AFAIK there isn’t enough correlation between intelligence and goals in humans to disprove the orthogonality thesis, or even offer significant evidence against it.
However, there’s at least one dynamic in humans that should lead to some degree of value convergence in smarter humans that wouldn’t be present in AIs: a lot of human values are the result of failure to reflect on our actual desires and model of the world. Thus, smarter people are likely to suffer less from conditions like blind faith. Blind faith and tribal ideology have more degrees of freedom than optimization of the baseline desires evolution gave us, therefore one would expect more similarity in values among smarter humans (or perhaps more rational humans? It’s a known phenomenon that there can be incredibly intelligent people with massive blind spots; Robert Aumann is the traditional example here.)
Obviously that wouldn’t be the case among AIs, as they’re not all drawn from the same distribution the way humans largely are.
AFAIK there isn’t enough correlation between intelligence and goals in humans to disprove the orthogonality thesis, or even offer significant evidence against it.
However, there’s at least one dynamic in humans that should lead to some degree of value convergence in smarter humans that wouldn’t be present in AIs: a lot of human values are the result of failure to reflect on our actual desires and model of the world. Thus, smarter people are likely to suffer less from conditions like blind faith. Blind faith and tribal ideology have more degrees of freedom than optimization of the baseline desires evolution gave us, therefore one would expect more similarity in values among smarter humans (or perhaps more rational humans? It’s a known phenomenon that there can be incredibly intelligent people with massive blind spots; Robert Aumann is the traditional example here.)
Obviously that wouldn’t be the case among AIs, as they’re not all drawn from the same distribution the way humans largely are.