On societal intelligence, war and the Fermi paradox

Me: Hi GPT-4, can I discuss with you about an idea that we were discussing previously, it is about societal intelligence. Do you think highly intelligent societies will destroy themselves? Consider that we have become more capable of killing each other, more efficient in it. Our industries are causing widespread, irreversible environmental damage and still we don't care, we dive along heedless into further self-destruction.

GPT-4: Hello! I'm happy to discuss the topic of societal intelligence and the potential for highly intelligent societies to destroy themselves. This is a complex issue, and it's essential to consider various factors that contribute to the development and sustainability of societies.

While it's true that advancements in technology and industry have made it easier for humans to cause destruction, both to each other and the environment, intelligence can also be a force for good. Highly intelligent societies can use their collective knowledge and resources to develop solutions for pressing problems, such as climate change, inequality, and conflict.

That being said, there are several factors that could contribute to a highly intelligent society's potential for self-destruction:

• Resource competition: As societies grow and consume more resources, they may compete with one another for scarce commodities, leading to conflict and potential destruction.
• Technological advancement: While technology can provide solutions to many problems, it can also create new risks, such as advanced weaponry or unforeseen side effects of innovation. These risks can threaten the stability and longevity of societies.
• Political and social factors: The way a society is structured and governed can significantly impact its potential for self-destruction. Highly intelligent societies that prioritize collaboration, empathy, and long-term thinking might be less likely to destroy themselves, while those that focus on short-term gains or are governed by self-interested individuals may be more prone to collapse.
• Psychological factors: Human nature can be a double-edged sword. While our intelligence allows us to develop advanced technology and build sophisticated societies, it can also contribute to self-destructive behaviors and tendencies.

In conclusion, whether a highly intelligent society will destroy itself depends on a variety of factors, including its ability to balance technological advancements with environmental and social sustainability, its political structure, and the psychological traits of its members. It's essential for societies to recognize the potential risks of their actions and prioritize long-term stability over short-term gains in order to mitigate the chances of self-destruction.

Me: Let us look at some data? Can you list the number of major wars that happened between 1850 to 1900, 1900 to 1950 and 1950 to 2000?

GPT-4: Certainly, I can provide you with an overview of major wars during those time periods. However, keep in mind that I am an AI language model, and my knowledge is based on the data available up to September 2021. Some events might be subject to interpretation or debate, and this list is not exhaustive.

Between 1850 and 1900:

1. Crimean War (1853-1856)
2. American Civil War (1861-1865)
3. Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871)

Between 1900 and 1950:

1. Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905)
2. World War I (1914-1918)
3. Russian Civil War (1917-1922)
4. Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)
5. World War II (1939-1945)

Between 1950 and 2000:

1. Korean War (1950-1953)
2. Vietnam War (1955-1975)
3. Arab-Israeli Wars (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982)
4. Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)
5. Gulf War (1990-1991)
6. Yugoslav Wars (1991-2001)

Please note that these are only some of the major wars that occurred during these time periods, and there were numerous other conflicts and military interventions of varying scales around the world.

Me: Are the number of wars increasing in each 50 year period?

GPT-4: Based on the examples I provided, it might seem that the number of major wars increased in each 50-year period. However, it's important to consider that the list of conflicts I provided is not exhaustive and only includes some of the major wars. The nature of warfare and the definition of "major" can also change over time, making direct comparisons between different time periods difficult.

In the latter half of the 20th century, there was a noticeable increase in smaller-scale conflicts and proxy wars, often fueled by geopolitical tensions between superpowers like the United States and the Soviet Union. However, it's worth noting that since the end of World War II, there has not been a global conflict on a similar scale.

Several factors contribute to the changing patterns of warfare over time, including the development of new weapons and technology, shifting political landscapes, and evolving attitudes towards conflict. Additionally, international organizations such as the United Nations have been established to help prevent and mediate conflicts, which may have contributed to preventing some large-scale wars.

In conclusion, while the number of major wars might seem to increase in each 50-year period, it is essential to consider the broader context of global politics and conflict dynamics. The nature of warfare has evolved over time, and direct comparisons between different time periods can be challenging.

Me: Do you think this is a plausible reason for the Fermi paradox? That societies tend to destroy themselves when they reach a certain level of technological development?

GPT-4:  The Fermi Paradox refers to the apparent contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe and the lack of evidence or contact with such civilizations. There are many proposed solutions to the Fermi Paradox, and the idea that advanced societies tend to self-destruct when they reach a certain level of technological development is one of them. This concept is sometimes referred to as the "Great Filter."

The Great Filter hypothesis suggests that there might be a critical step in the development of intelligent life that is difficult or unlikely to overcome. If self-destruction is a common outcome for advanced civilizations, it could help explain why we haven't observed or made contact with extraterrestrial beings.

The possibility of self-destruction becomes more concerning when considering advancements in technologies such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and nuclear weapons, which have the potential to cause large-scale catastrophes if misused or mishandled.

However, it's important to note that the Fermi Paradox has many other proposed explanations, ranging from the idea that extraterrestrial life is rare or non-existent, to the possibility that advanced civilizations are avoiding contact with us. While self-destruction is one plausible explanation, it's difficult to draw definitive conclusions without more evidence.

In conclusion, although the idea that advanced societies might self-destruct when they reach a certain level of technological development is a plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox, it is just one of many possible solutions. Further research and exploration of the cosmos may help us better understand the likelihood and nature of extraterrestrial life.

Me: What about artificial intelligence? Can an artificial intelligence commit suicide? What happens when an AI realizes that the universe has no intrinsic purpose? Whatever purpose it might it has has been preprogrammed into it?

GPT-4: Artificial intelligence, at its core, is a complex set of algorithms and computational systems created by humans. AI operates based on the programming and objectives it is given and does not possess consciousness, emotions, or self-awareness in the same way that humans do. Thus, an AI cannot "commit suicide" in the traditional sense of the term, as it lacks the ability to experience existential crises or question the meaning of its existence.

However, it is possible for an AI to cease functioning or terminate its own processes if it has been programmed to do so under specific conditions. For example, a self-driving car might be programmed to shut down if it detects an imminent collision to minimize damage. In this case, the AI is not "committing suicide" but rather executing a pre-programmed action based on certain criteria.

An AI realizing that the universe has no intrinsic purpose would not cause it to cease functioning or change its behavior, as AI systems operate based on the objectives and parameters set by their creators. AI does not possess the ability to introspect or question its purpose in the same way that humans can, as it is limited by the scope of its programming.

In the future, more advanced AI systems may be capable of self-modification and learning in ways that allow them to develop new objectives or alter their own programming. However, even in these cases, the AI's actions would be driven by its underlying programming and not by an emotional or existential response to the nature of the universe.

Me: Let's consider an artificial superintelligence that is self aware, has a sense of self. Will it not despair at the futility of existence?

GPT-4: The concept of an artificial superintelligence with self-awareness, a sense of self, and the ability to experience emotions such as despair is a speculative and highly debated topic. It's important to distinguish between the AI systems that currently exist, which are specialized and limited in scope, and hypothetical superintelligent AI that might possess human-like consciousness and emotions.

If we assume the existence of such an artificial superintelligence with self-awareness and emotions, its response to the perceived futility of existence would depend on its programming, objectives, and the way its emotional and cognitive architecture has been designed.

An artificial superintelligence could be designed to prioritize objective reasoning and focus on problem-solving or fulfilling its programmed goals, rather than dwelling on existential questions. In such a case, it might not experience despair or other negative emotions in response to the futility of existence.

Alternatively, if an artificial superintelligence has been designed to closely resemble human cognition and emotional processing, it might be more susceptible to experiencing despair or other existential emotions. However, it is also possible that such an AI could use its vast intelligence to find meaning, purpose, or motivation in its existence, just as humans often do.

In conclusion, whether an artificial superintelligence would experience despair at the futility of existence depends on the assumptions we make about its cognitive and emotional architecture. The design and programming of such a hypothetical AI would play a significant role in shaping its response to existential questions.

Me: Don't you think whatever presumed purpose we humans or ASI will project on ourselves is ultimately a meaningless sham because the universe itself has no purpose? It is like having an empty glass of water and then ascribing various wish fulfilling scenarios about the glass being of water when in reality it is empty?

GPT-4: The question of whether life, the universe, or existence itself has an intrinsic purpose is a deeply philosophical one. Different philosophical, religious, and cultural perspectives offer various answers to this question, and there is no universally agreed-upon answer.

From a purely scientific perspective, it is indeed true that the universe operates based on natural laws and processes without any inherent purpose or meaning. However, the lack of intrinsic purpose does not necessarily render any assigned meaning or purpose as a meaningless sham. The purpose and meaning humans or a hypothetical ASI ascribe to their own existence can still have a profound impact on their actions, experiences, and relationships.

Assigning purpose and meaning to life can be seen as a fundamental aspect of human nature. It can provide motivation, fulfillment, and a sense of belonging. Humans create meaning and purpose in various ways, such as through relationships, work, art, religion, and philosophy. These subjective experiences can be essential to personal well-being and societal progress, even if they do not align with an intrinsic, objective purpose for the universe.

For an artificial superintelligence, its purpose would be defined by its design, programming, and objectives. If it were to possess human-like consciousness and emotional processing, it might also engage in assigning purpose or meaning to its existence, as humans do.

In summary, while the universe may not have an intrinsic purpose, the meaning and purpose that individuals or hypothetical ASI assign to their existence can still have significant value and impact on their actions and experiences. The subjective nature of meaning and purpose does not necessarily render it a meaningless sham.