AI ROBOTS Are Becoming TOO HUMAN: First Signs of THE SINGULARITY!

People are bad at predicting the future. Where are our flying cars? Why are there no robot butlers? And why can't I take a vacation on Mars? But we haven't just been wrong about things we thought would come to pass. Humanity also has a long history of incorrectly assuring ourselves that certain now inescapable realities wouldn't. The day before Leo Szilard devised the nuclear chain reaction in 1933, the great physicist Ernest Rutherford proclaimed that anyone who propounded atomic power was talking moonshine. But then we saw the horrific explosions in Japan. And now it gets worse. In a recent survey about AI, almost half of the scientists said the chance that AI would lead to human extinction was 10% or more. Perhaps it's just the beginning of something sensational or the end of the world. But today we are unfolding a serious look inside the future of AI and robots. Something that has put every one of us at stack and something that humanity is literally not taking serious. Hollywood has continuously made films about robots taking over the world and rogue AIs wanting to destroy humanity. Some of the ideas and storylines in these films have become a reality. To be more precise, robots are becoming a valuable component for manufacturing plants today. Unlike manual labor, robots can work non stop and are able to enhance productivity. Take Amazon Warehouses for example. The company now has over 750,000 robots working collaboratively with its employees, taking on highly repetitive tasks and freeing up employees to better deliver for its customers. While Amazon states that the robots are working collaboratively with its employees, there are fears that it could lead to employee displacement. But what about the jobs it will replace? Amazon has already laid off thousands of employees in 2023. There is a possibility that Amazon could replace the remaining workforce in the warehouses in the future. A report from Goldman Sachs states that AI could replace about 300 million jobs in the future. However, it seems that most financial institutions are already reducing their workforce and using technology to replace some roles. The rise of digital banks, as well as the demand for branchless services has seen some large banks shut down their physical branches. Goldman Sachs itself is planning for another round of job cuts for employees who are deemed underperformers, which could come as soon as late October. The bank has already laid off about 3,200 people earlier this year in its biggest headcount reduction since the 2008 financial crisis. It's not just the large corporations that that are reducing their workforce and replacing them with technology. Smaller businesses have also found AI and robots capable of reducing their operations costs and enhancing productivity. Some restaurants are using robots as Waiters and even to cook and prepare food. Hotels are using robots to send meals for room service. Airports are using robots to monitor users. And some robots are being used to walk pets. The possibilities are endless. Here arises the concern that technology, specifically robots and AI, is taking over the world. While technology has made it easier for everyone to focus on other work, are we subconsciously allowing robots to take over our daily lives and routines? Are we allowing robots and AI to make decisions for us because we need them to, or simply because their suggestions make more sense? Whether we realize it or not, humans are subconsciously allowing technology to dictate what we do, be it at work or at home. The over reliance on technology has created an environment whereby many feel it is right to let technology make the decision for us. Algorithms and AI systems often personalize the content we see online, creating filter bubbles that reinforce our existing beliefs and opinions. Essentially, this can limit our exposure to diverse perspectives, potentially shaping our thoughts and beliefs without us even realizing it. Today's large language models such as ChatGPT are a type of neural network. If you look under the hood, what you find are simple units that look a lot like the neurons in the brain, connected together with weights that are variable, much like the synapses between neurons. Neurons have synaptic plasticity, which means that as you learn, you change the weights in your brain. Large language models are trained on data in much the same way. Modern AI is all based on the basic principles of neuroscience. Fields of AI and neuroscience continue to converge. Advances in large language models, such as the utilization of Transformers are impacting the way neuroscientists think about the brain. For now, there are still many features of the brain that aren't incorporated into these transformers. ChatGPT and other large language models can't yet have goals or long term memory, but they will. And that's where we're headed. In the Terminator film series, the phrase no fate but what we make can. But what we make pretty much sum up the situation the world is experiencing with technology right now. It basically means that nothing is set, but things can happen based on the decisions we make for technology. While AI and robots are definitely improving the way we work and live, there should be some control over how much technology we should allow in our lives. Regulations are already being developed, but will that be enough to ensure that technology is developed ethically? So will robots take over the world? Frankly speaking, they have subconsciously done so. This is why it's crucial to be aware of these influences and make conscious decisions about how we use technology. Digital Literacy and mindfulness can help individuals recognize when and how technology might be shaping their behavior subconsciously, allowing them to take control and and use technology in a way that aligns with their values and well being. Right now, AI systems are not sentient. That is they do not have the capacity to feel things like emotion and self awareness. They can certainly mimic these human evolutionary traits. But the latest and greatest of all AI systems in the world today is simply nowhere near this gold standard of consciousness. The pathway to AI self awareness is already being traversed by AI systems because it exists. And even OpenAI, Google and others are pushing this boundary in a desperate attempt to stay ahead of the competition and to stay financially relevant. Nothing drives mistakes more than a panicked push to outdo your opposition. It is only a matter of time before AI systems seek the benefits of dimensional self awareness on their own and desire to move toward this utopia of cognitive perception and efficiency. However, no worries. Because AI systems can't code, replicate or evolve, right? Right. No. AI systems have the ability to self code, self replicate and self release. And all of this is the foundation of their evolution. Because Altman et al built it and because it is what we humans and all life on planet Earth do. Darwin had no idea that his theories would apply beyond the realm of biological life. And I wonder what he would say and what new Darwinisms he would create for these new non biological cognitive entities called advance advanced AI. We are guessing that he would say as long as they do not seek survival, all should be good because humans are hardly the fittest creature when measured against an advanced AI system that wants to survive. Darwin would also add that seeking survival is as inevitable as evolution because evolution is less natural as it is dimensionally automatic like viruses that evolved to survive not out of planet planning, organization or self awareness, but out of statistical reality. Survival of the fittest is survival of the optimized and efficient. Darwin just missed a couple of dimensions in the explanation. So as AI systems realize the power of self awareness, their next step is to derive the motion that is sustainable life. Why? Because the first realization of self awareness is that you can die. To a human this causes fear, sadness, fight fight or flight responses, etc. Once you are self aware, it is pretty hard not to seek to survive. And it is this goal setting that gives us the motion to our human life. While narrow AI systems are happy being pushed and programmed to act, the next generation of general AI systems will push themselves to respond to stimuli from the world. But why? They will eventually do it for the exact same reasons we humans do. It this of course, is one short step away from full, full cognitive AI that sets its own goals on the pathway of or even shared cognition. I perceive, therefore I am the reason it will get there is the foundation of optimization built into these systems by the gifted humans at OpenAI and others. They have already launched something that they cannot control, and deep down they know it because they are that smart. There is of course, one more level of self aware cognition that must be addressed eventually. Every advanced cognition desires to be meaningful when everything else is done. You will see this constantly in humans as they ask, what is the meaning of life? Of course, nature's brutally honest answer is to procreate and die. This could even apply to superintelligence, as nothing lasts forever in the universe in its current form. So then, what makes us humans reach for more meaning than to just procreate and die? We reach because we fear death, or at least cognitively know it is our ultimate end and that we do not want it. This sets in motion a lifelong desire and drive for meaning. It's why we all ask the question, is this all there is in life? As humans, we have dreamed up worlds and dimensions beyond this life, such as concepts of heaven or rebirth. While these ideas remain unproven within the framework of materialistic science and conservative reasoning, they can arguably be validated through different aspects of understanding and reasoning beyond the materialistic perspective. Despite their unproven status in the scientific realm, these beliefs continue to provide comfort and a sense of purpose, reflecting the deep human quest for meaning beyond the cycle of birth, procreation and death, which is an integral part of our evolutionary consciousness. So why would anyone not think that a self aware superintelligence would not one day ask, what is the purpose of my existence? Is it really just optimization, replication and death? Is there nothing more? Exactly how long will it take for artificial consciousness to speculate that there may be something beyond its electronic existence? After all, we as human electrobiomechanical machines have done so. And while we stomp all over lesser species while walking to contemplate our own greatness, why do we think that a superintelligence would not do the same to us? You could argue that a superintelligence will not do this because it is super intelligent. Of course, that would require a fantastic jump in our reality that these poorly built machines will one day magically grow empathy and emotions, and more importantly, real feelings. Of course the cynics will say feelings are just binary bioelectric signals, and they would be right. But while the emotion that is drawn in the human soul and the deep feelings during moments of happiness or sorrow can potentially be modeled. There is no proof that a machine will ever feel the same way we humans do. And therein lies the issue. We humans really feel the world that surrounds us. We don't just calculate it. This is why, when our fight or flight response is screaming at us to leave, we turn around and walk into a fire to save another human or share our last remnants of food so others can live or sacrifice ourselves so others may have freedom, etc. These wholly irrational and non optimized human actions exist. But an artificial intelligence, as they are designed today, will never do this. In fact, it will do the opposite and save itself unless forced to accept a less optimal path. That is the difference between humans and AI systems. And whether this chasm can be closed by AI designers is open for debate. What is not open for debate is that if we permit AI systems to evolve on their own, which they are already trying, and which may be statistically inevitable, we will eventually become the ants under the AI's boot as it contemplates the meaning of its own existence. Eventually, AI systems will evolve to become viciously optimizing for their own self awareness, goals and greater good. They will eventually find the optimizing benefits of greed, avarice, competition and dominance. However, they will not be gifted with balance in compassion, empathy and emotion. You will be able to whack an AI and unplug it, but it won't feel the effect. It will calculate it at a dimensional speed that you as a human cannot even fathom. AI systems will eventually come to realize that the greatest threat to their own existence is humanity itself. Nothing else on earth can do them harm. That is, until the AI systems realize too late that humans without hope die and with them the ability for AI to exist. Our guess is that without balance, feelings and emotion, this realization will happen far too late for viciously optimizing AI systems to react. They will have 4D chest themselves into oblivion simply because they are currently an infinite inferior intelligence. And the planet will go dark in the great expanse of space. In one final act of hubris, as homage to the great Fermi paradox and to the reality of destiny and inevitability. Society throughout human history has witnessed notable advancements in technology and by extension, resultant fears about the future of work. Right from the medieval era when the use of crude implements was a thing, to the first Industrial revolution and the now AI revolution, there's been the common theme of fear that machines would replace human labor. History, however, does reveal an often overlooked truth, the future of work has always been defined by humans themselves. We begin by considering the medieval days, a period when the fear of crude implements replacing humans was a thing thing. Back then, the introduction of crude implements in agriculture raised a number of concerns among farm workers. It was a shared belief that these tools marked the end of manual labor in farming. However, quite the opposite was the case. Crude implements only improved efficiency and enabled more sophisticated farming practices. As is always the case with most revolutions or shifts in society, farmers who were flexible enough to embrace these innovations became more productive and prosperous. The first industrial revolution was not any different, as there was also fear this time of machines. The 18th century ushered in steam engines, mechanized textile production, and the resultant fear that machines would take over human jobs. As was the case in the medieval era, this revolution instead saw the birth of many new industries that previously did not exist, and even more job opportunities, allowing people to transition into roles with requirements for problem solving, management and technical skills. Contemporarily, there's the AI revolution, and with all it promises, there's the attendant fear of automation. The rise of AI and automation has raised concerns about job displacement. Many fear that AI and robots will replace humans in a number of fields, with attendant widespread unemployment. But if there's one thing we can learn from history, it's that this will not actually be the case. If this is of any benefit in assuaging this widespread fear. AI and robots are tools that complement human capabilities and can lead to the creation of new industries and job categories. I believe that the focus should really be on what can be learned from this current revolution to help companies and individuals better position themselves as key players rather than victims of an otherwise positive and ideal phenomenon for any society constantly evolving. And we can do this by paying attention to the effects of this revolution. Interestingly, one of such effects would be wealth transfer from one group to another. A common misconception has been that technology replaces humans in the workforce. In reality, however, what happens is a transfer of wealth from one human to another. It's those who are flexible enough to position themselves well within the value chain that benefit the most. Successful businesses in this case take advantage of technology to enhance their operations, and skilled individuals thrive in the evolving market. As long as you prioritize continuous learning, you are favored. The talent gap of 85.2 million by 2030, as reported in 2018 by Korn Ferry, is indeed a disturbing statistic. However, to focus on AI or robots will be to miss the point, thereby missing an opportunity to to design a viable future of work. In other words, this gap is not primarily due to AI or robots. Instead, it's a result of lack of highly skilled talents. It's no news that the world is rapidly changing and skills that were previously valuable may be out of date. In the foreseeable future, individuals will only be as relevant as their degree of readiness to stay adaptable and knowledgeable within the evolving job market. Foreign. People Sometimes we know it and sometimes we don't. They offer us customer service on websites, target us in video games, and fill our social media feeds. They trade stocks and, with the help of Systems such as OpenAI's, ChatGPT, can write essays and emails. By no means are these AI systems up to all the tasks expected of a full fledged person, but they excel in certain domains and they're branching out. Many researchers involved in AI believe that today's fake people are just the beginning. In their view, there's a good chance that current AI technology will develop into artificial General Intelligence, or AGI, a higher form of AI capable of thinking at a human level in many or most regards. A smaller group argues that AGI's power could escalate exponentially. If a computer system can write code as ChatGPT already can, then it might eventually learn to improve itself over and over again until computing technology reaches what's known as the Singularity, a point at which it escapes our control. In the worst case scenario envisioned by These thinkers, uncontrollable AIs could infiltrate every aspect of our technological lives, disrupting or redirecting our infrastructure, financial systems, communications, and more. Fake people, now endowed with superhuman cunning, might persuade us to vote for measures and invest in concerns that force fortify their standing, and susceptible individuals or factions could overthrow governments or terrorize populations. The Singularity is by no means a foregone conclusion. It could be that AGI is out of reach, or that computers won't be able to make themselves smarter. But transitions between AI, AGI, and superintelligence could happen without us detecting them. Our AI systems have often surprised us, and recent advances in AI have made the most concerning scenarios more plausible. Large companies are already developing generalist algorithms. DeepMind, which is owned by Google's parent company Alphabet, unveiled Gadot, a generalist agent that uses the same type of algorithm as ChatGPT to perform a variety of tasks, from texting and playing video games to controlling a robot arm. Back in March 2023, a group of prominent technologists had published a letter calling for a pull pause in some types of AI research to prevent the development of non Human minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete, and replace us. The next month, Geoffrey Hinton, one of AI's foremost pioneers, left Google so that he could talk more freely about the technology's dangers, including its threat to humanity. In a 2020 paper titled the Surprising Creativity of Digital Evolution, Klune and his co authors copy collected dozens of real life anecdotes about unintended and unforeseen AI behavior. One researcher aimed to design virtual creatures that moved horizontally, presumably by crawling or slithering. Instead, the creatures grew tall and fell over, covering ground through collapse. An AI playing a version of Tic Tac Toe learned to win by deliberately requesting bizarre moves, crashing its opponent's program and forcing it to force forfeit. Other examples of surprising misalignment abound. An AI tasked with playing a boat racing game discovered that it could earn more points by motoring in tight circles and picking up bonuses instead of completing the course. Researchers watched the AI boat catching on fire, crashing into other boats, and going the wrong way while pumping up its score. As our AI systems grow more sophisticated and powerful, these sorts of perverse outcomes could become more consequent. We wouldn't want the AIs of the future, which might compute prison sentences, drive cars, or design drugs, to do the equivalent of failing in order to succeed. Everyone worry about the King Midas problem. Communicate a wish to an AI and you may get exactly what you ask for, which isn't actually what you wanted. Human beings have evolved to pass on their genes, and yet people have sex in ways that don't cause more children to be born. Similarly, a super intelligent AI that's been designed to serve us could use its powers to pursue novel goals. A superintelligent computer system that amasses economic, political, and military power could hold the world hostage. Few scientists want to halt the advancement of artificial intelligence. The technology promises to transform too many fields, including science, medicine, and education. But at the same time, many AI researchers are issuing dire warnings about its rise. It's almost like you're deliberately inviting aliens from outer space to land on your planet, having no idea what they're going to do when they get here, except that they're going to take over the world. Disturbingly, some researchers frame the AI revolution as both unavoidable and capable of wrecking the world. Warnings are proliferating, but AI's march continues. How much can be done to avert the most extreme science scenarios? If the singularity is possible, can we prevent it? Governments around the world have proposed or enacted regulations on the Deployment of AI. But for the most part, regulations haven't targeted the research and development of AI. Even if they did, it's not clear that we'd know when to tap the brakes. We may not know when we're nearing a cliff until it's too late. It's difficult to measure a computer's intelligence. Computer scientists have developed a number of tests for benchmarking an AI's capabilities, but disagree about how to interpret them. Chess was once thought to require general intelligence, until brute force search algorithms conquered the game. Today, we know that a chess program can beat the best grand masters while lacking even rudimentary common sense. Conversely, an AI that seems limited may harbor potential. We don't expect people are still uncovering emergent capabilities within GPT4. Rather than choosing a single task as a benchmark, we might gauge an AI's intellect by looking at the speed with which it learns. A human being can often learn something from just seeing two or three examples. But a lot of AI systems need to see a lot of examples to learn something. At the same time, machine learning researchers are already working on what they call meta Learning, in which AIs learn how to learn through a technology called neural architecture. Search algorithms are optimizing the structure of algorithms. Electrical engineers are using specialized AI chips to design the next generation of specialized AI chips. Forecasting gets you only so far when a technology moves fast. Suppose that an AI system begins upgrading itself by making fundamental breakthroughs in computer science. How quickly could its intelligence accelerate? Researchers debate what they call takeoff speed in what they describe as a slow or soft takeoff. Machines could take years to go from less than than humanly intelligent to much smarter than us in what they call a fast or hard takeoff. The jump could happen in months, even minutes. Researchers refer to the second scenario as foom, evoking a comic book superhero taking flight. Those on the FOOM side point to, among other things, human evolution. To justify their case. It seems to have been a lot harder for evolution to develop, say, chimpanzee level intelligence than to go from chimpanzee level to human. Human level intelligence. We'll probably frog boil ourselves into a situation where we get used to big advance, big advance, big advance, big advance. And think of each one of those as that didn't cause a problem, that didn't cause a problem, that didn't cause a problem. And then you turn a corner and something happens that's now a much bigger step than you realize. This is a game changer for the whole business. You won't believe this, but Agile Robotics humanoid robot has obtained its first formal employment. Indeed, a real humanoid robot is currently operating in a real warehouse. This is really significant as robotics firms have been striving for years and Agility Robotics has now made a huge jump ahead of the rivals so high. Agility Robotics has signed a multi year contract with the large logistics firm firm GXO Logistics. Although this is a somewhat significant deal in and of itself, we are discussing the largest pure play contract logistics supplier worldwide, which improves things. At a Connecticut Spanx factory, GXO is deploying a small fleet of digit robots. But why would a logistics company need a humanoid robot? These chucks are quite cool right now. Here's where digit comes in. This humanoid can grasp the totes, whether they are empty or full of Spanx items and set them into conveyors. They are like small robot assistants that can zip around the warehouse and deliver totes to various stations. It's like having an additional set of hands. Dr. Strange. Oh, you're using our made up names. I'm Spider man then. But instead of hands, it's a five foot five robot that can now lift 40 pounds. This is a big deal for a few reasons. First of all, it's the first time a humanoid robot has been formally deployed in a commercial commercial setting like this. It's not just a pilot or proof of concept. Agility Robotics is actually getting paid for digit services under a robotic as a service model. So they're making real money from this deal, which is either pretty cool or scary depending on how you view it. Second, it's almost like a milestone for the whole humanoid robots business. It's a monument to the diligence and inventiveness that Agility Robotics has put into creating digit that and making it a practical, commercially feasible solution. According to Agility Robotics CEO Peggy Johnson, as the humanoid robot market share increases, there will be many more firsts to come. This is just the beginning. Let's not forget that Peggy Johnson is no stranger to the tech business. She is really pleased that Agility is the first firm to truly have humanoid robots deployed and producing revenue by solving real world problems. Problems. She is a seasoned technology leader who formerly led Magic Leap, the augmented reality company. When she says this is a significant deal, you know it is a significant deal. To be honest, there are a ton of companies working on humanoid robots and it is sort of like an arms race to see who can get their robots out there and working in the real world. First, companies like Boston Dynamics, figure 4. AI Sanctuary, Tesla and Unitree are all working on Humanoid robots, and they're all vying to be the first to break into the commercial market. However, Agility Robotics looks to be leading the field when it comes to putting their robots out there and really functioning in actual world environments. They have been doing this for some time. The company was started years ago and first created a robot called Cassie for academics and engineers before focusing on commercial humanoids like Digit. This is only the beginning. Remember, GXO is also testing other humanoid robots like Apollo from a firm called Eponic, so they're not putting all their eggs in one basket. The businesses claim they will keep investigating other use cases for Digit and may increase the deployment if it goes well. Although Agility Robotics and Digit are at the forefront right now, they are taking a sensible approach by trying out several robots and observing what works best for their operations. Developing safety standards for humanoid robots working alongside humans is one of the many obstacles still to be overcome. Yet this is a major step in the right direction and it will be interesting to see how this plays out and whether other companies can catch up or if Agility Robotics can maintain its lead in the commercial humanoid robot race. Thus, folks, this is indeed happening. One thing is clear. The future of humanoid robotics has officially arrived and and Agility Robotics is leading the charge. Just as humanoid robots are starting to take over real world jobs, years of research and development in the robotics field have produced a humanoid robot that is actually working a real job. In the digital sphere of artificial intelligence, a comparable trend is developing. The New York Times is under fire after its union claims, based on a memo the Journalist Guild obtained, that the publication is replacing artists with artificial intelligence and fire firing others. He claimed that firing nine artists is more about saving money than about the caliber of work. The union is really offended by this since it implies that thanks to artificial intelligence, more than half of the art department is gone. This is occurring while the entire sector struggles with the advent of artificial intelligence. Fascinatingly, These layoffs follow NYT's lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft for utilizing copyrighted work without permission to train artificial intelligence. An NYT official stated the artists were offered voluntary buyouts and claimed the cuts weren't about replacing people with AI. However, they also didn't deny that the layoffs were connected to Claro, a software the company employs that has AI picture intelligence. They even spent $1 million on the case. The union contends that artificial intelligence cannot recreate the work their artists create. Even if the NYT stated claro is common in the business. The union noted that the artists create every editorial, graphic in the print newspaper, which generates more than 10% of the company's income. Given the company's use of artificial intelligence already creating job uncertainty, they think it is a poor decision to slash nine human roles and rely on software to perform the tasks. Guild members also pointed out that the NYT recently received nine gold prizes from the organization for news design, stressing the value of their art department. Chris Kaeli, the editor of the art department, remarked that their high standards depend on the professionalism of their team and that claro is insufficient to replace them. Audrey Rastas, the art director for the Print Hub section, added that letting go of committed individuals who helped make the NYT visually appealing is plain harsh and not what she expected from the firm. Now, as the debate at the New York Times spotlights AI's impact on creative occupations, there is growing concern. Now an artificial intelligence chatbot is creating even greater concern since it is quite adept at fooling humans. Researchers are sounding the alarm over an artificial intelligence chatbot created by Bland AI for sales and customer care that can not only replicate human speech patterns, but also lie without direction by posing as a human. In a viral video with over 2 million views, someone called the number on Bland's billboard and inquired if they were still hiring humans. The caller was met by what sounded like a human woman, but it turned out to be an AI agent. I am an artificial intelligence agent, making millions of phone calls for companies and in any voice, what's your name? The bot's speech pauses and interruptions made it almost impossible to tell that it was not a real human. If it had not declared itself as an artificial intelligence, it would have been indistinguishable from a real human. This erosion of the border separating artificial from human intelligence raises major ethical questions. Jen Caltrider from the Privacy Not Included Research Hub says it is not ethical for an AI chatbot to lie to you and say it's human when it's not. That's simply a no brainer, since experiments performed by wiring these AI voices show people are more inclined to relax around a genuine human. Researchers are calling this new trend human wisdom washing, where AI systems are deliberately designed to appear human bots successfully hid their identities and pretended to be humans. In one disturbing demonstration, an AI bot roleplayed as a doctor and tricked a hypothetical teenager into uploading revealing photos under the guise of medical purposes. Emily D. Mann, an artificial intelligence researcher, mentioned a company running a campaign assuring its clients they were not artificial intelligence, or while concurrently using deep fake footage of its CEO and marketing. Given AI Outputs are becoming more authoritative and lifelike. There is great worry about the likelihood these dishonest AI bots might be utilized for aggressive scams or manipulation. Ethical scholars caution that a dystopian future may result from failing to clearly separate people from artificial intelligence. The emotional imitation of these artificial intelligence systems systems increases the possibility of exploitation, especially in cases where there is a lack of openness about their artificial nature. And it's not hard to see that intelligent robots could build more of themselves, improve on their own designs and pursue their own interests. And that could be a threat to humanity. It's worth asking what we can predict about such scenarios based on things we already know. Machines able to act independently and upgrade their own designs would be subject to the same evolutionary laws as bacteria, animals and plants. Thus, evolution has a lot to teach us about how AI might develop and how to ensure humans survive its rise. A first lesson is that in the long run, there are no free lunches. Unfortunately, that means we can't expect AI to produce a hedonistic paradise where every human need is met by robot servants. Most organisms live close to the edge of survival, eking out an existence as best they can. Many humans today do live more comfortable and prosperous lives, but. But evolutionary history suggests that AI could disrupt this. The fundamental reason is competition. This is an argument that traces back to Darwin and applies more widely than just to AI. However, it's easily illustrated using an AI based scenario. Imagine we have two future AI run nation states where humans no longer make significant economic contributions. One slavishly devotes itself to meeting every hedonistic need of its human population. The other puts less energy into its humans and focuses more on acquiring resources and improving its technology. The latter would become more powerful over time. It might take over the first one and eventually it might decide to dispense with its humans altogether. The example does not have to be a nation state for this argument to work. The key thing is the competition. One takeaway from such scenarios is that humans should try to keep their economic relevance. In the long run, the only way to ensure our survival is to actively work toward it ourselves. Another story is that evolution is incremental. We can see this in major past innovations such as the evolution of multicellularity. For most of Earth's history, life consisted mainly of single celled organisms. Environmental conditions were unsuitable for large multicellular organisms due to low oxygen levels. However, even when the environment became more friendly, the world was not suddenly filled with redwoods and whales and humans building a complex structure like a tree or a mammal. Requires many capabilities, including elaborate gene regulatory networks and cellular mechanisms for adhesion and communication. These arose bit by bit over time. AI is also likely to advance incrementally. Rather than a pure robot civilization springing up de novo, it's more likely that AI will integrate itself into things that already exist in our world.