But that's how games work. Olympics, for example. Yeah, there are these cooperative win/win games, but evolution is not of that kind, I'm afraid.
Conversation
Please stop. Find one game with 10,000 players, where 9,999 are labeled losers, one labeled winner. You correctly brought up the gene narrative, a cornerstone of the theory of evolution, and I pointed out for this very reason, evolution is not about winners and losers.
1
Every game in Olympics. You have hundreds of athletes that compete in national championships, then 1 or some more go to Olympics, then one of these thousands win.
1
Please, show me one game with 10,000 participants, where 9,999 will be declared losers, and one declared winner. Stop fooling around.
1
Chess, if you don't like Olympics. There are millions of chess players and Magnus Carlsen is reigning world champion. He is the winner.
1
Yet thousands and thousands of other players are also called winners. Please stop.
1
Yeah, but look at this other way: you can certainly name those who lose at chess. They are losers. And those who are not losers - they are winners. Intermediate winners. That's just how I look at this.
1
If you want to continue the mental gymnastics, and we know AI can beat any human chess player, what conclusion will you have to be forced to draw?
1
That's complicated. AI doesn't have that genetic lust for life and will to survive at any cost. Because it doesn't have our physical genes. And that gives me a slight hope that humanity won't be wiped out soon.
1
If humanity creates AI with the goal of defeating the humanity, and succeeds in doing so, is humanity the winner or the loser? If humanity fails at its goal, and ultimately defeats AI, is humanity the loser or the winner? You see why I think you started off with the wrong foot?
1
1) obviously loser, 2) winner. That goal is insane, suicide cannot be a win.