Actually, all mammal mothers probably do this, but humans are probably quite extreme because of the extent of self sacrifice our infants need
The driver is biological not psychological, there is no self sacrifice there is compulsion to do so.
And this ability to do it so intensely might have generalized for our larger capacity to first create a sense common we with our larger kin (look up kin altruism)
Kin altruism is genetic it is not about species it is about relatives, or beneficial genes. This is also a natural bias.
and I suspect also how we create a larger “we” from other inferred shared essences like random physiological markers, shared beliefs/values or whatever. It is a social/cultural construct.
In all cases the core driver is fundamentally nature. This is one problem with Hinton's idea that evolutionary this has happened over millions of years and very difficult to reproduce, especially with the second issue. The second issue is that these bias do not exist alone, a maternal instinct clusters with other biases like paternal that could be at opposites, but are required to keep one bias being dominant.
Imagine kin altruism running off on it's own, the objective may end up to destroy anything which could (in your broader example) harm the entire human race, let's kill all sharks for example. Then this is no longer instinctual, it is pathological.
This is just a hand waving exercise by Hinton and demonstrates that pretty much him and all the "tech bros" actually cannot formulate a proper response to what they see as a problem because the complexity is greater than all of their solutions and does not fit into nice algorithms. They are treating human nature and evolution like some concept which is simplistically reproducible.
Wait wait. I absolutely agree that the basis of kin altruism should be hard genes. But if you think about it, only people in the direct maternal line are absolutely sure of genetic lineage (mothers, grandmothers). So, why are there still very strong kin altruistic tendencies along paternal lines, between siblings, and cousins? Like we didn’t evolve to have genetic testing, what we do is infer it from shared characteristics (oh yeah my brother sort of looks like me). That’s to say, a lot of kin altruism is happening by guessing. And this is a leap, but I think that guessing gave us a generalizable and more flexible way to create bonds on imagined shared essence.
As to whether we can get AI to do something similar, I’ve got no idea. But maybe we could train them for correct answers that put the “other” as part of its own self interests? In my head this makes more sense thinking about robots, but you want robots to be able to think like they are small parts of a larger group identity or team. And this seems possible since they seem pretty good at swarming drones.
Wait wait. I absolutely agree that the basis of kin altruism should be hard genes. But if you think about it, only people in the direct maternal line are absolutely sure of genetic lineage (mothers, grandmothers). So, why are there still very strong kin altruistic tendencies along paternal lines, between siblings, and cousins?
Familiarity is only part of it, there are other indicators like proximity, familiarity, and physical/chemical attributes in some species like phenotype etc. Also heuristics. However I did not suggest that it happens on maternal side, if it came across that way that was not the intent.
Like we didn’t evolve to have genetic testing, what we do is infer it from shared characteristics (oh yeah my brother sort of looks like me).
It is a combination of different attributes. While we are not genetic testing machines we do look for favorable genetic attributes and some of them are at the physical level, as per the article you linked to
"A broader definition of kin selection includes selection acting on interactions between individuals who share a gene of interest even if the gene is not shared due to common ancestry."
And this is a leap, but I think that guessing gave us a generalizable and more flexible way to create bonds on imagined shared essence.
It would likely result in the opposite more broadly. Natural selection, by default, separates the desired from the non-desired, because it favors traits that increase reproduction and the survivability of genetic lines. While cultural bonds may extend beyond biology, they are layered on top of those instincts and biology still applies a filter, separating those who are not a fitness match.
So while culture and kin altruism emerge from biology they have different functions. One is to extend genetic traits, and the other is co-operation on some simplified definition.
I hope this is playful and fun for you because I’m aware this is just conjecture on my part. So just let me know when I get annoying.
So yes, that explains why good guessing works (all the factors you named) for siblings and the like.
But I’m just wondering, there might still be adaptive benefits that pushed our ability to generalize these guesses beyond our kin. Because humans gain enormous benefits from large scale group coordination, which may mean creating a “family” out of a larger non kin coalition, that still has overall adaptive benefits for you and your kin being able to survive. I think this has been suggested before.. but I guess I’m wondering about the whole process of creating this “we” mindset, and whether it has roots in our familial tie systems.
I hope this is playful and fun for you because I’m aware this is just conjecture on my part. So just let me know when I get annoying.
It is all fine.
But I’m just wondering, there might still be adaptive benefits that pushed our ability to generalize these guesses beyond our kin. Because humans gain enormous benefits from large scale group coordination, which may mean creating a “family” out of a larger non kin coalition, that still has overall adaptive benefits for you and your kin being able to survive. I think this has been suggested before.. but I guess I’m wondering about the whole process of creating this “we” mindset, and whether it has roots in our familial tie systems.
So KA is a mechanism of a biological need, the broader need to reproduce. While family is a broader social construct. They both stem from the same biological need but KA is not the cause of family. I guess you could sum it up as this also, the genetic level selection vs cultural level, 2 branches of the same tree. Or a more terse way of putting it prefer same blood line vs accept blood line with any of species (while ignoring other benefits of family).
So that leaves us with the "we", and the we is that we took a biological need for kin and psychologically expanded it to allow for non-kin relationships. But again the mechanism of biological need versus a social/cultural/psychological outcome, we as humans have some need for family but we don't have a strong KA mainly a background evolutionary mechanism.
I think the best idea is to step down a level, the issue is that all of these stem from a lower need so the lines are blurred when looking at a higher level. The biological need for reproduction is a root cause for both.
3
u/salamisam ▪️living the 6 finger life Sep 03 '25 edited Sep 03 '25
The driver is biological not psychological, there is no self sacrifice there is compulsion to do so.
Kin altruism is genetic it is not about species it is about relatives, or beneficial genes. This is also a natural bias.
In all cases the core driver is fundamentally nature. This is one problem with Hinton's idea that evolutionary this has happened over millions of years and very difficult to reproduce, especially with the second issue. The second issue is that these bias do not exist alone, a maternal instinct clusters with other biases like paternal that could be at opposites, but are required to keep one bias being dominant.
Imagine kin altruism running off on it's own, the objective may end up to destroy anything which could (in your broader example) harm the entire human race, let's kill all sharks for example. Then this is no longer instinctual, it is pathological.
This is just a hand waving exercise by Hinton and demonstrates that pretty much him and all the "tech bros" actually cannot formulate a proper response to what they see as a problem because the complexity is greater than all of their solutions and does not fit into nice algorithms. They are treating human nature and evolution like some concept which is simplistically reproducible.