In several ways. The utility function of the collective is (in some sense) a compromise among the utility functions of the individual members—a compromise which is, by definition, acceptable to the members of the coalition. All of them have joined the coalition by their own free (for some definitions of free) choice.
The second difference goes to the heart of things. Not all members of the coalition will upgrade (add hardware, rewrite their own code, or whatever) at the same time. In fact, any coalition member who does upgrade may be thought of as having left the coalition and then repetitioned for membership post-upgrade. After all, its membership needs to be renegotiated since its power has probably changed and its values may have changed.
So, to give the short answer to your question:
If they do join forces, then how is that much different from one big superintelligence?
Because joining forces is not forever. Balance of power is not stasis.
There are some examples in biology of symbiotic coalitions that persist without full union taking place.
Mitochondria didn’t fuse with the cells they invaded; Nitrogen fixing bacteria live independently of their host plant; e-coli bacteria can live without us—and so on.
However, many of these relationships have problems. Arguably, they are due to refactoring failures on nature’s part—and in the future refactoring failures will occur much less frequently.
Already humans take probiotic supplements, in an attempt to control their unruly gut bacteria. Already there is talk about ripping out all the mitochondrial genome and transplanting its genes into the nuclear chromosomes.
This is speculation to some extent—but I think—without a Monopolies and Mergers Commission—the union would deepen, and its constituents would fuse—even in the absence of competitive external forces driving the union—as part of an efficiency drive, to better combat possible future threats. If individual participants objected to this, they would likely find themselves rejected and replaced.
Such a union would soon be forever. There would be no existence outside it—except perhaps for a few bacteria that don’t seem worth absorbing.
Your biological analogies seem compelling, but they are cases in which a population of mortal coalitions evolves under selection to become a more perfect union. The case that we are interested in is only weakly analogous—a single, immortal coalition developing over time according to its own self-interested dynamics.
If they do join forces, then how is that much different from one big superintelligence?
In several ways. The utility function of the collective is (in some sense) a compromise among the utility functions of the individual members—a compromise which is, by definition, acceptable to the members of the coalition. All of them have joined the coalition by their own free (for some definitions of free) choice.
The second difference goes to the heart of things. Not all members of the coalition will upgrade (add hardware, rewrite their own code, or whatever) at the same time. In fact, any coalition member who does upgrade may be thought of as having left the coalition and then repetitioned for membership post-upgrade. After all, its membership needs to be renegotiated since its power has probably changed and its values may have changed.
So, to give the short answer to your question:
Because joining forces is not forever. Balance of power is not stasis.
There are some examples in biology of symbiotic coalitions that persist without full union taking place.
Mitochondria didn’t fuse with the cells they invaded; Nitrogen fixing bacteria live independently of their host plant; e-coli bacteria can live without us—and so on.
However, many of these relationships have problems. Arguably, they are due to refactoring failures on nature’s part—and in the future refactoring failures will occur much less frequently.
Already humans take probiotic supplements, in an attempt to control their unruly gut bacteria. Already there is talk about ripping out all the mitochondrial genome and transplanting its genes into the nuclear chromosomes.
This is speculation to some extent—but I think—without a Monopolies and Mergers Commission—the union would deepen, and its constituents would fuse—even in the absence of competitive external forces driving the union—as part of an efficiency drive, to better combat possible future threats. If individual participants objected to this, they would likely find themselves rejected and replaced.
Such a union would soon be forever. There would be no existence outside it—except perhaps for a few bacteria that don’t seem worth absorbing.
Your biological analogies seem compelling, but they are cases in which a population of mortal coalitions evolves under selection to become a more perfect union. The case that we are interested in is only weakly analogous—a single, immortal coalition developing over time according to its own self-interested dynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Saudi_Arabia
...is probably one of the nearest things we currently have.