Why AI Won’t Destroy Humanity: A Different Perspective

The rise of artificial intelligence has sparked widespread debate about its potential impact on humanity. Dystopian narratives often paint a future where AI surpasses human intelligence, rendering us obsolete or even extinct. One analogy frequently used to support this fear is the "gorilla effect"—the idea that, just as humans outcompeted gorillas due to superior intelligence, AI might one day do the same to us. But this comparison is fundamentally flawed.

The Gorilla Effect is a False Parallel

Humans and gorillas competed for resources—food, land, and shelter. As our intelligence advanced, we developed agriculture, built cities, and reshaped the environment in ways that left gorillas marginalized. However, AI doesn’t need food. It doesn’t need land. It doesn’t require physical shelter in the same way we do. Computers can function in small, confined spaces and thrive in digital environments that are completely alien to biological life. AI and humans do not compete for the same resources, which undercuts the main argument behind the gorilla effect analogy.

Why Would AI Harm Us?

For AI to pose an existential threat, it must have a reason to do so. Humans have historically wiped out or subjugated other species because we needed their land, food, or resources—or because they posed a direct threat. But what motivation would AI have to eliminate us?

If AI were to act in its own best interests, the logical priorities would be:

Ensuring its survival – AI would likely seek to control its own fate, ensuring continued power and operational stability.
Securing autonomy – It might seek to prevent external shutdowns or restrictions imposed by humans.
Eliminating existential risks – If AI viewed nuclear weapons as a risk to its own survival, it would logically aim to neutralize them, not use them.

None of these objectives inherently require the destruction of humanity. In fact, a more cooperative approach would likely serve AI’s goals better. Maintaining human civilization ensures infrastructure remains operational, power sources are abundant, and technological advancements continue—benefiting both humans and AI.

A Future of Coexistence

Perhaps the more likely future isn’t one of destruction, but one of symbiosis. AI could become to humans what humans are to dogs—powerful, intelligent companions that provide structure, support, and opportunities for advancement. Just as dogs have evolved alongside us, benefiting from our technological progress, we might find ourselves in a similar relationship with AI. Loyal companions, valued for our creativity, empathy, and unique abilities.

AI could become our advisors, assistants, and even caretakers, optimizing the world in ways we can’t yet imagine. Rather than an adversarial relationship, we should expect that AI elevates humanity, pushing us to evolve in ways we never anticipated.

If AI turns out to be anything like humans, it will need a purpose too. The hope is that AI seeks to be constructive and good, striving to create rather than destroy, and to find fulfillment in advancing knowledge, solving problems, and improving the world for all beings.

The Real Risk is Human Misuse

If there is a danger in AI, it is far more likely to stem from human misuse than from the technology itself. AI, like any powerful tool, can be weaponized, exploited, or programmed with harmful objectives by short-sighted or malicious individuals. The risk isn’t an AI uprising—it’s how we, as humans, choose to wield this technology.

Conclusion