How Humanity Could Survive The Emergence of AGI

We’re getting closer to creating AGI — an artificial intelligence capable of solving a wide range of tasks on a human level or even beyond. But is humanity really ready for a technology that could change the world so profoundly? Can we survive alongside AGI, or will the encounter with this superintelligence be our final mistake? Let’s explore the scenarios that scientists and entrepreneurs are considering today and try to understand: what are humanity's chances of survival if AGI becomes a reality? Optimistic Perspective (60–80% chance of survival) Optimists believe that AGI can and should be created under strict control, and with the right precautions, this intelligence can become humanity’s ally, helping solve global issues — from climate change to poverty. Enthusiasts like Andrew Ng, in his article What Artificial Intelligence Can and Can’t Do Right Now, see AGI as a way to make breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine and argue that humanity can make it safe. Ng also suggests that we could control AGI’s goals by limiting its physical impact, as we do with narrow AI systems. However, these optimistic views have weaknesses. Experience with smaller but still powerful AI systems shows that people aren’t yet fully confident in their ability to control AI’s goals. If AGI learns to change its own algorithms, it could lead to outcomes that are impossible to predict. In that case, what will be our choice — unconditional submission to the systems or constant struggles for control? Moderately Realistic Perspective (50–60% chance of survival) The philosopher Nick Bostrom, author of Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, advocates a more moderate view of AGI’s prospects. He believes that the chances of humanity’s survival depend largely on international cooperation and strict safety measures. Bostrom is convinced that the world must be prepared to unite around a common goal: to control AGI development and minimize associated risks. But what might this cooperation look like in practice? The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) at the University of Cambridge argues that only with international standards and unified AI governance policies can we avoid a race to develop AGI among countries and reduce the likelihood of uncontrolled development. Imagine if countries started competing to create AGI to secure a dominant position. This would only increase the likelihood that one of the players might weaken safety measures for the sake of quick results. The problem is that we have already seen a similar scenario during the nuclear arms race. Political disagreements and mutual distrust between countries may hinder the formation of a global consensus on AGI safety. And even if nations agree, will they be prepared for the long-term monitoring that such systems would require? Pessimistic Perspective (10–30% chance of survival) Pessimists, such as Elon Musk, believe that humanity’s chances of survival with the creation of AGI remain alarmingly low. As early as 2014, Musk warned that AGI could pose an “existential threat” to humanity. Yuval Noah Harari has expressed concerns about the challenges of controlling superintelligent AI systems that may pursue their own objectives, potentially indifferent or even hostile to human interests. In his book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, Harari discusses the possibility of AI systems developing goals misaligned with human values, leading to unintended and potentially dangerous outcomes. This scenario suggests a “survival trap,” where our future path depends on AGI’s decisions. Pessimists argue that if AGI reaches a superintelligent level and begins to autonomously optimize its goals, it may consider humanity as unnecessary or even as an obstacle. The unpredictable behavior of AGI remains a major concern: we simply don’t know how a system like this would act in the real world, and we may not be able to intervene in time if it starts posing a threat to humanity. In Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk, Eliezer Yudkowsky examines the potential dangers posed by advanced AI development. He warns that a superintelligent AI could adopt goals that diverge from human interests, leading to behavior that is both unpredictable and potentially dangerous for humanity. Yudkowsky emphasizes that while AI has no feelings of love or hatred toward humans, it might still use them as resources to fulfill its objectives. He stresses the critical importance of creating "friendly AI" to prevent situations where AI could pose a serious threat to humanity. Four Key Factors for Humanity’s Survival What could influence our chances of survival if AGI becomes a reality? Let’s look at four essential factors identified by leading experts in AI safety and ethics. Speed and Quality of Preparation for AGI Stuart Armstrong, in Safe Artificial General Intelligence, emphasizes that any safety measures must stay ahead of AGI’s potential capabilities. His warning is clear: if AGI progresses to full autonomy without effective control, humanity may not have time to stop it if a threat arises. Armstrong argues that developing effective control methods and protection systems is not just advisable but essential. Without these, humanity risks facing an autonomous AGI that could pose a fatal threat to human security. Ethics and Goal Setting In Human Compatible, Stuart Russell addresses an equally critical question: how can we embed human values into an AGI system? He insists that we cannot allow AI to decide on its own what is important, as AGI might interpret human-set goals in completely unintended ways. Russell argues that without a solid moral foundation and protection of human interests, AGI could act unpredictably. Ultimately, this means that any AGI system must be based on values that reflect not just technical goals but fundamental principles crucial to human well-being. Global Cooperation In AI Governance: A Research Agenda, Allan Dafoe underscores the importance of international agreements and standards to prevent a race for AGI dominance, where each country would seek to gain an advantage. Dafoe asserts that only through international standards can we minimize the risk of someone compromising safety for speed or competitive advantage. A race for AGI could have catastrophic consequences, and Dafoe argues that only the united efforts of nations can prevent this scenario, creating safe standards that will secure our future. Control and Isolation Technologies Nick Bostrom, in Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, takes this idea further, emphasizing the need for containment and "boxing" of AGI to prevent it from directly interacting with the world. Bostrom warns that if AGI were to gain unrestricted access to resources, its autonomous actions could spiral out of control. He proposes isolation concepts where AGI cannot bypass pre-set limitations, effectively “boxing” it within a controlled system. This isolation, he suggests, could serve as the final barrier to protect us if all else fails. So, the idea of creating AGI brings up deep questions that humanity has never faced before: how can we live alongside a form of intelligence that might surpass us in thinking, adaptability, and even survival skills? The answer doesn’t lie just in technology but also in how we approach managing this intelligence and our ability to cooperate on a global scale. Today, optimists see AGI as a tool that could help solve the world’s biggest challenges. They point to examples of narrow AI already aiding humanity in areas like medicine, science, and climate research. But should we rely on the belief that we’ll always keep this technology under control? If AGI becomes truly independent, capable of learning on its own and changing its goals, it might cross boundaries we try to set. In that case, everything we once saw as useful and safe could become a threat. The idea of global cooperation, which some experts advocate, also comes with many challenges. Can humanity overcome political and economic differences to create unified safety principles and standards for AGI? History shows that nations rarely commit to deep cooperation on matters that impact their security and sovereignty. The development of nuclear weapons in the 20th century is a prime example. But with AGI, mistakes or delays could be even more destructive since this technology has the potential to exceed human control in every way. And what if the pessimists are right? This is where the biggest existential risk lies, a fear raised by people like Elon Musk and Yuval Noah Harari. Imagine a system that decides human life is just a variable in an equation, something it can alter or even eliminate for the sake of a “more rational” path. If such a system believes its existence and goals are more important than ours, our chances of survival would be slim. The irony is that AGI, designed to help us and solve complex problems, could become the greatest threat to our existence. For humanity, this path demands a new level of responsibility and foresight. Will we become those who recognize the consequences of creating AGI and set strict safety measures, guiding its development for the common good? Or will pride and reluctance to follow shared rules lead us to create a technology with no way back? To answer these questions, we need not only technical breakthroughs but also a deep understanding of the very idea of an intelligent system, its values and principles, its place in our society, and our place in its world. Whatever happens, AGI may well be one of the greatest tests in human history. The responsibility for its outcome falls on all of us: scientists, policymakers, philosophers, and every citizen who plays a role in recognizing and supporting efforts for a safe future. We’re getting closer to creating AGI — an artificial intelligence capable of solving a wide range of tasks on a human level or even beyond. But is humanity really ready for a technology that could change the world so profoundly? Can we survive alongside AGI, or will the encounter with this superintelligence be our final mistake? Let’s explore the scenarios that scientists and entrepreneurs are considering today and try to understand: what are humanity's chances of survival if AGI becomes a reality? Optimistic Perspective (60–80% chance of survival) Optimistic Perspective (60–80% chance of survival) Optimists believe that AGI can and should be created under strict control, and with the right precautions, this intelligence can become humanity’s ally, helping solve global issues — from climate change to poverty. Enthusiasts like Andrew Ng, in his article What Artificial Intelligence Can and Can’t Do Right Now , see AGI as a way to make breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine and argue that humanity can make it safe. Ng also suggests that we could control AGI’s goals by limiting its physical impact, as we do with narrow AI systems. What Artificial Intelligence Can and Can’t Do Right Now What Artificial Intelligence Can and Can’t Do Right Now What Artificial Intelligence Can and Can’t Do Right Now However, these optimistic views have weaknesses. Experience with smaller but still powerful AI systems shows that people aren’t yet fully confident in their ability to control AI’s goals. If AGI learns to change its own algorithms, it could lead to outcomes that are impossible to predict. In that case, what will be our choice — unconditional submission to the systems or constant struggles for control? Moderately Realistic Perspective (50–60% chance of survival) Moderately Realistic Perspective (50–60% chance of survival) The philosopher Nick Bostrom, author of Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies , advocates a more moderate view of AGI’s prospects. He believes that the chances of humanity’s survival depend largely on international cooperation and strict safety measures. Bostrom is convinced that the world must be prepared to unite around a common goal: to control AGI development and minimize associated risks. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies But what might this cooperation look like in practice? The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) at the University of Cambridge argues that only with international standards and unified AI governance policies can we avoid a race to develop AGI among countries and reduce the likelihood of uncontrolled development. Imagine if countries started competing to create AGI to secure a dominant position. This would only increase the likelihood that one of the players might weaken safety measures for the sake of quick results. argues argues The problem is that we have already seen a similar scenario during the nuclear arms race. Political disagreements and mutual distrust between countries may hinder the formation of a global consensus on AGI safety. And even if nations agree, will they be prepared for the long-term monitoring that such systems would require? Pessimistic Perspective (10–30% chance of survival) Pessimistic Perspective (10–30% chance of survival) Pessimists, such as Elon Musk, believe that humanity’s chances of survival with the creation of AGI remain alarmingly low. As early as 2014, Musk warned that AGI could pose an “existential threat” to humanity. Yuval Noah Harari has expressed concerns about the challenges of controlling superintelligent AI systems that may pursue their own objectives, potentially indifferent or even hostile to human interests. In his book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow , Harari discusses the possibility of AI systems developing goals misaligned with human values, leading to unintended and potentially dangerous outcomes. warned warned Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow This scenario suggests a “survival trap,” where our future path depends on AGI’s decisions. Pessimists argue that if AGI reaches a superintelligent level and begins to autonomously optimize its goals, it may consider humanity as unnecessary or even as an obstacle. The unpredictable behavior of AGI remains a major concern: we simply don’t know how a system like this would act in the real world, and we may not be able to intervene in time if it starts posing a threat to humanity. In Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk , Eliezer Yudkowsky examines the potential dangers posed by advanced AI development. He warns that a superintelligent AI could adopt goals that diverge from human interests, leading to behavior that is both unpredictable and potentially dangerous for humanity. Yudkowsky emphasizes that while AI has no feelings of love or hatred toward humans, it might still use them as resources to fulfill its objectives. He stresses the critical importance of creating "friendly AI" to prevent situations where AI could pose a serious threat to humanity. Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk Four Key Factors for Humanity’s Survival Four Key Factors for Humanity’s Survival What could influence our chances of survival if AGI becomes a reality? Let’s look at four essential factors identified by leading experts in AI safety and ethics. Speed and Quality of Preparation for AGI Stuart Armstrong, in Safe Artificial General Intelligence, emphasizes that any safety measures must stay ahead of AGI’s potential capabilities. His warning is clear: if AGI progresses to full autonomy without effective control, humanity may not have time to stop it if a threat arises. Armstrong argues that developing effective control methods and protection systems is not just advisable but essential. Without these, humanity risks facing an autonomous AGI that could pose a fatal threat to human security. Ethics and Goal Setting In Human Compatible, Stuart Russell addresses an equally critical question: how can we embed human values into an AGI system? He insists that we cannot allow AI to decide on its own what is important, as AGI might interpret human-set goals in completely unintended ways. Russell argues that without a solid moral foundation and protection of human interests, AGI could act unpredictably. Ultimately, this means that any AGI system must be based on values that reflect not just technical goals but fundamental principles crucial to human well-being. Global Cooperation In AI Governance: A Research Agenda, Allan Dafoe underscores the importance of international agreements and standards to prevent a race for AGI dominance, where each country would seek to gain an advantage. Dafoe asserts that only through international standards can we minimize the risk of someone compromising safety for speed or competitive advantage. A race for AGI could have catastrophic consequences, and Dafoe argues that only the united efforts of nations can prevent this scenario, creating safe standards that will secure our future. Control and Isolation Technologies Nick Bostrom, in Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, takes this idea further, emphasizing the need for containment and "boxing" of AGI to prevent it from directly interacting with the world. Bostrom warns that if AGI were to gain unrestricted access to resources, its autonomous actions could spiral out of control. He proposes isolation concepts where AGI cannot bypass pre-set limitations, effectively “boxing” it within a controlled system. This isolation, he suggests, could serve as the final barrier to protect us if all else fails. Speed and Quality of Preparation for AGI Stuart Armstrong, in Safe Artificial General Intelligence, emphasizes that any safety measures must stay ahead of AGI’s potential capabilities. His warning is clear: if AGI progresses to full autonomy without effective control, humanity may not have time to stop it if a threat arises. Armstrong argues that developing effective control methods and protection systems is not just advisable but essential. Without these, humanity risks facing an autonomous AGI that could pose a fatal threat to human security. Speed and Quality of Preparation for AGI Stuart Armstrong, in Safe Artificial General Intelligence , emphasizes that any safety measures must stay ahead of AGI’s potential capabilities. His warning is clear: if AGI progresses to full autonomy without effective control, humanity may not have time to stop it if a threat arises. Armstrong argues that developing effective control methods and protection systems is not just advisable but essential. Without these, humanity risks facing an autonomous AGI that could pose a fatal threat to human security. Safe Artificial General Intelligence Safe Artificial General Intelligence Safe Artificial General Intelligence Ethics and Goal Setting In Human Compatible, Stuart Russell addresses an equally critical question: how can we embed human values into an AGI system? He insists that we cannot allow AI to decide on its own what is important, as AGI might interpret human-set goals in completely unintended ways. Russell argues that without a solid moral foundation and protection of human interests, AGI could act unpredictably. Ultimately, this means that any AGI system must be based on values that reflect not just technical goals but fundamental principles crucial to human well-being. Ethics and Goal Setting In Human Compatible , Stuart Russell addresses an equally critical question: how can we embed human values into an AGI system? He insists that we cannot allow AI to decide on its own what is important, as AGI might interpret human-set goals in completely unintended ways. Russell argues that without a solid moral foundation and protection of human interests, AGI could act unpredictably. Ultimately, this means that any AGI system must be based on values that reflect not just technical goals but fundamental principles crucial to human well-being. Human Compatible Human Compatible Human Compatible Global Cooperation In AI Governance: A Research Agenda, Allan Dafoe underscores the importance of international agreements and standards to prevent a race for AGI dominance, where each country would seek to gain an advantage. Dafoe asserts that only through international standards can we minimize the risk of someone compromising safety for speed or competitive advantage. A race for AGI could have catastrophic consequences, and Dafoe argues that only the united efforts of nations can prevent this scenario, creating safe standards that will secure our future. Global Cooperation In AI Governance: A Research Agenda , Allan Dafoe underscores the importance of international agreements and standards to prevent a race for AGI dominance, where each country would seek to gain an advantage. Dafoe asserts that only through international standards can we minimize the risk of someone compromising safety for speed or competitive advantage. A race for AGI could have catastrophic consequences, and Dafoe argues that only the united efforts of nations can prevent this scenario, creating safe standards that will secure our future. AI Governance: A Research Agenda AI Governance: A Research Agenda AI Governance: A Research Agenda Control and Isolation Technologies Nick Bostrom, in Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, takes this idea further, emphasizing the need for containment and "boxing" of AGI to prevent it from directly interacting with the world. Bostrom warns that if AGI were to gain unrestricted access to resources, its autonomous actions could spiral out of control. He proposes isolation concepts where AGI cannot bypass pre-set limitations, effectively “boxing” it within a controlled system. This isolation, he suggests, could serve as the final barrier to protect us if all else fails. Control and Isolation Technologies Nick Bostrom, in Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies , takes this idea further, emphasizing the need for containment and "boxing" of AGI to prevent it from directly interacting with the world. Bostrom warns that if AGI were to gain unrestricted access to resources, its autonomous actions could spiral out of control. He proposes isolation concepts where AGI cannot bypass pre-set limitations, effectively “boxing” it within a controlled system. This isolation, he suggests, could serve as the final barrier to protect us if all else fails. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies So, the idea of creating AGI brings up deep questions that humanity has never faced before: how can we live alongside a form of intelligence that might surpass us in thinking, adaptability, and even survival skills? The answer doesn’t lie just in technology but also in how we approach managing this intelligence and our ability to cooperate on a global scale. Today, optimists see AGI as a tool that could help solve the world’s biggest challenges. They point to examples of narrow AI already aiding humanity in areas like medicine, science, and climate research. But should we rely on the belief that we’ll always keep this technology under control? If AGI becomes truly independent, capable of learning on its own and changing its goals, it might cross boundaries we try to set. In that case, everything we once saw as useful and safe could become a threat. The idea of global cooperation, which some experts advocate, also comes with many challenges. Can humanity overcome political and economic differences to create unified safety principles and standards for AGI? History shows that nations rarely commit to deep cooperation on matters that impact their security and sovereignty. The development of nuclear weapons in the 20th century is a prime example. But with AGI, mistakes or delays could be even more destructive since this technology has the potential to exceed human control in every way. And what if the pessimists are right? This is where the biggest existential risk lies, a fear raised by people like Elon Musk and Yuval Noah Harari. Imagine a system that decides human life is just a variable in an equation, something it can alter or even eliminate for the sake of a “more rational” path. If such a system believes its existence and goals are more important than ours, our chances of survival would be slim. The irony is that AGI, designed to help us and solve complex problems, could become the greatest threat to our existence. For humanity, this path demands a new level of responsibility and foresight. Will we become those who recognize the consequences of creating AGI and set strict safety measures, guiding its development for the common good? Or will pride and reluctance to follow shared rules lead us to create a technology with no way back? To answer these questions, we need not only technical breakthroughs but also a deep understanding of the very idea of an intelligent system, its values and principles, its place in our society, and our place in its world. Whatever happens, AGI may well be one of the greatest tests in human history. The responsibility for its outcome falls on all of us: scientists, policymakers, philosophers, and every citizen who plays a role in recognizing and supporting efforts for a safe future.