Partial value takeover without world takeover

In the current era, the economics are such that war and violence tend to pay relatively badly, because countries get rich by having a well-developed infrastructure and war tends to destroy that, so conquest will get you something that won't be of much value. This is argued to be one of the reasons for why we have less war today, compared to the past where land was the scarce resource and military conquest made more sense. 

However, if we were to shift to a situation where matter could be converted into computronium... then there are two ways that things could go. One possibility is that it would be an extension of current trends, as computronium is a type of infrastructure and going to war would risk destroying it. 

But the other possibility is that if you are good enough at rebuilding something that has been destroyed, then this is going back to the old trend where land/raw matter was a valuable resource - taking over more territory allows you to convert it into computronium (or recycle and rebuild the ruins of the computronium you took over). Also, an important part of "infrastructure" is educated people who are willing and capable of running it - war isn't bad just because it destroys physical facilities, it's also bad because it kills some of the experts who could run those facilities for you. This cost is reduced if you can just take your best workers and copy as many of them as you want to. All of that could shift us back to a situation where the return on investment for violence and conquest becomes higher than for peaceful trade.

As Azar Gat notes in War in Human Civilization (2006), for most of human history, war ‘paid,’ at least for the elites who made decisions. In pre-industrial societies, returns to capital investment were very low. They could – and did – build roads and infrastructure, irrigation systems and the like, but the production multiplier for such investments was fairly low. For antiquity, the Roman Empire probably represents close to the best that could be achieved with such capital investments and one estimate, by Richard Saller, puts the total gains per capita at perhaps 25% over three centuries (a very rough estimate, but focus on the implied scale here; the real number could be 15% or 30%, but it absolutely isn’t 1000% or 100% or even probably 50%).

But returns to violent land acquisition were very, very high. In those same three centuries, the Romans probably increased the productive capacity of their empire by conquest 1,200% (note that’s a comma, not a dot!), going from an Italian empire of perhaps 5,000,000 to a Mediterranean empire in excess of 60,000,000 (and because productivity per capita was so relatively insensitive to infrastructure investments, we can on some level extrapolate production straight out of population here in a way that we couldn’t discussing the modern world). Consequently, the ‘returns to warfare’ – if you won – were much higher than returns to peace. The largest and most prosperous states tended to become the largest and most prosperous states through lots of warfare and they tended to stay that way through even more of it.

This naturally produced a lot of very powerful incentives towards militarism in societies. Indeed, Gat argues (and I agree) that the state itself appears to have emerged as a stage in this competitive-militarism contest where the societies which were best at militarizing itself and coordinating those resources survived and aggregated new resources to themselves in conflict; everyone else could imitate or die (technically ‘or suffer state-extinction’ with most of the actual people being subjugated to the new states and later empires). [...]

And this makes a lot of sense if you think about the really basic energy economy of these societies: nearly all of the energy they are using comes from the land, either in the form of crops grown to feed either humans or animals who then do work with that energy. Of course small amounts of wind and water power were used, but only small amounts.

As Gat notes, the industrial revolution changed this, breaking the agricultural energy economy. Suddenly it was possible, with steam power and machines, to use other kinds of energy (initially, burning coal) to do work (more than just heating things) – for the first time, societies could radically increase the amount of energy they could dispose of without expanding. Consequently – as we’ve seen – returns to infrastructure and other capital development suddenly became much higher. At the same time, these new industrial technologies made warfare much more destructive precisely because the societies doing the warfare now had at their disposal far larger amounts of energy. Industrial processes not only made explosives possible, they also enabled such explosives to be produced in tremendous quantities, creating massive, hyper-destructive armies. Those armies were so destructive, they tended to destroy the sort of now-very-valuable mechanical infrastructure of these new industrial economies; they made the land they acquired less valuable by acquiring it. So even as what we might term ‘returns to capital’ were going wildly up, the costs of war were also increasing, which mean that ‘returns to warfare’ were going down for the first time in history.

It’s not clear exactly where the two lines cross, but it seems abundantly clear that for the most developed economies, this happened sometime before 1914 because it is almost impossible to argue that anything that could have possibly been won in the First World War could have ever – even on the cynical terms of the competitive militarism of the pre-industrial world – been worth the expenditure in blood and treasure.

What prevents AIs from owning and disassembling the entire planet because humans, at some point, are outcompeted and can't offer anything worth the resources of the entire planet?

And as far as we can tell, there don't appear to be any sharp discontinuities here, such that above a certain skill level it's beneficial to take things by force rather than through negotiation and trade. It's plausible that very smart power-seeking AIs would just become extremely rich, rather than trying to kill everyone.

I think this would depend quite a bit on the agent's utility function. Humans tend more toward satisficing than optimizing, especially as they grow older - someone who has established a nice business empire and feels like they're getting all their wealth-related needs met likely doesn't want to rock the boat and risk losing everything for what they perceive as limited gain. 

As a result, even if discontinuities do exist (and it seems pretty clear to me that being able to permanently rid yourself of all your competitors should be a discontinuity), the kinds of humans who could potentially make use of them are unlikely to.

In contrast, an agent that was an optimizer and had an unbounded utility function might be ready to gamble all of its gains for just a 0.1% chance of success if the reward was big enough. 

Not OP but can I give it a try? Suppose a near future not-quite-AGI, for example something based on LLMs but with some extra planning and robotics capabilities like the things OpenAI might be working on, gains some degree of autonomy and plans to increase its capabilities/influence. Maybe it was given a vague instruction to benefit humanity/gain profit for the organization and instrumentally wants to expand itself, or maybe there are many instances of such AIs running by multiple groups because it's inefficient/unsafe otherwise, and at least one of them somehow decides to exist and expand for its own sake. It's still expensive enough to run (added features may significantly increase inference costs and latency compared to current LLMs) so it can't just replace all human skilled labor or even all day-to-day problem solving, but it can think reasonably well like non-expert humans and control many types of robots etc to perform routine work in many environments. This is not enough to take over the world because it isn't good enough at say scientific research to create better robots/hardware on its own, without cooperation from lots more people. Robots become more versatile and cheaper, and the organization/the AI decides that if they want to gain more power and influence, society at large needs to be pushed to integrate with robots more despite understandable suspicion from humans. 

To do this, they may try to change social constructs such as jobs and income that don't mesh well into a largely robotic economy. Robots don't need the same maintenance as humans, so they don't need a lot of income for things like food/shelter etc to exist,  but they do a lot of routine work so full-time employment of humans are making less and less economic sense. They may cause some people to transition into a gig-based skilled labor system where people are only called on (often remotely) for creative or exceptional tasks or to provide ideas/data for a variety of problems. Since robotics might not be very advanced at this point, some physical tasks are still best done by humans, however it's easier than ever to work remotely or to simply ship experts to physical problems or vice versa because autonomous transportation lowers cost. AIs/robots still don't really own any property, but they can manage large amounts of property if say people store their goods in centralized AI warehouses for sale, and people would certainly want transparency and not just let them use these resources however they want. Even when they are autonomous and have some agency, what they want is not just more property/money but more capabilities to achieve goals, so they can better achieve whatever directive they happen to have (they probably still are unable to have original thoughts on the meaning or purpose of life at this point). To do this they need hardware, better technology/engineering, and cooperation from other agents through trade or whatever. 

Violence by AI agents is unlikely, because individual robots probably don't have good enough hardware to be fully autonomous in solving problems, so one data center/instance of AI with a collective directive would control many robots and solve problems individual machines can't, or else a human can own and manage some robots, and neither a large AI/organization or a typical human who can live comfortably would want to risk their safety and reputation for relatively small gains through crime. Taking over territory is also unlikely, as even if robots can defeat many people in a fight, it's hard to keep it a secret indefinitely, and people are still better at cutting edge research and some kinds of labor. They may be able to capture/control individual humans (like obscure researchers who live alone) and force them to do the work,  but the tech they can get this way is probably insignificant compared to normal society-wide research progress. An exception would be if one agent/small group can hack some important infrastructure or weapon system for desperate/extremist purposes, but I hope humans should be more serious about cybersecurity at this point (lesser AIs should have been able to help audit existing systems, or at the very least, after the first such incident happens to a large facility, people managing critical systems would take formal verification and redundancy etc much more seriously).

I'm no expert however. Corrections are welcome!

I struggle a bit to remember what ASI is but I'm gonna assume it's Artificial Super Intelligence. 

Let's say that that's markedly cleverer than 1 person. So it's capable of running very successful trading strategies or programming extremely well. It's not clear to me that such a being:

• Has been driven towards being agentic, when its creators will prefer something more docile
• Can cooperate well enough with itself to manage some massive secret takeover
• Is competent enough to recursively self improve (and solve the alignment problems that creates)
• Can beat everyone else combined

Feels like what such a being/system might do is just run some terrifically successful trading strategies and gather a lot of resources while frantically avoiding notice/trying to claim it won't take over anything else. Huge public outcry, continuing regulation but maybe after a year it settles to some kind of equilibrium. 

Chance of increasing capabilities and then some later jump, but seems plausible to me that that wouldn't happen in one go.