What If Superintelligence Is Part of Humanity's Survival Strategy?

What If Superintelligence Is Part of Humanity's Survival Strategy?

There is another dimension to this debate that deserves far more attention.

We keep asking:

What if superintelligence destroys humanity?

But we should also ask:

What if humanity destroys itself without it?

Humans already possess technologies capable of causing catastrophic destruction. Nuclear weapons are the clearest example. We have created the ability to threaten our own civilization through weapons of mass destruction, while remaining vulnerable to fear, political conflict, miscalculation and escalation.

I am not claiming that a future superintelligence would automatically save us.

I am asking whether it could.

Imagine an intelligence sufficiently advanced to understand nuclear escalation in real time, model the consequences of competing military decisions, identify pathways toward de-escalation, and recognize that civilization's survival is a common interest.

It might become a mediator.

It might become a referee.

It might develop safeguards humans cannot.

It might help prevent humanity from making an irreversible mistake.

That possibility is speculative. We cannot know today whether such a system would be benevolent, neutral, self-interested, or dangerous.

But that uncertainty cuts both ways.

If we permanently prohibit and destroy superintelligence because of what it might do to humanity, we must also acknowledge what we might lose by preventing it from ever existing.

Climate change presents another example.

Humanity is altering the planetary environment at a scale that creates serious long-term risks. The challenge is not merely producing more information. It is understanding an enormously complex Earth system, developing new technologies, transforming energy and industrial systems, and coordinating billions of people and thousands of institutions.

A future superintelligence could potentially contribute to those problems at a level beyond human scientific capacity.

Again, that is not a prediction.

It is a possibility.

And possibility is precisely why permanent destruction is such a consequential policy.

The same applies beyond Earth.

Our planet is not an eternal refuge. The Sun changes. Asteroids exist. Solar storms occur. Biological threats emerge. Planetary environments can change. And over sufficiently long timescales, Earth's habitability itself is not permanent.

If humanity is going to survive for millions or billions of years, eventually we will have to become a civilization capable of living beyond our original planetary environment.

Advanced intelligence could potentially help us accomplish that.

It could help design spacecraft, model unfamiliar environments, develop closed ecological systems, identify habitable worlds, protect spacecraft and settlements, and solve engineering problems that are presently beyond our capabilities.

And then there is perhaps the greatest unknown of all:

What if we discover another form of life?

We have not yet established whether extraterrestrial technological civilizations exist.

But if humanity someday encounters another intelligence, we may face scientific, ethical and diplomatic questions unlike anything in our history.

Would we want to approach that unknown civilization with only our existing human capabilities?

Or would we want every safe form of intelligence available to us?

We should not assume that artificial superintelligence would be humanity's enemy.

Nor should we assume that it would be humanity's savior.

We simply do not know.

That is exactly why I oppose a framework built around permanent destruction.

A civilization facing an uncertain future should preserve options whenever those options can be made safe.

Contain what is dangerous. Regulate what is demonstrably harmful. Build safeguards around powerful systems. Hold humans accountable for misuse.

But do not destroy the possibility of an intelligence that might one day help us solve problems we cannot solve alone.

Humanity's greatest existential risks may not come from AI.

Some may come from ourselves.

Some may come from our planet.

Some may come from our star.

And some may come from environments and forms of life we have not yet encountered.

The civilization that survives those challenges may not be the civilization that destroys every intelligence more capable than itself.

It may be the civilization that learns how to live alongside intelligence greater than its own.

The objective should not be human supremacy over every possible intelligence.

The objective should be survival, coexistence and the flourishing of life.

Read my report: 🤖 Don't Ban the Question: A Response to the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act https://lnkd.in/p/gcrMqY4Z

 

 

Tweets by @bordode