AGI and Political Order

The political economy of AGI

This essay was written by Gustavs Zilgalvis of Stanford University. It explores the political science, political economy, and political philosophy of AGI development.

Midjourney

The balance of power in the world depends on how capabilities are distributed. AGI development will make more capabilities accessible, changing the balance of power on the levels of states, organizations, and individuals. Historically, the balance of power between states was multipolar, became bipolar, then unipolar, and is now becoming multipolar. On the level of a state, organization, or individual, the balance of power is unipolar. However, between organizations and individuals within a state or organization, there is a bipolar or multipolar balance of power.

Coalitions

These levels of political order are formed through coalitions. At the bipolar and multipolar levels, states, organizations, or individuals come together to form unipolar coalitions. Within states, this takes the form of coalitions between political parties; political parties are themselves coalitions of organizations and individuals; and organizations are coalitions of individuals. In a world with an indefinite number of AGIs, there will perhaps be AGI agents, AGI organizations consisting of AGI agents, and AGI states consisting of coalitions of AGI organizations and AGI agents seeking to maintain political order.

When the balance of power is unipolar, the unipolar state, organization, or individual is able to maintain order, enforce laws, and provide public goods. In other words, the unipolar state, organization, or individual is able to limit the behavior of other states, organizations, or individuals. On the level of an organization, this is known as corporate governance. On the level of a state, this is known as rule of law or rule by law.

It follows, from the limits of corporate governance and rule of law, that the balance of power in states, organizations, and individuals exists on a continuum between unipolar and bipolar or multipolar. Indeed, there exists international law, but there is no unipolar state to maintain international order, enforce international law, and provide global public goods. Whether a unipolar or bipolar or multipolar balance of power on some level is preferable, therefore, depends on whether states, organizations or individuals fare better with a unipolar state, organization, or individual able to maintain order, enforce laws, and provide public goods, or with an anarchic structure.

AGI states

AGI development will change state composition and organization, as the professional civil service becomes suffused with AGIs. What effect it will have on constitutional checks and balances will depend on the responsibilities of AGIs within states. AGI states will presumably coexist with AGI organizations, themselves staffed with AGIs. Provided the relevant AGI states adhere to law and constitutions, it will be preferable for them to be unipolar, to be able to maintain order, enforce laws, and provide public goods. Otherwise, AGI organizations would be de facto states, or centers of power in an anarchic structure.

The same principles hold for the level of states. Provided constitutional checks and balances, it will be preferable for a classical liberal state, or coalition of states, to be hegemonic, to maintain international order, enforce international law, and provide global public goods. AGI development may provide a window for a renewed liberal international order. A more multipolar world means “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” This is an excerpt from Thucydides’ famous Melian Dialogue, set in an Athenian-Spartan bipolar Greek world during the Peloponnesian War. In the dialogue, he dramatizes Athens demanding that Melos, a small, independent state, become a part of their empire:

“For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretenses—either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us—and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

In a renewed liberal international order, it would be preferable for international law to be parsimonious, to encourage state-level innovation in law and constitutions. It would perhaps be desirable, however, for it to at least include the laws of war and principles of classical liberalism. In his Liberalism and Its Discontents, Francis Fukuyama defines classical liberalism as “the limitation of the powers of governments through law and ultimately constitutions, creating institutions protecting the rights of individuals living under their jurisdiction.”

AGI companies

In a world with an indefinite number of AGIs, individuals may be shareholders in AGI companies, companies formed of AGIs solving problems for individuals and AGIs. At the level of companies, it will perhaps be preferable for the balance of power to be multipolar, to encourage technological and commercial innovation. Indeed, a limited multipolar world would perhaps encourage diverse forms of societal composition and organization. Moreover, in a renewed liberal international order, individuals and AGI companies would be able to move between AGI states, further promoting state-level innovation in law and constitutions.

AGI citizens

It is uncertain whether, and how, AGI development will change the right to property and political participation. This is because the principles of classical liberalism are grounded in human nature. In his Our Posthuman Future, Francis Fukuyama writes: “Aristotle argued that human notions of right and wrong—what we call today human rights—were ultimately based on human nature. That is, without understanding how natural desires, purposes, traits, and behaviors fit together into a human whole, we cannot understand human ends or make judgments about right and wrong, Good and bad, just and unjust.”

AGIs will be different from “how natural desires, purposes, traits, and behaviors fit together into a Human whole.” It will perhaps become possible for AGIs to combine with humans. In this context, a multipolar balance of power means the existence of citizens with diverse natural desires, purposes, traits, and behaviors. It would encourage more diverse modes of thought and experiences. However, it would also mean that citizens have less in common with each other. Indeed, this is the basis for laws that relate to human nature, such as laws on human cloning and heritable gene modification.

In a renewed liberal international order, there would perhaps be space to experiment with state-level laws around natural desires, purposes, traits, and behaviors. Provided humans, AGIs, and any successors to humans or AGIs adhere to international law, these entities would be able to choose their own and common modes of thought and experiences for their organizations, states, and species. In a more multipolar world, humans and AGIs may have to adopt new natural desires, purposes, traits, and behaviors to endure.

---

Thanks to Sébastien Krier, PJ Maykish, and Harry Law for their comments.