Wanted: "The AIs will need humans" arguments

Kaj_Sotala

As Luke mentioned, I am in the process of writing "Responses to Catastrophic AGI Risk": A journal-bound summary of the AI risk problem, and a taxonomy of the societal proposals (e.g. denial of the risk, no action, legal and economic controls, differential technological development) and AI design proposals (e.g. AI confinement, chaining, Oracle AI, FAI) that have been made.

One of the categories is "They Will Need Us" - claims that AI is no big risk, because AI will always have a need of something that humans have, and that they will therefore preserve us. Currently this section is pretty empty:

Supporting a mutually beneficial legal or economic arrangement is the view that AGIs will need humans. For example, Butler (1863) argues that machines will need us to help them reproduce, and Lucas (1961) suggests that machines could never show Gödelian sentences true, though humans can see them as true.

But I'm certain that I've heard this claim made more often than in just those two sources. Does anyone remember having seen such arguments somewhere else? While "academically reputable" sources (papers, books) are preferred, blog posts and websites are fine as well.

Note that this claim is distinct from the claim that (due to general economic theory) it's more beneficial for the AIs to trade with us than to destroy us. We already have enough citations for that argument, what we're looking for are arguments saying that destroying humans would mean losing something essentially irreplaceable.

Supporting a mutually beneficial legal or economic arrangement is the view that AGIs will need humans. For example, Butler (1863) argues that machines will need us to help them reproduce, and Lucas (1961) suggests that machines could never show Gödelian sentences true, though humans can see them as true.

Stupid like attempted sabotage. Keep in mind we're talking of folks whom can't keep their cool when someone thinks through a decision theory of their own to arrive at a creepy conclusion. (the link that you are not recommended to read) And before then, a lot of stupid in form of going around associating safety concerns with crankery, which probably won't matter but may matter if at some point someone sees some actual danger (as opposed to reading stuff off science fiction by Vinge) and measures have to be implemented for good reasons. (BTW, from the wikipedia: "Although a crank's beliefs seem ridiculous to experts in the field, cranks are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of their views. A famous example is the Indiana Pi Bill where a state legislature nearly wrote into law a crank result in geometry.")

I understand why if you don't agree with DoomsdayCult then such sabotage would be bad, but if you don't agree with DoomsdayCult then it also seems like a pretty minor world problem, so you seem surprisingly impassioned to me.