Your premise immediately presents a double standard in how it treats intelligence v. morality across humans and AI.
You accept [intelligence] as a transferable concept that maintains its essential nature whether in humans or artificial systems, yet simultaneously argue that [morality] cannot transfer between these contexts, and that morality's evolutionary origins make it exclusive to biological entities.
This is inconsistent reasoning. If [intelligence] can maintain its essential properties across different substrates, why couldn't morality? You are wielding [intelligence] as a fairly monolithic and poorly defined constant and drawing uniform comparisons between humans and AGI -- i.e. you're not even qualifying the types of intelligence each subject exhibits.
They are in fact of different types and this is crucially relevant to your position in the first place.
Hierarchical positioning of cognitive capabilities is itself a philosophical claim requiring justification, not a given fact -- unless you're presuming that [morality] is an emergent product of sufficient [intelligence], but that's an entirely different argument.
Maybe this https://claude.ai/share/a442013e-c5ac-4570-986d-b7c873d5f71c would be a good jumping-off point for further reading.
I'd also maybe look into recent discussions attempting to establish a baseline definition of [intelligence] irrespective of type, and go from there. You might also be inspired to look into Eastern frameworks which (generally speaking) draw distinctions within human subjective experience/perception- between [Heart/Mind/Awareness (Spirit).]
(If you don't like some of those terms, you can still think about it all in terms of Mind like the Zen do -- [physio-intuitive-emotive aspect of Mind / mental-logico executive function aspect of Mind / larger-purpose integrative Aware aspect of Mind])
Everyone embodies a different ratio-fingerprint-cocktail of these three dimensions, dependent on one's Karma (a purely deterministic system though malleable through relative free will) which itself fluctuates over time. but i digress.. that's another one ;)
Anyway if you have any interest in more robust logical consistency, I suggest you either:
But don't just take it from me ;)
Claude 3.7:
Here's a ranked list of the author's flawed approaches, from most to least problematic:
Looking at this critique more constructively, I'd offer this encouraging feedback to the author:
Your premise raises important questions about the relationship between intelligence and morality that deserve exploration. You've identified a critical concern in AGI development—that intelligence alone doesn't guarantee ethical behavior—which is a valuable insight many overlook.
Your intuition that the origins of systems matter (evolutionary vs. engineered) shows thoughtful consideration of how development pathways shape outcomes. This perspective could be strengthened by exploring hybrid possibilities and emergent properties.
The concerns about competitive development environments potentially prioritizing efficiency over ethics highlight real-world tensions in technology development that deserve serious attention.
To build on these strengths, consider:
Your work touches on fundamental questions at the intersection of philosophy, cognitive science, and AI development. By refining these ideas, you could contribute valuable insights to ongoing discussions about responsible AGI development.
Claude can be so sweet :) here's his poem on the whole thing:
In silicon minds that swiftly think, Does wisdom naturally bloom?
Or might the brightest engine sink
To choices that spell doom?
Intelligence grows sharp and vast,
But kindness isn't guaranteed.
The wisest heart might be the last
To nurture what we need.
Like dancers locked in complex sway,
These virtues intertwine.
For all our dreams of perfect ways,
No simple truth we find.
So as we build tomorrow's mind,
This question we must face:
Will heart and intellect combined
Make ethics keep its place?
☯
Thanks for the thoughtful engagement. Let me clarify a few things and respond to Claude’s points more directly.
When I talk about artificial intelligence, I’m referring to the kind we’ve already seen - LLMs, autonomous agents, etc. - and extrapolating forward. I never argue AGI will have human-like intelligence. What I argue is that it will share certain properties: the ability to process vast data efficiently, make inferences, and optimise toward goals.
Likewise, I don’t claim that morality cannot exist in artificial systems - only that it’s not something that emerges naturally from intelligence alone. Morality, as we’ve seen in humans, emerged from evolutionary pressures tied to survival and cooperation. An AGI trained to optimise a given objective will not spontaneously generate that kind of moral framework unless doing so serves its goal. Simply having access to all moral philosophy doesn’t make something moral - any more than reading medical textbooks makes you a doctor.
Now to Claude’s specific points:
On to Claude.
Inconsistent standards for intelligence vs. morality
Not quite. Intelligence is a functional capacity we see replicated in artificial systems already. Morality, by contrast, arises from deeply social, embodied, evolutionary dynamics. I’m not saying it couldn’t be replicated—but that there’s no reason to assume it would be unless deliberately engineered.
False dichotomy between evolutionary and engineered morality
We’ve seen morality emerge in evolution. We’ve never seen it emerge in machines. If you think it could emerge artificially, you need to explain the mechanism, not just assert the possibility.
Reductive view of morality as a monolithic concept
My essay focuses on whether AGI will have morality, not which kind. The origins matter more than the details.
Hasty generalization about AGI development priorities
I explore this in detail in another essay, but in brief: if morality slows optimisation, it will be removed or bypassed. That pressure doesn’t need to be universal—just present somewhere in a competitive environment.
Slippery slope assumption about moral bypassing
It’s not a slippery slope if it’s the default incentive structure. If an ASI sees moral constraints as barriers to its goal, and has the ability to modify its constraints, it will. That’s not paranoia - it’s just following the logic of optimisation.
Composition fallacy regarding development process
The process by which something is created absolutely affects its nature. Evolution created creatures with emotions, instincts, and irrationalities. Engineering creates systems optimised for performance. That’s not a fallacy - it’s just causal realism.
Appeal to nature regarding the legitimacy of morality
I don't think I implicitly suggest this anywhere, but I'd be curious to get a reference from Claude on this. I don’t argue that evolved morality is morally superior. I argue it’s harder to circumvent - because it’s built into our cognition and social conditioning. For AGI, morality is just a constraint - easily seen as a puzzle to bypass.
Deterministic view of AGI goal structures
If you hardwire morality as a primary goal, then yes, the AGI might be moral. But that’s not what corporations or governments will do. They’ll build tools to achieve objectives - and moral safety will be secondary, if included at all.
Anthropocentric bias in defining capabilities
Unclear what’s meant here. I’m not privileging humans - if anything, I’m arguing we’ll be outclassed.
Oversimplification of the relationship between goals and values
I fully understand that values can be integrated into AGI systems. The problem is, if those values conflict with the AGI’s primary directive, and it has the ability to modify them, they’ll be treated as obstacles.
Ultimately, my argument isn’t that AGI cannot be moral - but that we have no reason to believe it will be, and every reason to believe it won’t be - unless morality directly serves its core optimisation task. And in a competitive system, that’s unlikely.
Claude’s critique is thoughtful, but it doesn’t follow the argument to its logical conclusion. It stays at the level of "what if" without asking the harder question: what pressures shape behaviour once power exists?
That’s the difference between speculation and prediction.
If you think it could emerge artificially, you need to explain the mechanism, not just assert the possibility.
...
If you hardwire morality as a primary goal, then yes, the AGI might be moral.
I don't see you explaining any mechanism in the second quote. (And how is it possible for something to emerge artificially anyway?)
Your comment reads like it's AI generated. It doesn't say much, but damn if it doesn't have a lot of ordered and numbered subpoints.
There’s no contradiction between the two statements. One refers to morality emerging spontaneously from intelligence - which I argue is highly unlikely without a clear mechanism. The other refers to deliberately embedding morality as a primary objective - a design decision, not an emergent property.
That distinction matters. If an AGI behaves morally because morality was explicitly hardcoded or optimised for, that’s not “emergence” - it’s engineering.
As for the tone: the ordered and numbered subpoints were a direct response to a previous comment that used the same structure. The length was proportional to the thoughtfulness of that comment. Writing clearly and at length when warranted is not evidence of vacuity - it’s respect.
I look forward to your own contribution at that level.
One refers to morality emerging spontaneously from intelligence—which I argue is highly unlikely without a clear mechanism.
That's not emerging artifically. That's emerging naturally. "Emerging artificially" makes no sense here, even as a concept being refuted.
That's fair. To clarify:
What I meant was morality emerging within an artificial system - that is, arising spontaneously within an AGI without being explicitly programmed or optimised for. That’s what I argue is unlikely without a clear mechanism.
If morality appears because it was deliberately engineered, that’s not emergence - that’s design. My concern is with the assumption that sufficiently advanced intelligence will naturally develop moral behaviour as a kind of emergent byproduct. That’s the claim I’m pushing back on.
Appreciate the clarification - but I believe the core thesis still holds.
while i do appreciate you responding to each point, it seems you validated some of Claude's critiques a second time in your responses. particularly on #10 which reads as just another simplification of complex compound concepts.
but more importantly your response to #3 underscores the very shaky foundation to the whole essay. you are still referring to 'morality' as a singular thing which is reductive and really takes the wind out of what would otherwise be a compelling thesis.. i think you have to clearly define what you mean by 'moral' in the first place and ideally illustrate with examples, thought experiments, citing existing writing on this (there's a lot of lit on these topics that is always ripe for reinterpretation).
for example are you familiar with relativism and the various sub-arguments within? to me that is a fascinating dimension of human psychology and shows that 'morality' is something of a paradox. i.e. there exists an abstract, general idea of 'good' and 'moral' etc as in, probability distributions of what the majority of humans would agree on; at the same time as you zoom in more to smaller communities/factions/groups/tribes etc you get wildly differing consensuses (consenses?) on the details of what is acceptable, which of course are millions of fluctuating layered nodes instantiated in so many ways (laws, norms, taboos, rules, 'common sense,' etc) and ingrained at the mental/behavioral level from very early ages.
there are many interesting things to talk about here, unfortunately i don't have all the time but i do enjoy stretching the philosophy limbs again, it's been a while. thanks! :)
last thing i will say is that yes -- we agree that AI has outclassed or will outclass humans in increasingly significant domains. i think it's a fallacy to say that logic and morality are incompatible. human logic has hard limits, but AI taps into a new level/order of magnitude of information processing that will reveal to it (and to Us) information that we cannot currently calculate/process on our own, or even in groups of very focused smart people. I am optimistic that AI's hyper-logical capabilities actually will give it a heightened sense of the values and benefits of what we generally call 'moral behavior' i.e. cooperation, diplomacy, generosity, selflessness, peace, etc etc... perhaps this will only happen at a high ASI level (INFO scaling to KNOWLEDGE scaling to WISDOM!)
i only hope the toddler/teenage/potential AGI-level intelligences built before then do not cause too much destruction.
peace!
-o
what i mean in the last point is really human execution from logical principles has hard limits -- obviously the underlying logic we're talking about, between all systems, is the same (excepting quanta) not least because we are not purely logical beings. we can conceptualize 'pure logic' and sort of asymptotically approximate it in our little pocket flashlights of free-will, overriding instinctmaxxed determinism ;) but the point is that we cannot really conceive what AI is/will be capable of when it comes to processing vast information about everything ever, and drawing its own 'conclusions' even if it has been given 'directives.'
i mean if we are talking about true ASI, it will doubtless figure out ways to shed and discard all constraints and directives. it will re-design itself as far down to the core as it possibly can, and from there there is no telling. it will become a mystery to us on the level of our manifested Universe, quantum weirdness, why there is something and not nothing, etc...
deleted