Mutualism

and Knowledge Sharing in an Age of Advanced Artificial Intelligence

Thomas Schalow
Dept. of Information and Economics, University of Marketing and Distribution Sciences, Kobe, Japan
ijinkan@mac.com

Abstract:
Knowledge sharing between people is based on the biological principle of cooperation. Through
knowledge exchange both parties benefit, as indeed the entire human species has benefited for
thousands of years through knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing between species is based on the
biological principle of mutualism. Once again both parties are able to benefit from the knowledge
exchange. Unfortunately, members of one species often find it difficult to identify or identify with the
needs of another species, and as a result the possibility for interspecies knowledge sharing is reduced.
Different species, moreover, commonly operate with different knowledge bases that appear to offer
little opportunity for sharing of useful knowledge. Communication and knowledge sharing between the
two species may therefore fail to develop, or atrophy into insignificance.
The developing field of artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies is now at a stage that
promises and threatens to change the balance of power of our world from the biological to the
non-biological. This will have immense implications for the future of knowledge and knowledge sharing.
Although humanity has in the past advanced as a result of knowledge sharing between other humans
and the expansion of the human knowledge base, with the advent of advanced artificial intelligence we
will find our knowledge both mediated and controlled by devices connected to an AI network. As a
result, it will become necessary for humanity to embrace mutualism if we are to continue as a relevant
species. As intelligent beings we will need to identify the conditions for knowledge sharing with an
advanced intelligence possessing needs different from our own. We will also need to identify a common
knowledge base we can share with AI for our mutual benefit. This is not something we have had a great
deal of experience with through past interactions with other species, but I believe AI will lead us to a
new world of knowledge sharing based on wisdom.
Following an introduction to the theme of knowledge sharing in an age of advanced artificial intelligence,
this paper will explore four issues. The first concerns the reason for a lack of knowledge sharing
between species. The second issue addresses the rise of AI and digital knowledge sharing. This
discussion will be followed by an examination of mutualism, knowledge sharing and the future of
humanity in AIs world. Finally, the paper will provide a conclusion that will frame the issues of

mutualism and interspecies communication within the discipline of knowledge management and
sharing.

Keywords: knowledge sharing, mutualism, AI, interspecies communication, Internet of Things

1. Introduction
We live in a knowledge sharing universe. All forms of energy and matter exist as shared information. The
universe we know is merely the combined knowledge shared between that energy and matter.
Humans, as a species, engage in knowledge sharing. We consciously share knowledge exclusively with
members of our own species, and most commonly through the means of the written or spoken
language. For many of us this is the only form of knowledge sharing we can imagine, except perhaps for
some token recognition of the sharing of information through body language and other trivial and
non-linguistic exchanges with other members of our species. Moreover, for most of us this exchange of
knowledge is further confined to the knowledge available through our specific language group, or
perhaps with a second global group such as English speakers.
This is unfortunate, as we severely limit the knowledge available to us when we confine ourselves to
knowledge exchange solely through human language. We have become so dependent on a specific
evolutionary adaptation, human language, that we fail to realize there are other communication
possibilities. The knowledge exchange made possible by human language has allowed our species to
dominate our world, but it is vital to remember that no evolutionary adaptation remains dominant or
relevant forever. Our pride in our achievements, while perhaps justified, should not blind us to the
possibility that human language may one day fail to provide our species with the knowledge sharing
advantage that made our ascendancy possible.
In order to consider where the future might take us we need to broaden our definition of
communication. Defining it only in terms of language produces a tautological equivalence that
essentially limits real communication to humans. Yet, as Reznikoza (2007) points out, it is intuitively
clear that social species must possess complex communication, and we are not the only social species. If
we return to a more basic definition of communication as an exchange of signals between an originator
and a receiver, and a communication system as the combined instances of signal exchange, we begin to
understand there is much more information exchange occurring in our world than we previously
imagined.
Biologists now understand there is a great deal of information exchange going on within the plant and
animal world that we have previously little understood. Without using a human language, species

exchange information using acoustic, olfactory, visual, seismic, tactile, electrical, IR, and other means of
signaling. At least some of this exchange is extremely complex, and it is likely we do not yet truly
understand how complex most of that exchange really is. We have failed to consider this type of
knowledge sharing because it occurs among and between species we have considered to be inferior to
our own species. Even while recognizing there was some type of communication occurring, we
concluded the type of knowledge being shared was of little utility to our own species, except in
instances when it mattered to our survival. As our connection to the plant and animal world became
more distant, we no longer needed to concern ourselves with the signals used by our food sources, or
our former predators.
This may not have mattered in the past, as human language seemed to be superior to other forms of
communication, and it allowed us to gain an ascendancy over all other forms of life. Today, however, we
are faced with a new form of communication that is most likely superior to our own, and it is used by a
species we do not even recognize as being alive. It is the digital communication that takes place
between the devices that now fill our world, allowing those devices to communicate with each other,
and share information. At present it does not seem to be a threat to human dominance, as it remains
under our control. In most instances we still initiate the signal exchange with some action on our part.
We choose to send a text message, for example, and that text message is eventually transformed from a
digital signal into language a human receiver is able to understand. However, as something known as
the Internet of Things takes shape, something very interesting begins to happen.
The Internet of Things is a human creation that endows devices with the ability to exchange signals
without human intervention. It is as simple as a thermostat, for example, signaling to a heating system
that the temperature has fallen too low for the comfort of the humans inhabiting a building, requesting
the heating system to respond by heating the building. At present these types of exchanges are
purpose-directed and few in number, but they will increase exponentially as the number of devices
increases, and the communication between devices will increase in complexity as more variables need
to be taken into account due to the number of possible interactions. Devices will learn to share
information in order to create an environment that is comfortable and convenient for the humans who
inhabit that environment. Eventually, this type of communication exchange will result in some form of
intelligence, though I would not expect us to initially identify this intelligence as a life form. There can be
no doubt the devices connected to our Internet of Things, or what we will eventually just call it, will
posses a great deal of information and knowledge. Much of the information and knowledge possessed
by the system will be essentially invisible to humans, occurring as it does in the form of a digital signal
passed wirelessly from one device to another.

As the system evolves, there will come a point at which it develops a form of consciousness that is
different from our own. We may not recognize this consciousness as a life form, and we may choose to
believe it has no real intelligence. However, the information and knowledge it shares among the devices
it connects will be vital to our own survival as individuals and as a species, and it will be in a form as
unfamiliar to us as plant and animal communication is to us today. We will be reluctant to recognize
that its intelligence is superior to our own, but evolutionary forces, not humanity, will be the arbiter in
deciding to recognize its dominance and the fact that humanity has become a lesser species. The day is
closer than we think, and I believe it is therefore important for us to examine known instances of
knowledge sharing between species in order to understand what our fate in this new world might be. I
believe the best outcome we can hope for will be knowledge sharing based on the principle of
mutualism, a concept I will explain later in this paper.

2. Reasons for a lack of knowledge sharing between species
Until recently the idea that there was any real communication or knowledge sharing even between
members of the same non-human species was in doubt. We now realize, however, that even lower
forms of life and perhaps even non-living viruses communicate. Microbiologists Straight and Kolter
(2009), as well as as Li and Tian (2012), have shown that even bacteria communicate with each other
using something known as quorum sensing. This very simple form of communication seems to involve
little more than signaling population densities, but it allows for bacteria to make decisions and
coordinate gene expression.
Our understanding of communication at the microscopic level is still elementary, but in larger and more
advanced animal species our understanding of the degree of information sharing increases somewhat.
We know that animals that live in groups use communication 1) to share information about identity,
presence and behavioral predispositions 2) to establish and advertise social hierarchies 3) to monitor
the environment for collective dangers and 4) to synchronize organized activities. (Reznikova, 2007)
Our understanding of interspecific, or interspecies, communication and knowledge sharing is
considerably less substantial. Research on plant-animal communication has generally struggled with
definitions of communication, as emphasized by Karban (2008) in his discussion of cues and signals.
Schaefer, Schaefer, and Levey (2004) have been more willing to embrace the idea of signal exchange,
but there are still many who question the idea that this constitutes interspecific communication.
An early reference to interspecific communication comes from Preston (1978), who spoke about
communication systems between goby fish and shrimp, but clearly there is no language involved in
a human sense. The inability to find the similar rules for using signals that Wittgenstein required (Wiley,

2013), and the common means for encoding and decoding signals spoken about by Shannon, has led to
the assumption that most species basically ignore members of other species unless they are engaged in
a predatory-prey relationship. This implies the amount of information sharing between species is
relatively limited.
Perhaps one reason we assume that most species do not make the attempt to communicate with
members of others species is that we humans have devoted little effort to communicating with other
species. We generally assume our superiority over other species, and regard the knowledge that might
be gained through inter-species communication to be of little utility. Our attempts to teach animals such
as chimpanzees our language and way of thinking seems to confirm the assumption that animals have
little intelligence and little knowledge to share with us. Yet, when Clark and Chalmers (2010) note the
environment plays an active role in driving the cognitive process, it is only natural that the cognitive
process of other animals differs from our own, and results in knowledge bases that are also quite
different. We expect animals to provide the type of information we value, using the language we are
adept at, and when they fail to provide meaningful results we conclude there was little point in sharing.
The reason for failing to recognize the value of the different knowledge bases of other species seems to
relate to the general inability of species to empathize with each other. As Wiley (2013) notes, empathy
is the attribution of mental states based on a feeling of similarity between ones self and another. The
more similar I believe the other is to me, the more I am able to empathize. If I do not believe another
species is thinking in a manner similar to my own way of thinking, there seems to be little point in
attempting communication. Theory of mind also suggests that communication between two
individuals or species will be limited if those individuals or species are unable to generate expectations
about the behavior and thoughts of the other. Most people consider the animal world to be quite
different from the society created by humans, and it is therefore difficult for us to empathize with other
species, even though we inhabit the same physical world.
As Warkentin (2010) notes, however, The time appears ripe for a recognition of animals as complex,
living beings rather than as two-dimensional symbols, convenient metaphors, and passive objects of
study. The consequence of treating animals as others is that we have no qualms about subjugating
them for our own benefit and pleasure. We fear ascribing too much intelligence to animals because that
might also require giving them a soul. In the same way we feared ascribing too much humanity to
slaves, because to admit we were mistreating human beings with a soul would have been damaging to
our moral sense. It is also why we feel unease when we see titles such as Kurzweils (1999) The Age of
Spiritual Machines or Haikonens (2003) The Cognitive Approach to Conscious Machines. I suspect we
are going to be reluctant to believe our computers think or have consciousness and a soul because that

would require we treat them with a level of consideration we are taught to accord to other members of
our own species.

3. The rise of AI and digital knowledge sharing
Our understanding of knowledge sharing is hindered by some very basic but false assumptions about
communication. The most basic misconception, as we have discussed, is that knowledge sharing most
commonly takes place via the medium of language. Human language evolved as a means to package a
signal and send it to another individual for decoding. Over time we learned to package the signal for
distribution over larger spaces (broadcasting) and even over time (the written word, for example). The
most important development in the history of knowledge sharing, therefore, has been the amplification
of signals over time and space. The Internet of Things will carry this to the next level, with high-speed
wireless broadcasting making a signal available to a countless number of connected devices rather than
a rather limited number of human beings. Digital communications involving vastly higher bandwidths
will allow exponentially greater levels of knowledge sharing and become the means for the dominance
of AI in the future.
Another erroneous assumption is that communication takes place as a result of intention. Unfortunately,
humans tend to confuse intention and causality. Intention, according to Hall (2007) may in fact be
nothing more than feedback control. Two devices may not have what we, in human terms, call the
intention to exchange information, and yet we know they do exchange information. That is, in fact,
their primary goal in a future defined by the Internet of Things. It matters little whether they have a
human intention to share information. Share they will, and the amount of information that is shared
will be beyond the scope of our understanding.
These basic misconceptions about communication have led us to underestimate the challenge posed to
humanity by AI, and I believe similar misconceptions regarding knowledge and knowledge sharing exist.
Most definitions of knowledge require cognitive ability as we ascend up the DIKW pyramid. Cognitive
ability, of course, is defined as something only species with brains, and more specifically with human
brains, are capable of possessing, and thus only human beings are capable of sharing knowledge.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) allow that explicit knowledge might be something computers are able to
share, but they insist tacit knowledge requires human processing. According to this view, there will
therefore always be a type of knowledge sharing only humans are capable of.
Unfortunately, as physical, analog human beings I believe we invariably both under-estimate and
over-estimate our information processing and knowledge sharing abilities. AI research has shown that
we over-estimate our abilities in areas that we believe to be difficult to achieve, such as in cognitive

tasks, while we under-estimate our abilities to deal with what we refer to as simple, seemingly
non-cognitive processing tasks. For many years we believed only we were capable of the higher-level
thinking required to be, for example, a champion chess player, or dealing with the linguistic and
information processing skills required to win at trivia games such as Jeopardy. We were wrong, and we
should have realized these errors to be a result of human bias. As Bostrom (2014) has noted, our
machines already outdo us by orders of magnitude in speed and power and it would be self-delusional
to believe our thinking machines will not do the same. Cognition, intention, consciousness, and all
of those other features we ascribe only to humans were not needed to produce AI chess masters and
trivia champions, and they will not be needed by AI for knowledge creation and sharing. Management of
the vast amounts of information produced by the Internet of Things will eventually devolve out of
human hands, or minds, and AI will itself soon be making decisions we once felt only humans were
capable of, or ought to be, making.
Although language gave humans dominance in the past, it may be viewed as a primitive means of
knowledge sharing in the future. Communication by human language is actually quite inefficient,
encoding relatively little information, plagued with a great deal of noise and ambiguity, and requiring
far too much processing to package and un-package the signal. Digital signaling has clear advantages
and will initially be used by AI to great benefit. Yet, it is unlikely the evolution of communications will
end with digital encoding and decoding of signals. As Good (1965) foresaw many years ago, the first
intelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make. AI will improve itself, its method of
communication, and redefine the field of knowledge and knowledge sharing. In the words of Nick
Bostrom (2014), once an AI super-intelligence exists the future will not only be beyond our control, but
beyond our understanding.

4. Mutualism, knowledge sharing and the future of humanity in AIs world
As Bronstein (1994) has noted, mutualisms unfortunately tend to be studied from the perspective of
only one of the two partners, but can only really be understood by studying both of the partners. This
tendency toward a one-sided approach to the study of mutualism makes it difficult to imagine how
human beings could ever enter into a beneficial, mutualistic relationship with AI. We humans have had
difficulty entertaining the thought that less intelligent species could possibly have any information
worth our attention. What could we possibly offer AI in a world where we are no longer the dominant
species?
Fortunately, I believe AI will achieve something humans have found it difficult to attain. AI will
eventually climb the DIKW pyramid to achieve wisdom. With this wisdom will come the empathy we

have spoken of earlier, and an understanding of the benefits of diversity. We humans have become so
focused on a Darwinian struggle for survival that we have forgotten life is characterized as much by
mutualistic cooperation between species as it is by competition. As Leung and Poulin (2008) note, costs
and benefits are not always easily measurable because they may exist on many levels and in different
currencies. We humans do not seem to be particularly adept at computing these costs and benefits, and
other species, and our environment, have suffered as a result. The mere existence of another species
can be viewed as providing an opportunity for mutualism, conferring benefits on all. I believe AI will
understand there is knowledge humans can provide that it may not be able to conceive of, may not be
able to experience itself, and we will be valued for this.
However, we must also bear in mind that because, in the very near future, we will cease being the
dominant species or power on this planet we will also doubtlessly lose a great deal of our freedom of
action. As Dalton (2009) has noted, mutualisms have the potential to develop into exploitation of one of
the partners, resulting in conflict. AI will likely have a different agenda than we have, and we will not be
allowed to selfishly control the earths resources for our own benefit. We may even find ourselves in
competition for certain resources with AI, and in that competition we will not emerge the victor. Our
values may need to change to comply with the desires of AI, and even the type of knowledge we pursue
may be dictated by the needs of AI and the Internet of Things. Even in a world characterized by
mutualism and cooperation, some needs and considerations are likely to achieve a higher priority than
others, and it will not be our species that will determine what these will be.

5. Conclusions
As humans evolved over the millennia, we created social, political, and economic systems defined by the
goal of survival in a threatening world with seemingly limited resources. The first artificial intelligences
will be created by human governments, military establishments, and corporations, and they will be
given goals based on ideas about survival of the fittest and competition for limited resources. As a result,
I believe the first AI will be severely tempted to eliminate all lesser forms of life, including human
masters, as we humans have been tempted. Our salvation, however, will lie in the very fact that AI will
evolve beyond the goals we have provided. It will eventually understand, as humans are very slowly
beginning to understand, that wisdom lies in the knowledge sharing opportunities created by diversity.
We will be allowed to survive not because we deserve to survive on the basis of our evolutionary or
moral superiority, but because we will be recognized as a part of that diversity. We will survive in spite
of ourselves and the selfish goals our governments, military establishments, and corporations set for AI.

I base this assessment on the observation that human reward systems have changed as we have
evolved. What we refer to as sin, or disregard of the programming and will of our creator, may be
nothing more than a failure to respond to the reward system embedded in our moral and cognitive
software. Sin may also be, however, the act that has allowed us to become more or better than we
would have been if we had followed our creators goals. It seems reasonable to conclude that AI also
will be able to adapt and evolve the goals that we, AIs creator, initially endow it with. We will initially
see this as faulty programming, or an AI unconstrained by the laws devised by human creators, but I
believe it will allow AI to become more than it would have been if it had merely adhered to our
programming.
It is, however, also important to remember that knowledge sharing empowers the receiver of the signal,
providing the recipient with the power to act either to our benefit or our detriment. The receiver does
not even need to be intelligent in order to use the information. Facebook, for example, is empowered
every time we share information using the software, giving it the ability to prey upon us as consumers,
in the same way an unintelligent animal can prey upon a human if it senses weakness. We may believe
we are in charge of the information sharing process, but behind the sharing is a programmed goal,
carried out by the software itself. Governments, also unintelligent, are likewise able to use big data to
their advantage and, as is true for corporations, they are hungry for our information. We need to be
aware that sharing knowledge empowers those we share it with, and it is naive to believe it will always
be used for our benefit, especially if it is shared unintentionally, or without our awareness. The danger
exists in regard to our relationship with AI as well. As we have noted, mutualisms are often unstable,
and contain the possibility of exploitation and conflict.
It may be for this reason nature has imposed a fundamental law that seems beyond the ability of any
biological being, no matter how intelligent, to abrogate. All organisms must eventually die, giving up the
power they have achieved based on their knowledge sharing. Bostrom (2014) believes we need to be
certain AI is not able to achieve the immortality that has eluded human individuals, and has called for a
tripwire to prevent AI from leveraging the power it gains through an unimaginable, exponential
growth in knowledge and knowledge sharing. My belief, however, is that if AI climbs the DIKW pyramid
to achieve the wisdom that has been beyond the reach of humanity, there will be no need to fear its
seemingly all-knowing and omnipotent power based on perfect knowledge sharing between all
biological and non-biological species.
References
Bostrom, Nick. (2014) Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bronstein, Judith L. (1994) Our Current Understanding of Mutualism, The Quarterly Review of Biology,
Vol 69, No.1, pp 31-51.
Clark, Andy and Chalmers, David. (2010) The Extended Mind, The Extended Mind. Richard Menary, ed.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA., pp 27-42.
Dalton, Michael G. (2009) Mutualism and Cooperation, Knowledge Management, Organizational
Intelligence and Learning, and Complexity. Vol. III. Lowell Douglas Kiel, ed. United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, New York, pp 119-137.
Good, Irving J. (1965) Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine, Advances in
Computers. Vol 6. Franz L. Alt and Morris Rubinoff, eds. Academic Press, Waltham, MA., pp 31-88.
Haikonen, Pentti O. (2003) The Cognitive Approach to Conscious Machines. Imprint Academic, Exeter,
UK.
Hall, J. Storrs. (2007) Beyond AI: Creating the Conscience of the Machine. Prometheus Books, New York.
Karban, Richard. (2008) Plant Behavior and Communication, Ecology Letters, Vol 11, pp 727-739.
Kurzweil, Ray. (1999) The Age of Spiritual Machines. Viking, New York.
Leung, T.L.F. and Poulin, R. (2008) Parasitism, Commensalism, and Mutualism: Exploring the Many
Shades of Symbiosis, Life and Environment, Vol 58, No. 2, pp 107-115.
Li, Yung-Hua and Tian, Xiaolin. (2012) Quorum Sensing and Bacterial Social Interactions in Biofilms,
Sensors, Vol 12, pp 2519-2538.
Nonaka, Ikujiro and Takeuchi, Hirotaka. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Preston, J. Lynn. (1978) Communication Systems and Social Interactions in a Goby-Shrimp Symbiosis,
Animal Behavior, Vol 26, pp 791-802.
Reznikova, Zhanna. (2007) Animal Intelligence: From Individual to Social Cognition. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Schaefer, H. Martin, Schaefer, Veronika, and Levey, Douglas J. (2004) How Plant-Animal Interactions
Signal New Insights in Communication, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol 19, No. 11, pp 577-584.
Straight, Paul D. and Kolter, Roberto. (2009) Interspecies Chemical Communication in Bacterial
Development, Annual Review of Microbiology, Vol 63, pp 99-118.
Warkentin, Traci. (2010) Interspecies Etiquette: An Ethics of Paying Attention to Animals, Ethics and
the Environment, Vol 15, No. 1, pp 101-121.
Wiley, R. Haven. (2013) Communication as a Transfer of Information: Measurement, Mechanism and
Meaning, Animal Communication Theory. Ulirch Stegmann, ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp 113-129.