Raw LLM Responses

I haven't read the author (I think Greene?) contrasted with Dawkins. What exactly is the significance of defining 'levels of selection' as opposed to dawkins' non-genetic replicators? It seems that the author is trying to draw a parallel between our fear of runaway self-modulating AI and the rapid expansion in control that self-conscious minds have inflicted upon their bodies, but the analogy was presented without much follow through. Without a more cohesive explanation of how ai/humans and consciousness/genes are being conceptually mapped to each other, I can neither accept nor properly critique this analogy. But I think I can nibble on the edges a bit. The above contrast between meme theory and 'unit of selection' seems to be a distinction without a difference that only serves to open the door to 'group selection' and other lazy pseudo-evolutionary concepts. The real problem I can get at is with the personification of genes as worry-warts that are 'building worryers' concerned with the gene's survival. This totally seems to miss the (admittedly concise and well executed) synopsis of consciousness as an evolved emergent property of the human brain-body-genome(-environment) construct. How the author gets from such a pleasant and evolutionarily plausible picture of consciousness to one in which individual genes are plotting against the consciousness is difficult to grasp. Genes are either maladapted or well adapted for the selection pressures in which they exist. This will, for the most part, determine the similarity of the next generation of replicators to this generation. If the gene is needed and well adapted it will be brought forward. This is true of sexually passed on genes in humans, oncogenic somatic mutations in humans, and in non-genetic replicators (memes) as well. Is the author stating that because evolutionary forces within a human lifetime act against the well-being of the human holobiont, the genes and the organism are in conflict? The canon