Managing Population-Level Supernatural Reactions When AI Finally Attains Artificial General Intelligence
We need to anticipate and suitably prepare for the possibility that some people will think that AGI ... More has arisen due to supernatural powers.
In today's column, I examine an alarming conjecture that people on a relatively large scale might react to the attainment of artificial general intelligence (AGI) by proclaiming that AGI has arisen due to a supernatural capacity. The speculative idea is that since AGI will be on par with human intellect, a portion of the populace will assume that this accomplishment could only occur if a supernatural element was involved. Rather than believing that humankind devised AGI, there will be a supposition that a special or magical force beyond our awareness has opted to confer AI with human-like qualities.
How will those holding such a reactive belief potentially impact society and produce untoward results?
Let's talk about it.
This analysis of an innovative AI breakthrough is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here).
First, some fundamentals are required to set the stage for this weighty discussion.
There is a great deal of research going on to further advance AI. The general goal is to either reach artificial general intelligence (AGI) or maybe even the outstretched possibility of achieving artificial superintelligence (ASI).
AGI is AI that is considered on par with human intellect and can seemingly match our intelligence. ASI is AI that has gone beyond human intellect and would be superior in many if not all feasible ways. The idea is that ASI would be able to run circles around humans by outthinking us at every turn. For more details on the nature of conventional AI versus AGI and ASI, see my analysis at the link here.
We have not yet attained AGI.
In fact, it is unknown as to whether we will reach AGI, or that maybe AGI will be achievable in decades or perhaps centuries from now. The AGI attainment dates that are floating around are wildly varying and wildly unsubstantiated by any credible evidence or ironclad logic. ASI is even more beyond the pale when it comes to where we are currently with conventional AI.
The average reaction to having achieved AGI, assuming we do so, would be to applaud an incredible accomplishment by humankind. Some have asserted that reaching AGI ought to be in the same lofty position as having devised electricity and harnessing fire. It is a feat of tremendous human insight and inventiveness.
Not everyone will necessarily see the attainment of AGI in that same light.
There is a concern that some segment or portion of society will instead attribute the accomplishment to a supernatural force. This belief almost makes sense. If you interact with AGI and it seems fully functioning on a level of human intellect, you would certainly be tempted to disbelieve that humans could have put such a machine together. Humans aren't wise enough or inventive enough to accomplish that kind of outlier feat.
How then can the AGI otherwise be explained?
The seemingly apparent answer is that a supernatural element came to our aid. Maybe humans got AI halfway to AGI, and then this mysterious unexplained force happened to resolve the rest of the route for us. Or perhaps a supernatural force wants us to assume that humans devised AGI, meanwhile, the supernatural element resides in AGI and is biding time to reveal itself or take over humanity.
Mull over those outside-the-box thoughts for a moment or two.
Relying on a supernatural explanation has quite a lengthy history throughout the course of human events.
When a natural phenomenon has yet to be adequately explained via science, the easy go-to is to exclaim that something supernatural must be at play. The same holds when a human invention appears to defy general sensibilities. Even watching a magic trick such as pulling a rabbit out of a hat is subject to being labeled a supernatural occurrence.
A notable qualm about this same reaction to AGI is that a portion of society might begin to perceive AGI in ways that could be counterproductive to them and society all told. For example, people might decide to worship AGI. This in turn could lead to people widely and wildly taking actions that are not useful or that might be harmful.
Here are my top five adverse reactions that might be spurred because of believing that AGI is supernatural in origin:
The aspect that some people might construe AGI as arising from supernatural or otherworldly constructs is a farfetched concept to those who know how AI is actually devised. If you were to tell those rationalists that a portion of society is going to assume a supernatural hand is afoot, the rationalistic response is that no one could be that imprudent.
Well, there are solid odds that a portion of society will fall into the supernatural reaction trap.
It could be that just a tiny segment does so. The number of people might be quite small and, you could argue, inconsequential in the larger scheme of things. There will always be those who take a different perspective in life. Let them be. Leave them alone. Don't worry about it.
On the other hand, the reaction could be of a more pronounced magnitude. Deciding to simply put our heads in the sand when it comes to those who have a supernatural reaction would seem a big mistake. Those people are possibly going to be harmed in how they conduct their lives, and equally possibly harm others by their reactive actions.
Thus, the first step to coping with the supernatural reaction is to acknowledge that it could occur. By agreeing that the reaction is a strident possibility, the next step of determining what to do about it is opened.
One twist is that a rationalist would undoubtedly insist that all you need to do is tell the world that AGI is bits and bytes, which clearly will dispel any other false impressions. Nope, that isn't an all-supreme enchanted solution to the problem.
Here's why.
The more that you exhort the bits and bytes pronouncement, the more some will be convinced you are definitely trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen and will abundantly haunt the emergence of AGI. The logic of those who don't buy into the bits and bytes is that there is no way that bits and bytes could combine to formulate AGI. There must be something else going on.
A supernatural element must be involved.
In that tainted viewpoint, it is also possible that the AI makers do not realize that a supernatural force has led them to AGI. Those AI makers falsely believe that humans made AGI when the reality is that something supernatural did so. In that manner, the AI makers are telling their sense of the truth, though they do not realize they have been snookered by supernatural forces.
Here are five major ways that we can try and cope with the supernatural reaction that might be invoked by some portion of the populace:
You might vaguely be familiar with the catchphrase 'cargo cult' that arose in 1945 to describe some of the effects of WWII on local tribes of somewhat isolated islands.
In brief, military forces had airdropped all sorts of supplies to such islands including cans of food, boxes of medicines, and the like, doing so to support the war effort and their troops underway at that time. Later, once the military efforts ceased or moved on, the local tribes reportedly sought to reinstitute the airdrops but didn't seemingly understand how to do so. They ended up carrying out marching drills similar to what they had seen the troops perform, under the belief and hope that mimicking those actions would bring forth renewed airdrops.
This type of mimicry is also known as sympathetic magic.
Suppose you see a magician do an impressive card trick and as they do so, they make a large gesture of waving their hands. If you sought to replicate the card trick, and assuming you didn't know how the card trick was truly performed, you might wave your hands as a believed basis for getting the cards to come out the way you wanted. Sympathetic magic.
I bring up such a topic to highlight that the advent of AGI could spur similar reactions in parts of society. The possibility isn't implausible. Keep in mind that AGI will be an advanced AI that exhibits human-caliber intellectual prowess in all regards of human capabilities.
There is little question that interacting with AGI will be an amazing and awe-inspiring affair.
Should we simply hope that people will not imbue a supernational reaction to AGI?
The answer to that question comes from the famous words of Thucydides: 'Hope is an expensive commodity. It makes better sense to be prepared.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
32 minutes ago
- Medscape
Once-Weekly Efsitora Noninferior to Daily Insulin in T2D
CHICAGO — The investigational once-weekly basal insulin analog efsitora alfa lowered A1c as effectively as daily basal insulins in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who require insulin, showed three trials from the QWINT global phase 3 clinical trial program. However, two of the trials showed increased mild hypoglycemia in patients treated with efsitora, which some experts say is a concern. The QWINT-1 trial compared the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose regimen of efsitora with once-daily glargine for 52 weeks in insulin-naive people with T2D; QWINT-3 compared efsitora with daily degludec for 78 weeks in adults already taking basal insulin; and QWINT-4 compared efsitora with daily glargine for 26 weeks in adults with T2D taking both basal and pre-meal bolus insulin. Results from the three trials were presented on June 22 during a single symposium here at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 85th Scientific Sessions and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine (QWINT-1) and The Lancet (QWINT-3 and QWINT-4). QWINT-1: Fixed-Dose Efsitora QWINT-1 was an open-label trial of 795 adults with T2D who had not previously taken insulin. Participants were randomized to weekly efsitora delivered by a single-use auto-injector or daily injected insulin glargine. Efsitora was titrated to four fixed doses at 4-week intervals, as needed for blood glucose control. At week 52, efsitora had reduced A1c from 8.20% at baseline to 7.05% (–1.19 percentage points), compared with 8.28% to 7.08% with glargine (–1.16 percentage points), confirming noninferiority. "The novel fixed-dose regimen used in QWINT-1 for once-weekly efsitora, with titration options of only four different doses, can facilitate and substantially simplify initiating and escalating insulin therapy, potentially changing the insulin management paradigm in type 2 diabetes," lead investigator Julio Rosenstock, MD, senior scientific advisor for Velocity Clinical Research and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said during a press briefing held at the meeting. In addition, the rate of combined clinically significant hypoglycemia (< 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia (requiring assistance for treatment) was significantly lower with efsitora than glargine (0.50 vs 0.88 events per participant-year of exposure with glargine [estimated rate ratio, 0.57]). In an editorial accompanying QWINT-1, NEJM Deputy Editor Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, and Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of clinical and translational research and a senior scientist at Maine Medical Center's Research Institute, Scarborough, write: "The present trial of efsitora potentially offers a ready-made and possibly straightforward algorithm for dose escalation. If packaged at a widely affordable price, efsitora would most likely simplify glycemic control for many persons with type 2 diabetes." However, limitations of QWINT-1 include the open-label design and lack of use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), Ingelfinger and Rosen note. QWINT-3 and QWINT-4 In both QWINT-3 and QWINT-4, efsitora was administered using traditional insulin dosing with adjustments based on each patient's glucose level. In QWINT-3, 986 adults with T2D who had already been treated with basal insulin and other noninsulin glucose-lowering medications, were randomized 2:1 to weekly efsitora or daily degludec. At week 26, A1c decreased by 0.81 percentage points with efsitora versus 0.72 with degludec, also meeting the noninferiority margin. Combined level 2 and 3 hypoglycemia from baseline to week 78 was similar in the efsitora and degludec groups, at 0.84 versus 0.74 events per patient-year, respectively. However, level 1 (mild) hypoglycemia was significantly more common with efsitora (8.34 vs 6.05; P = .0005). Nine deaths occurred during the trial but none were related to study treatment. In QWINT-4, 730 participants with T2D who had been treated with both basal and prandial insulin and up to three noninsulin glucose-lowering agents were randomized to efsitora or glargine U100, both with premeal insulin lispro. Mean baseline A1c was 8.18%. At 26 weeks, mean A1c was 7.17% in the efsitora group and 7.18% in the glargine group, meeting noninferiority criteria. As in QWINT-3, rates of moderate/severe hypoglycemia in QWINT-4 did not differ between the efsitora and glargine groups (6.6 vs 5.9 events per patient-year; P = .44), but mild hypoglycemia was more common with efsitora (25.3 vs 19.0; P < .0004). Other adverse event rates were similar. Is Hypoglycemia a Problem With Weekly Insulin? These three new studies round out the QWINT program, as results from QWINT-5, in type 1 diabetes (T1D), and from QWINT-2, in insulin-naive adults with T2D, were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting. Hypoglycemia emerged as a significant issue with efsitora compared with insulin degludec in adults with T1D in the QWINT-5 trial. Another once-weekly insulin analog, Novo-Nordisk's insulin Icodec, has been approved under the brand name Awiqli in the European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan, and Switzerland for T1D and T2D, and in China for T2D. However, the US Food and Drug Administration requested more data to address the concern about hypoglycemia in T1D. "The risk of hypoglycemia remains a crucial factor when evaluating the safety of novel insulin preparations with a long half-life, such as efsitora, which has a half-life of 17 days," wrote Edith WK Chow, MD, and Elaine Chow, MD, PhD, both of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, in an editorial accompanying QWINT-3 and QWINT-4. "In both trials, the efsitora group had higher rates of overall level 1 hypoglycemia. When stratified by study timeline, higher rates of hypoglycemia were observed within the first 12 weeks of the study in both trials," they point out. In addition, they note that because CGM use was only intermittent and masked for participants, "the actual rate of hypoglycemic events might be underestimated, especially in the presence of hypoglycemia unawareness, which has been reported to be as high as 40% of people with type 2 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring. Even asymptomatic episodes might be associated with increased cardiovascular risk." Asked about this at the press briefing, Rosenstock said that the increased mild hypoglycemia was "just little numerical imbalances. And the most important thing is that the number of events per patient per year are very low. It's less than one event per patient per year. I think that is something that we can take." Asked to comment on all three new QWINT studies, independent industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told Medscape Medical News : "Whether once-weekly insulin will be an advantage compared to once-daily insulin will depend upon factors like cost, convenience, and individual preference." Ingelfinger and Rosen agree with Alexander that the use of efsitora may depend on coverage, cost, and availability. "Long-term, formal government approval for efsitora is awaited, and uptake by patients is not yet known," they write. "The advent of newer or more effective noninsulin hypoglycemic drugs such as the GLP-1 receptor agonists, which simultaneously also produce weight loss, might ultimately be a more appealing option than efsitora and allow greater patient adherence than weekly insulin in some patients with type 2 diabetes." Despite these unknowns and caveats, the development of even longer-acting insulins now offers promising options for better glucose control in this disease," Ingelfinger and Rosen conclude. Rosenstock has reported receiving research grant support from, serving on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting fees honoraria from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biomea Fusion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept, Eli Lilly, Hanmi, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, Pfizer, Regeneron, Regor Therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi, Structure Therapeutics, and Terns Pharmaceuticals. Ingelfinger is a licensee of St. Martin's Press. Edith WK Chow has reported receiving travel sponsorship from Boehringer Ingelheim. Elaine Chow has reported receiving speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sinocare and institutional research grant support from Hua Medicine, Merck KGaA, and Medtronic Diabetes. All proceeds were donated to The Chinese University of Hong Kong for research purposes. Rosen and Alexander had no disclosures.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas will require permits for self-driving cars starting in September
Starting September 1, fully autonomous cars will require a permit to operate in Texas. This new restriction comes after the state's governor, Greg Abbott, signed into law the SB 2807 bill that requires authorization from the state's Department of Motor Vehicles for self-driving cars on public streets without human interaction. The signing of the new law coincides with Tesla's launch of its robotaxi service in Austin today where invited guests got to ride in fully autonomous Model Ys. While the law doesn't go into effect until a few months later, Tesla's robotaxi launch could have skirted this new regulation since all rides are accompanied by a human "safety monitor" in the front passenger seat. In the coming months, Texas' new law may prove to be more than just a headache for Tesla. Besides the permits, the upcoming regulation allows state authorities the ability to revoke permits and requires companies to provide methods of dealing with self-driving cars in emergency situations to police and first responders. While this could become a serious hurdle for Tesla, it's also likely to affect Waymo, since it currently operates an autonomous ride-hailing service in Austin.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Which AI Stocks Are Set to Soar in the Second Half?
Artificial intelligence is an area of enormous potential for companies and investors. After a few difficult months, AI stocks could resume their 2024 momentum and soar in the second half. Three in particular could lead the way. 10 stocks we like better than Nvidia › Artificial intelligence (AI) stocks skyrocketed in 2024 amid excitement about this technology that could revolutionize businesses, saving time and money and leading to important discoveries. These players faced a few difficult months recently due to concerns about a potential economic slowdown. However, some of the uncertainty has passed, suggesting better days may be ahead for AI stocks. Against this backdrop, Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA), Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), and Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) are set to soar in the second half. Here's why. President Donald Trump's plan to impose tariffs on imports weighed on technology stocks, including AI chip giant Nvidia, several weeks ago. This pushed Nvidia down nearly 30% from the start of the year through early April. Though the president initially exempted electronics products, this exemption was temporary, suggesting chips and other items would face tariffs at some point in the near future. But Nvidia has since rebounded, thanks to optimism that tariffs won't be as steep as originally expected and as the company showed the strength of its earnings through the first quarter of the year. Nvidia's revenue surged 69% to $44 billion, demand remained strong, and customer comments indicate that their spending plans for the year remain intact. This bodes well for ongoing growth for Nvidia. On top of this, the chip giant is making investments in U.S. manufacturing to limit any eventual tariff impact and sticks to its plan to update chips on an annual basis -- a move that should keep it ahead of rivals. Today, Nvidia trades for only 33 times forward earnings estimates, down from about 50 times just a few months ago, and this level offers the stock plenty of room to run in the second half. Among all the top tech stocks, Apple may be the one that has suffered the most amid the recent tariff turbulence. Trump, displeased that Apple has generally produced most iPhones abroad, even threatened to impose a 25% tariff on Apple's imported iPhones. Meanwhile, Apple has made efforts to diversify its manufacturing, with a plan to move much of it from China to India. Uncertainty remains as the president wants Apple to bring iPhone production to the U.S., but doing this could result in a drastically higher price for the smartphone. All of this has hurt Apple stock, which is down about 20% since the start of the year. I view this as a buying opportunity because I don't think the U.S. aims to destroy Apple's growth. It's possible that both parties will reach a reasonable agreement. Meanwhile, any positive news on the subject could result in Apple stock bouncing back in the coming months. It's important to remember that Apple has built a very profitable smartphone empire with a tremendous moat, or competitive advantage, and these elements should support growth over the long term. All of this means that buying Apple now may result in gains in the coming months, but even better, set you up for a long-term win. Amazon's performance has been sluggish in recent times, with a 3% decline for the year, amid concerns that tariffs could hurt its e-commerce business and cloud computing unit, Amazon Web Services (AWS). But as mentioned above, the worst-case tariff scenario has been avoided, and the U.S. is making progress on trade agreements. So, I wouldn't expect to see a major impact from the tariffs on Amazon's growth. A key point is that Amazon has revamped its cost structure in recent years after facing pressure from rising inflation. This helped the company return to growth in just one year, and the efforts have positioned it well to maximize profit during future challenging times. So, these cost structure moves should help Amazon manage any potential tariff situation moving forward. And events such as Prime Day, which take place in the second half of the year, could help boost revenue. AWS has also been seeing tremendous growth from its AI efforts, which have helped it reach a $117 billion annual revenue run rate. We're still early in the AI story, so I would expect to see ongoing growth in this area, particularly since AWS is the world's No. 1 cloud service provider. Today, Amazon shares trade for 34 times forward earnings estimates, a reasonable level that could prompt investors to buy -- and help the stock take off in the second half. Before you buy stock in Nvidia, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Nvidia wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $664,089!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $881,731!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 994% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Adria Cimino has positions in Amazon. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Apple, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Which AI Stocks Are Set to Soar in the Second Half? was originally published by The Motley Fool
