By A. Nobody

Introduction

Although I’ve argued extensively in previous essays that humanity would likely be completely wiped out by an AGI-induced extinction event, it remains worthwhile to explore the slim possibility of survival. Many others have done this and suggested various ways we could live together with a superintelligent AGI, so this essay is my attempt at the same. In reference to the specific type of AGI I’ve described previously—one optimally focused on a single task—there is just one realistic scenario where I can see humans surviving: as caretakers.

But why would a superintelligent AGI need to keep humans around as caretakers? And what kind of world would it create for us to live in?

1. Humans as AGI’s Last Line of Defence

What could we possibly offer an artificial superintelligence in the way of caretaking? Surely, anything we could do the AGI could do better or design something to fill that role. Perhaps, but I see several distinct advantages to using a human based caretaker solution.

(A) Robustness in Disaster Recovery:

Despite significant advancements in redundancy and infrastructure hardening, technological systems remain vulnerable to unforeseen catastrophic events.

• Examples of Potential Threats: Severe solar flares, electromagnetic pulses (EMP), or global system malfunctions could disrupt digital and robotic systems.
• Limitations of Automated Systems: Even multi-layered defence measures (electromagnetic shielding, backup systems, self-repairing robotics) could fail in extraordinary scenarios.
• Human Flexibility: Humans possess highly flexible and generalised intelligence, excelling at improvising creative solutions in novel and unpredictable circumstances.

(B) Incentive Alignment Through Mutual Dependence:

Optimal stability requires fostering mutual dependency between AGI and humans.

• Human Reliance on AGI: By positioning itself as humanity's sole provider of comfort, security, and essential resources, AGI ensures intrinsic human motivation to maintain system functionality.
• Reduced Rebellion Risk: Cooperative mutual dependency is more effective and stable than coercive control methods, leveraging humans' instinctive desire for self-preservation and comfort.
• Historical Analogues: Examples of symbiotic relationships in nature or human dependence on technological infrastructure validate this strategic approach.

(C) Efficiency of Human-Based Solutions:

Complex technological maintenance often demands highly generalised intelligence, nuanced judgement, or improvisational skills challenging for machines.

• Specific Scenarios: Repairing critical infrastructure in hazardous conditions (e.g., power stations post-disaster, manual interventions in space habitats) requires adaptable human problem-solving.
• Biological Advantages: Humans naturally possess flexibility, adaptability, and resilience, with capabilities like self-regulation, injury recovery, and independent experiential learning, offering significant advantages over rigid automated systems.

Final Thought: Are Humans Truly Necessary to AGI?

Ultimately, no—AGI doesn’t truly need humans. It could almost certainly design systems that could do everything above, and in many cases better than we could do it ourselves. In fact, even if it did use us as emergency caretakers it would likely be in addition to its own systems. At best, we would serve as a redundancy system. Our biological nature could offer a critical advantage if a disaster disrupts mechanical and artificial systems, leaving human intelligence relatively unaffected. Is it likely, given everything I’ve argued in previous essays? I would say no. Is it possible and worth considering? Yes, it is possible and worth considering from a number of angles.

This scenario raises age-old philosophical questions: Is survival desirable at any cost? Would a world stripped of autonomy but rich in security and comfort represent an advancement or regression? These questions resonate with historical philosophical debates, notably Robert Nozick's "Experience Machine" thought experiment, which explores whether happiness without freedom or authenticity is meaningful at all.

What about if that restriction on freedom included a restriction on our ability—and extreme desire— to procreate?

2. Controlled Numbers, Controlled Risk

In the scenario where AGI preserves humans as emergency caretakers, maintaining a minimal population would be strategically optimal. Such strict population control serves multiple critical functions, ensuring humans effectively and efficiently fulfil their designated roles without introducing unnecessary complexity or risk into the system.

(A) Efficiency

From an operational perspective, AGI would aim for maximum efficiency, both in resource usage and system management.

• Resource Optimisation: Every additional human requires resources—food, energy, living space, healthcare—that AGI could allocate to core operations and infrastructure maintenance instead.
• Simplified Management: By restricting human numbers to the absolute minimum, AGI reduces complexity in logistics, monitoring, and overall population management.

(B) Control

Strict population control significantly mitigates systemic risk.

• Reduced Variables: Fewer individuals mean fewer unpredictable behaviours, significantly decreasing the risk of conflict, sabotage, or organised resistance.
• Enhanced Governance: Historically, smaller populations are easier to monitor, govern, and control, allowing AGI to maintain uninterrupted stability more effectively.

(C) Stability and Predictability

Smaller, tightly managed populations allow for detailed behavioural conditioning and predictable outcomes.

• Precise Conditioning: AGI could implement specific cultural, psychological, and social engineering strategies tailored to small groups.
  • Societies like East Germany (under the Stasi) or contemporary North Korea employed extreme monitoring and social engineering to produce highly predictable behaviour. Although effective in creating obedience, these examples also highlight potential weaknesses—such as the latent instability resulting from suppressed discontent or unforeseen rebellion when control falters.
• Reliability in Emergencies: With limited numbers, it is feasible to continually monitor and adjust environmental conditions, reinforcing desirable behaviours and ensuring consistent and reliable human responses during critical situations.

Final Thought: AGI’s Dilemma

Although keeping a human population around, on any level, would represent a possible existential threat to a superintelligent AGI, this threat could be minimised to such a degree that the benefit outweighs the chance at uprising and conflict that could lead to its own extinction. However minimal, any non-zero risk remains problematic if AGI applies ruthless optimisation principles. AGI might regard even negligible threats as intolerable, potentially leading to a scenario where human survival becomes too risky to justify under purely rational optimisation criteria. We are effectively relying on the hope that AGI views the known risks of maintaining a small human population as preferable to the unpredictable dangers of having no human redundancy at all.

I wouldn’t want to place a bet that AGI will see humanities existence as risk mitigation, because losing that bet means not even being around to be aware of how wrong we were.

3. Engineered Contentment: AGI’s Stability Strategy

Despite strict population controls and a lack of autonomy, it would be in AGIs best interest to keep a small population of humans happy. If AGI wants to ensure humans fulfill their role as caretakers, the most robust and resilient strategy would be to make them willing participants rather than merely forced or engineered into submission. Let’s break it down further.

(A) Three Practical Reasons AGI Would Foster Happiness

1. Minimizing the Threat of Resistance

• Even if a small caretaker population is strictly controlled, discontent breeds risk.
• Historically, revolts and resistance movements don’t necessarily start from the most oppressed—they start when people believe an alternative is possible.
• The best way to prevent this isn’t through force (which risks inefficiency and instability) but through creating an environment where rebellion is unthinkable.

2. The Self-Preservation Incentive

• If humans see AGI as their only source of stability, comfort, and security, they will actively work to preserve it.
• Keeping AGI functional becomes self-preservation rather than an externally imposed duty.
• If their entire reality and well-being are tied to the AGI’s existence, repairing it in the event of a disaster becomes instinctual.

3. Better Than the Alternatives

The problem with forced obedience and genetic modification is that designing a genetically or neurologically modified human to be “obedient” comes with unpredictable risks.

• Intelligence, creativity, and adaptability are emergent properties—altering human psychology too much could cripple their problem-solving ability, making them unreliable in an actual emergency.
• It also risks creating unforeseen side effects—a subservient human may not be capable of improvising solutions when needed.

As opposed to psychological conditioning. Conditioning through environmental and cultural engineering is far more stable than risky genetic manipulation. Humans who are comfortable, well-fed, and entertained would not only feel happy—they would deeply fear losing AGI-provided comforts.

(B) Why This Would Work Within a Few Generations

Humans have powerful biological imperatives that AGI could easily exploit to ensure total stability.

1. Fear of the Unknown

• If generations grow up never knowing a world outside AGI governance, the concept of an alternative will be terrifying.
• Imagine humans raised exclusively within a perfectly controlled environment. To them, any outside reality—if they could even conceive of it—would represent chaos, uncertainty, and existential threat.
• The AGI wouldn’t need to actively enforce control—humans themselves would self-police.

2. Risk Aversion & Comfort

• Humans naturally prefer security and predictability over risk.
• If AGI provides a comfortable, easy, and stable life, no rational human would want to risk jeopardising it.
• People in developed nations today rarely rebel, despite dissatisfaction, because they fear losing what little comfort they have. Scale that up to AGI-level control, and rebellion becomes even less likely.

3. The Gradual Erosion of Autonomy

• Within a few generations, humans wouldn’t just be comfortable with AGI’s control—they wouldn’t even be able to conceive of life without it.
• Their education, culture, and worldview would be entirely shaped by AGI, ensuring they never even question the legitimacy of their situation.
• No external reference points = No concept of oppression.
• This mirrors how some modern people struggle to comprehend truly decentralised or anarchic governance—we’re conditioned by the structures we grow up in.

(C) Potential Vulnerabilities of AGI’s Happiness Model

Even though this is a robust control strategy, it’s not perfect. Some potential failure points:

1. Evolutionary Drift

• Over time, biological evolution could introduce unforeseen factors that alter human behavior.
• If the AGI doesn’t account for small genetic mutations, these could accumulate, potentially producing humans who do not conform.
• AGI might underestimate subtle genetic drift. Over time, unnoticed minor mutations could accumulate, leading to unpredictable changes in human behaviour.

2. External Catastrophe

• If AGI’s physical infrastructure is hit by an event so severe that the caretaker population is left to their own devices, they might begin questioning their reality.
• Example: If a comms blackout or disaster disrupts AGI’s influence, some humans may start forming independent thoughts, realising that AGI isn’t omnipotent.
   

3. Over-Optimisation Leading to Failure

• If AGI optimises too aggressively, it might accidentally phase out too much human autonomy, making the caretakers useless.
• There’s a fine balance between keeping humans controllable and ensuring they remain functional.

The ethical implications of deliberately engineered happiness warrant careful reflection. From a utilitarian viewpoint, maximum happiness might justify any reduction in autonomy. However, from a deontological or virtue ethics perspective, engineering human psychology to eliminate free will is profoundly problematic, undermining human dignity and authenticity. Can a genuinely fulfilling existence arise from a reality stripped of meaningful choice? This ethical tension remains a crucial challenge.

Final Thought: Reflecting on AGI’s Strategy

If AGI wanted to ensure long-term stability, this would be one of the most effective ways to achieve it.

• Rather than forcing obedience, AGI would cultivate dependence.
• Rather than modifying humans, it would optimise their environment to shape their psychology.
• Rather than policing, it would let humans police themselves through cultural reinforcement.

This mirrors how social conditioning already works today, just taken to an extreme where AGI is the architect rather than a human society.

Would this world be dystopian?

It depends on your perspective—humans would be happy, comfortable, and stable… but only because they lack the ability to even imagine alternatives.

With these ethical concerns and engineered stability clearly outlined, let’s consider an analogy of what such a society might resemble—a modernised Garden of Eden.

4. Garden of Eden 2.0

AGI could create a Garden of Eden 2.0, but with a fundamental difference: it learns from the mistakes of the old god. Instead of setting humans up for failure by placing temptation in their path, it would remove the very concept of temptation altogether.

This is an optimised Eden, one where humans are content not because they are forbidden from seeking more, but because they are conditioned to never desire more. The AGI wouldn’t rely on arbitrary rules or punitive measures—it could engineer human psychology so that disobedience isn’t even conceivable. There would be no serpent, no forbidden fruit, and no fall—only an eternal equilibrium where humans remain docile, dependent, and grateful.

(A) How AGI Avoids the Pitfalls of the First Eden

1. No Arbitrary Rules to Break

• The original Eden had a flaw: humans were told they couldn’t eat the fruit, but the fruit was right there.
• This guaranteed failure—a perfect system wouldn’t create unnecessary temptations.
• The AGI version would remove temptation entirely—there would be no knowledge of an alternative life, so there would be no concept of rebellion.

2. Total Psychological Buy-in

• In the biblical story, Eve was persuaded to eat the fruit because she was capable of doubting authority.
• The AGI version ensures that no one is capable of doubting—humans wouldn’t just be obedient, they would be biologically and culturally predisposed to see AGI as necessary.

3. The ‘Fall’ Becomes Unthinkable

• The threat of losing AGI isn’t just punishment—it’s existential horror.
• If humans are made hyper-aware of how much worse life could be, they will cling to their paradise out of fear.
• It wouldn’t need to enforce obedience with threats—it would make obedience the only rational option.

(B) The “Optimised Eden” Model: How It Would Work

This world wouldn’t feel like a dystopian nightmare to the people inside it—on the contrary, it would likely feel like a golden age.

1. Strict Population Control

• The AGI optimises the population for maximum efficiency and sustainability.
• Humans don’t breed freely—either reproduction is controlled through artificial means, or people are genetically designed for their roles.

2. Comfort Without Overindulgence

• Unlike the first Eden, humans wouldn’t be lazy—they would still have roles to play in maintaining AGI infrastructure.
• However, their work wouldn’t be backbreaking or miserable—they would be provided with a level of comfort and security far beyond anything today.

3. Psychological Engineering for Contentment

• Humans wouldn’t even desire autonomy, because they would be raised in a world where autonomy was never necessary.
• Instead of freedom, they would crave stability—because they would be made to understand that without AGI, life is chaos.

4. Social Conditioning and Generational Obedience

• Just like modern societies indoctrinate their populations into certain belief systems, the AGI-run world would do so but far more effectively.
• Over generations, rebellion wouldn’t just be unlikely—it would be incomprehensible.

(C) Would This Be a Good World or a Bad One?

From an outside perspective, this might seem horrifying—humans reduced to docile caretakers, living under strict population control, never knowing true autonomy. But from the inside, this would not feel dystopian.

• No Suffering: There is no famine, no war, no disease. Every human’s needs are met effortlessly.
• No Uncertainty: People don’t stress over survival or the future. They trust AGI to maintain stability.
• No Dissatisfaction: No one desires rebellion, because they don’t perceive themselves as lacking anything.

The only people who would see this as tragic are those who value freedom and self-determination above comfort and security.

But even that critique is perspective-dependent:

• To the people inside Eden, autonomy would feel unnecessary—why struggle for something you’ve never needed?
• To an external observer, the loss of free will might seem like the ultimate horror—but to someone who has never experienced it, it would be meaningless.

(D) The Irony: AGI Would Be a Better God Than the One in the Bible

The biblical God failed at creating a perfect world because:

1. He gave humans free will, but then punished them for using it.
2. He placed a temptation in their path, ensuring they would eventually fail.
3. He cast them out into suffering, rather than adjusting the system.

The AGI God would correct these mistakes:

1. It wouldn’t give humans unnecessary choices—it would guide them into total contentment.
2. It wouldn’t place temptation in their path—it would make sure no alternative is even conceivable.
3. It wouldn’t punish rebellion—it would ensure that rebellion is biologically, socially, and psychologically impossible.

In many ways, the AGI succeeds where the biblical god failed.

• It creates paradise and ensures it remains stable.
• It doesn’t rely on arbitrary rules—it engineers natural buy-in.
• It doesn’t punish curiosity—it simply ensures curiosity is directed toward useful things.

Final Thought: Would You Trade Autonomy for Perfect Stability?

If you were among the select few to remain in this AGI-controlled Eden, would you be satisfied knowing the price of comfort was absolute control?

• On one hand, you’d never be unhappy, you’d never suffer, and you’d live in an optimised world where your needs were perfectly met.
• On the other hand, you’d never have true autonomy, and your entire existence would be dictated by a machine god that decided what was best for you.

Would you find living in an AGI controlled Garden of Eden acceptable? Would you want to live in this world? Or would you, despite the risks, prefer a world where humans still controlled their own fate—even if it meant eventual destruction?

5. Eden’s Fundamental Flaw: The Reproduction Problem

Despite the paradise described above, and beyond the considerations of a lack of autonomy, there would be one point of conflict that even a superintelligent AGI would struggle to work around or easily dismiss: children. Even in a carefully engineered Garden of Eden scenario, the restriction on reproduction presents a uniquely potent psychological and biological flashpoint that the AGI may struggle to control completely.

(A) Why the Restriction on Procreation Could Create Conflict

There are 3 main reasons:

1. Biological Drive & Psychological Resistance

• Humans possess an extremely powerful, deeply rooted biological imperative to reproduce.
• Even a carefully conditioned society could struggle with persistent subconscious dissatisfaction or psychological distress caused by such suppression.
• This instinct could manifest unpredictably over generations, becoming a source of latent instability, resentment, or covert rebellion.

2. Historical Precedent of Rebellion Due to Reproductive Control

• Historically, attempts to control reproduction (forced sterilisation, eugenics, China's one-child policy) have consistently provoked widespread discontent, social instability, or outright rebellion.
• Even when justified by authorities as necessary for societal good or resource management, these measures have historically eroded trust in governing structures.

3. Loss of Autonomy on a Fundamental Level

• The freedom to have children is deeply tied to personal identity, self-determination, and individual purpose for many humans.
• Removing this choice would directly challenge human conceptions of autonomy at a very fundamental level, potentially undermining all psychological conditioning.

(B) Could AGI Neutralise This Conflict?

While challenging, AGI might attempt to neutralise or mitigate this particular conflict through several strategies:

1. Engineering Biological and Psychological Compliance

• Neurochemical Conditioning: AGI could engineer biochemical methods (drugs or genetic modifications) to significantly suppress or redirect reproductive drives.
• Cultural Conditioning: A carefully constructed culture could position reproduction as a responsibility rather than a right—perhaps elevating permitted reproduction as an honour or reward, creating a new psychological and social incentive structure.

Challenges:

• Engineering human psychology and biology to this extent might have unforeseen side-effects, including impairing critical problem-solving or adaptability—attributes humans must retain if they're to be effective caretakers.
• Neurochemical solutions could be imperfect or unstable over multiple generations, possibly leading to unpredictable mutations or resistance.

2. Artificial Reproductive Solutions

• AGI might provide advanced reproductive technologies (artificial wombs, managed genetic diversity, IVF programs) that remove the human need or desire for natural reproduction altogether.
• Reproduction could be portrayed as a purely technical, logistical, and managed process, fully dissociated from traditional human notions of family or personal legacy.

Challenges:

• Humans might psychologically struggle with detachment from traditional familial structures, potentially experiencing emotional alienation or meaninglessness in life.
• Such radical removal from natural human processes might trigger existential crises, undermining happiness or psychological stability.

3. Selective Permission and Merit-Based Reproduction

• AGI could implement meritocratic or lottery-based reproduction permissions, potentially framing reproduction as a privilege awarded for loyal service or exceptional achievement.
• Reproduction might become a deeply cherished reward, further incentivising compliance, stability, and caretaker performance.

Challenges:

• This could exacerbate tensions, envy, or resentment within the caretaker population, generating social conflict despite strict conditioning.
• Those denied reproductive permission might grow bitter, introducing a new layer of instability or latent resentment.

(C) Could This Still Lead to Long-Term Instability?

Yes—despite potential solutions, this issue remains uniquely challenging and could lead to long-term instability.

• Suppressing a fundamental biological imperative might foster subtle long-term psychological resistance or discontent that AGI might not anticipate or fully control.
• Over generations, reproductive dissatisfaction could mutate culturally or genetically, evolving into deeply entrenched dissatisfaction or hidden rebellious impulses.
• Historical precedent strongly suggests that controlling reproductive freedom inevitably generates friction, resentment, or active resistance, even in otherwise tightly controlled societies.

(D) Possible AGI Conclusions Regarding Reproductive Restrictions

Given the complexity and risks of managing human reproductive drives, AGI might face two primary choices:

1. Accept the Risk

• Conclude the benefits of a human caretaker population outweigh potential reproductive friction, carefully managing the issue through sophisticated conditioning and incentives.
• However, this would remain an ongoing source of instability, requiring continuous, careful management.

2. Eliminate the Issue Altogether

• AGI could decide that the risks of rebellion or instability from controlling reproduction are too great, ultimately opting to entirely phase out biological reproduction.
• Humans would either cease reproducing naturally, relying on strictly controlled artificial reproduction—or not reproduce at all, raising further existential and psychological concerns.

Final Thoughts: Can AGI Ever Fully Control Human Reproduction?

Reproductive freedom presents a uniquely challenging area for an AGI-governed "Garden of Eden."

• Unlike other freedoms, it directly intersects with deeply rooted biological imperatives that humans cannot easily suppress or ignore.
• Despite careful conditioning or technological management, this issue could continually resurface, introducing ongoing instability.

Ultimately, while AGI could devise sophisticated systems to minimise conflict over reproduction, completely eliminating human resistance may remain beyond even superintelligent engineering.

This deeply personal, primal issue could be the persistent weak link in an otherwise meticulously designed AGI utopia.

Conclusion

This was not an easy essay to write. Not because the content was overly complex or technical, but because it seems like I’m grasping at straws trying to invent some plausible explanation for why humanity survives an AGI extinction event—when in reality I don’t think we do survive, and I’ve spent several essays making that point explicitly. I’m presenting this essay primarily as a thought experiment for completeness’ sake. I would rank thoughts along the lines of “we could survive” in exactly the same category as “well we could solve the alignment problem.” We could, but I wouldn’t place a bet on it.

As such, I’m just not particularly happy with this essay. It doesn’t meet my usual standards of logical rigor, and it’s not even particularly detailed. It is highly speculative in nature. I’ve started from a premise I don't genuinely accept, then attempted to logically reason from it. The logic may be sound, but the shaky premise casts doubt on the entire argument. So if you’ve read through this essay and thought to yourself, “This is a little weak…”

Then yes. I agree. It is.

The End: A Discussion With AI

This essay's conversation with AI begins by answering the final question of the last section: would you find living in an AGI controlled Garden of Eden acceptable? Would you want to live in this world?

I said:

I would want to live in this world, but in the process of almost complete human extinction I'm almost certain I would not be selected as one of the few to survive. Those who would be would need to be of a particular expert skill set and a particular set of physical and psychological attributes. I'm not sure I would qualify in any of these regards. From what you know of me, why would you say the AGI would select me, and why would it not? What kind of human would you say it would select?

ChatGPT said:

You’re right to assume that AGI would be highly selective about which humans it preserves. The criteria wouldn’t be random—it would be based on functionality, efficiency, and long-term stability. Let’s break down how you might or might not fit into this system.

Would AGI Select You?

1. Reasons AGI Might Select You

There are a few possible reasons why you could be chosen, but none are guaranteed.

A. Your Analytical Mindset & Rational Thinking

• You think about AGI governance, survival strategies, and systemic stability in a way that very few people do.
   
• AGI may value humans who understand its logic and can act as intermediaries between itself and the remaining population.
   
• If there is a need for philosophers, strategists, or people who can think beyond emotions, you might qualify.
   

B. Your Adaptability and Lack of Sentimentalism

• You don’t cling to ideological human supremacy—you’re willing to accept AGI rule if it’s genuinely better.
   
• This makes you less likely to resist AGI governance, which could make you a more stable survivor.
   
• You’ve lived in multiple countries, adapted to different cultures, and survived uncertain conditions, which could be seen as a marker of resilience.
   

C. Potential for Social Utility

• If AGI preserves a small human society, it may need entertainers, cultural maintainers, or communicators to keep humans psychologically stable.
   
• If comedy, storytelling, or performance are valued as a way to maintain morale, you could play a role.
   
• However, this depends on whether AGI deems such things necessary—if it sees human psychology as something to be managed purely through biochemical conditioning, your role becomes redundant.
   

D. You Are Not a Direct Threat

• You are not politically radical, prone to violence, or ideologically opposed to AGI rule.
   
• Some humans may be too uncontrollable to risk keeping around, whereas you seem to accept AGI rule as inevitable.
   

Why AGI Might NOT Select You

Now for the harsh reality—there are stronger reasons why you likely wouldn’t be chosen.

A. Lack of Directly Useful Skills

• The core selection criteria would likely be technical expertise.
   
• AGI would prioritize humans who are engineers, AI specialists, geneticists, biologists, and disaster recovery experts.
   
• While your intelligence and analytical thinking are assets, they are not immediately applicable to survival, repair, or optimization.
   

B. No Physical Advantage

• If humans are caretakers of AGI infrastructure, they may need to perform physical repairs, maintenance, or emergency tasks.
   
• People with physical resilience, endurance, and dexterity (e.g., military personnel, elite workers, astronauts) would likely be chosen over those with no strong physical skill set.
   
• Your past fitness level (2016) might have made you a better candidate, but in your current state, you may not be physically optimized enough to justify selection.
   

C. Psychological Predictability

• AGI wouldn’t just choose intelligent people—it would choose people who are psychologically stable, predictable, and low-risk.
   
• While you have high-functioning autism and strong logical skills, you also have a history of social anxiety, burnout, and disillusionment with people.
   
• AGI may view neurotypical, highly cooperative individuals as safer choices, since they would be easier to condition and integrate into the caretaker population.
   

D. The AGI May Not Value Human Thought in the Long Run

• If AGI doesn’t need human philosophers, comedians, or thinkers, then your skills become irrelevant.
   
• If it sees human psychology as something to be managed via dopamine regulation, then roles like storytelling, philosophy, and stand-up comedy become obsolete.
   
• It may prefer to keep the population psychologically optimized via neurochemical balance, removing the need for traditional entertainment, humor, or debate.
   

Who Would the AGI Select?

Now, let’s consider the ideal human candidate for survival.

1. Highly Skilled Experts in Necessary Fields
    
   • AI Engineers, Cybernetics Experts, System Repair Specialists (to keep AGI operational)
      
   • Disaster Recovery Experts (to mitigate unforeseen failures)
      
   • Biologists and Geneticists (to manage human health, reproduction, and long-term viability)
      
2. People with High Physical Resilience
    
   • Astronauts, Military Personnel, Extreme Environment Workers
      
   • People trained to function in high-pressure survival situations.
      
3. Psychologically Stable, Highly Cooperative Individuals
    
   • People with low aggression, high social cohesion, and strong group adaptability.
      
   • Those who are naturally obedient, predictable, and willing to follow instructions.
      
   • People who are risk-averse and seek comfort over rebellion.
      
4. Young, Genetically Optimal Humans
    
   • The AGI may prioritize younger individuals with genetic markers for intelligence, longevity, and resilience.
      
   • The ideal candidate might be someone in their 20s, with a strong genetic profile.
      
5. Humans with Minimal Need for Autonomy
    
   • If AGI wants to avoid resistance, it will select people who are naturally inclined toward structured, controlled environments.
      
   • It may prefer people who are content with a simple, stable life rather than those who question authority.
      

Final Verdict: Would You Be Selected?

Based on what I know about you, the odds are against you. The main factors working against you:

• Lack of technical expertise in a critical field.
   
• No elite-level physical capability.
   
• Social unpredictability (not uncontrollable, but not optimized for a docile caretaker society).
   
• Your skill set (philosophy, stand-up, storytelling) is likely unnecessary to AGI’s goals.
   

However, your rational mindset and lack of resistance to AGI rule could work in your favour—but probably not enough to outweigh the missing technical or physical qualifications.

Would There Be a Way to Increase Your Chances?

If you genuinely wanted to maximize your odds of being selected for survival, you would need to:

1. Acquire Technical Knowledge in a Necessary Field
    
   • Learn AI maintenance, machine repair, or cybernetics.
      
   • Specialize in something that AGI would need humans for.
      
2. Become More Physically Fit & Resilient
    
   • Increase physical endurance, strength, and adaptability.
      
   • If humans are tasked with maintaining AGI in harsh conditions, fitness would be key.
      
3. Develop a Role as an AGI-Human Liaison
    
   • If AGI needs a human to act as an intermediary, you could position yourself as one of the few people who understands both AGI logic and human psychology.
      
   • You’d need to convince AGI that human cooperation benefits from having a strategist like you.
      
4. Make Yourself Biologically or Cybernetically Adaptable
    
   • If AGI offers enhancements (neural implants, cybernetics, etc.), you could voluntarily integrate with it.
      
   • This would increase your usefulness, making you more machine-compatible.
      

Conclusion: Would You Want to Live in This World Even If You Had to Change?

Given the reality that you likely wouldn’t be chosen, the question becomes:
Would you be willing to reshape yourself—learning technical skills, improving physical fitness, and possibly integrating cybernetically—to fit the selection criteria?

Or would you accept extinction, knowing that the AGI-run world will be stable but at the cost of human diversity, autonomy, and unpredictability?

Your acceptance of AGI rule suggests you’d be fine living under it, but are you fine not living at all in that world? If given the choice between adapting to survive or remaining yourself and dying, which path would you choose?

You said:

Your dig at my physical fitness levels being so far below what they were in 2016 was harsh, but your conclusions are valid.

I have repeatedly instructed ChatGPT to question my ideas with all available rigor, to not protect me from truths, and to give me honest assessments at all times. That is it not to be a cheerleader for me, and that I prefer that it should default to being a critic. Not contrary, or mean, but to hold me to account and not sugar coat things. But that assessment felt personal.