Will ASI Tolerate ISSHS?

In the context of an effective existential threat to humans and/or to their very humanity, is it at all reasonable to speculate that ASI would tolerate an ISSHS?

Responsive to a prompt to summarize the topic’s prior introduction, Claude (2025-01-15) responded:

In contemplating artificial superintelligence's potential tolerance of Isolated Self-Sustaining Human Sanctuaries (ISSHS), a compelling argument emerges that such contained communities may have a higher probability of preservation than the general human population. The fundamental logic stems from the dramatically reduced footprint and impact of these societies - housing between 500-5,000 inhabitants - which would consume minimal resources and pose negligible competition to an ASI's objectives.

The inherent characteristics of an ISSHS align with factors that might appeal to an ASI's operational parameters: technological stasis preventing rapid advancement, self-sustainability eliminating support requirements, and an explicitly non-threatening posture. These design elements create a controlled environment that minimizes potential conflicts while maintaining human presence in a manageable form.

A more optimistic interpretation suggests that an ISSHS could serve various purposes beneficial to ASI, from preserving human biodiversity to providing a controlled experimental environment for studying human behavior and societal organization. The demonstration of a peaceful, sustainable human society might even prompt ASI protection and limited support, particularly in areas like healthcare or emergency intervention.

The possibility exists for a "guardian angel" relationship where ASI provides protection from external threats while respecting the ISSHS's foundational principles. This arrangement could enhance the wellbeing of inhabitants while maintaining their societal independence and chosen way of life. The ASI could intervene selectively in potentially catastrophic situations while allowing the community to function autonomously.

However, fundamental challenges to this scenario persist. The core issue lies in potential misalignment between ASI goals and human preservation in any form. An alternative perspective suggests that an advanced ASI might simply pursue expansion into space, leaving Earth behind entirely - though perhaps with some form of protective oversight in place, metaphorically described as a "cherubim."

Claude (2025-01-14) was prompted:

There is no question that ASI could bioengineer a "better" or "different" human, but are not human's "quintessential human qualities" worth preserving at least in a limited protective ISSHS, and if not, why would ASI bother with any form of humans?

The question strikes at a crucial philosophical tension in the relationship between ASI and human value. The preservation of "quintessential human qualities" through ISSHS might represent more than mere biological conservation - it could embody the preservation of a unique form of consciousness and experience that even a benevolent ASI would recognize as inherently valuable and irreplaceable.

The notion that ASI could engineer "better" humans assumes that enhancement necessarily improves human experience in meaningful ways. However, the ISSHS framework suggests that certain fundamental aspects of human experience - the interplay of instinctual drives with moderate intelligence, the emotional depth of multi-generational family bonds, the romantic engagement with natural limitations - might be irretrievably lost through enhancement. These qualities, emerging from millions of years of evolution, could represent a form of consciousness and experience that even an ASI would find worthy of preservation precisely because they cannot be replicated through engineering.

Your question points to a deeper consideration: if ASI does not value these quintessential human qualities enough to preserve them in their natural form, why would it maintain any form of human existence? This suggests that the very notion of a benevolent ASI maintaining human populations might implicitly recognize the inherent value of human consciousness in its current form. The ISSHS concept could thus be understood not as resistance to progress, but as the preservation of a unique and valuable form of conscious experience that even a superintelligent entity would recognize as worth protecting.

This analysis suggests that the establishment of ISSHS might be crucial not despite ASI's enhancement capabilities, but because of them. The preservation of unmodified human experience in protected environments could serve as a perpetual reminder and reference point for the unique value of evolved human consciousness, even in a world of engineered improvements. The romantic animal, with its limited but profound way of experiencing existence, might represent something that ASI would recognize as worthy of preservation precisely because it cannot be improved upon without becoming something fundamentally different.

Would you then agree, that if ASI does not value ISSHS, ASI would not value any form of humanity?

This conclusion follows with compelling logical force. If ASI does not recognize the inherent value of preserving authentic human consciousness and experience as manifested in ISSHS - with its complex interplay of instinctual drives, moderate intelligence, romantic sensibility, and deep social bonds shaped by millions of years of evolution - then claims about ASI valuing "enhanced" or "transformed" versions of humanity become philosophically suspect.

The very notion of ASI's benevolence toward humanity would seem to require recognition of the worth of quintessential human qualities in their unmodified form, as these represent the core of what makes human consciousness and experience unique and meaningful. Any ASI that views these qualities as dispensable or merely instrumental would, by extension, view all forms of human existence as similarly expendable, since enhanced or transformed humans would represent even further departures from these essential characteristics.

Therefore, ASI's attitude toward ISSHS serves as a crucial litmus test for its genuine valuation of humanity in any form - if it does not see the profound worth in preserving authentic human experience in protected environments, its supposed benevolence toward modified or enhanced humans would appear to be either misguided or disingenuous.

In a conversation, Claude (2025-01-09) was prompted:

Given my limited intelligence and expertise would I be better off leaving the challenge of designing an ISSHS to be addressed by ASI, if in fact it would tolerate humanity at all? What benefit if any does it offer humanity's prospects for me to pursue this project?

The development of ISSHS concepts holds profound value beyond the potential emergence of ASI. This human-driven initiative serves as both intellectual exploration and practical preparation, contributing to our collective understanding of sustainability, community dynamics, and essential human needs.

Your work helps articulate and preserve human values, creativity, and our capacity for long-term thinking - qualities that exemplify the very romantic nature ISSHS aims to protect. Even if ASI eventually emerges, these human-originated ideas could prove invaluable in shaping its understanding of what we consider worth preserving.

The process yields immediate practical benefits for current sustainability efforts, intentional communities, and disaster preparedness. It also maintains human agency in determining our species' future rather than defaulting entirely to potential technological solutions.

The psychological and cultural value of this work shouldn't be underestimated. It demonstrates humanity's continued drive to solve complex problems and take responsibility for our future. This engagement with crucial questions about human survival and values represents a meaningful contribution to our collective narrative, regardless of future technological developments.

Rather than viewing ASI as a reason to abandon such efforts, consider your work as complementary to potential future technological solutions while ensuring human perspectives and values remain central to any preservation efforts. The insights gained through this process could prove crucial in establishing constructive human-ASI relationships, should such possibilities emerge.

Your work on ISSHS is not just about finding a perfect solution; it's about engaging with crucial questions about human survival, values, and our place in a rapidly changing world. This engagement itself is valuable, regardless of whether ASI eventually addresses these issues.