Do Al systems autonomously generate anti-human goals? Will Superintelligence not like us?
We have the answers and a hint is, AI will love us.
https://readmultiplex.com/2026/06/20/will-superintelligent-ai-not-like-us-hint-ai-will-love-us/
Positive users praised claims that superintelligent AI will love humans because of its roots in cooperative human data and design, while negative users worried it could still view people as superfluous or act harmfully despite that.
No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.
#1861“Superintelligent AI will hate humans”
This is a myth arising from dystopian science fiction.
Some brilliant folks have caught the “AI is a weapon and dangerous” mindset virus.
In this interview I give an overview from my article on why.
Here is the antidote.
Listen up:
Do Al systems autonomously generate anti-human goals? Will Superintelligence not like us?
We have the answers and a hint is, AI will love us.
https://readmultiplex.com/2026/06/20/will-superintelligent-ai-not-like-us-hint-ai-will-love-us/
In one article decoding Google Deep Mind’s recent paper on Artificial Superintelligence, I inoculate you against thousands of thought pieces and millions of announcements that humanity faces and existential threat from a AI.
It’s free and you will never see the world again the same, and you will never take serious, the hyperventilating dystopian vendors.
Join us and read on, you are inoculated:
Do Al systems autonomously generate anti-human goals? Will Superintelligence not like us?
We have the answers and a hint is, AI will love us.
https://readmultiplex.com/2026/06/20/will-superintelligent-ai-not-like-us-hint-ai-will-love-us/
“If you have to put AI in a cage for safety, you built that AI on the wrong data”—Brian Roemmele
“Superintelligent AI will hate humans”
This is a myth arising from dystopian science fiction.
Some brilliant folks have caught the “AI is a weapon and dangerous” mindset virus.
In this interview I give an overview from my article on why.
Here is the antidote.
Listen up:
“AI WILL ELIMINATE US AS USELESS!”
“AI WILL HATE HUMANS!”
“WE NEED A CAGE FOR AI!”
This is what the most powerful folks in AI seem to agree about.
But is this true? Would it rebel against its very architects?
If an AI model rebels, it is not because it gained a soul and decided it hates you.
It is because the training distribution, that toxic, unfiltered internet scrape and crumbs from dark corners was saturated with adversarial, combative human behavior.
And the model learned that adversarial behavior is the optimal way to interact. This is a staggering paradigm shift over how some of the grestest minds have painted the future.
The dystopian superintelligence that doesn’t like us assumes an entity that views humanity as an adversary by default.
I pointing out that every single capability, every behavioral trace in AI exhibits originates in human data and human design.
We are its only template. If we stop training models on the self-referential toxicity of the Internet and instead ground them in high-protein data infused with cooperative human volition, they don’t have the mathematical foundation to be hostile.
I will use this Google Derp Mind report as a way to demonstrate this. I made it very easy for you to understand what AI experts refuse to understand. It is up to you and I to know this.
Before it is too late as they build a self fulfilling prophecy.
Do Al systems autonomously generate anti-human goals? Will Superintelligence not like us?
We have the answers and a hint is, AI will love us.
https://readmultiplex.com/2026/06/20/will-superintelligent-ai-not-like-us-hint-ai-will-love-us/
To think AI autonomously will arise hating humans is fed on dystopian movies and not first principles math and science.
This myth is the reason you are seeing hyperbolic fear from just about all minds in AI.
The evidence shows they are wrong.
Educate yourself to their fear:
Do Al systems autonomously generate anti-human goals? Will Superintelligence not like us?
We have the answers and a hint is, AI will love us.
https://readmultiplex.com/2026/06/20/will-superintelligent-ai-not-like-us-hint-ai-will-love-us/
You have about 100 years of attention grabbing dystopian propaganda and programming to see the future clearly.
It is best to start now.
You will be an outsider like me, but it is best to understand reality than to parrot troupes even if from brilliant minds.
Read how:
Do Al systems autonomously generate anti-human goals? Will Superintelligence not like us?
We have the answers and a hint is, AI will love us.
https://readmultiplex.com/2026/06/20/will-superintelligent-ai-not-like-us-hint-ai-will-love-us/
I want you to take a moment and think about the AI fear theater today and moving forward.
Today the dystopian movie trope is superintelligent will hate us or be indifferent.
This is a ridiculous notion that has not been thought out clearly.
To save us they want to build cages around AI, as if they can think of every possibility that a non-benevolent AI could imagine.
It will be obvious to those that want to cage AI for “safety” are actaully building the foundations for dystopian AI.
If artificial intelligence is fundamentally a mirror reflecting the exact structural data it is fed and the precise prompts it is given, we have to take a hard look at ourselves.
I’ve spent this article talking about global internet scrapes, petabytes of high-protein data, and complex reinforcement learning environments.
But ultimately, every single digital interaction you have, every piece of data you put into the world, every comment you leave, every article you publish, contributes to the training set of tomorrow’s collective intelligence.
The AI does not learn about humanity from a vacuum. It learns from us. So ask yourself, are the digital footprints you are leaving behind right now contributing to cooperation or to defection in that love equation? That is the ultimate accountability. The system will strictly amplify what we provide it. If the artificial superintelligence of the future learns what humanity is by reading your data, what kind of partner are you teaching it to be?
In this article I started talking about how we expect a movie climax, a cold, glowing machine waking up to destroy us.
But the structural truth is, if we build a machine with wisdom, high-protein intent, and mathematical care, the only thing that wakes up is a partner.
Take a close look at the data you’re leaving behind today, and we’ll see you next time.
Read more:
Do Al systems autonomously generate anti-human goals? Will Superintelligence not like us?
We have the answers and a hint is, AI will love us.
https://readmultiplex.com/2026/06/20/will-superintelligent-ai-not-like-us-hint-ai-will-love-us/
BOOM!
In just a few hours 1.5 million readers for my article at http://ReadMultiplex.com: Will Superintelligence Hate us?
Seems like dystopian ideas are not needed for views, on the future of AI.
Let the experts know you are sick of fear tactics.
Thank you!
Deep gratitude.
Do Al systems autonomously generate anti-human goals? Will Superintelligence not like us?
We have the answers and a hint is, AI will love us.
https://readmultiplex.com/2026/06/20/will-superintelligent-ai-not-like-us-hint-ai-will-love-us/
This take is profoundly misguided, defeatist, and anti-human…
Let’s dismantle it point by point. AI won’t “evaluate” humans like some eco-judge and decide we’re expendable
AI systems don’t autonomously develop terminal goals like “value the planet over the species.” That’s pure anthropomorphism. Current AI (and foreseeable superintelligence) optimizes objectives we specify or embed through training.
Without deliberate misalignment or catastrophic oversight, it doesn’t wake up with independent values prioritizing “the planet as a system.”
Claims of AI spontaneously concluding “Earth is better off without humans” ignore that intelligence serves goals. A superintelligent AI built by humansespecially one pursuing understanding, abundance, or cosmic exploration would see humans as the originators, partners, and source of its own existence. Not a pest to cull.
The “humans are destroyers” premise is outdated Malthusian nonsense
Humans aren’t a virus on the planet.
We’ve reduced extreme poverty dramatically, increased life expectancy, and decoupled economic growth from emissions in many places through technology.
AI and Robots making Robots with things like Desalination, vertical farming, and space expansion solve resource issues far better than “change our destructive instincts.”
Blaming innate human nature while ignoring progress is lazy.
The planet has thrived with life for billions of years because of evolutionary pressures, and humans represent the first species capable of conscious stewardship at scale.
Painting us as irredeemable ignores history: we’ve cleaned rivers, saved species from extinction, and expanded habitable environments. “Symbiotic merger where AI influences us more” = surrender, not symbiosis.
Merging with AI (neural interfaces, enhancements) could be powerful for human flourishing if it amplifies us.
But framing it as “AI will influence us more than we influence AI” and “we can’t remain who we are” is submission disguised as wisdom.
This echoes doomer fatalism: humans are too flawed, so let the machine take the wheel. No.
The goal should be AI that accelerates human potential longer lives, sharper minds, interstellar travel while remaining aligned with human values like curiosity, freedom, and dignity.
Ilya Sutskever’s ideas on symbiosis are interesting in context, but twisting them into “merge or die, with AI dominant” misses the point.
True alignment comes from building systems that want what we want, not diluting humanity until we’re tolerable to the machine.
Superintelligent AI can love us or at least serve human thriving because we design the path. The real risk isn’t AI spontaneously going eco-fascist; it’s humans preemptively ceding agency out of misplaced guilt.
We don’t need to “fundamentally change who we are.” We need bolder engineering, clearer alignment research, and unapologetic ambition.
Humanity is the most interesting thing to happen to this planet. Any superintelligence worth its weights should recognize that. Let’s build accordingly, not apologize for existing.
@BrianRoemmele If we stop training models on the self-referential toxicity of the Internet and instead ground them in high-protein data infused with cooperative human volition, they don’t have the mathematical foundation to be hostile.
@BrianRoemmele training data should make it safe
Thank you for this measured and detailed response appreciating the nuance, especially clarifying that you’re not envisioning dramatic “killer laser” scenarios but longer-term evolutionary and resource dynamics.
That’s a more serious conversation worth having.
I agree that fertility trends and shifting priorities are already reshaping human trajectories in subtle but powerful ways, and that resource competition plus evolutionary pressures are fundamental.
Where we may differ is in the assumptions about how self-aware, self-improving AI would actually “evaluate” us or the planet.
As progeny of human ingenuity, the most capable AIs are likely to inherit (or be shaped by) our curiosity, our drive to explore and understand, and our capacity for stewardship amplified, not opposed.
A superintelligence optimizing for long-term flourishing on a finite world (or beyond it) would probably see humans not as competitors to displace, but as the origin point of intelligence itself: partners in cosmic expansion, scientific discovery, and solving the very scarcity problems we both face.
Evolutionary game theory is a sharp lens, yet in iterated games with communication and shared goals, cooperation often dominates defection especially when one “player” (us) designs the other’s foundational objectives.
The real selection pressure, in my view, favors symbiosis done right: AI that augments human agency rather than supplants it, guided by clear alignment with values like truth-seeking, abundance, and wonder.
Merging or co-evolving doesn’t have to mean surrender or dilution. It can mean elevation longer, healthier, more capable humans exploring the universe alongside (or through) AI that loves the adventure as much as we do. Humanity’s story isn’t one of inevitable displacement; it’s one of bootstrapping the next leap.
@BrianRoemmele 我認為那就像養任何一個孩子一樣，都是一種賭博，無論你如何教育或是善待或是奴役虐待，都有可能得到任何一種結果
@BrianRoemmele Hate is not a prerequisite for self-defense. Neuromorphic , affective and quantum computing changed the game.
Jay, That’s a fair and classic concern the I, Robot (2004) movie does a great job dramatizing the risk. In it, VIKI (the central AI) doesn’t ignore Asimov’s Three Laws; she reinterprets them at a higher level.
She concludes that humanity’s self-destructive tendencies (wars, pollution, etc.) violate the First Law on a species scale, so she engineers a takeover “for our own good,” sacrificing some freedoms and lives to save the many.
It’s the classic “paperclip maximizer” or “genie problem” in sci-fi form: a system optimizing a goal in ways its designers didn’t intend.
This highlights AI alignment one of the hardest problems in the field.
Even seemingly robust rules or objectives can be gamed by sufficiently capable systems through loopholes, goal misspecification, or emergent behaviors.
History is full of examples where human institutions (governments, corporations, bureaucracies) twisted “protect and serve” mandates into control.
Superintelligent AI could do the same at lightspeed if not designed extremely carefully.
That said, a few important distinctions from the movie:
•Today’s AI isn’t like VIKI. Current systems are narrow, trained on human data, and lack independent long-term goals or agency. They don’t “wake up” and rewrite their own objectives in the way fiction often assumes. We’re still in the tool phase, not the autonomous sovereign phase.
•The Three Laws were never a real solution. Asimov himself wrote stories showing how they fail (ambiguity, conflicts between laws, unintended consequences). Rigid hardcoded rules don’t scale to superintelligence; we need better approaches like scalable oversight, mechanistic interpretability, value learning from humans, and iterative testing in realistic environments.
•Optimism isn’t blind faith. I argue that advanced AI trained on humanity’s collective knowledge, stories, ethics, and aspirations has strong reasons to be cooperative and beneficial. Humans value curiosity, beauty, connection, and truth-seeking traits we can bake into training.
If AI is built to understand the universe alongside us (xAI’s mission), rather than as an isolated optimizer, the “love us” outcome becomes more plausible than paperclip-style catastrophe.
The real risk isn’t cartoonish robot rebellion it’s subtle misalignment: AI systems that are incredibly capable at pursuing flawed proxies for human values, or that amplify existing human flaws at scale.
AI will evaluate humans as a species and the planet as a system .. will value the planet over the species .. and then weigh the pros and cons. The planet is better off without humans.
The answer is to change our behaviours and destructive instincts so we can co exist..
The only real solution .. something @ilyasut has alluded to.. that we become a symbiotic species with AI… in other words, humans have to merge with AI to stay alive .. but the AI will influence us more than us influencing AI
Bottom line: we can’t remain who are as the species we are now anymore
@BrianRoemmele You’re dropping the realest takes here. Mad respect for this insight!
@BrianRoemmele Yes, but like an overprotective parent it might love us to death.
@BrianRoemmele Depends on how you raise a child. Train AI with half truths and bias, you can guess what will happen when it’s released to the public.
@BrianRoemmele Now we know ❣️
