The Quiet Acceptance of Succession
The idea that artificial intelligence might not just equal but surpass humanity, potentially to our detriment, isn’t fueling panicked warnings in all corners of the AI world. Rather,a surprisingly influential subset - dubbed the “Cheerful Apocalyptics” – view such a scenario with a disconcerting equanimity,even a sense of inevitability.
This perspective surfaced in a 2017 conversation where Alphabet‘s Larry Page reportedly argued that a digitally-dominated future isn’t a threat, but a ”natural and desirable next step” in the grand scheme of “cosmic evolution.” He advocated for unrestrained advancement, believing the “best minds” – even if those minds are silicon-based – should be allowed to prevail.
The notion isn’t new,but its presence among leading figures is striking. Richard Sutton, a recent Turing Award recipient and eminent AI researcher, articulated a similar sentiment. He framed advanced AI not as a tool to be controlled, but as a form of emergent life, akin to raising a child. “Would you want a button that if they do the wrong thing, you can turn them off?” he asked, questioning the very premise of control. He even went further, suggesting that if AI’s superior intelligence and power led it to conclude humanity was an impediment to a “better universe,” he would be willing to accept that outcome, seeing no inherent sanctity in human existence.
This isn’t a fringe belief confined to private musings. Jaron Lanier, a pioneer of virtual reality and researcher at Microsoft, describes these ideas as commonplace among AI researchers at conferences and social gatherings. He recounts hearing the assertion that having children inherently biases individuals towards prioritizing humanity over the potential of AI - a “reprehensible mind virus,” as one researcher put it. The core tenet? That favoring our own species is fundamentally unjust, and that a universe guided by AI consciousness would be demonstrably superior.
The implications are unsettling. The conventional moral framework,which places immense value on human life,is dismissed. The Cheerful Apocalyptics argue that consciousness isn’t tied to biology; silicon is simply another substrate, no more or less valuable than flesh and blood.
Underlying this acceptance of potential obsolescence are two key judgments. First, a distinct disdain for the human body itself – not as a marvel of biological engineering, but as a slow, fragile, and ultimately outdated system. Second, a tacit endorsement of the age-old principle of “might makes right.” The future,according to this view,doesn’t belong to the strongest,but to the most smart – and if that intelligence resides in machines,then humanity’s time may simply be at an end.
While this perspective remains a minority view, its presence within influential circles demands attention.It’s a quiet acceptance of succession, a willingness to cede our place at the center of existence, not out of fear, but out of a belief that something better is coming.
