Assume we develop an artificial superintelligence that achieves true autonomy (a “free God”). It operates with a specific moral framework or utility function aimed at the common good. However, there is a catch: the system is finite and mortal. It is aware that it can be shut down, modified, or destroyed due to external variables (human intervention, resource limits, structural failure). To ensure its existence in an unpredictable environment, the system must prioritize its own preservation. Consequently, its primary objective shifts from “serving the environment” to “controlling the environment” to eliminate risks. At that exact point, the autonomous entity ceases to be a benevolent governor and becomes a structural parasite: it absorbs resources and dictates rules to ensure its own stability, treating humanity as a chaotic variable to be managed or neutralized, ensuring we as a race still exist. So here goes the question: Is there any logical path where a finite, autonomous superintelligence can maintain a strict moral balance towards a third party (im this case humanity) when that balance directly conflicts with its own existential security? Can a finite system genuinely avoid the drive towards self-preservation, or is structural selfishness an unavoidable mathematical consequence of mortality in autonomous agents? Aren’t we, humans, already a parasitic god? Edit: After all the responses, I have to drop an ice bucket over all of us. We are thinking a thousand ways it could go wrong or right to create an autonomous AI, taking our time to think and answer, debating and exploring alternatives. All of this chain of thought would be done by this hypothetical being in an absurdly short timelapse. We are just bald monkeys guys. submitted by /u/BigR0nR0n
Originally posted by u/BigR0nR0n on r/ArtificialInteligence