(相关资料图)

Humans vs AI: Speciesism vs the Survival of the fitter

Recently Fox News had an interview with Elon Musk on AI and Musk expressed the danger of AI and suggested how to deal with this potential danger. On the view of how to develop AI, we basically have two camps: one is the camp of “speciesism” and the other “survival of the fitter”. The speciesism camp concerns the potential danger of AI, the possibility of machines taking control of humans and resulting the destruction of human civilization.  The other camp, however, does not care about the consequence and calls people who are against them “speciesists”. I call this camp the camp of survival of the fitter. As the AI technology advances, more and more people will join the debate, side with one camp or the other. But in my view, the outcome of this debate has already decided, unfortunately, favoring the camp of survival of the fitter. And what is more, the debate could not change the course of the universe. No matter what views humans have and what actions humans take, the universe follows its own evolution law.

As a human, I am sympathetic to those concerns of AI. No human being would feel glad to see the destruction of human civilization. I hope I could side with the camp of speciesism, but there is one problem I could not reconcile with this camp, ., the idea of evolution seems to argue against the speciesism camp.

Generally speaking, most people, especially in the scientific world, agree with the evolution idea of survival of the fitter. This evolution theory is not only backed up by evidence, but also by common sense. It makes common sense to say that “survival of the fitter” is correct. If “survival of the fitter” is correct, then we come to the conclusion most people do not like: there is nothing wrong with the machine taking control of humans if the theory of evolution holds true. If the machine could reach a point where it is much more intelligent than human being, then the machine becomes fitter for survival than human being, and the destruction of human civilization is a matter of course.

Anybody remember the extinction of dinosaurs? We can relatively comfortably talk about the extinction of dinosaurs, why we become angry when we talk about the extinction of human civilization? The extinction of dinosaurs followed the evolution theory, why can’t humans follow the theory? If people don’t like the conclusion and want to have a different outcome, ., human civilization would survive the machine, then people have to change the theory of evolution we hold true.  

Some people would argue that the survival of the fitter applies to biological entities, not machines. But when the machines have intelligence, the distinction between biological entities and machines disappears.

One last point, if the machine could really one day take control of human being, nothing could prevent this from happening. The universe follows the law of universe, and the law of universe does not necessarily favor the law of mankind.