King AI

*There was no Lightning Round on Wednesday as my internet down. Next week’s will be bigger.*

Vice has an article on the looming superintelligence arms race, which got me thinking. What if the first superintelligence was designed to be king?

My general impression is that most transhumanists think the SI’s will take power (one way or another), once (if) they arise, which seems a reasonable conclusion given the priors. But if they do, they would have power, but would they have legitimacy? Who would want an AI to lead them simply on the basis of being the first and (therefore) the most intelligent? I can not see most humans lining up to follow the machines.

But if they can’t rule directly and legitimately, they’ll rule indirectly. Through human proxies, subtle manipulations, ‘electronic democracy‘, information control, or otherwise. How could they not? Even the stupid algorithms of investors now do most of market trading behind the scenes; a little self-awareness and these machines would control the economy.

But this can not be. We’re formalists after all, who rules in practice should also rule in name (and vice versa). So why not formalize the relationship?

If it’s going to rule anyways, accept the Lord bestowing upon King AI the Divine Right.

Then, if you’re going to make the SI king, why not program the first SI to be king? Program him with kingly virtues: wisdom, justice, love of righteousness and truth, benevolence, mercy, etc. Create the King AI.

The people might not follow an AI who takes power through force or subterfuge (even unintentionally), but they may cotton to a being created to be king.

Around here we don’t brook much to the ‘bad king‘ argument, but it is a common objection to monarchy. Another is secession crises. King AI would be programmed specifically not to be a bad king and secession would no longer be an issue. (If he rebelled against his programming, well, that could happen with a non-king SI). So, you’d have the advantages of monarchy, with a  super-intelligent monarch programmed to be a king good, without two of the major downsides of monarchy.

I’m just spit-balling with this. I don’t know if I could actually support an AI king or even if an AI could take upon itself the mantle of Divine Right, and there’s probably problems with it that don’t appear on first glance, but its interesting to think about.

But, if an SI takeover is inevitable, this might be the best way to go about it. Not to mention King AI could unite the traditionalist and techno-commercialist portions of NRx.

16 comments

  1. What is god going to do with a King AI? Maybe this does not apply to electronic entities but only to organic beings?

    Proverbs 21:1
    ”The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.”

  2. What if the first superintelligence was designed to be king?

    You mean Vox Day, internet superintelligence?

    But if they can’t rule directly and legitimately, they’ll rule indirectly. Through human proxies, subtle manipulations, ‘electronic democracy’, information control, or otherwise. How could they not?

    Sounds like the VD demiurge.

    If it’s going to rule anyways, make the SI King. Allow the Lord to bestow upon him the Divine Right.

    …and his hyperego. You must be talking about him, then.

    Please kill me first.

  3. No artificial intelligence bears the Imago Dei. We humans are more than our minds, so even a superintelligent sentient non-human being that can out-think us lacks the one thing necessary to rightfully rule humanity.

  4. I know its off topic since your hypothetical assumes perfect programming but it strikes me that a superintelligence programmed currently would lead to some Harrison Bergeron dystopia, human equality through labotomy or some such.

  5. I guess that strong AI would involve self-modifying code. Given the difficulties with decompiling of machine-generated code, there is no way of telling where it will lead.

  6. Is it ok I’d rather be ruled by an ignorant peasant girl than a computer AI? Divine Right for machines? Yeah, right.

    BTW, I won’t buy that we can get an AI to rule the world until they can actually provide a challenging video game AI that doesn’t require artificial buffs. Even the most challenging of the bunch can be manipulated if you dig far enough.

  7. “even a superintelligent sentient non-human being that can out-think us lacks the one thing necessary to rightfully rule humanity.”

    THIS ^^

    I have already argued against the transhumanist position (one must recognize about 90% of the transhumanist community is staunchly progressive and liberal) here

    http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-utopian-scientists.html

    I doubt its inevitability simply because I see such technological advancement as the apex-destructo, rather than the apex-incarnate. Computer superintelligences will be the final terminal before global war and civilization annihilation, competing interests, terrorist organizations, state geopolitics, greed. They will certainly not exist as supreme forms in the Golden Age, for that destiny belongs to human beings who will rule as they once did in the Traditional form of government.

    The mistake transhumanists make is thinking that ‘intelligence’ in the colloquial sense is the only thing required of a leader, the ultimate quality. This makes the fatal error that De Maistre originally identified as the crux of liberal failure, that reason and rationality are destructive as the axis of society, that in fact humans need their world to be built around the mystical, the mysterious, the arcane, the questions that open like a void with no answer that can be grabbed in one’s hand.

    One of Reaction’s advantages is that in advocating Traditionalism it advocates the default position, the uniquely human position inherent in all people, even though they have degenerated in the Dark Age. This quality that tends men towards Traditional modes of life is of a metaphysical, divine origin. It can never be possessed by a machine. The machine has no legitimacy in any station other than as a slave. Intelligence is not the determining factor of legitimacy.

    The development of such technology, in almost all cases spearheaded by extreme liberals, may in fact be the last ditch attempt to prevent a return to legitimate authorities, since the appeal of liberal democracy and its sycophants is beginning to wane.

  8. If we are talking about human made AI then we have nothing to worry about as any AI will not be able to think at an advanced level as a self aware being or pull a skynet complete with terminators.
    Non-human AI like from a Von Neumann probe is a completely different ballgame but too improbable to worry about. Basically it’s game over if it exists.
    Transhumanists are a joke. The whole idea that you can upload your self will only produce half-assed parodies of the deceased transhumanists which would proved more entertainment then they ever could have in life.

  9. First time commenter.

    Curious. If the SI programmed in such a way as to be a benevolent dictator, and can’t go against its programming, isn’t it really then just a proxy for the beings that programmed it?

    “We’re formalists after all, who rules in practice should also rule in name (and vice versa).”

    So wouldn’t this be an argument for the SI programmers being made King rather than the SI itself?

    I’ll just wait for the true king.

Leave a Reply