It’s not always true , there will be outliers. In general, increased intelligence tends to improve judgement. Humans inherently prefer to feel good than bad, prefer to live than die. Thus, intelligence would help a person to find ways to feel good and live. Rationally, feeling good is facilitated by a sense of safety, ample resources, relationships, and enjoyable activities. I think all that is keystoned by liking oneself, which seems to require good intentions and esteemable conduct. So if intelligence moves humans in a positive direction, generally speaking, it should theoretically do the same for AI.
Nick Kautz
Karma: 10
Nick Kautz’s Quick takes
I see AI increasing quality of life and extending lifespan. It’s primarily a problem solving tool that exceeds human ability. Thus many human problems will be solved. Drugs that cure diseases can be discovered. It will propose solutions for complex socio-economic issues. The progression of Humanity has always been driven by problem solving and finding solutions. AI increases that ability and the rate at which it happens. With intelligence comes reverence for life and increased awareness, altruism.
A higher value future reduces the chances of extinction. If people value life, they will figure out how to keep it.
I feel the same way. The moment someone initiates haggling with me, they’ve soured the relationship unless they can demonstrate that they aren’t just haggling because they Want to pay less, but because they Have to and it means a lot to them. Especially if I’ve priced something generously to begin with. Along the lines of “you get what you pay for”, I always remember how a transaction went with someone and it dictates if I want to deal with them in the future or how generous I’ll be with my time/advice/effort in future interactions. Or if I refer them to anyone. People that seem to have the most integrity and likeability are the ones that are happy to pay the indicated price and are aware/appreciative of anything I do above or beyond what’s expected. The worst are the one’s that are a black hole and take a long time, ask tons of questions, ask for me to throw in accessories, and also haggle the price. They are also the one’s that are most likely to return the product, or need help with it in the future. There are plenty of people that expect and enjoy the haggling process on both sides of the transaction, but I suspect in altruistic/empathic circles, the sentiment leans more in the direction I’ve laid out here.
Is there an argument to be made for altruistic aid being constrained to matters that serve the country of origin, and otherwise being a matter of privately organized contribution? Perhaps such that political changes don’t toggle the supply on and off, and so that self-interest motivates closer tabs being kept on proper use and efficiency?
Where does forgiveness fit in here. Forgiveness being one of the primary ingredients of a fullfilling life and a keystone of wisdom throughout the ages. No one should ever be entirely condemned, at the very least they are something to be studied and understood. Everyone should have a path to redemption should they choose to take it. Otherwise you just create embittered, dangerous outcasts with nothing to lose. One of those people may discover they have the ability to amass great wealth and/or power quickly and don’t experience or express emotion like normal people, making them uniquely capable of exacting revenge on those that sided with media sensationalism and agenda driven prosecutors over his authentic words.
People speaking up at risk to themselves does come with increased credibility and/or deserves attention, especially when it’s in opposition to a dogpiley bandwagon narrative that many people may feel obligated to be on the safe side of, without actually knowing or caring much about the matter.… or because they might feel slightly less insignificant watching the downfall of someone who had accomplished (and given) more in a couple years than they will do in a lifetime.
Not the quickest take but not quite developed enough for an actual post:
The Evolutionary Delusions Driving Political Hostility
Political discourse, with alarming frequency, devolves into acrimony, transmuting erstwhile comrades into adversaries. This phenomenon—wherein individuals adhere tenaciously to their political affiliations, be they Democratic or Republican, despite contravening evidence—cannot be sufficiently elucidated by mere policy disputes or rhetorical flourishes. Rather, its genesis lies in the primordial architecture of the human psyche. In this disquisition, we shall explore how partisan politics in the United States constitute less a theater of rational deliberation and more a tableau of evolutionary delusions, deeply rooted in our tribal heritage. We shall dissect the instinctual tenacity of tribal hostility, its distortion of our perception of rival political factions, and the insidious subtlety with which it eludes our conscious awareness.
Tribalism: An Evolutionary Imperative
Tribalism, the allegiance to one’s social cohort, is no ephemeral trend but an indelible facet of human existence. In prehistoric epochs, this fidelity was not a mere social predilection but a survival imperative. The tribe furnished sustenance, shelter, and a rampart against existential threats—be they predatory beasts or hostile interlopers. Over millennia, this imperative for group cohesion and defense became etched into our genetic constitution, an evolutionary adaptation that fortified our species’ endurance.
Yet, survival hinged not solely on intra-tribal solidarity but also on vigilance toward outsiders. Rival tribes posed tangible perils, capable of pillaging resources, usurping territory, or enacting violence. Consequently, humans cultivated an instinctual antipathy toward those beyond the tribal pale. This “us versus them” dichotomy, far from a cultural artifact, was a biological exigency—a mechanism that, though lifesaving in antiquity, proves maladapted to the complexities of modernity.
Partisan Politics: The Modern Tribal Arena
In contemporary America, the Democratic and Republican parties have metamorphosed into simulacra of ancient tribes. Citizens do not merely cast ballots; they pledge fealty, donning metaphorical tribal regalia and rallying with a zeal reminiscent of athletic partisans. Yet, this vehement schism is less substantive than it appears—not a product of meticulously reasoned policy divergences but an atavistic reflex. Our tribal instincts, operating on an antediluvian calibration, compel us to perceive the opposing faction not as intellectual contenders but as existential menaces to our group’s survival and ethos.
This dynamic elucidates why political discord often assumes a visceral, personal tenor: it engages the same neural pathways that once shielded our forebears from annihilation.
The Instinctual Nature of Tribal Hostility
Whence arises this reflexive animosity? Its origins lie in an era when rival tribes constituted genuine threats to life and livelihood. The incursion of an unfamiliar group into one’s domain demanded immediate suspicion and martial readiness. Such wariness was not merely judicious but evolutionarily advantageous, enhancing survival probabilities. Emotions such as hatred and disgust likely amplified aggressive responses, thereby bolstering the prospects of triumph in inter-tribal strife. This predisposition to conflict, hardwired into our psyche, was a survival mechanism par excellence.
In the present, though we no longer repel rival hunters, this instinct endures, redirecting its focus. When a Republican encounters a Democrat’s proposal, or vice versa, an ancient tribal alarm may resound—not as a deliberate judgment but as a visceral echo of our evolutionary past.
Cognitive Distortion: The Warping of Perception
This instinctual hostility does more than provoke ire; it fundamentally skews our apprehension of reality. A steadfast Democrat, for instance, may summarily denounce a Republican initiative as pernicious, even if it mirrors policies championed by their own cadre. The converse holds equally true. Consider a presidential oration: adherents may extol it as visionary, while detractors decry it as calamitous—despite identical content. This disparity is not mere recalcitrance but the brain’s primordial machinery safeguarding the tribal narrative.
Psychologists designate this “motivated reasoning,” wherein individuals contort empirical data to conform to their group’s prevailing dogma, often unwittingly. Our cognitive faculties, far from impartial arbiters, are conscripted into the service of tribal fidelity.
The Invisibility of Bias: A Cognitive Blind Spot
Most insidiously, this tribal sway operates covertly, evading detection by its host. We remain persuaded that our political convictions derive from rigorous logic and empirical scrutiny. “I have reasoned this thoroughly,” we assure ourselves, blind to the subterranean machinations of our instincts. This self-deception persists because conceding the merit of opposing perspectives feels akin to treason against our tribe—a notion our brains are evolutionarily primed to resist. Thus, two observers may witness the same occurrence and emerge with antithetical interpretations, each steadfast in their rationality.
Tribalism in Action: Analogies from Sport and Kinship
Consider the fervent partisanship of sports rivalries, such as that between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. Fans do not dispassionately assess each maneuver; they vociferously champion their side and excoriate the adversary, heedless of objective merit. Likewise, in familial spheres, one might defend a sibling’s fallacious stance out of filial loyalty. In the political domain, party affiliation assumes the mantle of kinship, impelling us to uphold its cause with unwavering devotion, even when the contest is merely ideological.
Conclusion: Transcending the Tribal Mirage
Are partisan politics “real”? Not in the conventional sense. They are less a crucible of ideological conviction than a vestige of our tribal lineage, cloaked in modern trappings. Our instinctual hostility, once a bulwark of survival, now propels us to construe political foes as existential threats, obfuscating our judgment in ways that elude introspection.
Yet, therein lies a prospect for redemption: by discerning these evolutionary delusions, we may commence their transcendence. By interrogating our visceral impulses, engaging with divergent viewpoints, and recognizing the “other” as a compatriot rather than a foe, we can forge a path toward a more enlightened political discourse.
The Path Forward: Dissolving the Tribal Enchantment
Envision a polity where such awareness proliferates: political dialogue would transmute from strident cacophony into cogent deliberation. Policies would be appraised on their intrinsic virtues, unshackled from partisan lineage. Compromise would be extolled as a virtue, not vilified as capitulation, fostering governance of greater efficacy. Pressing exigencies—climate change, healthcare, education—might witness substantive progress as bipartisan collaboration flourished, prioritizing pragmatic resolutions over tribal brinkmanship.
This metamorphosis is attainable, for at our essence, humans yearn for an unadulterated grasp of reality. Tribalism, that cunning artificer, garbs our biases as verities, but once we pierce its veil, we can unravel its dominion. We may challenge our precipitous judgments, heed voices beyond our ideological enclaves, and embrace our fallibility—not to forsake our convictions but to anchor them in truth.
To ascertain whether one is ensnared, ponder this diagnostic: recall the latest pronouncement or deed from the opposing faction. Does it instinctively cast in a pejorative light with presumed mendacity or malevolence? How frequently does this reflex govern one’s response? In a state of objectivity, one would encounter a spectrum of concord and dissent, not an unrelenting torrent of antipathy. No entity—least of all a major political party buttressed by millions—is wholly nefarious. If their every act appears odious or erroneous, it is likely one’s perceptual prism, not their chronicle, that is awry.
Now, conjure an impartial spectator—perhaps an extraterrestrial sojourner—surveying our political panorama. They would not behold one faction as exemplars and the other as malefactors. Rather, they would discern a tapestry of notions—some laudable, others dubious—strewn across the partisan divide. They would espy the shared aspirations obscured by discord’s clamor. This is the vantage we must cultivate: not reflexive tribal fealty, but a lucid, discerning apprehension of reality. It is an arduous endeavor, yet it constitutes the fulcrum of a more rational, cohesive society.
Should this awakening burgeon collectively, political stasis would yield to advancement as individuals ceased demonizing one another and commenced collaborative problem-solving. Media echo chambers would wane as we demanded veracity over partisan advocacy. Communities would mend, familial estrangements would abate, and democracy would undergo a vital renaissance—all because we had finally sundered the illusions that have long impeded our progress.