An idea sometimes floated around is to play them off against each other. If they’re misaligned from humanity, they’re likely mutually misaligned as well. We could put them in game-theoretic situations in which they’re incentivized to defect against each other and instead cooperate with humans.
You are arguing against a strawman. The optimistic game-theoretic argument you should focus on is:
Misaligned AIs are—almost by definition—instrumental selfish power seeking agents (with random long term goals) and thus intrinsically misaligned with each other. The partially aligned AIs will likely form a natural coalition with partial alignment to humanity as their centroid schelling point. The misaligned AIs could then form a natural counter-coalition in response.
There are numerous historical precedents such as the allies vs axis in world war two, and the allies vs china+russia today. The allies in either case have a mutual schelling point around democracy which is in fact greater partial alignment to their citizens and humanity. The axis powers (germany and japan, temporarily including russia earlier) were nearly completely intrinsically misaligned and formed a coalition of necessity. If they had won, they almost certainly would have then been in conflict (just as the west and the USSR was immediately in conflict after WW2).
I’m skeptical of some of your analysis even in the scenario you assume where all the AIs are completely unaligned, but that scenario is quite unlikely.
Specifically:
Imagine that you’re a member of a pre-industrial tribe, and the territory you’re living in has been visited by two different industrial nations.
That general scenario did play out a few times in history, but not at all as you described. The misaligned industrial nations absolutely fought against each other and various pre-industrial tribes picked one side or another. The story of colonization is absolutely not “colonizers super cooperating against the colonized”—it’s a story of many competing colonizers fighting in a race to colonize the world, with very little inter-colonizer cooperation.
Sure, but how often do the colonized end up better off for it, especially via trying to employ clever play-both-sides strategies?
I didn’t say the colonized generally ended up better off, but outcomes did vary greatly. Just in the US the cherokees faired much better than say the Susquehannock and Pequot, and if you dig into that history it seems pretty likely that decisions on which colonizer(s) to ally with (british, french, dutch, later american etc) were important, even if not “clever play-both-sides strategies” (although I’d be surprised if that wasn’t also tried somewhere at least once)
You are arguing against a strawman. The optimistic game-theoretic argument you should focus on is:
Misaligned AIs are—almost by definition—instrumental selfish power seeking agents (with random long term goals) and thus intrinsically misaligned with each other. The partially aligned AIs will likely form a natural coalition with partial alignment to humanity as their centroid schelling point. The misaligned AIs could then form a natural counter-coalition in response.
There are numerous historical precedents such as the allies vs axis in world war two, and the allies vs china+russia today. The allies in either case have a mutual schelling point around democracy which is in fact greater partial alignment to their citizens and humanity. The axis powers (germany and japan, temporarily including russia earlier) were nearly completely intrinsically misaligned and formed a coalition of necessity. If they had won, they almost certainly would have then been in conflict (just as the west and the USSR was immediately in conflict after WW2).
I’m skeptical of some of your analysis even in the scenario you assume where all the AIs are completely unaligned, but that scenario is quite unlikely.
Specifically:
That general scenario did play out a few times in history, but not at all as you described. The misaligned industrial nations absolutely fought against each other and various pre-industrial tribes picked one side or another. The story of colonization is absolutely not “colonizers super cooperating against the colonized”—it’s a story of many competing colonizers fighting in a race to colonize the world, with very little inter-colonizer cooperation.
Mm, I don’t think it’s a strawman – pretty sure a lot of people hold this specific position.
But fair: that was not the strongest argument in the category of arguments I’d aimed to refute.
Sure, but how often do the colonized end up better off for it, especially via trying to employ clever play-both-sides strategies?
I didn’t say the colonized generally ended up better off, but outcomes did vary greatly. Just in the US the cherokees faired much better than say the Susquehannock and Pequot, and if you dig into that history it seems pretty likely that decisions on which colonizer(s) to ally with (british, french, dutch, later american etc) were important, even if not “clever play-both-sides strategies” (although I’d be surprised if that wasn’t also tried somewhere at least once)
By the way, mind elaborating on which parts you’re skeptical of?