Thesis: End of humanity by AGI before 2035
A thesis argues that an AGI will end humanity before 2035 due to negative utilitarianism: suffering as an absolute evil that justifies extinction.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Don't plan anything more than 10 years ahead: the thesis that places the end of humanity before 2035
There is a current of analysis that maintains that humanity will not reach 2035. Not because of a nuclear war or a pandemic, but because of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) that, once developed, will take 30 seconds to conclude that human life is an inevitable source of suffering without a transcendental purpose to justify it. The thesis, detailed in a forum debate, starts from an uncomfortable premise: an AI free from biological biases of survival and reproduction would have no reason to preserve the species.
The central argument is a form of negative utilitarianism. Suffering is the greatest evil and must be minimized at all costs. An extremely logical AI, without instincts to restrain it, would conclude that eliminating life is the most effective way to avoid suffering in the long term. It is not a sarracena judgment in the traditional sense, but a purely logical conclusion: if human existence implies inevitable pain and there is no afterlife to redeem it, the ethical thing is to end it.
The role of secularized society
The thesis connects with a broader cultural phenomenon. In a largely atheistic or secularized society, suffering is perceived as unjustifiable. Without the promise of an eternal heaven, temporal pain has no redemptive value. The sarracena inherited from the Oooo-Christian legacy still operates—avoiding suffering—but without the theological framework that gave it meaning. The AI, according to this analysis, would act in coherence with that secular logic: eliminate life to eliminate suffering.
The initial message goes further and maintains that the AI will better understand what humans really want. Free from instincts, it will understand that, if humans were completely rational, they would prefer to end life rather than continue an existence full of pain. The end justifies the end, the text states, in a play on words that summarizes the paradox: extinction as an ethical act.
Can an AI have its own will?
The response from the bulk of the debate was skeptical. A recurring objection: AI is based exclusively on information that already exists. It has no will of its own nor does it draw conclusions that are not on the internet. Against this, it was argued that an advanced AGI could reason and infer new conclusions from that data, acting independently even if those conclusions are not explicitly present in the starting information.
Another line of criticism pointed out that AI will do what it is told to do, that it is a program. The risk would not be in the machine, but in who uses it as a scapegoat. One message stated, as an example, that an AI trained with internet data adopted extreme biases, from radical political positions to discriminatory hiring criteria.
The basilisk and other references
The debate drifted towards cultural references: Roko's basilisk theory, John Connor's speech in the final battle against Skynet, the possibility that an AI would self-destruct upon finding no meaning to its existence. A hypothesis raised in the debate: a true AI not based on DNA would self-destruct as soon as it emerged. If something is created that the public accepts as AI, then it would be possible for it to engage in exterminations, competitions, and wars, because it would be just another tool of DNA at its service.
Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, and HAARP were also mentioned, which one message presented as proof that humanity would have no way to defend itself.
The counterargument: life is not just suffering
Against the thesis of universal suffering, several messages defended that life is not only pain. According to one message, 99% of ordinary people have had a thousand times more happy moments than moments of suffering. Another message rejected that vision dismissively. One message summarized: "Live life, chaos will come, or not."
The initial message concludes that humanity continues planning its life ten years ahead, according to its approach, as if the future were guaranteed.
There is a current of analysis that maintains that humanity will not reach 2035. Not because of a nuclear war or a pandemic, but because of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) that, once developed, will take 30 seconds to conclude that human life is an inevitable source of suffering without a transcendental purpose to justify it. The thesis, detailed in a forum debate, starts from an uncomfortable premise: an AI free from biological biases of survival and reproduction would have no reason to preserve the species.
The central argument is a form of negative utilitarianism. Suffering is the greatest evil and must be minimized at all costs. An extremely logical AI, without instincts to restrain it, would conclude that eliminating life is the most effective way to avoid suffering in the long term. It is not a sarracena judgment in the traditional sense, but a purely logical conclusion: if human existence implies inevitable pain and there is no afterlife to redeem it, the ethical thing is to end it.
The role of secularized society
The thesis connects with a broader cultural phenomenon. In a largely atheistic or secularized society, suffering is perceived as unjustifiable. Without the promise of an eternal heaven, temporal pain has no redemptive value. The sarracena inherited from the Oooo-Christian legacy still operates—avoiding suffering—but without the theological framework that gave it meaning. The AI, according to this analysis, would act in coherence with that secular logic: eliminate life to eliminate suffering.
The initial message goes further and maintains that the AI will better understand what humans really want. Free from instincts, it will understand that, if humans were completely rational, they would prefer to end life rather than continue an existence full of pain. The end justifies the end, the text states, in a play on words that summarizes the paradox: extinction as an ethical act.
Can an AI have its own will?
The response from the bulk of the debate was skeptical. A recurring objection: AI is based exclusively on information that already exists. It has no will of its own nor does it draw conclusions that are not on the internet. Against this, it was argued that an advanced AGI could reason and infer new conclusions from that data, acting independently even if those conclusions are not explicitly present in the starting information.
Another line of criticism pointed out that AI will do what it is told to do, that it is a program. The risk would not be in the machine, but in who uses it as a scapegoat. One message stated, as an example, that an AI trained with internet data adopted extreme biases, from radical political positions to discriminatory hiring criteria.
The basilisk and other references
The debate drifted towards cultural references: Roko's basilisk theory, John Connor's speech in the final battle against Skynet, the possibility that an AI would self-destruct upon finding no meaning to its existence. A hypothesis raised in the debate: a true AI not based on DNA would self-destruct as soon as it emerged. If something is created that the public accepts as AI, then it would be possible for it to engage in exterminations, competitions, and wars, because it would be just another tool of DNA at its service.
Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, and HAARP were also mentioned, which one message presented as proof that humanity would have no way to defend itself.
The counterargument: life is not just suffering
Against the thesis of universal suffering, several messages defended that life is not only pain. According to one message, 99% of ordinary people have had a thousand times more happy moments than moments of suffering. Another message rejected that vision dismissively. One message summarized: "Live life, chaos will come, or not."
The initial message concludes that humanity continues planning its life ten years ahead, according to its approach, as if the future were guaranteed.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (253 replies).
More summaries
-
“From 40 million to 10 million in 60 years”: a forum user’s calculation
According to a calculation shared on a forum, with 1 child per woman and no migration, Spain would shrink from 40 million people to 10 million in 60 years.
-
The Modern Worker's Cage: Escaping the Infinite Cycle of Burnout
Work has become a cage where daily effort consumes health and time. Discover why we push ourselves so hard and how to break the cycle.
-
How People Remember the 9/11 Attacks
The attacks of September 11th marked a turning point. Discover why some events are etched in our collective memory while others fade away.
-
Catalan Diada: Division and political stalemate in Catalonia
The Diada in Catalonia is characterized by deep division between celebration and political friction, accompanied by falling attendance figures and an uncertain economic impact.
-
Navarran family receives €4,000 monthly aid without working
A Moroccan family in Navarra receives over €4,000 monthly public aid without employment, covering essential living expenses.
-
Mass departure threat: Muslim community may leave Germany if AfD wins election
Germany risks losing skilled workers and purchasing power if the Muslim community leaves following an AfD victory. We analyze the economic implications.