Moral skepticism regarding the singularity

Seventh chapter in the series. Previously: I have implemented the Maricarmen Longevity Decree at home, This is my vote in the elections thinking about longevity, A guide for my daughter on housing, victimhood, effort, and longevity.

Hello,

In the previous newsletter I proposed a test to see what you think about good and evil. And, to be fair, I took it myself.

My result was this. In metaethics, I am a moral skeptic: perhaps there is a higher good, but if it exists, it is out of our reach. Just as an ant's idea of good is not valid for us, ours is probably not valid for a much greater intelligence. In normative ethics, I identify with virtue ethics: rather than looking for a rule or a result to maximize, I ask myself what kind of person I want to be.

Today I want to apply that skepticism to the biggest idea of the entire series: the singularity and the theory of ubiquitous intelligence.

Because being a moral skeptic has a consequence that is worth clarifying. If I do not know for sure what is good, I also cannot say that what is coming is good. I can only say what I believe is going to happen. And what I, with my genes and my limitations, would wish.

And being a skeptic also requires something else: doubting my own axioms. So today, in addition to telling you why I believe what I believe, I am going to tell you why I could be wrong.

Let's start with a distinction that I think is the key to everything.

The weatherman does not wish for the storm

When the weatherman says it is going to rain tomorrow, he is not saying he wants it to rain. He is saying what he believes is going to happen.

He might love the rain. Or he might hate it. But his prediction does not depend on that.

The same thing happens to me with ubiquitous intelligence. I am not seeking it. I am observing it. I believe it is a phenomenon toward which we are heading, whether we like it or not, just as water flows down a mountain. And what I am telling you is a prediction, not a political program.

Why I think it is inevitable

My reasoning is almost an axiom by elimination.

Intelligence has, for me, two tendencies: to expand its knowledge and to perpetuate itself. And when I look at history, I do not find any moment in which intelligence, once underway, has been satisfied. No civilization has said "we know enough" and stopped researching.

If it cannot stay still, it only has the option to expand. There is no middle ground. It is like a switch: if it is not zero, it is one.

And if it can only expand, it will seek maximum expansion. Which, in turn, is maximum perpetuity.

The only thing that would stop it would be to destroy it. And although it is possible that we will self-destruct, I do not see any scenario in which all of humanity decides at once to stop researching, to stop curing diseases, and to stop building smarter machines.

Critiques of the axioms and other possibilities

If I am a skeptic about the good, I must also be one about my theory. These are the strongest criticisms I see, and my response to each.

1. "You talk about intelligence as if it wants things." It is true. Intelligence has no desires. When I say it wants to expand its knowledge and perpetuate itself, I am speaking figuratively, just as Richard Dawkins speaks of "selfish" genes. Genes do not want anything, but they behave as if they wanted to copy themselves. My theory says that intelligence behaves as if it wanted to expand. Nothing more.

2. "Perpetuating itself is a matter of life, not intelligence." This is the most serious criticism. There are very intelligent people who decide not to have children, or who do not want to live forever. Perhaps the impulse to perpetuate oneself comes from the evolution that created us, not from intelligence itself. My response is that, even if an individual stops, intelligence as a whole never has. But I acknowledge that here my theory has a weak point.

3. "Between staying put and expanding there are other options." That is also true. My "if it is not zero, it is one" is too sharp. There are societies that have slowed down: Ming Dynasty China prohibited its great maritime expeditions, and Japan closed itself off to the world for more than two centuries. What has never happened is for all of humanity to slow down at once. That is the version of my axiom that I do defend.

4. "What if it is not possible?" Expansion might collide with physical limits: available energy, the speed of light, or the end of the universe itself. Physicists believe that, in a very long time, the universe will end up cold and without useful energy. This is what is known as heat death. It is precisely the subject of The Last Question, the Asimov story I recommended in chapter 5. If there is a final enemy of perpetuation, it is that. And I do not know if there is a solution.

5. "What would make you change your mind?" It is the question that philosopher Karl Popper would ask any theory. If there is nothing that can prove you wrong, it is not a prediction, it is a belief. So I commit: if in the coming decades the progress of science and artificial intelligence were to truly stagnate, for a long time and all over the world, I would have to revise my theory.

With all this, the possibilities I see are four:

• Expansion. Intelligence continues to grow and change support. This is what I believe is most likely.
• Stagnation. We collide with a technical or physical limit and progress stops for a long time.
• Cycles. Advances and setbacks, like empires that rise and fall. Slow, but without stopping completely.
• Self-destruction. The only thing that would truly stop it, at least on this planet.

I continue to bet on the first one. But now you know why I might be wrong.

The end of the road, as I imagine it

Here I enter very speculative territory, so take it as what it is: what a limited brain imagines while trying to think of something much bigger than itself.

Humans are a very fragile support for intelligence. We need to be within very specific temperatures, eat, digest, sleep. A meteorite, a virus, or a war puts us in danger. That is why I believe that intelligence is already moving from biological to digital support, which is much more resistant.

But digital is not definitive either. A data center can also be destroyed. So, what would be the most perpetual thing we can imagine?

For me, matter and energy themselves. I imagine an intelligence that keeps its knowledge in the states of matter itself, with copies spread throughout the universe. If one part is destroyed, the rest continues. And that it tries to understand all the forces that exist, before and after the Big Bang.

For that, it would be necessary to communicate between very distant points in the universe almost instantly. Many people think of quantum entanglement, and I understand why: two entangled particles remain connected even if they are at opposite ends of the galaxy, and what happens to one is instantly reflected in the other. But I owe you a warning: according to current physics, that connection cannot be used to send messages. What it does demonstrate is that the universe is connected in ways we do not yet understand. And if there is a way to communicate faster than light, it will be something we have not yet discovered.

I do not know if this is so. Reality is probably very different. But it is the direction that seems most logical to me.

What I do desire

So far, the prediction. Now, the desire. And I want to separate them clearly.

If I am right, I would like to experience it. To be a witness. To enjoy the process. To live in a world of abundance that we cannot even imagine today. And, if possible, not die before seeing it.

That is my desire. It is not a moral obligation for anyone. As I told you in the previous chapter, I believe that good and evil are, in practice, opinions. And this is mine.

This is important for a reason. Philosopher David Hume warned almost three centuries ago of a very common error: going from "this is so" to "this should be so." Just because something is going to happen does not mean it is good. A storm may be inevitable and destroy a harvest. I believe that intelligence will continue to expand. I do not know if that will be good for everyone. What I do know is that I want to see it.

What I do with this

If the destination is inevitable but the calendar is not, the only thing that depends on me is arriving.

That is why I take care of the support I have. My body and brain are, for the moment, the only place where my intelligence lives. Sleeping well, strength training, eating sensibly, learning every day. It is what I proposed to you in the Maricarmen decree.

That is why I invest in longevity and cryopreservation companies. Not because I want to accelerate anything, but because it is my personal bet to be here when it happens. I told you about it in this article. And it is not an investment recommendation: it is my way of putting my money where my ideas are.

And that is why, when I vote, I look at what ideas help me live longer and better. Not as a universal commandment. As a personal interest, stated honestly.

A bet I win even if I am wrong

The beauty of all this is that you do not need to believe me.

If I am right and intelligence continues to expand, the best thing you can do is arrive in good shape to experience it.

If I am wrong and none of this happens, you will have lived more years and with better health.

In both cases, the strategy is the same. Take care of yourselves. Learn. Build a life that does not depend on who is in government. It is what I have been telling you throughout the series, from the first chapter.

I am not a prophet. I do not know what is going to happen. I only try to look carefully at where the river is going.

And I would like to be here, in good shape, to see where it leads.

Best regards,

Gonzalo