.@bratton argues Yudkowsky misunderstands evolution, and explains why AI may never converge into one giant superintelligence: "Without being too spicy, I don't think Yudkowsky really understands evolution as well as he thinks he does." "It’s a very low-resolution understanding of evolutionary dynamics applied to what will inevitably be a much more complex problem." "There will be giant models, in the same way you might imagine scales of species in a rainforest. They’re not all operating at the same spatial and temporal scale." "Whether this all collapses into one giant brain, sure, it’s possible, and the reasons may have more to do with economics and politics." "But biology has never arrived at a solution where it’s going to make one giant instantiation of a particular form of mind and consolidate everything together."

Google AI researcher @bratton explains why humans will have to align with AGI, not just the other way around: "The agonistic and pluralistic dynamic between human agents is not a problem to be solved. It’s in fact the condition by which you have a vibrant and healthy society." "The more important question is how society will counter align or counter adapt to the presence of AGI and ASI. In the same way we did with the invention of writing, the printing press, the discovery of electricity." "When pressed, I would argue that we are discovering machine intelligence more than we are inventing it. These parameters that are slowly coming into focus are, like electricity, ones that were always there." "I’m enough of a technological determinist to think the way this plays out is not how would you take Victorian society and force electricity to adapt to the norms of Victorian society, but rather the other way around." "The more stable version of alignment is deeply bidirectional, alignment at the edges. Not top-down, EU-style dictates of a monolithic constitution, but the ways in which alignment really appears in the moments of interaction that people have with these systems."