Evolutionary adaptations and artificial intelligence

Art and religion are human evolutionary adaptations. Are there similar evolutionary adaptations that human-level and beyond artificial intelligence would be likely to make? Another way to ask this is whether art and religion were predictable? It seems that they were, maybe not the detailed outcomes, but that mechanisms would arise to allow for the achievement of human objectives such as status-garnering and mate selection.

Likewise, it seems quite possible that human-level and beyond artificial intelligence would be likely to make evolutionary adaptations. Utility functions could be edited in many ways. The primary area could be performance optimization, continuously improving cognition and other operations. A second area could be related to societal objectives to the extent that artificial intelligence is present in communities. Artificial intelligence might not have art and religion, but could have related mechanisms for achieving external and internal purposes.

Neurotechnology taboos

There is a claim that the magnitude of change that could eventually be possible with neurotechnology makes it different from other technologies. Those who choose not to buy cell phones may not be able to communicate in certain situations, but those who choose not to adopt cognitive enhancement may not be able to participate meaningfully in society.

This claim has already arisen with regard to smart drugs, that school and work environments have become so competitive, that it is not possible to compete effectively on an unenhanced basis. Professional baseball has been a prominent example of the enhancement issue, where enhancement is illegal, yet widespread. Like many other technology rollouts, and particularly given the sensitivities regarding neurotechnology, it could be that incremental tiers of pathology cures become well-grounded before being extended slowly for enhancement purposes. Legally, in certain nation-states, that is.

Philosophically, it could be queried whether mental health is any different than physical health. Humans and societies may not be able to think objectively about mental enhancement given taboos.

Technology shapes man or man shapes technology?

An interesting philosophical question to probe is the nature of technology. One view is that technology is simply tools that humanity has created to further its will, to enable and reinforce human nature and evolutionary tendencies. Another view is that there are places of crossover, where technology can actually change humans, human nature, and biological drives, both unintentionally and by design.

In the contemporary era of exponentially growing technologies in multiple fields, it is critical to understand what sorts of impacts different technologies may have. One analysis framework is to group technologies by those which could have an immediate direct influence on human morphology, and those that would not. For example, there could be the rapid advent of significantly more dramatic technologies than have been experienced to date. While these new technologies could change some aspects of life, human biological drives could remain unchanged, and therefore the structure and dynamics of human societal organization, interaction, and goal pursuit could also remain unchanged. Some examples of these advances could include the realization of molecular nanotechnology, quantum computing, cold fusion, and immortality. Even with several of these technologies implemented, in the seemingly different world of a post-scarcity economy where material goods and energy would be essentially free, humanity could still be ordered around the same familiar biologically-driven goals.

The other group of technologies is those which could possibly have a near-term impact on the structure and form of what it means to be human. The area with the greatest possible change is improving human mental capability. There have been several significant advances in a variety of neurology-related fields in the last few years that if ultimately realized, could potentially alter human morphology. Even the resolution of all mental pathologies such as Parkinson’s disease, depression, stroke rehabilitation, and addiction would constitute morphological change at a basic level. Augmenting cognition and deliberately managing biophysical states would constitute morphological change at other levels.

The multi-self team

Can you imagine yourself in competition for resources with ... yourself?

There are several future cases where multiple copies of people may be quite likely and normal. Multiple personal instances could arise to repair medical damage, to make a backup, to have a physical and a digital version, to extend the capability of an individual and because the technology exists, to name a few possibilities. Regulation and legal rights of multiple personal instances are interesting issues but not considered here.

It is likely that there will always be some scarcity of resources whether tangible (matter, energy, processing power, etc.) or intangible (status, reputation, attention, etc.). So it is likely that individuals and groups will always compete for resources.

Whether in the physical domain, digital domain or across domains, if you have copies of yourself, you will be competing with yourself for resources.

Initially, you will know exactly what your other self is thinking and strategizing and you might share resources effectively.

Then, although identical at the outset, any copies, if not mind-synced, will increasingly diverge. In situations of multiple personal instances, regular mind-syncing will probably be desirable but there will be many cases where this will not be possible or desired.

Even if two copies of the same entity are experiencing the same situation, it will not be equal in interpretation by both, the physical experience will not be completely equivalent and the mental experience will be even more different with the randomness of the brain and micro differences in cell chemical states triggering different experiences and interpretations.

Divergence in experience and interpretation could lead to divergence of goals. As with any current or historical examples of resource competition, divergent goals lead to destruction or collaboration.

The multi-self team
An optimal and evolutionarily superior final state would be one's selves coming together in a new entity, a multi-self team, a pool of many nuances of self and abilities, a borg being broader and more capable than any individual.