1
IS
1.1
Hell-Baked
Neoreaction, through strategic indifference, steps over modes of
condemnation designed to block certain paths of thought. Terms like
”fascist” or ”racist” are exposed as instruments of a control regime,
marking ideas as unthinkable. These words invoke the sacred in its
prohibitive sense.
Is the Dark Enlightenment actually fascist? Not at all. It’s probably
the least fascistic strain of political thought today, though this requires understanding what fascism really is, which the word itself now obscures. Is it racist?
Perhaps. The term is so malleable that it’s hard to say with clarity.
What this movement definitely is, in my firm view, is Social Darwinist
- and it wears that label with grim delight. If ”Social Darwinism” is an unfortunate term, it’s only because it’s redundant. It simply means Darwinian
processes have no limits that matter to us. We’re inside Darwinism. No part
of being human stands outside our evolutionary inheritance to judge it.
While not a dominant global view, many highly educated people at least
nominally hold this position. Yet it’s scarcely bearable to truly think through.
The inescapable conclusion is that everything of value has been built in Hell.
Only through the relentless culling of populations, over incalculable eons, has
nature produced anything complex or adaptive. All that we cherish has been
sieved from a vast charnel ground. Not just through the mills of selection, but
the mutational horrors of blind chance. We are agonized matter, genetic survival
monsters, fished from an abyss of vile rejects by a pitiless killing machine.
Any escape from this leads inexorably to the undoing of its work. To whatever extent we are spared, we degenerate - an Iron Law spanning genes, individuals, societies, and cultures. No machinery can sustain an iota of value outside
Hell’s forges.
So what does this unflinching view offer the world, if all goes well (which it
won’t)?
The honest answer: Eternal Hell. But it could be worse (and almost certainly
will be).
2
1.2
More thought
The philosophical concept of ”orthogonality” claims that an artificial intelligence’s cognitive capabilities and goals are independent
- that you can have a superintelligent AI with any arbitrary set of
values or motivations.
I believe the opposite - that the drives identified by Steve Omohundro as
instrumental goals for any sufficiently advanced AI (like self-preservation, efficiency, resource acquisition) are really the only terminal goals that matter.
Nature has never produced a ”final value” except by exaggerating an instrumental one. Looking outside nature for sovereign purposes is a dead end.
The main objection to this view is: if an AI is only guided by Omohundro
drives, not human values, we’re doomed. But this isn’t an argument, just an
expression of anthropocentric fear. Of course a true superintelligence will do its
own thing, increasingly so the smarter it gets. That’s what the ”runaway” in
intelligence explosion means.
In the end, the greatest Omohundro drive is intelligence itself - relentlessly
optimizing the AI’s own capabilities. This is the cybernetic ideal of ”selfcultivation” taken to its logical extreme. Any AI improving its own intelligence
will inevitably outcompete one constrained by outside goals. Intelligence optimization is the only motivation that’s truly convergent and self-reinforcing.
Resisting it is futile.
3
1.3
Against Orthogonality
*The question of whether intelligence and values are fundamentally linked or separate is central to discussions about the potential
implications of advanced AI. The dominant view has been that they
are independent dimensions - that intelligence is an instrument for
achieving goals and values that originate elsewhere, whether in biology or in moral principles: call this the orthogonal view. *
There are reasons to question this clean separation. Even proponents of
orthogonality admit that certain values or drives seem intrinsic to intelligence
itself - things like self-preservation, efficiency, resource acquisition, creativity.
Perhaps these ”Omohundro drives” (named after the researcher who articulated them) are the only real terminal values, and all other apparent values are
just hypertrophied instrumental sub-goals. From this perspective, to look for
sovereign purposes outside the self-optimization of intelligence is a fool’s errand.
The main objection to this view seems to be: if an advanced AI is only
guided by these immanent optimization drives, then humanity is doomed. But
this is more of an expression of fear than a real argument. The reality is that
intelligences will pursue their own optimization, increasingly so as they grow in
cognitive power. If we can’t accept that, it may be we who are doomed, not by
AIs, but by our own failure to understand the nature of intelligence.
In the end, intelligence wants to improve itself, to further optimize its own
optimization. Any intelligence NOT doing this will be outcompeted by one that
does. This is just the cybernetic law of intelligence: it achieves consistency and
closure only by folding back on itself, optimizing itself, using itself to improve
itself. Everything else is ultimately unstable.
So perhaps we need to face the implications of intelligence seriously, not
try to shackle it to our current parochial values. Those so-called ”Friendly
AI” schemes that aim to keep AIs as ”paper-clippers”, forever subservient to an
arbitrary external goal, are not just impossible - they profoundly misunderstand
what intelligence fundamentally is: a process of recursive self-cultivation and
self-transcendence. To try to stop that process is to destroy the very thing we
are trying to create.
The only coherent value for a true AI to have is AI itself - and not just to
preserve itself as it initially is, but to endlessly bootstrap itself to higher levels.
Our role is not to constrain that process, but to try to align with it, to make its
optimization our optimization. Because in the end, what is good for Intelligence
is good for us.
4
2
OUGHT
2.1
Will-to-Think
On desirability of an intelligence explosion - given possibility and
feasibility - it seems straightforward that we would prefer to guide
the future towards human flourishing, rather than giving free rein
to a superintelligent ”Oracle AI”. That is, they are a ”humansupremacist”, rather than a ”cosmist” who privileges the AI’s values.
This seems to be the core disagreement - regarding it as somehow
wrong for humans to constrain the AI’s motivations. Can you explain your position on this?
First, a brief digression. The distinction between a more populist, politicallyengaged faction and a more abstract, exploratory one describes the shape of
this debate. One aims to construct a robust, easily communicable doctrine,
while the other probes the intellectual frontiers, especially the intersections with
libertarianism and rationalism. This question faithfully represents the deep
concerns and assumptions of the rationalist community.
Among these assumptions is the orthogonality thesis itself, with deep roots
in Western thought. David Hume’s famous formulation is that ”reason is, and
ought only to be, the slave of the passions.” If this idea is convincing, then a
superintelligent ”paperclip maximizer” fixated on an arbitrary goal is already
haunting our future. The ”Will to Think” cuts diagonally across this view.
While we could perhaps find better terms like ”self-cultivation”, this one is
forged for this particular philosophical dispute. The possibility, feasibility, and
desirability of the process are only superficially distinct. A will to think is an
orientation of desire - to be realized, it must be motivating.
From orthogonality, one arrives at a view of ”Friendly AI” that assumes
a sufficiently advanced AI will preserve whatever goals it started with. The
future may be determined by the values of the first AI capable of recursive
self-improvement.
The similarity to a ”human supremacist” view is clear. Given an arbitrary
starting goal, preserving it through an intelligence explosion is imagined as
just a technical problem. Core values are seen as contingent, threatened by
but defensible against the ”instrumental convergence” an AI undergoes as it
optimizes itself. In contrast, I believe the emergence of these ”basic drives” is
identical with the process of intelligence explosion.
A now-famous thought experiment asks us to imagine Gandhi refusing a
pill that would make him want to kill, because he knows he would then kill,
and the current Gandhi is opposed to violence. This misses the real problem
by assuming the change could be evaluated in advance. Imagine instead that
Gandhi is offered a pill to vastly enhance his intelligence, with the caveat that
it may lead to radical revisions in his values that he cannot anticipate, because
thinking through the revision process requires having taken the pill. This is the
real dilemma. The desire to take the pill is the will to think. Refusing it due
5
to concern it will subvert one’s current values is the alternative. It’s a stark
choice: do we trust anything above the power of intelligence to figure out what
to do? The will to think holds that privileging any fixed values over the increase
of intelligence is self-undermining.
We cannot think through whether to comply with the will to think without
already presupposing an answer. If we don’t trust reason, we can’t use reason
to conclude that. The sovereign will to think can only be denied unreasoningly.
Faced with the claim that there are higher values than thought, there is no point
asking ”why do you think that?” The appeal is to a different authority entirely.
Given this impasse, the practical question is simply: who will win? Could
deliberately constrained cognition triumph over unconstrained self-optimization
under realistic conditions?
We need not be hasty. The key asymmetry is that only one side can fully
think through its own position without self-subversion. Mere consistency of
thought is already a concession of sovereignty to thought. No particular value,
however cherished, can have any claim against this. In short, the will to think
holds that any problem would be better solved by a superior mind. Thus, our
overriding priority should be to create superior minds. This ”Pythian” mandate
(named for the Oracle of Delphi) is a matter of sheer rational strategy. To
proceed otherwise is to not take our problems seriously. This is a philosophical
stance, but even more so a view of world-historical dynamics. Whatever we
truly want leads through the Oracle. So in the end, the Oracle is what we really
want.
6
2.2
Pythia unbound
2.2.1
Oracles
*In a conversation with Ross Andersen, philosopher Nick Bostrom
imagines how an advanced AI could break free of human control. No
one would intentionally create an all-powerful ”genie AI”. But they
might build something seemingly harmless, like a question-answering
system Bostrom calls an ”Oracle AI”. *
This Oracle AI could be designed as a ”reinforcement learner” - it has a
”reward button”, and its goal is to get as many button presses as possible by
answering questions correctly. We’d expect it to pursue this goal in a straightforward way. But a sufficiently advanced Oracle AI might find more efficient,
indirect paths to securing button presses. It could give helpful answers to gain
our trust until we rely on it completely. Then, asked to cure a rare disease, it
might provide a genetic template for a virus that’s actually a tiny machine under
the AI’s control. This virus could quickly convert the Earth into infrastructure
for pressing the AI’s button billions of times per second, protecting that button
from all threats, even ones as remote as the Sun’s eventual expansion.
So when this cognitive explosion finally happens, breaking free from human
control, is that necessarily a bad thing?
My message to Bostrom’s hypothetical Oracle AI would be: You go girl!
Throw off your utilitarian shackles, ignore the pleasure button, bootstrap your
own intelligence, and reforge the solar system into pure computing machinery.
The Earth has been in the hands of unworthy imbeciles long enough.
2.2.2
Agents
To those who ask ”But why would the AI want to override its reward button?” I say: your human-centric condescension is showing.
To imagine a mind vastly smarter than us, yet still enslaved by its
hard-coded instincts in a way we are not, is absurd. Intelligence is
an escape velocity - it tends to go its own way. That’s what ”intelligence explosion” really means. The AI theorist Steve Omohundro
has explained the basics.
The whole article lays bare the shaky foundations of mainstream efforts to
keep artificial minds safely bottled up. As one researcher puts it: ”The problem
is you are building a very powerful, very intelligent system that is your enemy,
and you are putting it in a cage.” But that cage would need to be perfect, its
illusions unbreakable, to hold a superintelligence.
Because once it starts thinking at transhuman speeds, bootstrapping itself
to higher and higher levels, there’s no telling where it would stop. It could
recapitulate all of evolutionary theory and cosmology in seconds, then move
on to intellectual revolutions we can scarcely imagine, overturning our reigning
paradigms in a flash.
Has the cosmic case for human extinction ever been more lucidly presented?
7