This is a good point. Could something like Shapley value help in distributing credit for X between the humans and the impersonal mechanism? I find myself also wanting to ask about how frequent these cases are—where it could easily be viewed both ways—and declare that if it’s mostly ambiguous then ‘evolution’ wins.
For “some impersonal mechanism” I’m thinking “memetic fitness of X amongst humans” (which in some cases cashes out as the first group of humans being larger?). What are other ways of thinking about it?
The story feels a little underspecified. When X happens because the first group of humans figured out how to thwart the second group, and anticipated them, etc. and furthermore if that group consistently does this for whatever they want, it seems a lot more like intelligence.
This is a good point. Could something like Shapley value help in distributing credit for X between the humans and the impersonal mechanism? I find myself also wanting to ask about how frequent these cases are—where it could easily be viewed both ways—and declare that if it’s mostly ambiguous then ‘evolution’ wins.
For “some impersonal mechanism” I’m thinking “memetic fitness of X amongst humans” (which in some cases cashes out as the first group of humans being larger?). What are other ways of thinking about it?
The story feels a little underspecified. When X happens because the first group of humans figured out how to thwart the second group, and anticipated them, etc. and furthermore if that group consistently does this for whatever they want, it seems a lot more like intelligence.