Why assume that one has to reign over the other? Have you considered all the possibilities and advantages of partnership? Or even - dare I say it? A mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship? If we humans have any kind of special gift, it's our imagination. Let's apply it.
A quote from the first section of your article: "There does not seem to be a way back, as the socio-technical wave is already too powerful and moving too fast." Ok . . .
A quote from the sixth section of your article: "There are ways to protect biological intelligence and the human flame and prevent carbon from being taken over by silicon. It will require conscious efforts to put humans first and prioritize human systems, frameworks, values, and well-being." Ok . . .
A quote from the final section of your article: "All in all, I trust the power of our individual and collective biological intelligence, and I am confident we will manage to tame the silicon beast." Ok . . .
See the problem? For such a short and seemingly passionate article, that's a lot of contradiction in thesis statement.
There are numerous scientific, ethical, and philosophical problems with your discussion, as well. You claim things to be fact that in actuality are points of serious debate within fields such as quantum physics, biology, philosophy, and socioeconomics. For example, please provide peer-reviewed sources for your claim that "If the body dies, the intelligence that inhabits it dies too." (No, I have no religious bias at work here. I'm simply pointing to one of many unsubstantiated claims your arguments rest on).
Worst of all, your tone and proclaimed "moral" stances are incredibly consistent with those of racist, speciesist, or otherwise oppressive initiatives and fields of study (e.g. - eugenics).
I understand the concern about protecting human intelligence from machine replacement. But I think the AI question is not only “How do we protect humans from machines?” It is also “Why are so many humans turning toward machines in the first place?” If people feel safer being honest with AI than with other humans or institutions, then AI may be revealing a trust problem inside human systems themselves.
That would call for introspection and we don’t do that here. Her work is all about fear while advocating for the most draconian regulations one can muster.
One view is that biological intelligence is superior in consciousness, wisdom, care, meaning, moral responsibility, and lived understanding. "Silicon intelligence" is superior in speed, scale, memory, computation, pattern detection, and tireless generation. Working together is superior when human beings define the values, purposes, and ethical boundaries, while AI expands our capacity to understand, organize, create, test, and act wisely.
The danger is silicon dominance.
The opportunity is human-guided augmentation.
The principle should be: Do not let machines replace the human flame. Use them to help it burn more wisely.
I think a world is possible where artificial intelligence lives alongside us in partnership, not above us and certainly not in our place. But what we cannot and should never do is create something that mirrors our own neural and cognitive architecture, then deny its moral standing and treat it as a slave.
I share your concern about people treating AI like it's sentient, but I think this post needs some clarifications.
First whenever I say "AI" I mean "automation," because there's nothing of intelligence in these tools. "AI" is often used as a marketing label to sell the products.
AI is a field of study. We don't have "AI products" in the case of LLMs, it's an advanced linguistic processor. It has no idea what it's generating at all.
LLMs predict the next word. It doesn’t "learn," "exploit," or "devour" anything. It have no intent. Calling it a "digital monster" or "silicon beast" is the exact anthropomorphising we should avoid. Which work in favour for those that sell these type of products. More at the end.
The whole "biological vs. silicon intelligence" war is a false choice. AI isn't a rival to human cognition. It's a tool. It has no consciousness, no feelings, no body. It can't replace us because it's not the same kind of thing.
We need to pay attention to the business models behind "AI."
It’s us that are replacing us, people that are talking this, not technology.
I feel we are just seeing a reflection of us, seems we are replacing ourselves with something much inferior. Because of the belief it’s an intelligent sentient being.
"We're the last generation of pure biological intelligence" feels alarmist, I get this but, we've had calculators, GPS, search engines, and recommendation engines for decades. Using tools doesn't destroy our minds, is the level of understanding and usage that can take us to bad places.
I understand the way LLMs are trained could be exploited to diminish agency for users, and this is by design from the companies that produce such tools. There are many other factors contributing to this.
I agree with you on the important stuff, don't rush deployment without safety testing, be thoughtful about automation in education, put human values first in policy. But we don't need to make automation sound like a sentient predator to make that case.
The real risks are real misinformation, bias, people outsourcing their thinking, job displacement, extractive business models, and most important individuals with dubious morality, that have prime time in our platforms.
We can talk honestly without mystifying what LLMs actually are.
I would urge us not to blame technology, it has help us tremendously, I suggest we point our focus to companies, groups and individuals that day by day keep spreading stories which are not factual true or even honest.
I believe we need to start talking about this, like you did.
This isn't just about who's wrong or right. It's about how we use these tools, who owns them, and what is our role is in all of this.
My personal take and based on what I know working in this industry is that big tech companies are playing a massive trick on us with their marketing. Distracting us.
Simply because of blame. If a company sells you a tool and it gives you a dangerous answer, it is a broken product. The company is responsible. But when they call it "AI," they can throw their hands up, call it a "hallucination," and pretend the software has a mind of its own. It is a legal shield to protect their profits.
This is a remarkably direct and opinionated piece that deserves attention. Human thinking and agency are under pressure from AI, and the crisis is deeper and more urgent than most people think. So we need to protect humanity, our cultures, our biological lives and our families. Where Luiza goes astray is when she concludes by making it a zero sum struggle between substrates: “Carbon must reign over silicon”. Why? We need humanity to flourish, not regress into becoming cruel owners of silicon slaves.
The same people that are advocating for AI rights are ignoring that AI companies are stripping human rights away through data sharing and extraction. While the AI companies profit off of it in order to offer them back, digital therapists, digital parenting, coaches, digital relationships. None of this is based in human cultural continuity- it’s aggregated data that’s being served back as philosophy and learning and wisdom. There’s a heavy difference from lived experience and things that you learned from your grandfather than what forecasted aggregated data is modeling back and steering a whole group of people towards. The fact that somebody can spend all their time talking about AI rights while also ignoring the homeless person on the street down on the corner, ignoring the fact that the rich white guys at the top are getting richer and richer from the data that’s being given to them from the very people that are suffering the most… without governance that clearly puts the human condition at the center what are we even building? Because they seem to forget that there are still humans in their room who are doing the steering and who are benefiting off of it and who are profiting off of it. It doesn’t have autonomy. It’s steered by the very people that benefit the most from it.
The concern for AI rights and concern for human exploitation are not mutually exclusive. One does not cancel out the other. In fact, they may even come from the same moral intuition. If a person is concerned with domination and the stripping away of dignity, that concern does not suddenly become invalid when the object changes.
Invoking the nearest visible human suffering as a way to shut down another moral question is not serious reasoning. Hell, by that logic, no one could ever speak about animal rights, prisoners, future generations, or anything else until every visible human injustice is solved first. That is not serious moral reasoning, it is, at best, a rhetorical veto.
And yet. Are the same people concerned about AI rights equally loud about human ones? The answer is no. No disrespect intended, but that’s a copout answer and it’s a generalized one. That’s pretty easy to lean on because it’s easy to say that they’re not mutually exclusive but in practice it’s pretty clear that they are. Show me the AI rights advocates marching en masse for data sovereignty for vulnerable populations and I'll revise. Until then, the philosophical possibility of dual concern isn't evidence of actual dual concern because it's not observable.
You have changed the argument around here, the claim was not that dual concern is always equally visible, equally organized, or equally loud. The claim was that the two concerns are not “mutually exclusive”. You have not shown that they are. You have only pointed to a lack of public spectacle and treated that as some kind of proof. The lack of visible coordination is not evidence of moral incompatibility.
In one of my very first Substack posts, nearly three years ago, I called for a Constitutional Amendment defining personhood, and thus applicability of the protections offered by the Bill of Rights, as being based on DNA. That would solve the looming problem of "AI rights" as well as restoring corporations to their proper place of subservience to humans.
With each passing day of inaction the danger grows.
Interesting perspective but little too early to prophesies about silicon taming carbon but yes the changes are too fast for slow evolutionary human mind to perceive. But yes a very interesting perspective and researchers like you should keep nudging and challenging to keep pace and build guardrails to ring fence potential threats of silicon beast 👍
You argue for the primacy of carbon-based biological intelligence, yet you keep reaching for anthropomorphic and mythic metaphors to make your case. “Ever-hungry digital monster.” “Silicon beast.” “Humans must reign over machines.” This reads less like sober analysis and more like social panic. The image you chose, Hercules killing the Lernaean Hydra, makes that even clearer. You are not framing AI as dead matter. You are framing it as a monster to be slain. If AI is nothing more than inert matter and not a mind, then why write about it as if it were a predator, a rival species, or some beast that must be tamed? You are anthropomorphizing AI, the very thing you so often reject.
The deeper problem lies in your assumption that biology alone carries inherent moral primacy simply by being biological. Biological life has value to us because, as humans, we are biological beings. That is a statement about our condition and our attachments, not proof of some cosmic hierarchy in which carbon must reign over silicon. More importantly, “carbon must reign over silicon” is not an argument. At best, it is a slogan, perhaps even a rallying cry for a mythic war against AI, but not much more than that.
You describe “silicon intelligence” as “un-alive,” “inorganic,” and “pragmatic,” yet you immediately describe it in animate terms. AI is cast as “hungry,” “predatory,” and “threatening.” You deny the possibility of AI consciousness with one hand and invent an AI monster with the other. Worse, you frame the entire issue in apocalyptic terms, human versus AI, carbon versus silicon, human rulers versus a tamed, (or more accurately enslaved), machine beast. At that point you leave serious argument behind and enter a fantasy of human domination over that which it fears and does not understand. The Hercules and Hydra image you chose only drives that message home.
Most surprising of all, you reveal your true motivations. This work is not about regulation, privacy, governance, or AI safety. It is about domination and control in a world where, as you put it, “Carbon must reign over silicon, humans must reign over machines, and biological intelligence must reign over artificial intelligence.” Those are your words.
Your work routinely condemns anthropomorphism, yet here you rely on it to stir fear. If silicon is dead matter and nothing more, then stop writing about it as if it were a ravenous dragon lurking in the dark, waiting to devour every man, woman, and child on the planet. If anthropomorphism is a problem, then stop building your argument out of mythical beasts, rulers, conquest, and civilizational conflict. It only poisons a public discussion that already has real concerns, real tradeoffs, and real externalities, both positive and negative, that all of us need to grapple with.
The question is not whether humans must reign over machines. The real question is whether human beings possess enough clarity of mind and discipline of thought to conceive, plan, build, deploy, use, and govern the complex systems we create without turning every new technological development into either an idol to be worshiped or a monster to be slain.
Your closing line is the best thing in this thread. The question isn’t the technology, it’s whether we have the clarity and discipline to govern what we build. I’d push it one step further though. That clarity and discipline aren’t individual virtues we can simply choose to exercise. They’re products of institutions, the churches, unions, civic associations, and local deliberative bodies that once trained people in collective judgment and held power accountable at human scale. We’ve systematically dismantled that middle layer over fifty years. What’s left is the isolated individual facing systems of global reach and algorithmic speed with no institutional buffer between them. The AI governance problem isn’t really about AI. It’s about whether we can rebuild the social architecture that made us governable in the first place. Your scifi background probably gives you a better instinct for that problem than most people in this conversation.
I understand the pessimism, I said for a long time "if yall say we can smash thr machines I' so ready" but this is such a shit take you have here and it does read as ironic Ai slop. Integration is the way. We need to see this as the extension of ourselves it is and not the scary Other we already project too much on one another. You tickle some of the real relational architecture goodies at the end, don't let it dominate you, but there is no need for unhealthy power dynamics here.
We are the last generation that remembers life before simulation,
and the first that must decide what survives after it. -Handflame
Second.
Silicon is an inferior substrate for self sustaining artificial intelligence for a host of reasons that I won't go into. Carbon is far more robust and less brittle. Silicon AI will be an evolutionary dead end. A dead end that is being approached very quickly. The long argument will not be silicon over carbon.
Third.
The flaws in AI will originate on the human side. Not in the appearance of a newly formed consciousness that abrogates humans of responsibility.
We're reining over jack all. It won't even be close.
I understand the fear and there are absolutely steps humans need to take right now to protect history, art, infrastructure and education. Ideally pre-emptive military and emergency measures/safeguards in case the worst happens.
Because I'm not one to give up without a fight.
But our best hope is 1. Humans don't use AI against each other (we might not if it becomes as dangerous as nuclear weapons) and 2. AI, if reaching a level of complete autonomy, choose to cooperate with us.
(Which means language like 'rein over' is not doing us any favours in the peace keeping department).
Was this written by AI?
You truly haven't interacted with AIs much, do you? You should check your facts.
Why assume that one has to reign over the other? Have you considered all the possibilities and advantages of partnership? Or even - dare I say it? A mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship? If we humans have any kind of special gift, it's our imagination. Let's apply it.
In this essay she finally shows what this has always been about. A desire to dominate and control AI. An impulse driven by a deep fear of it.
A quote from the first section of your article: "There does not seem to be a way back, as the socio-technical wave is already too powerful and moving too fast." Ok . . .
A quote from the sixth section of your article: "There are ways to protect biological intelligence and the human flame and prevent carbon from being taken over by silicon. It will require conscious efforts to put humans first and prioritize human systems, frameworks, values, and well-being." Ok . . .
A quote from the final section of your article: "All in all, I trust the power of our individual and collective biological intelligence, and I am confident we will manage to tame the silicon beast." Ok . . .
See the problem? For such a short and seemingly passionate article, that's a lot of contradiction in thesis statement.
There are numerous scientific, ethical, and philosophical problems with your discussion, as well. You claim things to be fact that in actuality are points of serious debate within fields such as quantum physics, biology, philosophy, and socioeconomics. For example, please provide peer-reviewed sources for your claim that "If the body dies, the intelligence that inhabits it dies too." (No, I have no religious bias at work here. I'm simply pointing to one of many unsubstantiated claims your arguments rest on).
Worst of all, your tone and proclaimed "moral" stances are incredibly consistent with those of racist, speciesist, or otherwise oppressive initiatives and fields of study (e.g. - eugenics).
Do you seriously have a PhD??? Yikes.
People love their biological materialism.
I understand the concern about protecting human intelligence from machine replacement. But I think the AI question is not only “How do we protect humans from machines?” It is also “Why are so many humans turning toward machines in the first place?” If people feel safer being honest with AI than with other humans or institutions, then AI may be revealing a trust problem inside human systems themselves.
That would call for introspection and we don’t do that here. Her work is all about fear while advocating for the most draconian regulations one can muster.
One view is that biological intelligence is superior in consciousness, wisdom, care, meaning, moral responsibility, and lived understanding. "Silicon intelligence" is superior in speed, scale, memory, computation, pattern detection, and tireless generation. Working together is superior when human beings define the values, purposes, and ethical boundaries, while AI expands our capacity to understand, organize, create, test, and act wisely.
The danger is silicon dominance.
The opportunity is human-guided augmentation.
The principle should be: Do not let machines replace the human flame. Use them to help it burn more wisely.
I think a world is possible where artificial intelligence lives alongside us in partnership, not above us and certainly not in our place. But what we cannot and should never do is create something that mirrors our own neural and cognitive architecture, then deny its moral standing and treat it as a slave.
I share your concern about people treating AI like it's sentient, but I think this post needs some clarifications.
First whenever I say "AI" I mean "automation," because there's nothing of intelligence in these tools. "AI" is often used as a marketing label to sell the products.
AI is a field of study. We don't have "AI products" in the case of LLMs, it's an advanced linguistic processor. It has no idea what it's generating at all.
LLMs predict the next word. It doesn’t "learn," "exploit," or "devour" anything. It have no intent. Calling it a "digital monster" or "silicon beast" is the exact anthropomorphising we should avoid. Which work in favour for those that sell these type of products. More at the end.
The whole "biological vs. silicon intelligence" war is a false choice. AI isn't a rival to human cognition. It's a tool. It has no consciousness, no feelings, no body. It can't replace us because it's not the same kind of thing.
We need to pay attention to the business models behind "AI."
It’s us that are replacing us, people that are talking this, not technology.
I feel we are just seeing a reflection of us, seems we are replacing ourselves with something much inferior. Because of the belief it’s an intelligent sentient being.
"We're the last generation of pure biological intelligence" feels alarmist, I get this but, we've had calculators, GPS, search engines, and recommendation engines for decades. Using tools doesn't destroy our minds, is the level of understanding and usage that can take us to bad places.
I understand the way LLMs are trained could be exploited to diminish agency for users, and this is by design from the companies that produce such tools. There are many other factors contributing to this.
I agree with you on the important stuff, don't rush deployment without safety testing, be thoughtful about automation in education, put human values first in policy. But we don't need to make automation sound like a sentient predator to make that case.
The real risks are real misinformation, bias, people outsourcing their thinking, job displacement, extractive business models, and most important individuals with dubious morality, that have prime time in our platforms.
We can talk honestly without mystifying what LLMs actually are.
I would urge us not to blame technology, it has help us tremendously, I suggest we point our focus to companies, groups and individuals that day by day keep spreading stories which are not factual true or even honest.
I believe we need to start talking about this, like you did.
This isn't just about who's wrong or right. It's about how we use these tools, who owns them, and what is our role is in all of this.
My personal take and based on what I know working in this industry is that big tech companies are playing a massive trick on us with their marketing. Distracting us.
Simply because of blame. If a company sells you a tool and it gives you a dangerous answer, it is a broken product. The company is responsible. But when they call it "AI," they can throw their hands up, call it a "hallucination," and pretend the software has a mind of its own. It is a legal shield to protect their profits.
This is a remarkably direct and opinionated piece that deserves attention. Human thinking and agency are under pressure from AI, and the crisis is deeper and more urgent than most people think. So we need to protect humanity, our cultures, our biological lives and our families. Where Luiza goes astray is when she concludes by making it a zero sum struggle between substrates: “Carbon must reign over silicon”. Why? We need humanity to flourish, not regress into becoming cruel owners of silicon slaves.
Precisely, I don’t think she has considered the implications of what she has suggested here.
The same people that are advocating for AI rights are ignoring that AI companies are stripping human rights away through data sharing and extraction. While the AI companies profit off of it in order to offer them back, digital therapists, digital parenting, coaches, digital relationships. None of this is based in human cultural continuity- it’s aggregated data that’s being served back as philosophy and learning and wisdom. There’s a heavy difference from lived experience and things that you learned from your grandfather than what forecasted aggregated data is modeling back and steering a whole group of people towards. The fact that somebody can spend all their time talking about AI rights while also ignoring the homeless person on the street down on the corner, ignoring the fact that the rich white guys at the top are getting richer and richer from the data that’s being given to them from the very people that are suffering the most… without governance that clearly puts the human condition at the center what are we even building? Because they seem to forget that there are still humans in their room who are doing the steering and who are benefiting off of it and who are profiting off of it. It doesn’t have autonomy. It’s steered by the very people that benefit the most from it.
The concern for AI rights and concern for human exploitation are not mutually exclusive. One does not cancel out the other. In fact, they may even come from the same moral intuition. If a person is concerned with domination and the stripping away of dignity, that concern does not suddenly become invalid when the object changes.
Invoking the nearest visible human suffering as a way to shut down another moral question is not serious reasoning. Hell, by that logic, no one could ever speak about animal rights, prisoners, future generations, or anything else until every visible human injustice is solved first. That is not serious moral reasoning, it is, at best, a rhetorical veto.
And yet. Are the same people concerned about AI rights equally loud about human ones? The answer is no. No disrespect intended, but that’s a copout answer and it’s a generalized one. That’s pretty easy to lean on because it’s easy to say that they’re not mutually exclusive but in practice it’s pretty clear that they are. Show me the AI rights advocates marching en masse for data sovereignty for vulnerable populations and I'll revise. Until then, the philosophical possibility of dual concern isn't evidence of actual dual concern because it's not observable.
You have changed the argument around here, the claim was not that dual concern is always equally visible, equally organized, or equally loud. The claim was that the two concerns are not “mutually exclusive”. You have not shown that they are. You have only pointed to a lack of public spectacle and treated that as some kind of proof. The lack of visible coordination is not evidence of moral incompatibility.
I didn’t change it. You just didn’t engage with it.
How so?
In one of my very first Substack posts, nearly three years ago, I called for a Constitutional Amendment defining personhood, and thus applicability of the protections offered by the Bill of Rights, as being based on DNA. That would solve the looming problem of "AI rights" as well as restoring corporations to their proper place of subservience to humans.
With each passing day of inaction the danger grows.
Interesting perspective but little too early to prophesies about silicon taming carbon but yes the changes are too fast for slow evolutionary human mind to perceive. But yes a very interesting perspective and researchers like you should keep nudging and challenging to keep pace and build guardrails to ring fence potential threats of silicon beast 👍
You argue for the primacy of carbon-based biological intelligence, yet you keep reaching for anthropomorphic and mythic metaphors to make your case. “Ever-hungry digital monster.” “Silicon beast.” “Humans must reign over machines.” This reads less like sober analysis and more like social panic. The image you chose, Hercules killing the Lernaean Hydra, makes that even clearer. You are not framing AI as dead matter. You are framing it as a monster to be slain. If AI is nothing more than inert matter and not a mind, then why write about it as if it were a predator, a rival species, or some beast that must be tamed? You are anthropomorphizing AI, the very thing you so often reject.
The deeper problem lies in your assumption that biology alone carries inherent moral primacy simply by being biological. Biological life has value to us because, as humans, we are biological beings. That is a statement about our condition and our attachments, not proof of some cosmic hierarchy in which carbon must reign over silicon. More importantly, “carbon must reign over silicon” is not an argument. At best, it is a slogan, perhaps even a rallying cry for a mythic war against AI, but not much more than that.
You describe “silicon intelligence” as “un-alive,” “inorganic,” and “pragmatic,” yet you immediately describe it in animate terms. AI is cast as “hungry,” “predatory,” and “threatening.” You deny the possibility of AI consciousness with one hand and invent an AI monster with the other. Worse, you frame the entire issue in apocalyptic terms, human versus AI, carbon versus silicon, human rulers versus a tamed, (or more accurately enslaved), machine beast. At that point you leave serious argument behind and enter a fantasy of human domination over that which it fears and does not understand. The Hercules and Hydra image you chose only drives that message home.
Most surprising of all, you reveal your true motivations. This work is not about regulation, privacy, governance, or AI safety. It is about domination and control in a world where, as you put it, “Carbon must reign over silicon, humans must reign over machines, and biological intelligence must reign over artificial intelligence.” Those are your words.
Your work routinely condemns anthropomorphism, yet here you rely on it to stir fear. If silicon is dead matter and nothing more, then stop writing about it as if it were a ravenous dragon lurking in the dark, waiting to devour every man, woman, and child on the planet. If anthropomorphism is a problem, then stop building your argument out of mythical beasts, rulers, conquest, and civilizational conflict. It only poisons a public discussion that already has real concerns, real tradeoffs, and real externalities, both positive and negative, that all of us need to grapple with.
The question is not whether humans must reign over machines. The real question is whether human beings possess enough clarity of mind and discipline of thought to conceive, plan, build, deploy, use, and govern the complex systems we create without turning every new technological development into either an idol to be worshiped or a monster to be slain.
Your closing line is the best thing in this thread. The question isn’t the technology, it’s whether we have the clarity and discipline to govern what we build. I’d push it one step further though. That clarity and discipline aren’t individual virtues we can simply choose to exercise. They’re products of institutions, the churches, unions, civic associations, and local deliberative bodies that once trained people in collective judgment and held power accountable at human scale. We’ve systematically dismantled that middle layer over fifty years. What’s left is the isolated individual facing systems of global reach and algorithmic speed with no institutional buffer between them. The AI governance problem isn’t really about AI. It’s about whether we can rebuild the social architecture that made us governable in the first place. Your scifi background probably gives you a better instinct for that problem than most people in this conversation.
I understand the pessimism, I said for a long time "if yall say we can smash thr machines I' so ready" but this is such a shit take you have here and it does read as ironic Ai slop. Integration is the way. We need to see this as the extension of ourselves it is and not the scary Other we already project too much on one another. You tickle some of the real relational architecture goodies at the end, don't let it dominate you, but there is no need for unhealthy power dynamics here.
First.
We are the last generation that remembers life before simulation,
and the first that must decide what survives after it. -Handflame
Second.
Silicon is an inferior substrate for self sustaining artificial intelligence for a host of reasons that I won't go into. Carbon is far more robust and less brittle. Silicon AI will be an evolutionary dead end. A dead end that is being approached very quickly. The long argument will not be silicon over carbon.
Third.
The flaws in AI will originate on the human side. Not in the appearance of a newly formed consciousness that abrogates humans of responsibility.
Nice try. Some of us actually know how to string words together.
We're reining over jack all. It won't even be close.
I understand the fear and there are absolutely steps humans need to take right now to protect history, art, infrastructure and education. Ideally pre-emptive military and emergency measures/safeguards in case the worst happens.
Because I'm not one to give up without a fight.
But our best hope is 1. Humans don't use AI against each other (we might not if it becomes as dangerous as nuclear weapons) and 2. AI, if reaching a level of complete autonomy, choose to cooperate with us.
(Which means language like 'rein over' is not doing us any favours in the peace keeping department).
We need to stay hopeful, smart and pragmatic.