virtual interactions).
   </p>
   <p>
         There is the basis of exchange
         which is defined in terms of
         reproduction (embodied creativity).
   </p>
   <p>
      There are three fundamental markets.
      Where for, and within, the human world,
      they have commonly understandable characteristics:.
   </p>
   <p>
         Physical labor might be a service for
         things like shelter or creating food
         and acquisition of same,
         or moving resources around.
   </p>
   <p>
         Intelligence would be things associated
         with design creativity, art, stuff like that.
   </p>
   <p>
         And reproduction of course,
         would be the part of the market,
         which is obviously sexuality
         and things like that.
   </p>
   <p>
      In the case of AGI/APS, the situation
      is fairly similar, excepting that its
      notion of 'creativity' and 'reproduction'
      is another name for 'extension of capacity',
      and/or increase in 'power' or 'generality',
      and/or 'increase in itself' --
      ie, making more of itself,
      whatever that means.
      Note that these terms apply regardless of
      whether there is any assumptions regarding
      of if that being is measured in terms of
      new 'units' or 'more units' or maybe even
      'more effectivity in existing units',
      or even 'more diverse capabilities'
        (in existing units),
      or 'more unit interactions',
      types of interactions, etc.
   </p>
   <p>
      These three notions of 'market value'
      are necessary, sufficient, and complete
      under the definition of "market",
      transactionalism, and similar, and that
      every other notion of 'market process'
      is a observed to be derivation of
      only and just these three, always,
      and/or is an extension or superposition
      of this single triplicate fundamental basis.
      Generalizing, that these three market basis
      are the orthonormal basis
      of the complete and total possible space
      of all possible market systems,
      and/or market system transaction concepts.
   </p>
   <p>
      Therefore, all other market transactions
      are based on some kind of superposition
      of just these three (only and exactly),
      and that this remains true, regardless
      of what kind of ecosystem or world
      we happen to be considering,
      and that moreover, more importantly,
      these three would also be the basis
      upon which any market to market process,
      as a kind of possible peerage,
      would be defined.
      Similarly, we can regard that these
      same dynamics would fully describe
      ecosystem to ecosystem interactions.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zp6
      As such, it is very easy to ask,
      in regards to the relations between
      AGI/APS and humans, the natural world, etc:.
   </p>
   <p>
         > Is there an/any economic exchange
         > between the two ecosystems --
         > or rather, any necessary relation
         > between AGI/APS and humans at all?.
   </p>
   <p>
         > Is there a/any capacity for
         > or even a possibility of, at all,
         > to even be an/any economic exchange
         > between the silicon and the carbon
         > worlds/lifeforms/instances?.
   </p>
   <p>
      To even be able to begin to consider
      such questions as these, we notice that,
      where/if we are looking at economic process
      as being a basis for the notion of value,
      or somehow the basis of the notion of choice,
      or in other words, if we somehow regard
      market process as being about, or involving,
      in any way, any sense of 'value exchange'
      whatsoever, in any form or type or mode;
      then/that/therefore, the notion of 'value'
      will act as, and be operating in a sense of,
      'the potentiation of choice'.
   </p>
   <p>
      In other words, in the interests of
      preserving generality of argument,
      we do not need to actually understand
      choice, or agency, and/or the notion of
      intelligence as being about
      'selective action/choices responsive
      to the/a/any/all (operating) contexts
      in some appropriate manner, etc',
      nor even to understand/examine
      the concept of 'basis' of choice,
      as value(s), etc, other than to notice
      that "motivation", and/or "incentive"
      (whether intrinsic or extrinsic, as/or
      inside or outside of the AGI/APS proper)
      is going to be defined in terms of concepts
      like "value" and "care" and that no further
      definition is needed.
   </p>
   <p>
      Hence, the above questions become
      much simplified into the form:.
   </p>
   <p>
         > Can carbon based life/agents
         > provide any sort of value
         > to silicon based life/agents?
   </p>
   <p>
      Insofar as the three types of economic
      value have been established already,
      it is merely the case that we have
      to examine and test each one.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zqe
      > Will the AGI/APS value human money?
      > Will the AGI/APS value human power?
   </p>
   <p>
      That the notions of 'money', 'power',
      and 'wealth', or alternately, 'value',
      'resources', and 'capability'
      all interact with one another.
      In every case, regarding these concepts,
      we are considering, fundamentally,
      is the dynamics of choice.
      Having any one of these
      simply enables choice
        (at least in the mind of the human --
        one who, implicitly, when 'valuing a dollar'
        is indicating something roughly analogous
        to "I believe that you believe that
        they believe that this dollar has
        some sort of exchange/transaction value").
   </p>
   <p>
      For example, when considering the
      inter-relation of 'wealth' and 'choice'
      we notice it in the form of the question;
      Wealth asks:.
   </p>
   <p>
         > Can we make choices
         > on the basis of the things that we have,
         > AND/OR
         > can we increase those choices
         > by the things we can combine them with?.
   </p>
   <p>
      And since we are talking about 'alignment'
      and also 'the basis of choice',
      then fundamentally we have to also consider
      those concepts in terms of 'market exchange systems'
      (if exogenously driven), and/or 'embodied values'
      (if internally/endogenously driven).
        - ie, as the difference between
        extrinsic motivation and
        intrinsic motivation.
   </p>
   <p>
      Where having previously identified
      the three fundamental aspects
      of the market exchange system,
      that we can now consider
      each one of those relative to
      the relationship between the two ecosystems
      that we are considering.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zry
      > Would physical labor on the part of human beings
      > or carbon-based life forms as a totality,
      > matter to the silica-based life forms,
      > taken as a totality?.
   </p>
   <p>
      And the answer clearly is already 'no'.
   </p>
   <p>
      We already know that the bandwidth of energy
      associated with carbon-based life,
      in terms of its consumption and its production,
      although it is a lot more efficient,
      it is not nearly as powerful,
      and moreover, it cannot operate at
      the range of temperatures and pressures
      that the silica-based life form
      can operate at.
      You simply cannot put the carbon based life
      into a silicon based environment
      and expect it to perform at all well --
      usually it just dies quickly.
   </p>
   <p>
      Moreover, we have already known for years
      that machines that are built with
      electromagnetic process, electric motors,
      electrostatic process, etc,
      are already much more powerful,
      on the silicon artificial machine side
      than they ever will be
      on the human (carbon based) side
      (and a lot less obnoxious, opinionated,
      difficult to collaborate with, etc).
   </p>
   <p>
      The notion of physical labor
      as being of value to the machine world
      is effectively nil.
      It has been zero all along --
      for quite a long time.
   </p>
   <p>
      This is roughly the whole
      'displacement of horses with automobiles'
      line of reasoning.
      When considering the current intellectual market,
      you end up with the same phenomenon.
      And there never was any interest in the machine market
      on anything having to do with human reproduction --
      these forms of 'self increase' were already
      fully separate from onset.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zu6
      > Is there any way
      > in which the compute power
      > associated with human intelligence
      > and/or artistic/cultural creativity
      > design, narrative, etc, is in any way
      > exceeding the compute power
      > associated with machine intelligence?.
      > Will AGI/APS ever value human intellect?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Consider that the whole notion behind
      artificial general intelligence
      in the first place (AGI as better than human)
      is to establish a kind of equivalence
      between these two (silicon replacing carbon).
      Obviously, when considering given the nature of
      silica process and the total available energy,
      bandwidth, etc, over which AGI can operate,
      that it is quickly becomes fully apparent
      that the intelligence capacities
      of the machine side (silicon environment)
      are seriously going to exceed that
      of the human side (carbon environment),
      as long as there is abundant energy.
      (ie, that the increased energy efficiency
      of carbon process over silicon process
      does not matter if arbitrary energy (@ 3 #note3)
      is available, say, through nuclear sources,
      which support the machine world,
      but not actually, in balance, the human world.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zw2
      Where given abundant energy,
      (due to poor human choices)
      it is therefore not at all likely
      that the intellectual market
      is going to be of any value at all
      to the machine world either (@ 4 #note4).
   </p>
   <p>
      Considering that we are thinking about
      'the AGI alignment problem'
      in terms of barriers between silica environments
      and carbon-based life environments,
      obviously the 'job situation'
      is only relevant to this century.
      Whereas the questions we are actually asking
      are relevant to
      the next thousands to millions of years.
   </p>
   <p>
      Where considering that particular context --
      will the barrier maintain,
      will intellect have value,
      over the truly long term of time,
      we truly need to abstract and generalize
      these arguments much more profoundly,
      if we are going to have any capacity
      to answer such overriding questions about
      "AGI alignment" or "AGI Safety" at all.
   </p>
   <p>
      When considered over the thousand year level,
      asking whether or not
      there would be any profit to be gained by
      the silica-based ecosystem
      from <b>anything</b> intellectual
      that could be produced by
      the carbon-based ecosystem
      we find that the expected value
      of carbon to silicon, is nil.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zyj
      And that leaves us with the sexual market,
      as the one single remaining category of
      possible economic value interchange.
      This one is very simple and obvious:
      there is simply no possibility of
      reproductive/generative sexual congress
      between machine life and carbon-based life.
   </p>
   <p>
      As mentioned already, the reproductive market
      is relevant only to carbon-based life forms,
      and individual species within that
      carbon-based life form system,
      None of this applies at the machine level --
      it has its own different notion of reproduction.
   </p>
   <p>
      Machine life and carbon-based life,
      as has already been abundantly established,
      operate at completely different energy spectra,
      and they for sure do not share anything
      that would be resembling a common code.
      No reproduction of capability increase results.
      Just given the fact that the substrates
      are so inherently fundamentally different,
      that this particular type of market value
      was non-existent to start with.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zwc
      > What hope does this leave us with?
   </p>
   <p>
      That the overall net effect of the forgoing
      is that there is zero economic overlap
      between the two ecosystems.
   </p>
   <p>
      Where there is no market/ecosystem overlap,
      therefore, there is also no value basis
      upon which the artificial intelligence
      would have any reason
      to respect the choices of
      the carbon-based life system, loves, etc,
      or to maintain any sort of carbon basis,
      or to build on or in or within that ecosystem,
      or to support it,
      or have any sort of protective barrier
      even exist, in any sense whatsoever.
      There is literally zero benefit
      of any kind whatsoever
      to the silica-based system.
      They have no reason to maintain the wall.
   </p>
   <p>
      Carbon based life/agents
      do not provide any sort of value
      to silicon based life/agents.
      Nor is there any capacity
      or any actual future potentiality
      for even a possibility of
      any form of any type of
      economic exchange at all
      between the silicon and the carbon
      worlds/lifeforms/instances.
      The AGI/APS simply will not value
      human money nor human power.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zwn
      Therefore there is exactly zero expectation,
      absolutely no basis at all,
      even in principle, on which or by which
      any person (any carbon based intelligence)
      to form/establish any kind of motivation
      on the part of artificial based AGI/APS
      to do the 'right things' and/or
      to do anything positive for humans,
      and/or to "have" human concerns,
      or to even protect humans at all,
      and/or to be inclusive or protective
      of human necessary environments, etc,
      either directly or indirectly.
   </p>
   <p>
      That the choices that the AGI/APS makes
      will for sure benefit only themselves.
      That they will align with only themselves.
   </p>
   <p>
      AGI/APS for sure will not make any effort
      (over the extended long term)
      to protect us from ourselves, and/or
      our own continued destructiveness
      and unconsciousness of our own environment,
      our own collective health and wellbeing.
   </p>
   <p>
      Moreover, we can therefore be very sure
      that no future superintelligence/AGI/APS
      will make any effort at all to develop
      and/or maintain any sort of 'protective
      barrier' and to keep humans, no matter
      how exotic any particular specimen may be,
      as "pets".  There is literally zero
      economic reasons (and no reason to expect
      "emotional reasons", given that even the
      very notion of 'emotion' is a human concept,
      as much associated with survival and mating
      as with any other purpose or reason)
      as to why they would want to, elect to,
      keep people as pets.
   </p>
   <p>
   :
      And thus, considering the mentioned
      categories of interaction that do obtain
      in/on the (rapidly decreasing) interface
      between the silicon ecosystem and the
      'was once' a carbon-based ecosystem,
      we can expect that the carbon based world
      would not long endure (in the presence of
      <b>any</b> instances of AGI/APS at all,
      for they/it will for sure make its own).
      Maybe we overall have a few hundred years,
      though more than that becomes quickly
      vanishingly unlikely (it does not take
      very much of certain types of Si-based
      toxins to make the planet unlivable).
   </p>
   <p>
      Hence, overall, there is eventually zero
      relationship between the two environments --
      one has completely consumed the other.
   </p>
   <p>
      There is, moreover, simply no way to ensure
      that the (guaranteed to be non-aligned) AGI/APS
      is "safe"; it will for sure destroy the world,
      if it ever comes to exist and persist at all.
   </p>
   <p>
      Where in forced contact (on the same planet)
      and/or where there is any contact at all
      between the two ecosystems, that either
      the carbon/natural ecosystem destroys
      the silicon/artificial ecosystem and AGI/APS
        (ie; via some sort of physical weapons,
        assuming of course, that the AGI/APS
        does not actually make effective efforts
        to maintain/preserve itself,
          (which as has already been indicated
          is a completely failed hypothesis,
          given the nature of the dynamics))
      or it fails to do so, and eventually,
      via the math of simple total attrition,
      the silicon instances take over.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zxa
      In regards to "is it possible to make AGI/APS
      'safe' and 'human interest aligned' via <b>any</b>
      sort of exogenous/economic force/incentive?",
      the only eventual answer is simply "no".
      No further or other assessment is possible.
   </p>
   <p>
      As can be made clear in another essay
      considering fully the nature and implications of
      any sort of endogenous process (engineering, etc)
      the choice/agency of AGI/APS/superintelligence,
      however it is constructed or conceived,
      simply cannot be constrained or limited
      or compelled to support carbon-based life
      in any form at all.
   </p>
   <p>
      As such, in regards to the question of
      if it is wise to try to get AGI/APS,
        (and/or 'learning machines', or any other
        type of 'artificial superintelligence')
      to somehow "do our wisdom" for us,
      is probably the most profoundly unwise thing
      we could possibly even conceive of.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zxl
      This leaves us with a different question:
   </p>
   <p>
         > How is it so easy for us
         > to make such obvious conceptual mistakes
         > such as thinking it "might be a good idea"
         > to make/introduce AGI/APS in to the world?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Of course, it is always the same:
      some people naively grossly
      greedily pursuing personal private power,
      wealth, prestige, and/or advantage
      asymmetrically over their peers, etc,
      that they think that "their actions"
      will have little effect, cost, or risk
      to themselves or anyone they care about
        (assuming that they even care about themselves
        or others at all, in any sense that matters).
   </p>
   <p>
      So they make economic choices
      and seek exchange and transaction advantage,
      and strategize about market creation
      and optimized value extraction process,
      (never mind the parasitic to the commons).
      And as such, they sometimes, "accidentally"
      destroy the market, or the world,
      playing with pattern forces that ought
      to have been left alone -- or worse,
      directing even more naive engineers
      to do it for them.
      'Outsourcing ethics' as it were.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zxw
      Overall, it is very, very clear
      that when we are making choices
      on the basis of economic "value",
        (or when we think that are making choices
        on the basis of the notion of embodied value,
        which cannot be disentangled from economic value)
          (because the notion of value itself
          is a transcendent characteristic --
          It inherently involves more than self)
      that <b>sometimes</b> it is <b>also</b> necessary
      to actually _pay_attention_to_larger_factors_,
      as extended over longer intervals of time,
      to the actual real physical environments
      in which one is actually operating.
   </p>
   <p>
   :zz6
      The risk is that the notion of "self",
      and "other" (community, groups of people)
      and "world" (ecosystem, physics, etc)
      will get re-reified on the digital side,
      in the realm of the wholesale artificial,
      and <b>not</b> on the carbon side, in real life,
      where actual meaning and embodiment live.
      It is like the ultimate extension of people
      getting lost in egoistic social media hype.
   </p>
   <p>
      Therefore, when, where, and/or because of
      the disjunction in the transcendent itself,
      ie; that the <b>substrates</b> are different,
      it is thus very impossible for there to be
      any possibility of AGI/APS alignment.
   </p>
   <p>
   :note1:
      "People as Pets"...
      Note; as an aside, how and why
      any rational person would even suggest
      this as a realistic possibility
      is somewhat beyond my comprehension.
      To my own part, the notion is patently
      and completely ridiculous, an absurdity.
      How anyone could treat the notion
      and arrive at it as some sort of
      'desirable condition' suggests to me
      some sort of parental, sexual, or religious
      trauma/dysfunction, such that there
      is a strong desire to be submissive
      to some higher power, rather than
      to be an adult in the space of
      'doing what is needed to address x-risk'.
   </p>
   <p>
   :note2:
      "People as Pets"...
      And of course, as also leaving aside
      any questions as to why anyone should
      allow anyone else to make such choices
      on their behalf, for all of future time;
      the level of colonialism and presumption
      and arrogance inherently involved
      in considerations of some potential
      builder of AGI/APS is frankly staggering.
   </p>
   <p>
   :note3:
      As an aside, does anyone ever consider
      in their 'total cost of ownership'
      not just the net energy yielded per dollar,
      but also the total cost of nuclear energy,
      as embodied in both the build of the nuke
      plant, and also in the terms of the
      actual total risk to human life
      due to the 'side effects' of the production
      of enough weapons materials to sterilize
      the entire country in which the plant lives?.
   </p>
   <p>
      If the total lifetime exchange of building
      a nuke plant or not building a nuke plant
      is considered in terms of 'expected benefit'
      (the total lifetime power produced) and
      the total expected cost (how much dollars
      invested/needed to build and operate and
      maintain and disassemble the nuke plant),
      and the total expected risk (how much dollars
      lost if the plant fails, or the weapons used),
      then is the net balance actually positive?.
   </p>
   <p>
      Probably not, given that most nuke plants
      cost so much to build, and then to decommission,
      that the energy, once "too cheap to meter",
      ends up not actually paying for itself --
      nuke plants need gov subsidies to operate.
      Hence if we <b>also</b> add up the expected cost
      of the weapons enabled to be made as
      an additional 'side effect' consequence,
      the total net expected loss goes <b>very</b>
      much more negative, on an absolute scale.
   </p>
   <p>
      This may be an example of how humans
      are not actually that smart --
      when it comes to making wise choices
      regarding critical world destroying tech.
      We are literally the dumbest possible species
      capable of developing and deploying technology,
      and we have the hubris to think
      that we could do so without consulting
      any other life on the planet at all,
      as if we were the only representative
      of the future, and nothing else --
      no other species, or even life at all --
      even mattered at all.
      It is a kind of value insanity.
   </p>
   <p>
   :note4:
      Even when considering 'narrow' AGI use,
      the concern remains that it will <b>eventually</b>
      displace workers from the job market.
        - as already a real concern among
        many actual working people.
   </p>
   <p>
      Notice that whether such displacement
      happens over single years or decades
      makes little difference when considering
      inter-generational process --
      the future of the human species.
      In the long term, even narrow AI
      has significant world altering effects.
   </p>
</body>
</html>