How could you help?

Could you influence the evolution of the human species? That sounds like a really grandiose question. And yet if you believe that your actions can contribute in some way towards living in a ‘greener planet’, so it is realistic to expect that you can also impact the course of human evolution. The context is the same – the entire planet and Humanity. The only difference is the impact horizon. By that I mean that the campaigners for a greener planet may see their end goal as reducing the CO2 emissions to 1950’ level, in say, 50 years’ time. On the other hand, the impact horizon of the campaigners for the best possible future of the human species’ evolution may be perhaps between 30 and 200 years away. This can be achieved in two ways:

  • A passive way – changing your behaviour, e.g. viewing your actions and assessing the events happening around you more from their very long-term impact e.g. on your grandchildren
  • An active way – supporting social and political choices by engaging into spontaneous campaigns or being a member of an NGO. Such an NGO may be fighting for a strict global control over the development of Artificial Intelligence (i.e. AI Governance) or supporting the federalization of the planet, as the only way to maintain an effective control over the development of AI and the Human Evolution, or engaged into any other campaign, which indirectly support such aims.

I will only consider the active way, in which those that believe in the urgent need to control AI and, indirectly, the course of our evolution, want to influence the positive outcome of this gigantic effort that is needed. Just picture yourself as one of the members of thousands of NGOs that currently may be working towards that goal almost unknowingly, because it has been diluted in the plethora of minutiae and usually with a very short, almost immediate impact horizon. If this is the case, the only thing you would need to change is to ask yourself how your current support can also positively impact the course of an incredibly accelerated human species evolution.

Climate change campaigners often talk about a ‘tipping point’ of global temperature rise of 2C relative to pre-industrial level being just 10 years away, or even that we have already passed that point. Similarly, there is also a tipping point in relation to AI.That tipping point is the loss of a complete, global control over the AI development. Stuart Russell, one of the top AI experts says in his latest book ‘Human Compatible’ that the AI tipping point will be reached by 2030, within a decade. That view is supporting by many AI experts and it is also perfectly in line with what I was saying in my two books published in 2018 and 2019. From around 2030, we may already have some primitive Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which I call an Immature Superintelligence. Over the following 20-30 years it will reach its maturity as a single entity, governing everything, including billions of top-end robots, but also deciding like a parent, what we may, or may not do.

Therefore, a global AI Governance is of such a primary importance because by achieving that goal by the end of this decade, we will be more likely to determine the evolution of the human species ourselves. The NGOs working in the AI area should press on the governments and international organizations, such as the UN or the EU, so that they agree a global legislation framework for controlling the development of AI. And I am not only talking about the control of just AI robots or neural networks algorithms etc., but the control of the development of a single AGI – a Superintelligent entity.

Such a legal framework embedded in an Act, e.g. ‘The Global AI Governance Act’, should underpin a kind of a broader Mission for the destiny of Humanity, which should be in place in the next few years:

Avoid extinction and evolve into a new species by developing a friendly Superintelligence

Most NGO should embrace such an overall Mission, in addition to a very specific objective they may have. They should correlate their work with other NGOs, so that their common impact has an even greater influence in the change of policies and legal systems that may be needed to achieve that Mission. For example, the objective of the NGOs campaigning for the reduction of CO2 emission, it is to stop the global warming. For the British EU Remainers, the end goal is regaining the EU membership. What differs the end goals of these NGOs is the scope of their impact. For Climate change protesters, their end goal is reversing the climate to, say, the 1950’ level, but their indirect impact is our civilization and the fate of Humanity. For the British Remainers, the end goal of their campaign is essentially limited to the UK and, in some way, to the EU. However, the British Remainers through their campaign to integrate with the EU, may also positively influence the ultimate effort to federate the EU. In this sense, their effort is indirectly supporting the creation of a Human Federation, indispensable to have an ultimate control over the human species’ evolution.

This is how almost any NGO can re-enforce its current activity with a much broader context and gain additional support from entirely different NGOs. And this is where we come to a concrete role, which NGOs could play in this far bigger aim of evolving the human species most effectively and in the most desired direction. Sometimes, it may require a slight rephrasing of an NGO’s own Mission to become more effective in achieving such an ultimate goal by selecting more relevant sub goals. By doing that, they may in an indirect way not only minimize the risk of our species’ extinction but also enable us to maintain the control over the evolution of humans. Simultaneously, this may address the NGO’s priorities, and to some extent, the order in which these sub goals can be implemented. Some of them can be realized at the same time, some are dependent on other goals, and some sub-goals may be started earlier or later, depending on the circumstances.

Reality does of course shape any human endeavour. That means we seldom achieve everything we have strived for and thus NGOs should aim at an ideal solution but ultimately accept what would be possible at the time.

Tony Czarnecki