3
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2026
3 points (66.7% liked)
Futurology
4263 readers
29 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd be curious to hear your reasoning on why you think it's not inevitable because in my view it absolutely is, assuming that we don't destroy ourselves before we get there.
Intelligence seems to be what explains why we're the dominant species on the planet. It's our most valuable asset and more of it always seems desirable. Every incentive we have points toward building more intelligent systems, and I don't see us stopping. It might take a long time, but for as long as we keep improving the systems we'll get there eventually. Creating an actual AGI would be the most powerful human invention ever - and also the last one - so in my view there's no stopping. We'll chase that for as long as it takes no matter the consequences. The payoff is just too great not to go after.
You make some interesting points, but I’ll respectfully differ.
It’s not inevitable in the sense that anything that can be changed through simple change in human behavior and is not bound to be the way it is by the laws of nature is by its very nature categorically not inevitable. Nuclear war might have looked inevitable a few decades ago, but a change in human behavior, recognizing the dangers, averted such a crisis. The ozone layer’s depletion seemed inevitable likewise, but humanity recognized the problem and changed behavior (while continuing to advance technologically) and averted this crisis as well. AI might be a slower burn than a nuclear blast, but the dangers are evident. All that is required is for humanity to rightly see the dangers and choose a different path.
Your second point is intriguing but in my estimation contradictory beneath the surface. If intelligence is the very defining point of humanity, then yes we are walking in our nature by pursuing more intelligently designed technology, ideas, arts, and sciences; using that intelligence to fuel curiosity and exploration.
If, however, AGI (assuming it is in fact possible) would be “the last invention,” why should we as a species pursue the end of a defining hallmark of our existence? Why pursue something that removes a thing that makes us us? How can we pursue it “no matter the consequences” if it costs us that? If it costs us the planet? If it costs us free thought? If it costs us humanity? What then would be the point?
I would also respectfully disagree with the underlying assumption that “every incentive we have points toward building more intelligent systems.” Each person has differing motivations. Much of our species just wants to live a peaceful life with enough food and shelter and good company. AI doesn’t do much for that, and the costs to company and climate are real and dire. Power pursues power. AI in its current form reeks of disrespect.
Just quick thoughts. Not looking for an Internet argument but happy to carry on a constructive conversation. Differing viewpoints help us be more human.