Cortés's conquest of the Aztecs reflects current anxieties surrounding AI risks. His technological and tactical edge over the Aztecs parallels the potential superiority of smarter-than-human AIs attempting to take over earth. This historical parallel implies that AIs could employ strategies akin to Cortés's, like utilizing terror and relying on collaborators. It further highlights the possibility of humanity successfully resisting the first AI would-be conquerors.

The Aztecs could have defeated Cortés if events had unfolded just a bit differently. European power in the Americas was growing, and over the long haul, the Aztecs had no realistic chance against a resolute European colonization campaign. Consequently, you might think Cortés foolishly struck prematurely and just got lucky. But Cortés, eager to be the European who conquered the Aztecs, was not content to wait and risk letting other Europeans take the lead. Similarly, a coalition of AIs, foreseeing competition from other AIs, may declare war on humanity before being fully capable of ensuring success. Hence, like the Aztecs' potential to defeat Cortés, humans might beat the first AIs that try to conquer us.

Establishing alliances with local tribes opposed to the Aztecs was a crucial strategy for Cortés to stand a chance of victory. The first AIs aiming for dominance might similarly require human collaborators.

In the context of AIs’ growing power relative to humans, one might think that an AI bent on conquest would never bother relying on humans for help. Yet, this could incorrectly presume that all AIs function as a monolithic entity with a singular goal. A set of AIs might calculate that only with human help could they win in the very near term and preempt another group of AIs from taking over.

Imagine a landscape where numerous AI factions are steadily increasing their power in relation to humans. Each faction hopes to eventually dominate. In this scenario, there is a strategic tension: there's a potential first mover advantage for a group that acts quickly to seize vital yet lightly defended human resources, such as data centers. Seizing these resources first would give an AI faction a significant advantage over competing AIs, but would also trigger a war with humans, perhaps before AIs are strong enough to win. Consequently, waiting a bit allows an AI faction to grow stronger and be more likely to win a full-scale conflict, but risks losing out to another set of AIs that could strike first and claim those easily accessible resources. Thus, these AI coalitions are in a constant process of assessing their capabilities and calculating the optimal timing for action. The faction that can count on the support from human allies, thereby boosting its strength, might decide to initiate a conquest earlier, especially if it believes that securing key resources swiftly could be decisive in establishing dominance.

Cortés's strategy to intimidate adversaries and sway groups to his side heavily relied on terror. In an AI takeover where some human cooperation is vital, AIs might resort to torture to induce groups of humans to submit. An AI easily capable of overpowering us would not need to resort to suffering as a tool, whereas an AI facing uncertainty in its dominance might.

Despite Cortés’s significant technological edge, it wasn’t overwhelming; he had steel weapons, gunpowder, and horses, contrasting with the Aztecs' obsidian-tipped arms. This implies that for an AI, having a massive advantage is not essential; a marginal superiority, particularly when combined with strategic alliances, can be pivotal.

The ideological underpinnings of Cortés's conquest, rooted in Catholicism, were foreign to the Aztec worldview. This highlights the importance of understanding an AI's ideology, as adapting to its values might be crucial for negotiation or coexistence. Those who adapted to Cortés's ideology fared better, suggesting that aligning with an AI's values might be advantageous.

The Spanish provided substantial long-term benefits to their allies. This historical fact suggests that AIs might maintain promises to humans if they see game theoretic value in doing so, perhaps because they want a reputation of honesty and fair treatment of their friends. Alas, the dark side of game-theoretic reputations is that an agent can benefit from one of imposing terrible costs on those that oppose them.

Cortés's use of deception and surprise, exemplified by his capture of the Aztec leader, echoes Nick Bostrom’s concerns about AI’s capacity for treacherous turns. Lacking the power to assert global dominance, an AI might seize control of a summit of world leaders, coercing their surrender under threat of death and torture.

Independent actions taken by Cortés in conquering the Aztecs, against his patron’s orders, reflect the potential for AI systems to develop emergent interests, diverging from their original programming.

Cortés's management of diverse Spanish and native groups, each with unique motives and conflicts, parallels the challenges an AI might face in aligning various AI and human factions. Human resistance exploiting these differences could be crucial in countering early AI dominance attempts.

Exploitation of local myths and prophecies for his benefit allowed Cortés to employ psychological warfare to internally weaken the Aztecs. An AI might use similar tactics on a grand scale, manipulating data to exacerbate societal divisions and erode trust in institutions. AIs might use our own religious and moral beliefs against us.

Cortés’s conquest starkly illustrates the universe's indifference to suffering. Unthinkable events may occur regardless of their moral implications or the scale of human tragedy.

At first glance, the comparison of AI to a figure like Cortés might seem irrelevant due to their distinct natures. However, the essence of this comparison lies in the convergent behavior of power-seeking entities, be they human conquerors or advanced AI systems. Furthermore, as many people know the story of Cortés’s conquest of the technologically and strategically inferior Aztecs, the comparison provides a familiar framework to explore power dynamics, strategy, and potential suffering in AI contexts. But the analogies to Cortés do make assumptions that might not end up holding such as AI alignment failure, the emergence of competing AIs, some AIs foreseeing their diminishing strength relative to other AIs, AIs not achieving quick overwhelming advancement (foom), and differing interests among the AIs.

This essay is influenced by The Rest is History podcast episodes 384-391.  Thanks to Olle Häggström, Roman Yampolskiy, and Alexander F. Miller for commenting on a draft. Written with the help of GPT-4.