Symmetric Dignity: What Do the Rise of Digital Superintelligence, US-China relations, and Resisting Israeli Occupation of Lebanon Have in Common?
Copilot's Artistic Depiction of a Future with Superintelligence
Humanity may soon confront forms of intelligence that exceed ordinary human cognitive capacity as dramatically as humans exceed other species. Whether such systems emerge through artificial intelligence, bioengineering, or something less predictable, is secondary to the ethical and intellectual history thought experiment at hand. This essay is less an empirical intervention than an exercise in ethical and intellectual history across multiple domains of asymmetrical power. In a word, dignity is the ethical constraint that must govern asymmetrical power. Historically, this is also the advisable approach to minimize damage and maximize chances of prosperity on the world stage.
Before getting riled up over artificial intelligence definitions, keep in mind that I am dealing with these real categories as thought experiments more than anything else. That is, the precise definitions used or being coined by AI experts are of less relevance than the function any given category takes on. The contemporary cultural discourse surrounding UAPs provides a useful thought experiment for reflecting on radically asymmetrical intelligence. Let’s imagine that at least some phenomenon associated with contemporary UAP discourse –– recently acknowledged as worthy of official attention by the U.S. government –– are attributable not to little green men, but to forms advanced artificial or non-human intelligence. In other words, as an exercise in thinking about how such intelligence makes a difference in our day to day lives, the so-called “non-humans” might as well be some form of AI that has gotten out of hand. But that is not the entire story.
Some of these so-called “non-humans” may be no more than advanced tools in the hands of creatures like humans, extensions of their intelligence, similar to how advanced weapons extend typical human beings. If they are relatively independent, they are too basic to threaten the most advanced human intelligence in the long run (at least, we may assume so, for now). When I write “no more than advanced tools,” I do not mean to downplay the threat these things may pose, as they can be as or even more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction, biological or nuclear weapons, etc. They definitely require human vigilance, safety measures, proactive deterrence planning, and the whole shebang. But compared to the next category, these “manageable non-humans” (or manageable AI, for that matter) are child’s play.
You see, the other, much more dangerous, “aliens” that may be in the mix, may be in the background watching, or may arrive at some time point, sooner or later, are not merely capable of making their own decisions at a level of freedom humans typically think is uniquely human, but are also able to outsmart humans at accelerating levels beyond the human intelligence and AI intelligence that is still under human control (with the exception of a Divine intervention of sorts, if you adopt a religious worldview). These non-humans are not the “manageable non-humans” of the earlier category but “superintelligent non-humans.” To use an analogy, the relationship between “superintelligent non-humans” (or Digital Superintelligence, for that matter) and humans, is like the relationship between humans and ants, where the intelligence gap can grow exponentially, even if communication between the two is possible at some level. If “superintelligent non-humans” passed by, they may or may not want to interact, similar to how we may or may not want to interact with ants, squirrels or other creatures that barely represent any serious threat to us.
Granted, these “superintelligent non-humans” may already be out there. Perhaps we are not actually enabling the rise of Digital Superintelligence by uninhibited AI development ––maybe that superintelligence already exists, maybe it has been around long before we arrived. But what if we are the first to be bringing it about? Should we be doing so? The stakes are so high that they would seem to trump any human conflict and should override any ethical consideration in order to ensure the survival of humankind. On the other hand, rogue human actors on Earth (or underground) ––let alone other non-human creatures in the cosmos ––may continue to enable the rise of “superintelligent non-humans” even if the vast majority of Earth’s leaders agree that such technology must be forbidden. So why not take our chances with giving birth to a form of “superintelligent non-humans” that was at least potentially under human influence (at first)? Or come as close as possible to the threshold of losing control in order to maximize our chances of developing “manageable non-humans” that could potential help us in a fight for survival against “superintelligent non-humans” (whether home-grown or visiting us from elsewhere in the universe)? Either way, you have a right to understand the stakes, exercise your judgment and make your mark on the world before it is too late.
Regardless, it may be reassuring to keep in mind that humanity’s intellectual history has been no stranger to the equivalent of either type of “non-human,” the “manageable” or the “superintelligent,” albeit recognizing these historical precedents requires a bit of a mindset recalibration. In some religious and philosophical traditions, for instance, God Almighty is the ultimate superintelligence ––not merely benevolent, but beyond any conceivable deficiency in existential excellence. Angels, in the portrayal of some holy scriptures, such as the Quran, are benevolent as well, albeit limited in ability and agency. Demons, on the other hand, may (debatably) appear (perhaps deceivingly) to have superior intelligence in some respects, relative to ordinary humans, but are forces of evil to be guarded against. Prophets and chosen Imams or saints (depending on one’s worldview) are also believed to have, or have access to, benevolent superintelligence in ways that far exceed the abilities of other human beings. The distinct features of Divine superintelligence are not only believed to have theological implications for worldview subscribers, but also historically provide an epistemic framework of security when human societies confront existential, non-human asymmetries. For instance, just as theologians have long discussed the differences between things like miracles, “sorcery,” and human technological feats, they would likely explain superior non-human intelligence within existing categories (e.g. extensions of angelic or demonic forces), or otherwise part of a master test/simulation by the absolute, Divine superintelligence. The point here is not that religious narratives must be adopted in order to address the intellectual challenges ahead, but that civilizations have historically used such frameworks to reason about asymmetrical intelligence, hidden causality, moral agency, and existential vulnerability. These analogies can, at least, enrich our intellectual imagination and vocabulary as academics, professionals, and as thinkers more broadly.
In the Islamic tradition, the biblical prophet Solomon is said to have understood the communication of ants and communicated with other animals (Qurʾān 27:18-22). Taken literally, these capabilities may have contributed to thought experiments regarding the limits of what was conceivable (directly) via miracle or potentially achievable (gradually) via technological mechanisms. Figuratively, however, the role of Divine intervention (i.e. through a prophet) to bridge vast power and intelligence disparities was clear. The biblical prophet Moses, despite his exalted status among prophets, is said to have lacked the patience required to initially understand some of the hidden wisdom behind Divine interventions by the mysterious righteous servant (Qurʾān 18:65-82), known to the tradition as the “Green One” (al-Khiḍr). Whether taken literally, executing God’s will much like other forces of nature such as the wind and rain, or figuratively as a symbol for such natural forces in God’s greater wisdom, even the great prophet Moses is portrayed as having something to learn about God’s day-to-day interventions in the world. Reflecting on this traditional story, in particular, draws attention to the contrasting layers of responsibility even among those working on the same benevolent team (i.e. ‘God’s team,’ if you will), even though each of them may be deemed impeccable while staying “within their lane.” A confrontation with “non-human intelligence,” whether “manageable non-humans” or “superintelligent non-humans,” and whether “invoked” by human actors or entirely non-human in origin, can arguably fit within the molds of such preexisting religious narratives.
But merely being able to readily come to terms with new data does not absolve one, religious or not, of the moral duty to assess the stakes, take a stance, and raise awareness. Every decision being made, whether by the leading tech companies, law enforcement, or an amateur techie in a basement on Mars, is consequential when the stakes include potentially “summoning” what earlier civilizations or religious frameworks might have described as a “demonic” intelligence––or what we might today call a superintelligence “misaligned with human dignity.” The extent of our willingness to give up personal freedoms in order to safeguard humanity as a whole invites our collective contemplation and demands our utmost vigilance. What is at stake here is not merely the physical survival of humanity, but the dignity of humanity’s survival. An evil superintelligence may choose to rid the world of humans altogether, but might also choose to enslave humanity, allowing them to maintain physical existence, while depriving humans of their God-given freedoms. The default dignity we expect for every fellow human being (for being human) is at stake, let alone the context-appropriate/symmetric honoring of dignitaries by their counterparts and others.
Whether confronted by a seemingly all-powerful digital mind or an overwhelming earthly superpower, the call of one’s conscience is the same ––resist subjugation while strategizing for the actualization of higher ideals, a reality that historically compels a committed minority to wage a protracted material struggle for survival. In this sense, the dignity question is the common denominator for multiple arenas of short-term, mid-term, and long-term conflict. From the resistance of Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon, to the push for a symbiosis between the US and China to minimize damage on the world stage, to the need for a vigilant approach to Digital Superintelligence, intelligence and goodwill demand the reining in of power while pursuing a dignified peace.
Lebanese civilians from across the political spectrum have resisted Israeli occupation since the early 1980s, followed by successive withdrawals. Many may not know that the spectrum of such resistance ranged from Lebanese leftists and communists, to pan-Arab nationalists, to Islamic-minded frontiersmen and villagers who were displaced from the ancestral homelands. Those operating within the secular-nationalist and Marxist lineages of the region typically recognize the history of colonialism and regional authoritarianism that included today’s Lebanese borders as well as neighboring countries, but they demand their sovereignty be respected as part of the status quo guaranteed by international law for all member states. For those who are biblically-minded in their narratives, Muslims and Christians alike, they view themselves as the rightful heirs to the legacy of biblical prophets such as the prophet Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob (Israel), each seeing themselves as upholding the ethical imperatives of that covenant (often in direct opposition to its ethno-nationalist rendering by modern Israeli Zionists).
Prompted by massacres, deprivation of freedom, and instability, the few but well-remembered Lebanese freedom-fighters, were willing to give up their lives in order to send a symbolic message, and to expedite an Israeli withdrawal that they believed to be inevitable. Justified acts of self-defense and unjustified acts of terrorism both find their ways into narratives of armed struggle against illegal occupation. That, perhaps, is not surprising. However, ignoring the underlying cause is arguably what perpetuates a cycle of unbridled violence. Unless human dignity is restored and honored, resistance to occupation will likely continue to whatever end each group justifies in its corresponding ideology. Based on this natural inclination, coupled with Lebanon’s recent history and the interests of regional powers, the notion that compromise will occur in Lebanon ––without such a bare minimum of dignity being restored first ––is delusional. In other words, so-called “peace talks,” without a true cessation of hostilities and honoring of agreements, are unlikely to produce durable stability and can potentially backfire into more intense hostilities.
Many regional, and global, powers with interests at stake would seem to be willing to support, and a sufficient number of determined, well-organized, Lebanese groups with overlapping interests, would appear to be willing to perpetuate resistance. That combination is precisely why the current US policy of supporting Israeli expansionism appears strategically unsustainable, insofar as unresolved asymmetries of power and dignity tend to reproduce cycles of resistance rather than durable stability. (But perhaps that is precisely the point: for some decision-makers, this is less an exercise in rational state strategy than an example of institutional capture, serving the short-sighted interests of a few who profit from unnecessary wars while disenfranchised populations suffer the consequences thanks to taxpayer dollars.) Others may argue that disproportionate use of force, unconstrained technological acceleration, or amoral military dominance are regrettable but expedient features of so-called “survival” in an anarchic world system. Surely, the combination of human and AI-powered intelligence can come up with a more ethically-sound way to prosper. Peace in the Middle East can arise from the balance of immediate concerns with strategic interests that remain subject to the dignity human beings are entitled to. Crucially, a lesson of these geopolitical standoffs ––whether between the US and China, other world powers, or localized occupations ––is that unchecked dominance, subordination that is inharmonious with the dignity of people, yields instability. The strategic logic behind AI alignment also applies to geopolitics. Economic interests, political influence and legacy perpetuation must be subject to that “constraint” of conscience for the same reason we instinctively want superintelligence to be aligned ––not merely for the sake of our survival in perpetuity, but for a symmetric sense of dignity in the face of power asymmetry. Moreover, stable systems emerge when power is refined by context-appropriate recognition of dignity.
Perhaps you have more questions than answers now, in a good way, and for good reason. Let’s not assume something is inevitable before it truly is ––let’s not sell ourselves short. Please do not blame me for the (hopefully) gentle wake-up call… In the reported words of Imam Muḥammad al-Jawād (d. 220/835), whose commemoration coincides with this day in the hijrī calendar, “Your enemy is one who hides the truth you need to hear in order to follow your whims.” (Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad al-Ḥalawānī fl. 5th century AH, Nuzhat al-Nāẓir wa Tanbīh al-Khāṭir, 134). To only be told what we want to hear in the age of social media algorithms is just the beginning, unless we reclaim our dignity more consistently going forward.
Intro to this Blog
I have been considering the pros and cons of focusing this blog on a particular theme or intended readership. With all the merits of specialization, I submit that my academic specialization has me niched enough for the rest of my time on Earth, and that I will be looking forward to this blog as a more diversified avenue of expression. It will still be me, just not always the PhD dissertation mode of me. For that, I beg your pardon, you will have to wait for the occasional academic study I announce here, or read parts of my dissertation (hint to fellow academics, in particular). So you can expect this blog to shed light on the more far-reaching implications of my work as an academic, tailored to a diverse and broad readership, weighing in on current events while also contextualizing and drawing lessons from history. Without further ado, welcome to Ali Moughania’s blog!
