3 private links
And I have predicted for decades that future scaled-up versions of such AI scientists will want to further expand their horizons and eventually go where most of the physical resources are, to build more and bigger AIs. And of course, almost all of these resources are far away from Earth—out there in space, which is hostile to humans but friendly to appropriately designed AI-controlled robots and self-replicating robot factories. So here we are not talking any longer about our tiny biosphere; no, we are talking about the much bigger rest of the universe. Within a few tens of billions of years, curious self-improving AIs will colonize the visible cosmos in a way that’s infeasible for humans. Those who don’t won’t have an impact. Sounds like science fiction, but since the 1970s I have been unable to see a plausible alternative to this scenario, except for a global catastrophe such as an all-out nuclear war that stops this development before it takes off.
Some humans may hope to become immortal parts of these ecologies through brain scans and "mind uploads" into virtual realities or robots, a physically plausible idea discussed in fiction since the 1960s. However, to compete in rapidly evolving AI ecologies, uploaded human minds will eventually have to change beyond recognition, becoming something very different in the process.
You touched on the big philosophical question about people’s purpose. Can this be answered without answering the even grander question: What’s the purpose of the entire universe? We don’t know. But what’s happening right now might be connected to the unknown answer. Don’t think of humans as the crown of creation. Instead, view human civilization as part of a much grander scheme, an important step (but not the last one) on the path of the universe from very simple initial conditions toward more and more unfathomable complexity. Now it seems ready to take its next step, a step comparable to the invention of life itself over 3.5 billion years ago. Alas, don’t worry, in the end, all will be good!
War in Tübingen am MPG
Grundlagenforschung und AGI Risiken Papers
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/may/04/the-big-idea-can-we-stop-ai-making-humans-obsolete
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_World
The first part, "The Evolution of Societies and Psychologies", describes WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) populations "in broad strokes", according to reviewer Pauline Grosjean.[1] Henrich discusses the research of Richard Nisbett suggesting that people in WEIRD cultures think reductively with a focus on personal attributes and intentions, while Asians think holistically with a focus on relationships and situations. Non-Westerners will emphasize family connections and allegiances. Henrich also presents a large body of evidence that WEIRD people are more trusting of strangers.
.....
Nicholas Guyatt of The Guardian anticipated that scholars would point out the uneven effects of the church's "marriage and family programme" across time and space; the Protestant church accepting cousin marriage more than its Catholic rival; and the increase in cousin marriage across many European societies in the 17th and 18th centuries. Guyatt also said the book insufficiently discusses the wrongs of the west, overly stereotypes non-WEIRD societies, lacks insight into the phenomenon of non-Europeans carrying ideas and practices; and emphasizes "the supposedly discrete nature of culture and [the] virtues of 'weird' thinking" almost to the point of endorsing social Darwinism.[10] Henrich said that the book aims to fill the void often used by white supremacists (the absence in public discourse of scientific explanations for global diversity) with a deep "explanation for these patterns, and how off-the-mark those claiming genetics or 'superior' cultures are."[11]
Melanie Mitchell. Santa Fe Institute