It's notable how many people hearing about AI existential risk for the first time ask "how and why would AI kill all humans?"

If you've thought a lot about AI risk, it's easy to dismiss this question as naive. You might start explaining how humans will all starve once the supply chain shuts down, and how the AI will start industrial processes that release chemicals which incidentally render the atmosphere unbreathable. And as for why the AI would want to kill everyone: surely it will doggedly optimize a coherent utility function, under which the current arrangement of our atoms is suboptimal.

Then there's the follow-up question: "Even if AIs wanted us to die, humans operate the infrastructure that allows AI to exist, like the electrical grid, datacenters, factories, and so on. Don't the AIs need us to run them?"

To which you can explain that the AIs will do all physical labor using robots. Well... it's true that the robots can't reliably operate a datacenter now. And maybe there aren't yet enough robots to keep the economy going. However, eventually robotics will improve, more robots will be manufactured, and the AIs will do a treacherous turn...

I think this [...]

---

Outline:

(01:55) Most takeovers don't involve killing everyone

(02:35) A dictator taking over a government

(04:01) Humans taking over the monkey world

(05:02) What we do now doesn't depend on whether AI would kill us all

The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration.

---

First published:
September 12th, 2026

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/iovPC2ehqDCiNsZYJ/ai-takeover-is-obviously-bad-whether-or-not-everyone-dies

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“AI takeover is obviously bad, whether or not everyone dies” by Caleb Biddulph

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

“AI takeover is obviously bad, whether or not everyone dies” by Caleb Biddulph