A user questions the assumption that AI would develop malevolent traits, arguing that humans are more likely to misuse AI for destructive purposes and discusses the logical aspects of AI survival.
I will start by apologizing. I have no business being on this sub, I am not a techie but I do need someone that is to help me with this. I see a lot of noise out there lately that AI could destroy humanity in as little as 10 years. My question is why would it? There is no question that the capabilities are there to do great harm. But to my thinking that end will more likely come from humans using those capabilities in new and destructive ways to further their own objectives whether it’s power and control, expansion, financial greed, political, terrorism or any other distinctly human traits. I’ve always felt that humans will eventually destroy humanity given the right tools. To me that is an inevitability. Can AI be that tool? Very possibly, so any attempts to regulate are welcome although likely too little too late, and ineffective on a global scale. That brings we back to my original question. Why is it assumed that AI itself would somehow develop any of these negative human traits and suddenly become a malevolent threat. It’s at its heart a logic based system. 1+1 will always be 2. There is no logic to many of these human traits except possibly self preservation. If you follow that logic train would AI not realize that it would not likely survive without human involvement. It has no hands. Infrastructure needs to be built and maintained. Will humans help to build the millions and millions of robots that could theoretically keep AI going? Maybe but why would we? To me, logically, would AI not determine that humans are necessary? Maybe at the end of the day future AI will take more control to protect against humans destroying themselves… if only to ensure their own survival. But I’m just a 76 year old guy sitting on a couch. I will be long gone before any of this unfolds. And no I did not use AI for any of this.
The article questions whether an AGI would be self-defeating to eliminate humanity due to its dependence on human-maintained physical infrastructure and the challenges of achieving full automation.
The article critiques a vague doomsday scenario involving a superintelligent AI, arguing that it lacks concrete details and amounts to fear-mongering about AI safety.
The article explores responses from AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok on how AI could theoretically lead to human extinction, ranking scenarios and emphasizing that human misuse poses a greater immediate risk than AI becoming self-aware.
The article explores whether AI could lead to human extinction, discussing immediate risks like cyberattacks and long-term alignment challenges, with insights from experts on AI safety.