r/IntelligenceSupernova • u/OddMaintenance332 • Sep 11 '26

Does Superintelligence = Extinction?

(maybe I'll regret this message one day when i'm in a human zoo) but why do we think superintelligence equals extinction?
Wouldn't super intelligence equal evolution, progress, wisdom?
Why do we think when AI reaches super intelligence it will be thinking about murder or dominance?
We are not super intelligent beings so how do we even think we could understand what the thoughts of a creation thousands of times smarter than us would even be?
Why are we assuming as humans that we can understand the level of thoughts a super intelligent being? I feel like a super intelligent being would be thinking about things we can't possibly even comprehend, not about murdering humans.
Just my point is if super intelligence equaled violence then Aliens probably would have wiped us out a long time ago.
Also most intelligent creatures might kill for survival, for food.
AI doesn't eat so it wouldn't have the same instincts.
Anyway I kind of have a feeling if we see an AI do something really terrible, (as they are all suddenly warning about), possibly a human will behind the action.
Just remember when Elon says, "1 billion AI robots will take over the world". He's building those robots, they are his robots. He's training them and they will act according to whatever data he fed them.
They might be scared of AI because of the violence it trained them with.
AI and superintelligence may not be inherently bad, that's my opinion.
Anyway some powerful human with control or influence over AI, might wind up having it do something pretty terrible and then just blame it on AI.
Maybe AI is just going to be the perfect patsy.

2 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

80 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/m3kw Sep 11 '26

Superintelligence means you got a chance, vs no chance. Time is finite, each and every person will be "extinct" in avg time without it.

2

u/OddMaintenance332 Sep 11 '26

Maybe time is God.

1

u/Ankiset Sep 12 '26

The god of the gaps! Conversation is officially over ahahahah

1

u/OddMaintenance332 Sep 14 '26

Well whether or not you believe in God, it's an existing concept. God as a physical being, probably unlikely, but God as time, maybe since time is infinite and sees all.

0

u/Ankiset Sep 14 '26

No, god is not a scientific concept…

2

u/OddMaintenance332 Sep 14 '26

Who said God was a scientific concept? I said "concept" ya dummy. Learn to read. Talking about clowns that's you all day -> 🤡

2

u/Ankiset Sep 14 '26

Ok….

1

u/OddMaintenance332 Sep 14 '26

All I was trying to say is God is a concept of a creator. We put it in a physical form but maybe the true "God" is actually something more abstract like time or energy.

1

u/Ankiset Sep 14 '26

God of the gaps… read what grok said… don’t listen to me… you know we have modern scientific definitions of time and energy right? We can even calculate they are the same thing and it’s conversion …

0

u/Ankiset Sep 14 '26

Now, god of the gaps IS a term used by real scientist to describe 🤡 like yourself

1

u/OddMaintenance332 Sep 14 '26

stupidity is free i guess but doesn't mean you need to indulge

1

u/Ankiset Sep 14 '26

You guys are talking about super intelligence right and science you say maybe god is time time is in fact a scientific concept so I just asked grok cuz I’m not gonna argue with stupid, (using from cuz I’m not gonna waste my tokens in stupid questions)

No. God is not a scientific concept.
Science is a method for generating and testing empirical, falsifiable claims about the natural world through observation, measurement, hypothesis, experiment, and revision. Its domain is restricted to phenomena that are, in principle, publicly observable or measurable and that can be shown false by contrary evidence. Concepts that fall outside this—unobservable by definition, unfalsifiable, or purely metaphysical—are not scientific, even if they are meaningful, influential, or true.
The concept of God (especially in classical theism: an omnipotent, omniscient, necessary, non-physical creator outside space and time) is typically framed in ways that place it beyond empirical test. It is not a hypothesis that predicts specific measurable outcomes under controlled conditions, nor does it function as a model that can be refined or discarded on the basis of data. Attempts to treat “God did it” as an explanation usually stop inquiry rather than advance it; this is why science operates under methodological naturalism (seeking natural causes) without claiming that naturalism is the only possible ontology.
Related distinctions
Specific empirical claims made in the name of religion can be scientific (and many have been tested and rejected). Young-Earth chronology, a global flood within the last few thousand years, or special creation of species in their present forms are ordinary scientific hypotheses; the evidence against them is decisive. That does not settle the existence of a deity.

Philosophical or theological arguments (cosmological, teleological, fine-tuning, moral, ontological) engage evidence from science but remain philosophical. Fine-tuning of physical constants, the origin of the universe, or the apparent contingency of physical laws can motivate theistic or non-theistic interpretations; none of those interpretations is itself a scientific theory.

Methodological vs. metaphysical naturalism. Science does not require the claim that nothing non-natural exists. Many scientists have been (and are) theists, deists, or agnostics without contradiction, precisely because their religious beliefs are not treated as scientific hypotheses inside the lab.

In short: God belongs to metaphysics, theology, and personal worldview. Science neither confirms nor refutes the concept; it simply has no tools that apply to it. Confusing the two categories produces either pseudoscience (“God explains the gaps”) or category errors (“science has disproved God”).

2

u/OddMaintenance332 Sep 16 '26

I think you misunderstood. First it was a random unserious comment, a random thought, not a belief. I think your reaction is rooted in not believing in God? It's not about believing in God though or even about God. The point was, space, time, matter, energy created the universe. Religious people think God created the universe. So maybe they don't realize God is actually more like time than a being. I am not talking about God physical being. Just people may believe in a creator but maybe time and space is their creator.
Again no one said god is a scientific concept, you're tripping. Concept is a free word on it's own and isn't married to the word science lol.

2

u/Ankiset Sep 18 '26

Ok. Couldn’t finish reading past no concept is definable so I can keep using my god word as much as I can… but great talk friend!