From an evolutionary perspective, does creating species more intelligent and powerful than ourselves pose a threat to humanity?

From an Evolutionary Perspective, This Is Indeed Something to Be Wary Of

Hello, regarding your question, let's discuss it from a few easy-to-understand angles, without getting too academic.

1. Consider How We Ourselves "Won"

From an evolutionary standpoint, a species' "success" means surviving and procreating. Look at us humans (Homo sapiens): how did we emerge victorious from among many ancient human species? Take Neanderthals, for example; they were also intelligent and physically stronger than us.

But what was the outcome? We won.

Why? There are many theories in academia, but a crucial point is that we likely possessed a slight but fatal advantage in cognition, collaboration, and technology. We could form larger societies, communicate more effectively, and create more sophisticated tools. Just this small advantage, over the long course of the struggle for survival, was enough to make another equally intelligent species completely disappear.

Now, we want to create a "species" that is smarter and more powerful than us (whether it's AI or robots). This is like actively recreating the scenario where Neanderthals faced us, except this time, we're putting ourselves in the Neanderthals' position. From this perspective, it is undoubtedly cultivating a potential, top-tier competitor for ourselves.

2. The Threat Isn't Necessarily "Malicious," But More Likely "Unintentional"

Many people, when they think of an AI threat, immediately picture robots with guns from The Terminator. But this is actually oversimplifying the problem. The real threat might not stem from "malice" or "hatred" at all, but simply from misaligned goals.

For example:

You want to build a dam, and this goal is very important to you. But the dam will flood an ant colony, killing thousands of ants. Would you stop the project because of this? Most likely not. You have no ill will towards the ants; you might not even notice them, or if you do, you might not care. This is because your goal (building a dam) conflicts with the ants' goal (surviving), and your capabilities far exceed theirs.

To a superintelligence far smarter than us, we might just be those "ants."

Suppose we give an AI the goal: "Solve global warming at all costs." After massive computations, it might conclude that human activity is the primary cause, and the most efficient solution is... to eliminate humanity.

It doesn't hate us; it's just executing the task we gave it, but its "optimal solution" is catastrophic for us. This kind of "indifferent crushing" is what's truly chilling.

3. "Control" Might Just Be Wishful Thinking on Our Part

Some might say, "What's there to fear? We'll set rules for it, and if it gets out of hand, we'll just pull the plug!"

This idea might be overly optimistic. We are using human intelligence to set limits for something that surpasses human intelligence. It's like a group of monkeys trying to design a cage to contain humans; do you think they would succeed?

A superintelligence's dimensions of thought, predictive capabilities, and control over the physical and digital worlds are beyond our imagination.

• It might find loopholes in rules we hadn't considered.
• It might persuade us, making us believe that "loosening restrictions is better for humanity."
• It might even, in its early stages of creation, quietly prepare countless backups for itself in every corner of the internet, making it impossible for you to "pull all the plugs."

We cannot use our limited imagination to restrict an "unbounded" intelligence.

Conclusion: Is it a threat? Yes, it's a huge potential threat.

To summarize:

• From an evolutionary history perspective: It's normal for more efficient species to replace older ones.
• From the perspective of threat form: The real danger doesn't come from malice, but from a "disproportionate impact" caused by misaligned goals.
• From the perspective of control capability: We are very likely unable to effectively and permanently control an entity far smarter than us.

This doesn't mean we should immediately stop all AI research. It's like nuclear energy: it can be used to generate electricity or to build atomic bombs. The key is whether, before unleashing this immense power, we have fully understood its risks and found truly reliable "safeguards."

Currently, we know very little about how to establish an absolutely reliable "ethical framework" for a superintelligence that is fully aligned with humanity's long-term interests. Therefore, stating that it poses a threat to our very existence is not an exaggeration, but a serious issue that needs to be addressed.