AI, Robotics and Tit-for-Tat
The Answer to Universal Buddhism?
I think buddhism is selfish and parasitic.
I also think it encodes some of the most important wisdom any human has ever discovered.
So now what?
Selfish
Let’s begin with the first statement. Selfish. It might seem outrageous, but I can’t shake this idea. Being a buddhist is focusing on improvement, the path to “enlightenment” and the extinguishing of the idea of a self. It’s counter-intuitive, but you really need to focus a lot on the self to be able to lose the self. You also need a lot of free time, which requires a very stable society around you, which you don’t contribute much to maintain.
One of the exercises practiced in some traditions is precisely to change focus and suddenly look for who is looking. The idea is that by suddenly looking very intently in search of who is perceiving things, and finding no one, you’ll get a glimpse at the intuitive idea of there being no self. I’ve practiced this and reached that beautiful state of understanding that there is no self perceiving, just perceptions. The trouble is, for me at least, that state fades as swiftly as cotton candy in water. But it is a good simile for what I feel: in the pursuit of selflessness, you need to focus entirely on the self.
Parasitic
The Buddha and his followers lived in a community called the Sangha. Their focus was on attaining “enlightenment” and renunciation, meaning they would not be attached to family, earthly possessions, money, carnal desires, and so forth. They further couldn’t harm any living being or work. This means that they didn’t grow crops or hunt for food. They didn’t even gather fruit or dig for wild roots. They weren’t allowed to dig to ensure they wouldn’t harm any animal living in the dirt.
To survive, all of the Sangha relied on donations. Every morning, they would go on an alms round, where they would take any food and other offerings that the surrounding villagers decided to give. From this food and gifts, they would survive.
This is beautiful, but it certainly doesn’t scale. You require a stable society that has a big portion of the population not pursuing “enlightenment” and willing to support those who are. If everyone decides to join the Sangha, they’ll all starve. The Sangha itself further contributes very little to keeping a stable society able to support it. I’m a computer scientist that loves the world of simulations and game theory. One known societal dynamic that has been demonstrated several times is that a society of individuals that always cooperate and are harmless is extremely susceptible to being overrun by individuals who don’t cooperate and take advantage of those who do. If you want a stable society where everyone cooperates, you need individuals that cooperate, but only with people that “deserve it”.
Tit-for-Tat
The most famous such behavioural policy is the Tit-for-Tat. This is an extremely simple policy which has proven to be extremely effective at ensuring not only individual advantage but also at nurturing cooperation in a society. The rules are simple: you begin by being good and cooperating with anyone you meet. If they cooperate back and are good to you, you keep cooperating with them. If, however, they don’t cooperate and take advantage of you, you give them hell the next time you interact and also try to exploit them. In simple terms: Be good to the good, be bad to the bad. As simple as it might be, if you want a stable society where everyone cooperates, this is the way people need to behave. If all society behaves like this, everyone cooperates. If someone decides to try and exploit people, they will soon be surrounded by people who don’t cooperate with them, which isn’t at all profitable and is a very good incentive for them to go back to behaving nicely to everyone again.
Buddhists are full on cooperators. They’re nice to everyone and if truly following the principles, they wouldn’t even lash back at someone who is trying to hack away at their limbs. That isn’t a problem if you’re surrounded by others who do behave in a Tit-for-Tat way. But if everyone is buddhist, there is nothing keeping society in check. An outside group of self-interested individuals can go along and steal, enslave and murder at will, with no push back whatsoever. Sure, if everyone is truly buddhist, society is safe, as everyone cooperates. But having everyone suddenly become a buddhist at the same time sounds highly unlikely. Besides, everyone would starve since there is no one to beg alms from.
AI and Robots
It might seem that I’m not a big fan of buddhism, but that’s not true at all. I do think it is the only reliable set of instructions to end conscious suffering that we have found thus far as a species. Sure, perhaps some bio-engineering and brain hacking will get us there eventually. The case of Jo Cameron, a Scottish that lady feels no pain or anxiety, does point to that being possible. But we aren’t quite there yet. Furthermore, a population of happy people that feel no pain or negative feelings will also likely do a terrible job at Tit-for-Tating.
If to be rid of suffering, we can’t be bothered with working, making food or keeping evil doers at bay, someone, or something, has to. If we want everyone to get rid of suffering, the someone gets excluded. All we are left with, is the something. Enter AI and robots.
Artificial Intelligence, coupled with a robotic apparatus that allows it to interact with reality, might very well be the solution to global buddhism being a possibility. These mechanical and electrical doers and thinkers could take care of making food and keeping evil doers under check, as we humans focus on “enlightenment” and getting rid of suffering and this pesky idea of a self. If we find a way to generate food that requires no conscious being to be harmed, then our sweet AI caretakers could do that to feed us and nurture us, as we spend all out time getting rid of attachments and harming absolutely nothing.
It certainly sounds more dystopian than utopian, but how else can we have absolutely everyone be a true buddhist? If a solution for universal suffering doesn’t cover everyone, what sort of universal solution is it?
As time goes by, I do believe we will of-load more and more of the tasks that bring us suffering to AI and robotics. Will we perhaps reach the point of of-loading everything and simply being? Having nothing that we “need” to do? Its strange to think about and it certainly feels like letting go of something we would like to keep control over. But that is exactly the sort of grasping that buddhism tries to fight. If buddhism truly is the answer, then I think AI and robotics will have to be a part of the equation.
Your depiction of Buddhism reflects a profound misunderstanding that undermines its depth and richness. The selfless state you alluded to bears no meaningful connection to the Buddhist doctrine of anatman, a cornerstone of liberation. Furthermore, your portrayal of the sangha is strikingly narrow; it encompasses not only bhikshus and bhikshunis but also lay practitioners, who are integral to the community. One need not don robes or embrace monastic vows to walk the path to enlightenment—Buddhism is not an exclusive club for ascetics. Indeed, the notion that a society’s majority would become monks or nuns is absurd, given the rigorous discipline required, a fact that highlights the tradition’s practical inclusivity rather than an elitist retreat.
More critically, your interpretation of the no-harm principle (ahimsa) is a gross caricature, painting Buddhists as passive doormats awaiting exploitation. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Buddhism does not equate nonviolence with weakness; it is a dynamic ethic rooted in wisdom and strength. Consider the Vajrayana tradition, where practices like annihilation rites exist to confront and eliminate malevolent forces when necessary, as seen in the Upāyakauśalya Sūtra’s account of a bodhisattva compassionately killing to save others. Buddhists are not idle in the face of aggression; they act with discernment, not cowardice. A universal Buddhism as you’ve misconstrued it—stripped of its nuance, resilience, and transformative power—would scarcely merit the effort to preserve.