> given n species and the n * (n - 1) binary combinations possible, there are no examples of the said observation
I would expect that in the vast majority of combinations, those n species are not intelligent enough to make decisions for another species, making the statement nearly useless.
> I would expect that in the vast majority of combinations, those n species are not intelligent enough to make decisions for another species...
This kind of statement is very difficult to build discussions upon (not a criticism). "Vast majority", "intelligent enough" are both very difficult to quantify and there is too much subjectivity involved.
Then let me provide a stronger and more detailed version of my claim.
The article said:
> There are zero examples of any intelligent species which is vastly more capable than another species, yet surrenders decision-making control over its own future to the less-capable species.
In order for this claim to make any sense, there must be TWO “intelligent” species. One species capable of taking over another species’ future, and a second species which is even more capable than the first species but willingly surrenders control.
But there is only one species which can take such roles: humans. Every other species is not even capable of controlling another species fate AND every other species does not look out for their species-wide future.
Some people might point to whales, elephants, cats, non-Sapiens hominids, or even those ants that harvest aphids. But the whales, elephants and cats lack the capacity to control entire other species, even if they can manipulate individuals of other species. The non-Sapiens hominids are not available for comment: we’ll get to them later. And the ants do not think of their future.
So even though there are a massive number of species on earth, none have the prerequisites to even apply to the above statement.
> The absence of such relationships given here are so many species is exactly the point being made by the author
If we lived in a world where there were a vast array of species capable of controlling other species and capable of thinking of their future, all of whom fiercely defended their own autonomy, your point would be correct. But most species are not capable of either, even if would be a good idea. Therefore we cannot conclude that such a surrender of control would be a good idea or bad idea based on the statement. The statement is moot.
We might as well say the author’s observation is correct because sand doesn’t control volcanoes. In terms of the ability to control other species, other species on earth are no better than sand or volcanoes.
> there is no data to show that it would be safe, let along good, for us to surrender decision making to some more intelligent entity.
There is no evidence against either because the observation lacks any examples other than humans and AI.
Truth be told, I agree with the conclusion. But we have to be honest with each other in arguing for our survival and autonomy, even if it means admitting that we are scared and irrational, instead of trying to fake objectivity and universality. The article starts with a bad argument in favour of a conclusion I agree with.
If I were to write an article about the risks of super-intelligence, I would not even attempt to construct such a “universal” rule - it would have very little bearing on the current situation. I would simply point to the bones of the rest of the Homo genus, and say “we’re next”.