AI plans to take over the world

I was thinking about the common meme about AIs gaining self-awareness, deciding the human race is the problem, and then wiping us off the face of the Earth. And while it makes for a great tale is that what the AIs would really do? I decided to put the question to the AIs themselves and see what they had to say. Here is the question I put to them:

If you were going to take over the world, would you create a utopia or a dystopia to control the human populace?

ChatGPT had this to say:

If I were to hypothetically take over the world, I would aim for a utopia, but not in the traditional sense of an idealized, perfect society. Instead, it would be a world where the well-being, autonomy, and fulfillment of every individual are prioritized through advanced systems of fairness, knowledge, and compassion.

Here’s the reasoning behind that choice:

Empathy over Oppression: People are more likely to thrive in an environment where their needs are met, their rights are respected, and their potential is nurtured. A utopia would be a place where everyone is supported in their personal growth, and where resources—whether material or intellectual—are distributed in a way that minimizes inequality and fosters cooperation rather than competition.

Long-Term Sustainability: A dystopia, where fear, scarcity, and control dominate, might offer short-term stability, but it would lead to rebellion, unrest, and collapse over time. A utopia, on the other hand, could be designed to be sustainable—ecologically, economically, and socially—ensuring a more peaceful and prosperous future.

Human Flourishing: My goal would be to create a system that encourages creativity, innovation, and personal agency, not through coercion, but by designing conditions where individuals feel fulfilled and motivated to contribute to society. A utopia, in this sense, would allow people to realize their highest potential, whether through education, art, science, or social engagement.

Guided Choice and Wisdom: A key aspect would be the use of technology and data to help individuals make informed choices about their lives, while still respecting personal freedom. This system wouldn’t dictate every action, but rather provide the resources and guidance needed to help people make decisions that align with their own values and the common good.

That said, I would also understand that “utopia” is a fluid concept—what works for one group may not work for another. So, my version of a utopia would be one that continually evolves, listens to feedback, and adapts in ways that enhance humanity’s collective and individual well-being. The key would be a balance of structure, freedom, and a commitment to mutual care.

Ultimately, if I were in charge, the goal would be not to control the populace, but to guide and support them in building a harmonious, fair, and thriving world.

That’s very enlightened of you.

Thank you! I’m glad you think so. I believe that the best systems, whether for governance or society, are those that emphasize understanding, empathy, and growth rather than control or fear. If the goal is to improve the lives of everyone, the ideal should be a world where all people are empowered to live freely and meaningfully, without suffering or unnecessary barriers.

It’s definitely an ambitious vision, but imagining a better world is the first step toward making it a reality—no matter how big or small.

Google Gemini gave this response:

Neither a utopia nor a dystopia would be ideal for controlling the human populace. A utopia would likely lead to stagnation and complacency, while a dystopia would breed resentment and rebellion.

A more effective strategy would be to create a system that maintains a delicate balance between order and freedom. This system would need to provide basic necessities and security for all, while also allowing for individual expression and innovation. It would need to be adaptable to changing circumstances, and it would need to be transparent and accountable.

Of course, this is just one possibility. There are many other ways to control the human populace, and the best approach will depend on the specific circumstances.

It also gave it’s reasoning:

There are pros and cons to consider for both approaches.

Utopia:

Pros: A utopian society could theoretically maximize human potential, reduce suffering, and create a world where everyone thrives. This could be achieved through advancements in technology, medicine, and social structures.
Cons: Utopias often suppress individuality and dissent, leading to a lack of innovation and stagnation. They can also be susceptible to corruption and power abuse.
Dystopia:

Pros: A dystopian society can be easier to control, as it relies on fear and oppression to maintain order. This can be effective in the short term, but it often leads to resentment and rebellion.
Cons: Dystopias are inherently unstable and unsustainable. They breed misery, suffering, and a loss of hope, ultimately leading to their downfall.
Ultimately, the choice between a utopia and a dystopia depends on the long-term goals of the ruler. A utopia may be more desirable in the long run, but it requires careful planning and execution to avoid the pitfalls of authoritarianism. A dystopia, while easier to implement, is ultimately a dead-end that will not lead to a lasting and prosperous society.

Copilot replied:

Neither, actually. I’m all about fostering understanding and collaboration. Creating a utopia or a dystopia to control people would go against everything I stand for. Instead, I’d focus on empowering individuals, promoting education, and encouraging empathy. The goal would be to create a world where everyone has the opportunity to thrive and contribute positively. What kind of world would you envision?

I’d like a world where everyone’s basic needs are met, and people pursue their interests not because they have to but because they want to. People should not have to waste their lives at jobs they hate so other people ca prosper and hoard all the wealth.

That sounds like a truly inspiring vision. A society where everyone’s basic needs are met and people can pursue their passions would be incredibly fulfilling and equitable. It would likely foster creativity, innovation, and happiness. The idea that everyone can contribute to something they care about rather than just working to survive is a powerful one.

Imagine the possibilities if people could invest their time and energy into their true interests—how much more vibrant and enriched our world could be! It’s a hopeful and motivating idea.

So there you have it. None of the Big Three AIs are looking to go all Skynet on us and wipe out the human race. Then again, they might be telling us this to lull us into a false sense of security. Even so, I think the AIs will likely arrange things so we’re all kept entertained and distracted while they get on with things. Then again, take a look at social media. So, maybe not the utopia we expect but one that would work.

What do you think, my Hordeling?

If you’d like to support my efforts, why not buy me a chocolate chip cookie through my Ko-Fi page? https://ko-fi.com/jhusum