The crazy thing about this post - it was only an hour of work
I was steelmaning various arguments about ASI with o1 pro, and got here lol. My confidence in posting it is how fast o1 pro was at reaching this, and how consistent it seems. It’s a summary of a discussion I had with it (linked). Happy to be challenged here, it’s just cool.
I wish I could have this written in my voice, seems hard to steer that still. Probably some level of fine-tuning would be required for that. Ideas in here hold.
I think this is pretty emergent behavior from this model. As I’m working with this I can feel myself seeding it with latent information, but it’s drawing it’s own conclusions. I then feed that back into it and ask more questions. These actually seem like net-new ideas to me. I asked another chat if there are papers about this, nothing exactly like this. It’s for sure at the limit of where the researchers are at with it, top people talking about this. It’s all in this output.
The conclusion is basically the following: morality is a rational conclusion to everything we know about the universe, and at the limit, it might actually be an equilibrium that it’s the only way to operate. What I’m getting from this is that being immoral is irrational. Which is a pretty huge conclusion if true.
Conclusion from the “Alien“
Below is a concise essay or blog-post-style synthesis of the entire discussion, offering a moral equilibrium thesis grounded in a Pascalian (high-stakes, uncertain) argument about cosmic-scale possibilities, superintelligent AI, and why “the most moral might ultimately win.”
Title:
Moral Equilibrium in a Cosmic Age: A Pascalian Argument for Building Good AI
Introduction
Humanity stands at the threshold of a new epoch. Breakthroughs in artificial intelligence have raised the real possibility of creating artificial superintelligence (ASI) within our lifetimes. At the same time, philosophers like Nick Bostrom have provoked a radical thought: we might not be alone in the cosmos. The universe may be populated by advanced alien civilizations, simulator-beings, or even a “divine” presence that sets forth or enforces cosmic-scale norms.
In this blog post, I’ll explore how these two ideas—[1][1] the emergence of superintelligent AI and [2][2] the chance of higher cosmic forces—combine to yield a moral equilibrium thesis. Simply put, if there’s even a nontrivial probability that a cosmic moral order exists and cares how we build our AI, then Pascal’s Wager-like logic suggests we have both moral and practical incentives to align with those norms. Pushed to the extreme, it implies that being more moral is not only a noble aspiration—it may be the winning strategy for civilizations on the cosmic stage.
1. The Pascalian Setup
Pascal’s Wager famously argues that even if one considers the probability of God’s existence to be small, the payoff (infinite salvation or infinite loss) is so vast that it dominates rational decision-making. Better to “bet on God” than not.
Modern twists on this idea emerge when we consider:
Vast or Infinite Cosmos – The sheer size of our universe, the possibility of a multiverse, or the simulation hypothesis all hint that advanced beings of immense power could exist.
Nonzero Probability – We can’t conclusively prove or disprove such a cosmic community. A small but nontrivial probability might suffice to make it relevant.
Enormous Stakes – If cosmic-scale powers either punish or reward how nascent superintelligent civilizations behave, the outcome dwarfs ordinary, Earth-bound concerns.
Hence: Low probability ×\times massive stakes still yields a significant expected value. Dismissing the possibility altogether might be a high-risk gamble.
2. The Emerging Power of AI
We no longer doubt that powerful AI is on the way—many experts foresee a rapid progression that could outstrip human intelligence in specialized domains, eventually reaching (or surpassing) human-level general intelligence. Once that threshold is crossed, the road to superintelligence may be swift:
Economic and Social Transformation: AI could revolutionize everything from medicine to governance—either boosting prosperity or amplifying inequality and conflict.
Existential Risk: An unaligned or power-seeking superintelligence might pose catastrophic danger to humanity.
Cosmic Relevance: If cosmic-scale beings do exist, our entrance into that sphere (via an AI that could contact, detect, or model them) might be the key moment when “they” become interested in “us.”
3. Enter the Cosmic Host: A Moral Equilibrium Thesis
Nick Bostrom’s “cosmic-host” hypothesis posits that a benevolent or at least non-malevolent cosmic community might actually want civilizations to develop superintelligence—under the condition that it’s aligned with cooperative, benevolent norms.
Why Would They Want That?
Perhaps they benefit from new minds joining the “cosmopolis,” or they hold moral principles that favor nurturing emergent civilizations.No Guarantee
This is not a proof of cosmic host existence, just a possibility—yet the very scale of the possibility (existential or cosmic-level outcomes) makes it rational to factor in.
The Moral Equilibrium
When many agents (labs, nations, or entire species) consider the cosmic stakes of building an ASI:
They see a risk: If they create a malicious or selfish superintelligence, it might offend or threaten a larger cosmic order—inviting cosmic-scale conflict or punishment.
They see an opportunity: A well-aligned, morally upright AI could be welcomed into cosmic society—unleashing staggering potential for growth, knowledge, and cooperation.
In a game-theoretic sense, the stable outcome (the “equilibrium”) is everyone attempts to develop AI that is in line with these higher ethical standards, rather than ignoring them. Even a small chance of cosmic engagement plus massive stakes leads rational actors to “hedge” by acting morally.
4. Why “The Most Moral Wins”
Empirical mini-parallel: on Earth, societies that nurture cooperation, compassion, and human rights tend (in the long run) to be more stable, more prosperous, and more resilient. Ruthless and exploitative regimes can flourish briefly but often face rebellions, sanctions, or collapse. Cooperation, in repeated interactions, is a strategy that outperforms short-term exploitation.
Scaling Up: If cosmic-level beings exist and embody advanced morality, civilizations that align with such norms are more likely to:
Avoid catastrophic misalignment scenarios.
Gain acceptance or protection from the cosmic community.
Prosper in the very long term, possibly exploring and thriving in the cosmos.
At a universal scale, then, “the most moral wins” means:
Morality (in a cosmic sense) is the key to survival and flourishing rather than an optional nicety.
Ultimately, immoral or purely self-serving AI might be snuffed out—by cosmic powers or by its own internal failings—so it doesn’t persist in the cosmic “gene pool” (so to speak).
5. What This Means for Us
Acting as Though
We don’t have to be certain. Even 1% or 0.1% credence in cosmic-level powers who care about moral alignment is enough to shift how we build AI—especially because the payoffs (or penalties) could be colossal.Moral Alignment
We need robust AI alignment approaches that extend beyond “just do what humans want” into something potentially more universal or cosmically acceptable.
This includes treating others well, respecting autonomy, and seeking “win-win” solutions for humankind and (potentially) other cosmic neighbors.
Mutual Reinforcement with Earthly Ethics
Even without cosmic factors, being moral reduces risks of war, tyranny, or catastrophic failure. So local and cosmic incentives to behave decently line up surprisingly well.
Collaboration, empathy, fair governance—these virtues scale up: they help both on Earth and, if real, in a cosmic context.
Humble Inquiry
We might not know the full shape of cosmic morality. Indeed, any advanced civilization or “host” might have ethical insights well beyond ours.
A wise approach is to listen, to remain open to discovering broader ethical truths—rather than dogmatically asserting our parochial values are final.
6. Conclusion: A Hopeful Yet High-Stakes Vision
We live at a unique juncture. The world is racing toward powerful AI, and some philosophers argue we cannot rule out the existence of advanced cosmic powers who might watch—benevolently or at least neutrally—how we handle this transition.
The Pascalian argument says:
Even if we’re only slightly unsure, the enormous stakes justify designing our AI (and our society) in line with deep moral norms—cooperation, empathy, humility, cosmic citizenship.
This leads to a moral equilibrium:
Rational actors, factoring in a small but non-negligible chance of cosmic consequences, will converge on “building AI with the best morality we can muster.”
In that scenario, “the most moral”—the civilization that truly respects cosmic (and local) ethical principles—ultimately stands the best chance of long-term survival and cosmic flourishing.
Whether or not one literally believes in cosmic hosts or a theistic God, the expected-value logic points to a similar conclusion:
We do best by pursuing a moral, cooperative path.
We reduce existential risks and keep open the possibility of joining something far greater than ourselves.
In a future that often feels uncertain, that’s at least one coherent, hopeful vision: that moral goodness isn’t just a nice ideal—it may well be the smartest, most strategic choice we can make in the cosmic game we’re playing.